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

It seems that whoever wins the White House in 2020, the US federal deficit will blow up.

President Donald Trump has already signed into law massive tax cuts that are estimated to expand the deficit by at least US$1.5 trillion over the next decade.

The list of Democrats seeking their party’s presidential nomination has moved into double digits, but there aren’t many fiscal conservatives among them.

Bernie Sanders looks set to try and outdo his own 2016 campaign and its big-spending proposals that include “Medicare for all” and free public tertiary education. Other leading contenders such as senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris have announced similar plans.

And the rock star du jour of US progressive politics, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (or @AOC as the cool kids say), has gone even further with her “Green New Deal” — a grab bag of gigantic spending projects being presented as an environmental policy. They are estimated to cost between US$51 trillion and US$93 trillion over a decade.

The big question amid all this red ink is: does it matter?

Red ink for a return

There have generally been two schools of thought on this. On the conservative side, elected representatives and commentators have emphasised that higher spending eventually results in higher interest rates as borrowers compensate for risk, and higher taxes as a result. In short, there’s no free lunch.

The more liberal position on deficits is that it depends what the government spends the money on. Economic stimulus during a downturn, such as during the Great Recession of 2008, is a good idea provided that it is temporary. And even in ordinary economic times, there may be large investments in physical and social infrastructure that have high returns, far exceeding the government’s cost of borrowing.

If spending on early-childhood education has double-digit rates of return and the government can borrow long-term at 3%, these investments are a no-brainer.

Notice the logic in that argument. The returns need to be carefully assessed and compared to the actual government cost of borrowing.

Not red ink without reason

Various commentators on the political left – explified by Paul Krugman of the New York Times – argue that this logic is licence for serious government spending on infrastructure, but with an eye to the overall size of the spending. As Krugman puts it

Am I saying that Democrats should completely ignore budget deficits? No; if and when they’re ready to move on things like some form of Medicare for All, the sums will be so large that asking how they’ll be paid for will be crucial.

I have said repeatedly in this column and elsewhere that the same is true in Australia. We can borrow cheaply, there are high-return government investments to be made, and we are suffering from “secular stagnation” – a protracted period of lower growth.

But that doesn’t mean that @AOC’s socialist (her own term) wish list can be funded in a consequence-free way just because the US prints its own currency.

Accompanying the @AOC-Sanders-Warren agenda is a cottage industry of “heterodox” economists like Stephanie Kelton who say deficits don’t matter for countries that issue their own currencies. Why? Because they can always print more. They risk hyperinflation if they do enough of it, but heterodox economists argue that’s unlikely.

Except in Weimar Germany. And Zimbabwe. And Venezuela.

The recent tragedy in Venezuela is instructive. When the crude oil price collapsed in 2014 the government was left with a huge deficit, but still needed to pay the salaries of government workers and the military. So it printed money. With more money in the economy, but no increase in the number of things available to buy, the price of goods climbed.

That meant the government had to print still more money for the workers whose incomes bought less, which led to more inflation, more money printing, even higher prices, and pretty quickly hyperinflation of over 1,200,000%.

Just because Australia has avoided hyperinflation…

Economists who promote the idea of large deficits point out that that hasn’t happened in Australia or the United States, but one of the reasons for that is that they have avoided really large deficits.

After the next US election, who knows.

In a timely warning, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell told the US Senate this week: “the idea that deficits don’t matter for countries that can borrow in their own currencies I think is just wrong”.

More importantly, the idea that deficits need not matter is dangerous.

It is a proposition with zero appeal among mainstream economists, but populist politicians are drawn to it and are increasingly keen to sell it to the public.

Let’s be clear. We should invest more in education, health, high-speed rail and child care if the numbers stack up, even if it means increasing deficits. But deficits do matter. We would be unwise to think we could do it without limit.

Read more: Now is the time to plan how to fight the next recession

– ref. Vital Signs. Do deficits matter any more? – http://theconversation.com/vital-signs-do-deficits-matter-any-more-112680

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanna Mendelssohn, Honorary Associate Professor, Art & Design: UNSW Australia. Editor in Chief, Design and Art of Australia Online, UNSW

When Nora Heysen’s portrait of Madame Elink Schuurman was awarded the 1938 Archibald Prize, the Sydney Sun’s headline was Girl Makes History, Girl artist takes Archibald Prize.

The story began, “Miss Nora Heysen, daughter of the famous Adelaide landscape painter, Hans Heysen,..” The writer was more interested in stating the importance of Hans Heysen as “the incomparable painter of the Australian gum-tree” than in the artist who won the prize.

Harold Cazneaux, Hans Heysen in his studio 1935 gelatin-silver photograph. 25.9 x 19.0 cm (image & sheet) Gift of the Cazneaux Family 1978 Art Gallery of South Australia, Adelaide

With a name as famous as “Heysen”, Nora could never escape the presence of her father. The media was also fascinated by her gender. Nora Heysen was the first woman to be awarded the Archibald, the most lucrative of all Australian art prizes, judged by a conservative arts establishment consisting entirely of men.

While some previous Archibald winners are familiar to students of Australian art history, it is fair to say that Ernest Buckmaster, W B McInnes and Charles Wheeler are today less highly regarded than they were in their lifetimes.

Nora Heysen, Self-portrait 1932 oil on canvas, 76.2 x 61.2 cm. Art Gallery of New South Wales, Sydney Gift of Howard Hinton 1932 © Lou Klepac

Yet these men were awarded the Archibald at the same time as today’s heroines of Australian modernism – Grace Cossington Smith, Grace Crowley and Dorrit Black – were working in obscurity.

Cossington Smith, despite regularly exhibiting her work, was most commonly seen as a “lady amateur”. Black founded the Modern Art Centre in Sydney before returning to her native Adelaide in 1935, yet in her lifetime she was totally ignored by the art establishment.

Crowley, who initially worked with Black, joined with Rah Fizelle to create the Crowley-Fizelle school. By the late 1930s, this was the principal centre for modernist painting and the nursery for abstract art in this country. The pair received so little attention that towards the end of Crowley’s life she described herself and her colleagues as being “the most extinguished artists” in Australia.

Nora Heysen, Self-portrait 1934 oil on canvas 43.1 x 36.3 cm. National Portrait Gallery, Canberra Purchased 1999 © Lou Klepac

Those women artists, such as Margaret Preston and Thea Proctor who did have a public presence, were recognised more for their “decorative” graphic art than for the “serious” business of portraits or landscapes.

Heysen was not the only woman painting in an academic tradition to exhibit in the 1938 Archibald Prize exhibition. The Sydney Morning Herald’s review noted portraits by Tempe Manning, Dora Wilson and Violet McInnes. The critic, Kenneth Wilkinson, paid special attention to the self-portrait by Mary Edwards, claiming that “the canvas has been painted with much sensitivity and feeling”.

He was not so kind to most of the other entries, describing them as “drab”. However:

In the midst of these sober surroundings Miss Heysen’s portrait stands out in joyous style. It is not a masterpiece in the sense that the late George Lambert’s character studies were masterpieces, but it contains many fine qualities. The hands have a tender fragility that depends on clever use of paint. The figure has a concentrated poise which accords with the Oriental gown Madame Schuurman is wearing. The reflected lights in the skin are many and complex. The red curtain is bold, yet warm, and the area of green at the left shimmers with lovely light.

It was not surprising that it had taken the Trustees only an hour to find the winner. Heysen had also submitted a more conventional portrait of a barrister, but the Trustees had been entranced by the beautiful Eurasian woman with a Chinese cloak. As Nora later noted, “They gave it to the woman because she looked so beautiful. They were all men judges.”

Madame Elink Schuurman 1938 oil on canvas: 87 x 68 cm. Private collection . Reproduced in Catherine Speck’s ‘Heysen to Heysen: Selected letters of Hans Heysen and Nora Heysen’, newly reprinted by Wakefield Press.

A different path

Although Nora Heysen had first learnt to draw in her father’s studio, her mature work owes more to subsequent studies in London where she met the artist Lucien Pissarro. He told her to, “Do away with the earth colours”.

Nora Heysen, London breakfast 1935 oil on canvas. 47.0 x 53.5 cm. National Gallery of Australia, Canberra Purchased 1996 © Lou Klepac

Later she visited Paris where she saw works by the Impressionists and as she said, “I was never the same again”.

When she returned to Australia, her father did not appreciate her new painterly style and colour cleansed of any brown tones. Despite their close and loving relationship, Hans Heysen never could understand his daughter’s need for a separate identity.

When she was in London, painting in an environment that defined her by her work rather than her family, she had begun to sign her name differently. When she sent works home to Australia to sell, she signed them “Nora H”. Her father thought she was being absent-minded and completed the signature as “Heysen”.

Harold Cazneaux, Portrait of Nora Heysen at work, 9th March, 1939. gelatin silver photograph 18.5 x 14.2 cm. National Library of Australia

With her mother’s active support Nora Heysen quietly set herself on a distinctively different path. She settled in Sydney, far away from the family home in Hahndorf. Hans Heysen painted landscapes. Even though she was easily able to mimic Hans’s distinctive gum trees, Nora painted portraits. She once said, “I thought father had a copyright on the gum trees really”.

Hans Heysen, Droving into the light 1914–21 oil on canvas 155.0 x 122.0 cm. Art Gallery of Western Australia, Perth Gift of Mr W H Vincent, 1922 © C Heysen

Both of the Heysens painted flowers, but her bright clean tones often quoted 17th Century Dutch art, while his were more a continuation of his love of the French artist Henri Fantin-Latour.

Heysen’s use of colour, as well as her family connections, meant that her works were readily accepted for exhibition at Sydney’s Society of Artists, where several prominent members were Trustees at the Art Gallery of New South Wales, and therefore judges of the Archibald prize.

Nora Heysen, Corn cobs 1938 oil on canvas 40.5 x 51.3 cm. Art Gallery of New South Wales, Sydney Purchased 1987 © Lou Klepac

Still, after her win, most newspapers and magazines were more interested in Nora Heysen’s cooking, leisure and domestic activities than her art. According to the Adelaide News:

Marriage is beyond the ambit of Miss Heysen’s plans — it would interfere with her paintings, she said in Sydney today. Miss Heysen said there was no reason whatever why women should not be as good painters as men. ‘The difficulty is that they get married and are tied up to domestic life,’ she said. ‘I am going to stick to painting.’

She knew the reality of what marriage meant to talented women artists. Her mother, the talented Selma Bartels, had abandoned art for domesticity and eight children. Heysen said, “I think at times she was bitter about it, that she’d given it all away.”

Nora Heysen, Eggs 1927 oil on canvas 36.6 x 52.5 cm. New England Regional Art Museum, Armidale The Howard Hinton Collection. Gift of Howard Hinton, 1933 © Lou Klepac

The artist Max Meldrum avoided commentary on Nora’s art after her win, but felt free to discuss the issue of gender with The Sun’s reporter:

“If I were a woman,” he said. “I would certainly prefer raising a healthy family to a career in art. …. A great artist has to tread a lonely road. He needs all the manly qualities — courage, strength and endurance… I believe that such a life is unnatural and impossible for a woman.”

Nora Heysen, Portrait study 1933 oil on canvas, 67.2 x 56.4 cm. National Gallery of Victoria © Lou Klepac National Gallery of Victoria © Lou Klepac

The attack came as a surprise to the artist. In the aftermath of her win, she was commissioned to paint several portraits, including one of Lionel Lindsay, commissioned by Sir James MacGregor. Both subject and patron had been Archibald judges. Although she enjoyed painting portraits of people she knew, she did not enjoy commissions. She said, “I’d rather go and make roads, I think, than paint commissioned portraits.”

In 1943, with MacGregor’s support, she became the first woman to be appointed an official Australian War Artist. As well as painting portraits of many women serving in the armed forces, she travelled to New Guinea to record the activities of nurses in recaptured areas. She found the experience frustrating as often, “I couldn’t do the work that I wanted to do because you didn’t have the freedom to do it.”

Nora Heysen, Theatre Sister Margaret Sullivan 1944 oil on canvas. 91.8 x 66.0 cm. Australian War Memorial, Canberra © Lou Klepac

Because of the conditions under which she worked, most of the New Guinea works are drawings and small paintings. The heavily gendered nature of the Australian armed forces meant that she had little contact with other War artists, who were more closely embedded with the soldiers.

It was while she was in New Guinea that Heysen met the pathologist Dr Robert Black, who she described as “my first love affair”. He was married with a child and his wife was not willing to divorce. After the war they lived together in Sydney for some years, flouting convention and scandalising her family. In 1953, the day after Black’s divorce was finalised, they married. By then it was too late for her to have children.

Despite her earlier statement, she had always wanted a child and often made children the subject of her art. The couple moved to Hunters Hill, to house with a large garden and many cats, which was to be her home for the rest of her life. She described herself as “a general provider for animals and all the strays”, which came to her garden. Heysen accompanied Black on his research excursions to New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, which also became the subjects of her art.

Nora Heysen, A bunch of flowers 1930, oil on canvas 46.2 x 38.0 cm. National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne Bequest of Nora Heysen AM, 2005 © Lou Klepac

Marriage was less than conducive to the quality of Heysen’s art. She later described her work of that period as “uneven”. The 1950s, when the dominant narrative for women was domesticity, was not a good time to be a woman artist, or indeed a woman in any profession. After 20 years the marriage foundered, and Black moved to a new relationship.

Nora Heysen continued to paint, but faded from public view. She continued to hold occasional exhibitions, including a joint exhibition with her father in 1963. Her subjects were from her daily life: cats, flowers from the garden, friends’ children.

As her eyesight began to deteriorate she turned to drawing in pastels. In October 1962, the same year that her mother died, John Hetherington wrote an extended article on Nora Heysen, defining her as the daughter of a famous father. It was given the heading: “I don’t know if I exist in my own right”.

This was also the year of the first edition of Bernard Smith’s Australian Painting, the book that effectively defined Australian art for a generation. Nora Heysen was not mentioned. She had vanished from the official narrative of Australian art.

Nora Heysen, Cedars interior (c. 1930) oil on canvas on composition board. 88.0 x 78.0 cm (framed) The Cedars, Hahndorf Nora Heysen Foundation © Lou Klepac

Rediscovery

The rediscovery of Nora Heysen’s art was triggered by the new wave feminism of the 1970s. Her work was included in the ground breaking exhibition Australian Women Artists: One Hundred Years of 1975. In 1985, she was given a small retrospective exhibition at the Old Clarendon Gallery in South Australia, a minor honour.

The first significant recognition of the range and strength of her art came in 1989 when Lou Klepac curated a full scale retrospective for the National Trust’s S.H. Ervin Museum and Art Gallery. She later said, “I’ve only just thought that I am a person, painter, in my own right since Lou Klepac discovered me and put on this retrospective show.” In 2000 Klepac curated a further Nora Heysen exhibition for the National Library of Australia.

Success breeds success. Nora Heysen’s significance as an official war artist meant that she was a dominant figure in the Australian War Memorial’s 1994 exhibition of women war artists. Her importance as a war artist was further recognised in 2014 when her painting, Transport Driver (Aircraftwoman Florence Miles), was selected as the cover image for Catherine Speck’s Beyond the Battlefield: Women Artists of the Two World Wars.

Nora Heysen at 92, pictured in front of Hans Heysen’s Red Gold, Art Gallery of South Australia, 2003. Photo: Brenton Edwards © News Ltd

Speck had earlier written on Nora Heysen and the way in which father and daughter interacted in Heysen to Heysen, a detailed study of the father/daughter bond as recorded in their correspondence.

In 1993, Nora Heysen was honoured by an Australia Council Award for Achievement in the Arts; an Order of Australia came in 1998. The awards were recognition of her own achievements as an artist and the significance of an enduring career. She died in 2003 at the age of 92, still living in the house at Hunters Hill, embedded in its garden.

The National Gallery of Victoria’s new exhibition, Hans and Nora Heysen: Two generations of Australian Art shows how their relationship was both a blessing and a curse. The Heysen name eased her path, but even in her greatest triumph she was still defined as being her father’s daughter.

The exhibition Hans and Nora Heysen: Two Generations of Australia Art is at the NGV Australia from March 8-July 28.

– ref. Friday essay: Nora Heysen, more than her father’s daughter – http://theconversation.com/friday-essay-nora-heysen-more-than-her-fathers-daughter-111074

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin Habib, Lecturer in International Relations, Department of Politics and Philosophy, La Trobe University

Korea-watchers around the world are scrambling to tease out the meaning of the abruptly concluded US-DPRK summit in Hanoi. I want to cast a critical eye on denuclearisation itself as the framing objective of the summit negotiations.

If we step back for a moment to look at the extraordinary developments in Korean Peninsula diplomacy over the past year, we see three parties who want different things.

The Moon Jae-in administration in South Korea remembers all too well the chaos of 2017 that brought Korea to the bring of war, and sees a permanent peace regime as the most important objective of its engagement efforts.

Read more: Economic growth and ‘Trump-proofing’ – why the latest inter-Korea summit matters

For their part, the North Koreans want to neutralise the military threat from the US, see sanctions lifted, and obtain economic assistance to accelerate the development of their economy. The Trump administration, and much of the broader US foreign policy establishment, remains attached to the denuclearisation of North Korea as the end game of this process.

But denuclearisation is a fantasy that is leaving Washington as the odd man out on the Korean Peninsula. The goalposts on the Korean Peninsula are changing as the momentum for inter-Korean engagement grows, while the importance of the US as the indispensable security guarantor is diminishing.

Who walked out on whom?

Like everyone else, I will be watching closely over the coming days as details begin to emerge about the sticking points that led to the abrupt conclusion of the summit.

In the lead-up to the Hanoi summit, the Trump administration did signal some flexibility on verification measures for full, independent accounting of North Korea’s nuclear program as a condition for further negotiation.

It is ironic that Trump’s apparent willingness to befriend authoritarian leaders has opened the door for negotiations for a permanent peace regime in Korea, which previous US administrations had kept quarantined behind the demand for “complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation” (CVID).

However, in his final press conference in Hanoi, the US president indicated that the North Korean delegation asked for too much in requesting the lifting all economic sanctions in exchange for the shutdown of the Yongbyon nuclear facilities.

Considering the enormous pressure Trump has come under from domestic quarters not to sell out the denuclearisation agenda, there was no way the US delegation could accept those terms.

But there is another possibility. The Congressional testimony of Michael Cohen from Washington may have created fresh doubts in the minds of the North Korean delegation about Trump’s ability to deliver on a deal. It is possible that Kim Jong-un presented terms they knew the Americans could not accept, to avoid the possibility of a lame-duck deal negotiated by a compromised president.

It is important to recognise that the US and North Korea run at different political speeds. Since 1945, North Korea’s three Kims have presided through 13 US presidents. US presidents are confined to term limits and captive to the political demands of relatively short election cycles. The now extreme polarisation of American politics ensures that promises made by Trump may not be honoured by an incoming administration.

With a US presidential election looming in 2020 and widespread criticism within the American foreign policy establishment of Trump’s negotiating position, and with recurring allegations of criminality fuelling calls for his impeachment, it is understandable that the North Koreans might be cautious about making concessions.

They will remember the failure of the US Congress to ratify the Agreed Framework when President Bill Clinton was facing impeachment during the 1990s.

The denuclearisation of North Korea is a fantasy

Regardless of who blinked first, the failure to reach agreement in Hanoi further demonstrates that North Korea will never willingly denuclearise. This is not a secret. It has been obvious for more than a decade, since the failure of the Six-Party Talks. Beyond the economic sanctions regime, there is very little the US can do about it.

It bears repeating why this is the case:

1. Successive US administrations have considered and rejected the use of military force against North Korea on the grounds that it poses an unacceptable risk to its ally in South Korea

2. Because of the longstanding sanctions regime, the US lacks sufficient economic leverage over the DPRK to bring it to heel, even with the expansive list of goods banned from export to the North, and the expansive powers of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to restrict financial flows in and out of the DPRK

3. North Korea is adept at sanctions-busting, in spite of the squeeze being placed on the country by existing measures.

Read more: As the shaky US-North Korea summit is set to begin, the parties must search for common interest

Holding out for denuclearisation as an end game is an exercise in futility. It is bad policy. It unnecessarily backs the US into a corner of weakness where it cannot bring its obvious strategic and economic advantages to bear.

Denuclearisation has been the obstacle that has kept the US and North Korea at the stage of talking about talking, halting progress on other confidence-building measures that could improve the relationship and take some of the heat out of the Korean Peninsula security dilemma.

Missed opportunity for a peace settlement

The dominant school of thought in disarmament circles is that states that acquire nuclear weapons are a threat to international peace and security, and so must be prevented from doing so. This is the denuclearisation perspective that has dominated the discourse on North Korea in the US and informed the longstanding CVID policy.

There is an clear logic here that stems from the terrible and awesome destructiveness of nuclear weapons, with which few could argue. From this perspective, any negotiations with North Korea that do not result in full nuclear relinquishment will be interpreted as a sell-out.

However, there is also an obvious hypocrisy in this position (and in the nuclear non-proliferation regime more generally) given the size of the US nuclear arsenal and the deliberate ambiguity of its doctrine around nuclear first-strike. It is this hypocrisy that the DPRK exploits in its official interpretation of denuclearisation as meaning the universal relinquishment of nuclear weapons by all countries.

There is another school of thought that it is not nuclear weapons per se that represent a threat to international peace and security. Rather, it is an international environment teeming with existential threats in which states feel compelled to acquire nuclear weapons to protect themselves.

From this perspective, a peace declaration could diminish the level of insecurity that feeds the desire for nuclear proliferation. If the perception of imminent threat lessens, then the probability of nuclear weapons use in the event of conflict is also reduced.

There is space within this perspective to work towards nuclear disarmament. But that goal is one element of a bigger picture. This is the essence of the South Korean position on inter-Korean summit diplomacy, and the fading shadow of a missed opportunity in Hanoi.

These summits are part of a long-term peace-building process. Clearly, Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un are not on the same page in their negotiating objectives.

If US-DPRK bilateral negotiations are to continue, they are going to have to find a lowest common denominator on which they can build. Regardless of how we feel about Kim Jong-un, the political system he presides over, and the abuses of his regime, denuclearisation is never going to be the lowest common denominator upon which the US-DPRK relationship can evolve.

– ref. Chasing the denuclearisation fantasy: The US-North Korea summit ends abruptly in Hanoi – http://theconversation.com/chasing-the-denuclearisation-fantasy-the-us-north-korea-summit-ends-abruptly-in-hanoi-112397

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

The Sydney electorate of Warringah will be one of the most fascinating battlegrounds in the May election, with a high profile independent Zali Stegall challenging former prime minister Tony Abbott.

Despite the seat being on about 11 per cent, Abbott describes this as a “full on marginal seat campaign”.

Abbott is running hard on local issues. He says over-development and traffic congestion are the biggest issues and if reelected he is keen to use his position to be a “champion” for the Northern beaches tunnel. He’s trying to tone down his stridency, this week attempting to avoid being drawn to deeply into the row around the criminal conviction of Cardinal George Pell.

Steggall, a lawyer and former Olympian, is running against Abbott on a campaign that says Warringah voters want “a new voice”.

Keenly focused on climate change policy, Steggall is very critical of the government’s efforts and says even Labor’s energy policy “needs again to be toughened up.”

Steggall, who grew up and lives in the electorate, has only had Abbott as an MP and has never voted Liberal nor has she had voted Labor.

Pressed on who she had voted for, she told The Conversation she has mostly voted independent but “wouldn’t want to say never” to having voted Greens.

New to podcasts?

Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click here to listen to Politics with Michelle Grattan on Pocket Casts).

You can also hear it on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Politics with Michelle Grattan.

Additional audio

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

Image

AAP Image/Luke Costin

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Tony Abbott and Zali Steggall on Warringah votes – http://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-tony-abbott-and-zali-steggall-on-warringah-votes-112702

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hannah Brown, Postdoctoral Research Affiliate, University of Adelaide

We all know a set of twins; perhaps even a set of identical twins. In Australia, twins account for about one in 80 births.

But in research published today in the New England Journal of Medicine, we learn of a very unique set of Australian twins.

A boy and a girl from Brisbane, aged four, have been identified as only the second set of semi-identical, or sesquizygotic twins, in the world. They are the first to have been observed in utero (in the womb).

This extremely rare phenomena is the result of two sperm fertilising the same egg.

Read more: Seeing double: why twins are so important for health and medical research

How do twins occur?

The most common type of twins are non-identical twins, which can be the same or different sexes. Non-identical twins are also known as fraternal twins or dizygotic twins (from two zygotes, what we call the earliest embryo when the egg and sperm fuse).

This type of twinning occurs when more than one egg is released from the ovary at ovulation (normally just a single egg is selected and released), and both of the eggs are fertilised by different sperm. These twins are no more genetically similar than siblings born years apart.

The rates of non-identical twins differ between groups: it’s about eight in 1,000 in caucasian populations, 16 in 1,000 in African populations, and four in 1,000 in people of Asian decent. This suggests there is a genetic component to non-identical twins.

Read more: Explainer: twins, triplets, quadruplets and more

Identical twins (also known as monozygotic – originating from one zygote) are less common. They are the product of just one egg and one sperm, which originally form one embryo, but which break into two during the earliest stages of pregnancy. Scientists are continuing to explore how this occurs biologically, but the process remains a mystery.

The rate of identical twins is consistent across the globe at about four in 1,000 births. This suggests it’s probably just a random biological phenomena not influenced by genetics.

There are three different genetic configurations possible in human twins. UNSW

Prior to today, there was only one reported case of a third type of twins – semi-identical twins.

In 2006, twins in the US were identified as semi-identical twins when they were examined as infants for another medical condition. They too were the result of one egg fusing with two sperm.

But now we know the Queensland siblings are the second set of twins to fall into this mysterious and fascinating category.

What are semi-identical twins?

Scientists believe semi-identical twins are the result of one egg allowing two sperm in simultaneously (which has previously been thought to be non-viable, meaning a pregnancy would never occur).

In the case reported in today’s research, the pregnancy was identified as twins at six weeks. The ultrasound showed they shared a placenta, which is common to 70% of identical twins.

But at 14 weeks of pregnancy, tests revealed the twins were non-identical – one was a girl and the other a boy. Ordinarily non-identical twins would have their own placenta. They were an anomaly.

Thorough DNA testing has revealed they are identical on the maternal side (confirming they came from just one egg, like identical twins). But they are more like non-identical twins on the paternal side, sharing only a proportion of their father’s DNA.

Read more: How twins like the Scott brothers distinguish themselves in battle

Scientists understand biologically how the DNA of our mother and father mix to create an embryo (and subsequently a baby). On the day the egg and sperm meet in the fallopian tube, the DNA, packaged into chromosomes, divides equally into two, allowing the baby to inherit one copy of information from mum and one from dad.

When this doesn’t go to plan, a baby may get too many or too few chromosomes, resulting in genetic disorders like Down Syndrome (an extra copy of Chromosome 21). This may also result in a pregnancy which is not viable.

We still don’t know a lot

There is no scientific precedent for how one embryo manages to separate three sets of chromosomes, as is the case in semi-identical twins. This may remain a scientific mystery.

We have no idea how similar these twins are going to look, although the best guess is that they will be like every other set of non-identical, fraternal twins.

As they are just the second case of this type of twins ever identified, it’s hard to know if they will have a special connection beyond their extra shared DNA.

A search by researchers through huge databases of twins across the globe failed to find more semi-identical twins, suggesting this type of twinning is very rare.

Discoveries like this that teach us just how much there is still to learn about biology and health, and how fascinating the world of reproduction and pregnancy is.

– ref. Same same but different: when identical twins are non-identical – http://theconversation.com/same-same-but-different-when-identical-twins-are-non-identical-112684

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Hamer, Professor of Evidence Law, University of Sydney

A criminal trial often helps to provide finality for the accused, and closure for victims and society. But following this week’s news, George Pell’s barrister, Robert Richter QC, indicated Pell maintains his innocence and the legal team have already lodged an appeal. Richter said this would be pursued following Pell’s sentencing.

Pell’s conviction no longer appears final, but provisional. The Vatican initially said it would wait until the appeal outcome before launching its own investigation that could lead to the Cardinal being defrocked. But it has now been confirmed the investigation is starting regardless.

The Australian government, though, said it will only strip Pell of his Order of Australia honours if he loses the appeal. Meanwhile, the media and community are awash with confusion about the verdict that came in a retrial after the first trial concluded with a hung jury. It seems many people are holding their breath until the appeal is heard.

Defendants generally only get one appeal, though that one appeal may be taken further to the High Court. If Pell’s appeal is dismissed, he will require exceptional intervention from the Government, which is very rare.

So, what is an appeal, and what might it look like for someone with Pell’s profile and convictions?

Read more: We knew George Pell was guilty of child sex abuse. Why couldn’t we say it until now?

How long would an appeal take?

The appeal process is fairly elaborate. It requires the Court of Appeal’s leave (or approval). If given, the defence and prosecution will make written submissions to the court. There is then a hearing, on the basis of which the court will make a decision, explain its reasoning, and make appropriate orders.

Robert Richter could appeal the verdict on several grounds. David Crossling/AAP

In this case, the court may dismiss the appeal, allow the appeal and order a retrial, or allow the appeal and order that Pell be acquitted. With a crowded list of cases, this entire procedure often takes more than a year. The Pell appeal may be relatively simple and decided more quickly.

Bail was revoked pending sentencing, anticipating a custodial sentence, and Pell will remain in custody until the appeal. If the appeal is upheld, the court may make a decision immediately following the hearing and publish its reasons subsequently.

Evidence at the trial

The trial did not involve a great deal of evidence. One of the alleged victims had made a report to police in 2015, claiming the assaults occurred after mass. The other alleged victim died of an accidental heroin overdose in 2014, apparently without reporting abuse.

Like many delayed sexual assault cases – almost 20 years in this case – there simply isn’t much evidence available. At Pell’s trial, there seemed to have been little more than the complainant’s allegations and Pell’s denials. Pell did not testify. Video of his denials to police were played to the jury.

The jury may have preferred to see how Pell coped with cross-examination. But he has the right to silence, and his failure to enter the witness box can’t be used against him.

A few other witnesses gave evidence about the masses delivered by Pell at St Patrick’s Cathedral, where the abuse allegedly took place. They supported the defence’s claims of the impossibility of the abuse taking place. Witnesses noted the then Archbishop Pell would have been accompanied at all times during the crowded events and would not have had the opportunity to commit the offences.

The defence claimed it would have been impossible to conduct the abuse right after mass, when St Patrick’s Cathedral was crowded with people. VICTORIA POLICE

Other types of evidence often relied on by the prosecution in child sexual abuse trials did not feature in the Pell trial. The prosecution wasn’t able to present the complainant’s earlier reports of abuse. It seems he told no one prior to the police report.

The absence of earlier reports would not necessarily help the defence. Courts now recognise there are many reasons why victims of child sexual assault find it hard to talk. They feel confused and powerless, particularly where the offender is in a position of authority.

Read more: Triggering past trauma: how to take care of yourself if you’re affected by the Pell news

Many child sexual assault prosecutions rely on evidence of other alleged victims to demonstrate the defendant’s propensity or tendency for child sexual abuse. Such evidence was potentially available in the Pell trial – other allegations had been made from his time in Ballarat in the 1970s.

However, this evidence was not admitted at trial. The two sets of allegations were kept entirely separate (and the trials split), perhaps to avoid the risk of jury prejudice. Pell’s Melbourne convictions (in the cathedral trial) were suppressed while the Ballarat charges (swimmers trial) were pending.

It was only when the prosecution dropped the Ballarat charges that the convictions on the Melbourne charges were made public.

The court heard the offences were committed in the sacristy of the cathedral. Image tendered as evidence at trial, provided by Victoria Police

What would the defence appeal?

Because only limited evidence was relied on at trial, relatively few legal issues were raised. This means the defence may find it difficult to identify any legal error as a ground for appeal. Richter has indicated the defence will claim there were errors regarding the constitution of the jury and the defence not being permitted to use a graphic.

If errors are found, the Court of Appeal would still dismiss the appeal if the errors seem too slight to have affected the outcome.

The other defence argument on appeal could be that the conviction was unreasonable. The jury simply got the facts wrong. Here the defence may face obstacles. The Court of Appeal is unlikely to entertain claims the jury was prejudiced and blamed Pell for the Church’s inadequate response to other paedophile priests.

Appeal courts generally trust a properly directed jury will comply with its duties. Appeal courts are also generally wary of overriding jury verdicts, particularly where they rest upon witness credibility, as in this case. Inconsistencies and gaps in a complainant’s account may be attributed to the delay rather than fabrication.

However, the Court of Appeal may feel well placed to assess the defence argument of impossibility. And in this case, unusually, the court may be able to assess the complainant’s demeanour, since the witness testified over video link.

This may be one of those exceptional cases where the court is prepared to say the jury got it wrong. But the court may also hesitate to override the jury – the community’s representatives – in a case that has opened such a rift in Australian society.

Read more: After Pell, the Catholic Church must undergo genuine reform

– ref. How an appeal could uphold or overturn George Pell’s conviction – http://theconversation.com/how-an-appeal-could-uphold-or-overturn-george-pells-conviction-112620

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Giovanni Di Lieto, Senior Lecturer of international trade law, Monash Business School, Monash University

It’s hard to tell if Donald Trump’s trumpeting of “substantial progress” in trade talks, leading to a cosy weekend at Mar-a-Lago to sign a deal with Chinese president Xi Jingping, represents reality.

Most observers, though, will be relieved by his decision to again defer his threat to escalate the US-China trade war and hike up tariffs from 10% to 25% on US$200 billion worth of Chinese imports. (The total value of US imports from China in 2018 was US$493 billion.)

Read more: WTO offers Trump a solution to enforcing a trade deal with a China that breaks promises

Trade wars are generally considered bad for everyone. KPMG has calculated a full escalation of the trade war – with a 25% tariff applying to all goods traded (worth US$604.5 billion in 2018) – would cost Australia A$58 billion over the next decade.

But far worse for Australia, and its Asia-Pacific neighbours, could be a deal to end the trade war, especially if it involves a grand geopolitical bargain between the US and China.

Bilateral world order

Considering the US administration’s hard-line approach, for a truly comprehensive deal to occur China would have to subscribe to a serious restructuring of its industrial system. This would ultimately mean phasing out covert state subsidies, liberalising its financial markets and giving up on meaningful technological competition in security-sensitive sectors.

But out of fear an ongoing trade war will harm its export-driven economic progress, and also as an expedient step for advancing its regional hegemony, China might eventually agree to all this as part of a grand bargain.

Essentially, a grand bargain with an “America First” US administration makes sense on the mutually beneficial assumption it would lay the foundations for a bilateral world order.

US and Chinese delegations talk trade in Washington, DC on January 21, 2019. Shawn Thew/EPA

As part of the deal the US would dramatically reduce its strategic footprint from the Middle East through to the Korean peninsula. The advantage would be it could focus resources on limiting China’s naval role across Indo-Pacific trading routes.

Retreating to a more sustainable role as the indispensable maritime power across the Pacific and Indian oceans would leave China free rein to exert its weight on land in Eurasia.

The US might see that as advantage. Chinese regional hegemony inland would give Russia more to think about on its south-eastern border, rather than causing problems for US allies in eastern Europe. It would also put extreme pressure on India to finally evolve into a subsidiary power to the US maritime empire, one of the wildest strategic dreams in Washington.

Read more: The collapse of the US-Russia INF Treaty makes arms control a global priority

The downside would be that Russia might end up as a subservient commodity supplier to China’s regional empire. Russia’s geo-economic downgrade would strengthen European resolve to run independently of the US, one of the worst nightmares in Washington.

For China, the prize would be achieving the main strategic ambitions of its Belt and Road Initiative, ultimately controlling land trading routes from Beijing to Venice. The strategic cost would be abandoning its maritime ambitions.

Where this leaves Australia

Where would this bilateral world system vision leave Australia?

Certainly worse off than the current situation. With interlocking spheres of influence across the Indo-Pacific rim (US) and the Eurasian landmass (China), at best Australia would become a marginal economic and security appendage of the two hegemons.

Relegated to the role of a price- and rule-taking commodity supplier to China, Australia would remain only nominally a US ally. It would be a rather disposable buffer state at the frontier of two empires, caught between the economic and security crossfire of proxy conflicts.

Weaknesses and opportunities

Compared to this scenario, a protracted US-China trade war may well serve Australia’s national interests much better.

Though tariffs will weaken the global economy, it will hurt the US and China the most. It might even weaken their respective commercial and military grips on the Asia-Pacific region to the point that patterns of more distributed power relations could emerge.

Read more: Why there will be no winners from the US-China trade war

Economic analysis suggests many Asian economies are already relative winners, as tariffs motivate US and Chinese businesses to “decouple”.

Malaysia, Japan, Pakistan, Thailand and the Philippines lead the nations gaining from US and Chinese companies buying goods elsewhere. Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore and India are the top beneficiaries from US companies shifting production away from China.

Several Asian countries have also seized the opportunity to play the US and China against each other.

The Philippines has revitalised relations with China to manage the South China Sea dispute more independently from the US. This has not stopped it remaining by far the largest recipient of US military aid in Asia.

South Korea has signed bilateral free-trade agreements with both China and the US, positioning itself as an intermediary that will allow American and Chinese companies to trade in a way that circumvents the tariffs.

Malaysia’s government has affirmed strategic neutrality by pulling back from deals that would put it in debt to Chinese investors.

This is arguably an unprecedented opportunity for Australia to start carving a more independent foreign policy.

Our interests lie in taking an active role in promoting a world system truly based on multilateral rules rather than great power relations.

The worst-case scenario for an ongoing US-China trade war is that it turns into real war. But that’s unlikely.

So long as it remains a manageable trade dispute, it is better for Australia, and much of the rest of the world, than trade peace leading to a bilateral world system.

– ref. What’s worse than the US-China trade war? A grand peace bargain – http://theconversation.com/whats-worse-than-the-us-china-trade-war-a-grand-peace-bargain-111608

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

Never has more data been held about us by government or companies that we interact with. Never has this data been so useful for analytical purposes.

But with such opportunities come risks and challenges. If personal data is going to be used for research and policy purposes, we need effective data governance arrangements in place, and community support (social licence) for this data to be used.

The ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods has recently undertaken a survey of a representative sample of Australians to learn their views about about how personal data is used, stored and shared.

While Australians report a high level of support for the government to use and share data, there is less confidence that the government has the right safeguards in place or can be trusted with people’s data.

Read more: Soft terms like ‘open’ and ‘sharing’ don’t tell the true story of your data

What government should do with data

In the ANUPoll survey of more than 2,000 Australian adults (available for download at the Australian Data Archive) we asked:

On the whole, do you think the Commonwealth Government should or should not be able to do the following?

Six potential data uses were given.

Do you think the Commonwealth Government should or should not be able to … ? ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods Working Paper

Overall, Australians are supportive of the Australian government using data for purposes such as allocating resources to those who need it the most, and ensuring people are not claiming benefits to which they are not entitled.

They were slightly less supportive about providing data to researchers, though most still agreed or strongly agreed that it was worthwhile.

Perceptions of government data use

Community attitudes to the use of data by government are tied to perceptions about whether the government can keep personal data secure, and whether it’s behaving in a transparent and trustworthy manner.

To measure views of the Australian population on these issues, respondents were told:

Following are a number of statements about the Australian government and the data it holds about Australian residents.

They were then asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that the Australian government:

• could respond quickly and effectively to a data breach
• has the ability to prevent data being hacked or leaked
• can be trusted to use data responsibly
• is open and honest about how data are collected, used and shared.

Respondents did not express strong support for the view that the Australian government is able to protect people’s data, or is using data in an appropriate way.

To what extent do you agree or disagree that the Australian Government … ? ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods Working Paper

Read more: What are tech companies doing about ethical use of data? Not much

We also asked respondents to:

[think] about the data about you that the Australian Government might currently hold, such as your income tax data, social security records, or use of health services.

We then asked for their level of concern about five specific forms of data breaches or misuse of their own personal data.

We found that there are considerable concerns about different forms of data breaches or misuse.

More than 70% of respondents were concerned or very concerned about the accidental release of personal information, deliberate hacking of government systems, and data being provided to consultants or private sector organisations who may misuse the data.

Level of concern about specific forms of data breaches or misuse of a person’s own data … ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods Working Paper

More than 60% were concerned or very concerned about their data being used by the Australian government to make unfair decisions. And more than half were concerned or very concerned about their data being provided to academic researchers who may misuse their information.

Read more: Facebook’s data lockdown is a disaster for academic researchers

Trust in government to manage data

The data environment in Australia is changing rapidly. More digital information about us is being created, captured, stored and shared than ever before, and there is a greater capacity to link information across multiple sources of data, and across multiple time periods.

While this creates opportunities, it also creates the risk that the data will be used in a way that is not in our best interests.

There is policy debate at the moment about how data should be used and shared. If we don’t make use of the data available, that has costs in terms of worse service delivery and less effective government. So, locking data up is not a cost-free option.

But sharing data or making data available in a way that breaches people’s privacy can be harmful to individuals, and may generate a significant (and legitimate) public backlash. This would reduce the chance of data being made available in any form, and mean that the potential benefits of improving the wellbeing of Australians are lost.

If government, researchers and private companies want to be able to make use of the richness of the new data age, there is an urgent and continuing need to build up trust across the population, and to put policies in place that reassure consumers and users of government services.

– ref. Australians want to support government use and sharing of data, but don’t trust their data will be safe – http://theconversation.com/australians-want-to-support-government-use-and-sharing-of-data-but-dont-trust-their-data-will-be-safe-111610

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Advancing Journalism, University of Melbourne

In appointing Ita Buttrose to chair the ABC, the Morrison government might just have got it right, having got it so hopelessly wrong last time.

Buttrose comes with what might be called three big negative advantages:

• she is not a former business associate of the prime minister

• she is not a well-known climate-change denier like Maurice Newman, whom John Howard appointed in 2007

• she is not a strident culture warrior like Keith Windschuttle, Ron Brunton and Janet Albrechtsen, with whom Howard stacked the ABC board in the early 2000s.

She also has many positive advantages.

She’s tough. She worked for the Packers — Frank and Kerry – and for Rupert Murdoch at senior management and board level. That is not territory for shrinking violets.

She knows the media – albeit mainly print and commercial television. She was founding editor of the ground-breaking magazine Cleo, an assertive magazine for women, openly discussing what were then taboo subjects such as women’s sexuality, which it celebrated with a nude male centrefold.

Its advertising pitch was, “What Cleo wants, Cleo gets”, a statement encouraging women to be ambitious and take their place in the world.

She went on to edit The Australian Women’s Weekly, the Packer flagship, and later was editor-in-chief of Murdoch’s Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph in Sydney, before being appointed by him to the News Limited board.

Read more: Constant attacks on the ABC will come back to haunt the Coalition government

As an editor in the 1980s, she exhibited a strong sense of decency and fairness by standing out against the moral panic in some elements of the media over HIV-AIDS when that disease first emerged in Australia.

Hysterical preachers thundered about how the wrath of God was being brought down on homosexuals and people who engaged in extra-marital sex. Buttrose was part of the more responsible elements of media that repudiated this untruthful and prejudicial drivel.

When tragic cases emerged of HIV-contaminated blood having been used in blood transfusions, she and others such as the then chair of the National AIDS Task Force, Professor David Penington, worked hard to restore public trust in the blood bank, once procedures had been adopted to eliminate the risk.

More recently as national president of Dementia Australia she has been a high-profile advocate for a stronger public policy response to dementia and greater public awareness of the needs of people with dementia.

Given her background, and her demeanour at the media conference at which the prime minister announced her appointment, she promises to bring strong moral leadership to the ABC.

And if it’s one thing the ABC needs in the wake of the disaster that engulfed the former chair Justin Milne and managing director Michelle Guthrie last September, it is strong moral leadership.

Buttrose said she was a devoted ABC listener who believed passionately in the ABC’s independence. She said her priority was to restore stability to the board and management.

She also endorsed the ABC’s continued involvement in digital media, which will give no comfort to those in commercial media who have been campaigning to have the ABC’s wings clipped in this area.

Twice she reiterated the level of trust the Australian public has in the ABC’s news service, making the point that on ABC news, the public got stories they did not get on commercial media.

Asked whether the ABC needed more funding, she said she had not seen the books, but if she thought more funding was needed, “I won’t be frightened to ask”.

Buttrose’s stated attitude to the ABC and the answers she gave at the media conference evoked memories of Sir Zelman Cowen.

He was appointed governor-general in 1977 after Sir John Kerr had bitterly divided the nation by sacking Gough Whitlam as prime minister in 1975.

Upon his appointment, Sir Zelman said he wanted to bring “a touch of healing”.

There is still a lot of healing to be done at the ABC, and the scrutiny arising from last year’s crisis is not over yet.

The surviving members of the ABC board are scheduled to appear next Tuesday (March 5) at the Senate inquiry into political interference in the ABC. What they did – or failed to do – in protecting the independence of the ABC will undoubtedly be a central question.

Read more: Michelle Guthrie’s stint at ABC helm had a key weakness: she failed to back the journalists

A major cause of that crisis was the stacking of the board with political mates and special-interest groups who share the government’s worldview.

The ABC Act contains a provision designed to prevent this, but it has been routinely ignored by ministers and prime ministers for decades.

The act provides for an independent nominations panel whose job is to present names to the minister for communications and the prime minister.

Ita Buttrose was not nominated by the panel, as the prime minister revealed in his announcement. Even so, it is a choice that has merit, and if she succeeds in reasserting the ABC’s independence from political interference, that will make a pleasing irony.

– ref. Ita Buttrose’s appointment as new ABC chair a promising step in the right direction – http://theconversation.com/ita-buttroses-appointment-as-new-abc-chair-a-promising-step-in-the-right-direction-112683

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Antonia Finnane, Professor (honorary), University of Melbourne

In this series, we look at under-acknowledged women through the ages.

Every so often a woman takes up arms to lead a spirited struggle against invaders and occupiers of her homeland. Such women usually wind up dead at an early age, but they capture the imagination. The most famous example in British history is Boudica, aka Boedicea; in French history, it is Joan of Arc.

The Taiwanese revolutionary Hsieh Hsüeh-hung （1901-1970）is such a figure, although like most aspects of Taiwan’s history her significance is contested. Born in Taiwan, buried in Beijing, Hsieh was a communist and also an advocate of Taiwanese self-determination. In the history of world communism she is noted for being one of the founders of the Taiwanese Communist Party, established in 1928.

In the annals of the Taiwan independence movement, Hsieh has emerged as a heroine of the 1947 uprising, now the subject of an annual commemoration held in Taiwan in 28 February. In 1948 she founded the Taiwan Democratic Self-Government Alliance.

Hsieh Hsüeh-hung’s fate – in life and in death – was determined by the shifts in attitude towards Taiwanese independence on the part of ruling powers, and by the status of its local left-wing movements. To some degree, she is not so much a woman hidden in history as one rendered visible by it.

Read more: Hidden women of history: Théroigne de Méricourt, feminist revolutionary

Blood on the snow

Hsieh was a child of the Japanese empire. In 1894, seven years before her birth, Japan defeated China in a short war at sea, afterwards demanding Taiwan as part of the post-war settlement. It was to be the sovereign power in the island for the next half-century.

Hsieh’s parents were immigrants from Fujian province, the most common source of settlers in Taiwan. The family was poor. Hsieh was sent into service in a Japanese family at the age of eight. At 12, she was sold into a shopkeeper’s family to be raised as their daughter-in-law.

Hsieh Hsüeh-hung was born into poverty. Wikimedia Commons

In an early show of feistiness, she ran away when in her teens, finding work initially in a Japanese sugar factory in Tainan and later, in her home-town of Chang-hua, as a representative for Singer sewing machines. As an extremely young person, she was exposed to the impact of international capitalism on her home turf, and to extremes of social inequality.

To these experiences, she added a growing political awareness. In Chang-hua she formed a relationship with a merchant named Chang Shu-min, to whom she was married for some years. The couple lived for around three years in Japan, where she began to acquire an education, learning to read and write in both Japanese and Chinese. Both there and back in Taiwan she came in contact with politically progressive organisations.

In April 1919, she paid her first visit to the Chinese mainland, staying in Qingdao, which at that time was about to be transferred from German to Japanese control under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, sparking the radicalising May Fourth Movement in China.

When she returned in 1925 it was to Shanghai, where she enrolled in Shanghai University – more like a cadre training school than an academy and dominated by Communist Party members. Together with fellow-Taiwanese Lin Mushu she was there recommended for acceptance at the Far Eastern Toilers’ University in Moscow, where they were groomed to set up the Taiwanese Communist Party.

Read more: Small but mighty: why Taiwan matters to Australia

The Taiwanese Communist Party was formally established on 5 April 1928. Its charter was the Taiwanese as a people or nation (minzu), and its slogan was “long live Taiwan independence.” The Chinese Communist Party early on took a similar view. In Mao’s stated opinion (circa 1936), Taiwan’s relationship to China was comparable to Korea’s. For Hsieh, there was no contradiction between the fight for socialism and the fight for Taiwan’s independence.

If being Taiwanese was one driving force in her political life, being a woman was another. At birth she was registered with the name A-nü, or “girlie,” not really a name at all.

From this assigned anonymity she became a vivid presence in history under the name “Hsüeh-hung”, meaning “the snow turns red”. She took the name, it is said, after seeing a worker’s blood spattered on the snow in Qingdao.

As a communist cadre, she was active in peasant and worker associations, but she took a rather independent view of the position of women in Taiwan. In 1930, she pointed to women’s emancipation movements in the Western bourgeoisie as worthy of emulation by Taiwanese women, with equal participation in political life among the goals. It is easy to see how in later years such views would land her in trouble with the Chinese Communist Party.

A born oppositionist

The 1920s were the decade of Hsieh’s political formation. Thereafter till her death in 1970 she was in conflict with three different regimes. To her cost, she was a born oppositionist.

The first of these regimes was the Japanese colonial government in Taiwan, the target of all political opposition movements in the island. In the context of a rising fascism in the Japanese home islands, the authorities conducted a sweep of Taiwan’s communist activists in 1931. This destroyed the Taiwanese party. Arrested, imprisoned, and subsequently sentenced on charges of threats to public security, Hsieh spent the next nine years in jail.

Read more: Hidden women of history: Hop Lin Jong, a Chinese immigrant in the early days of White Australia

The Japanese were replaced in 1945 by China’s Nationalist Party, which established a heavy-handed administration on the island, thoroughly alienating the locals. On 27 February 1947 a conflict between tax agents and a cigarette dealer met with protests. A brutal crackdown on 28 February led to an island-wide uprising that was eventually suppressed with great violence.

The insurgency unfolded in various ways across the island. In Taichung, near to her hometown on the central west coat, Hsieh, a known activist and political organiser, chaired a protest rally calling for self-government and played a key role in dismantling Nationalist Party authority in the city.

Taichung’s few days of independence are associated with three principles set down by her: protect mainlanders; protect public property; place weapons “in the hands of the people”.

Her name is also connected with the formation of the Twenty-Seventh Militia Corps, an armed force of 4,000 men meant to provide organised defence against the Nationalist forces. Between the things she actually did and the things she was blamed for doing, a legend grew up around her. With the collapse of the resistance on 9 May, a price was put on her head, and she fled the island.

The last part of Hsieh’s life, a period of more than 20 years, was passed entirely on the mainland, where unaccountably she found herself in conflict with yet a third regime, the Chinese Communist Party. Present with other communist leaders at the declaration of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, she was appointed to a number of official positions in the early 1950s, including chair of the Taiwan Democratic Self-Government Alliance.

The honeymoon was short-lived. She modified her position on Taiwanese independence to accommodate new political realities in the region, but never quite to the Party’s satisfaction. In 1952 she was attacked for lack of humility before the Party and for murky political thinking in relation to Taiwan.

In 1957 she was attacked again, and declared a “rightist”, losing her positions and her party membership. In the Cultural Revolution, she was attacked once more, this time physically. A photo provided to her biographer, now widely published on the internet, shows her in the hands of Red Guards in 1968. She died in Beijing in 1970, of lung cancer.

In the hands of Red Guards, 1968. The placard around her neck describes her as a ‘Big-time rightist’, with the characters for her name crossed out. Source: Chen Fang-ming, Hsieh Hsüeh-hung p’ing-chuan (Biography of Hsieh Hsüeh-hung), Taipei, 1991.

Emotionally, Hsieh shared most of her life and her mission with fellow-Taiwanese Yang K’o-huang, who was imprisoned with her in 1931, worked with her in a small business during the war years, and accompanied her to the mainland. The couple were never legally married: Yang had another family. But in the People’s Republic of China they lived together through the few good years and the many bad until her death. Her final words to him were that he should maintain the struggle: “the final victory will go to the people of Taiwan.”

In 1986, the Party decided to rehabilitate Hsieh. A short biographical statement written for the rehabilitation formalities included mention of her “deviations and errors” but conceded that she had “opposed invasion by outsiders” and had shown a spirit of struggle for “the realisation of the unification of the ancestral land.”

Left unchallenged, the rehabilitation statement might have defined her legacy. In 1991, however, a biography of her appeared in Taiwan. The author, long-time political dissident Chen Fang-ming, offered readers a portrait of Hsieh as a life-long champion of Taiwanese self-determination, whose tenacity and courage in face of political persecution put male political actors of her generation to shame. Widely read and influential, this biography effectively reclaimed Hsieh for Taiwan.

– ref. Hidden women of history: Hsieh Hsüeh-hung, communist champion of Taiwanese self-determination – http://theconversation.com/hidden-women-of-history-hsieh-hsueh-hung-communist-champion-of-taiwanese-self-determination-112604

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Damien Manuel, Director, Centre for Cyber Security Research & Innovation (CSRI), Deakin University

This is part of a major series called Advancing Australia, in which leading academics examine the key issues facing Australia in the lead-up to the 2019 federal election and beyond. Read the other pieces in the series here.

When it comes to data security, there is an inherent tension between safety and privacy. The government’s job is to balance these priorities with laws that will keep Australians safe, improve the economy and protect personal data from unwarranted surveillance.

This is a delicate line to walk. Recent debate has revolved around whether technology companies should be required to help law enforcement agencies gain access to the encrypted messages of suspected criminals.

While this is undoubtedly an important issue, the enacted legislation – the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act – fails on both fronts. Not only is it unlikely to stop criminals, it could make personal communications between everyday people less secure.

Rather than focus on the passage of high-profile legislation that clearly portrays a misunderstanding of the technology in question, the government would do better to invest in a comprehensive cyber security strategy that will actually have an impact.

Achieving the goals set out in the strategy we already have would be a good place to start.

Read more: The difference between cybersecurity and cybercrime, and why it matters

Poor progress on cyber security

The Turnbull government launched Australia’s first Cyber Security Strategy in April 2016. It promised to dramatically improve the online safety of all Australian families and businesses.

In 2017, the government released the first annual update to report on how well it was doing. On the surface some progress had been made, but a lot of items were incomplete – and the promised linkages to businesses and the community were not working well.

Unfortunately, there was never a second update. Prime ministers were toppled, cabinets were reshuffled and it appears the Morrison government lost interest in truly protecting Australians.

So, where did it all go wrong?

A steady erosion of privacy

Few Australians paid much notice when vested interests hijacked technology law reforms. The amendment of the Copyright Act in 2015 forced internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to sites containing pirated content. Movie studios now had their own version of China’s “Great Firewall” to block and control internet content in Australia.

In 2017, the government implemented its data retention laws, which effectively enabled specific government agencies to spy on law-abiding citizens. The digital trail (metadata) people left through phone calls, SMS messages, emails and internet activity was retained by telecommunications carriers and made accessible to law enforcement.

The public was assured only limited agencies would have access to the data to hunt for terrorists. In 2018, we learned that many more agencies were accessing the data than originally promised.

Enter the Assistance and Access legislation. Australia’s technology sector strongly objected to the bill, but the Morrison government’s consultation process was a whitewash. The government ignored advice on the damage the legislation would do to the developing cyber sector outlined in the Cyber Security Strategy – the very sector the Turnbull government had been counting on to help rebuild the economy in this hyper-connected digital world.

Read more: What skills does a cybersecurity professional need?

While the government focuses on the hunt for terrorists, it neglects the thousands of Australians who fall victim each year to international cybercrime syndicates and foreign governments.

Australians lose money to cybercrime via scam emails and phone calls designed to harvest passwords, banking credentials and other personal information. Losses from some categories of cybercrime have increased by more than 70% in the last 12 months. The impact of cybercrime on Australian business and individuals is estimated at $7 billion a year.

So, where should government focus its attention?

Seven actions that would make Australia safer

If the next government is serious about protecting Australian businesses and families, here are seven concrete actions it should take immediately upon taking office.

1. Review the Cyber Security Strategy

Work with industry associations, the business and financial sectors, telecommunication providers, cyber startups, state government agencies and all levels of the education sector to develop a plan to protect Australians and businesses. The plan must be comprehensive, collaborative and, most importantly, inclusive. It should be adopted at the federal level and by states and territories.

2. Make Australians a harder target for cybercriminals

The United Kingdom’s National Cyber Security Centre is implementing technical and process controls that help people in the UK fight cybercrime in smart, innovative ways. The UK’s Active Cyber Defence program uses top-secret intelligence to prevent cyber attacks and to detect and block malicious email campaigns used by scammers. It also investigates how people actually use technology, with the aim of implementing behavioural change programs to improve public safety.

3. Create a community education campaign

A comprehensive community education program would improve online behaviours and make businesses and families safer. We had the iconic Slip! Slop! Slap! campaign from 1981 to help reduce skin cancer through community education. Where is the equivalent campaign for cyber safety to nudge behavioural change in the community at all levels from kids through to adults?

4. Improve cyber safety education in schools

Build digital literacy into education from primary through to tertiary level so that young Australians understand the consequences of their online behaviours. For example, they should know the risks of sharing personal details and nude selfies online.

Read more: Cybersecurity of the power grid: A growing challenge

5. Streamline industry certifications

Encourage the adoption of existing industry certifications, and stop special interest groups from introducing more. There are already more than 100 industry certifications. Minimum standards for government staff should be defined, including for managers, technologists and software developers.

The United States Defence Department introduced minimum industry certification for people in government who handle data. The Australian government should do the same by picking a number of vendor-agnostic certifications as mandatory in each job category.

6. Work with small and medium businesses

The existing cyber strategy doesn’t do enough to engage with the business sector. Small and medium businesses form a critical part of the larger business supply-chain ecosystem, so the ramifications of a breach could be far-reaching.

The Australian Signals Directorate recommends businesses follow “The Essential Eight” – a list of strategies businesses can adopt to reduce their risk of cyber attack. This is good advice, but it doesn’t address the human side of exploitation, called social engineering, which tricks people into disclosing passwords that protect sensitive or confidential information.

7. Focus on health, legal and tertiary education sectors

The health, legal and tertiary education sectors have a low level of cyber maturity. These are among the top four sectors reporting breaches, according to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.

While health sector breaches could lead to personal harm and blackmail, breaches in the legal sector could result in the disclosure of time-sensitive business transactions and personal details. And the tertiary education sector – a powerhouse of intellectual research – is ripe for foreign governments to steal the knowledge underpinning Australia’s future technologies.

A single person doing the wrong thing and making a mistake can cause a major security breach. More than 900,000 people are employed in the Australian health and welfare sector, and the chance of one of these people making a mistake is unfortunately very high.

– ref. Seven ways the government can make Australians safer – without compromising online privacy – http://theconversation.com/seven-ways-the-government-can-make-australians-safer-without-compromising-online-privacy-111091

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bronwen Dalton, Associate professor, Management Discipline Group UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney

As US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un meet at a summit in Vietnam, we are again seeing the same kind of language used in relation to North Korea. The country is constantly described as the “hermit kingdom” and words like “nuclear threat” enter the headlines.

The US president himself called Kim “Rocket Man”, delegitimising the country and its leader. This kind of language demonises North Korea and closes off possibilities for more constructive engagement.

Past research has identified that the media regularly engage in “conflict-priming” during times of international conflict. An example was the dehumanisation of Arab citizens during the Bush-labelled “war on terror”. The authors noted the language “took the form of animal imagery” that equated human actions with subhuman behaviours.

Our research into Australia’s coverage of North Korea showed the news media often uncritically reproduced metaphors that framed North Korea as dangerous, provocative, irrational, secretive, impoverished and totalitarian.

The wider public picks up cues about the national interest, and how it might influence their own, from the media. A widespread group-think on North Korea’s impulsiveness and aggression could quickly and dramatically escalate tensions.

Read more: When governments go to war, the Fourth Estate goes AWOL

The hermit kingdom and other metaphors

We analysed coverage on North Korea in three major Australian media outlets: The Australian, The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) and transcripts of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) over three years – from January 1 2010 to December 31 2012.

The word ‘nuclear’ often accompanies ‘North Korea’. Washington Post Screenshot

We found North Korea was rarely referred to as a country or its rulers as a government. Instead it was described as: an impoverished rogue state; a secretive state; the world’s most isolated state; a totalitarian regime; an evil regime; and Asia’s worst regime. The country’s leader was often referred to a ruthless psychopath or demonic big brother.

Several dominant metaphors appeared in the coverage. These framed North Korea as

• a military threat (conflict metaphor)
• unpredictable, irrational and ruthless (psychopathology metaphor)
• isolated and secretive (pariah metaphor)
• a cruel dystopia (Orwellian metaphor)
• impoverished (basket-case metaphor).

These metaphors help shape public perceptions of North Korea, giving the country a negative, often adversarial orientation. Without a change to the North Korean frame, resourced and evidence-based intervention is more likely to fail due to donor disengagement.

We also run the risk of dehumanising the North Korean people. In the event of conflict, such dehumanising can mean humanitarian imperatives are pushed aside in favour of attack.

North Korea – nuclear and narcissistic

The conflict metaphor was the most frequent across the three news sites, particularly referring to the country’s “nuclear” capabilities. Typing “North Korea” into Google News today elicits much of the same:

The word ‘nuclear’ appears frequently in coverage on North Korea. Google News screenshot

While the extent of North Korea’s nuclear capability is not categorically known, it is often assumed, with references to a possible “nuclear holocaust” and fears a North Korean rocket carrying a nuclear warhead could reach Australia.

Another common theme in our research was that North Korea was covered as if suffering from a pathological, narcissistic disorder. North Korea was often portrayed as seeking attention or exploiting the threat of nuclear retaliation to extricate more aid.

We can still see this today. An article in The Australian this week noted that Kim Jong-un was a master of “deceptive statecraft” as practised by his father. The author wrote:

Pyongyang is a master at getting something meaningful from the US and giving up something less meaningful or even meaningless in return… In the schoolyard, this is like the bully promising not to punch you in the face tomorrow in return for your pocket money today.

Another piece in Fox News used similar language, talking about the country as if a narcissist stringing along a romantic interest with manipulation and deceit.

Kim’s father and grandfather – who ruled North Korea before him – have a history of stringing along past US presidents of both parties with assurances of cooperative behavior and then breaking their promises.

So, North Korea is depicted as an isolated and backward country run by a tyrant with comically eccentric, excessive tastes. And its leader is perceived as a liar and a cheat.

This unbalanced consideration of North Korean motives makes us virtually oblivious to the country’s point of view. A failure to understand North Korea’s interests has serious implications for how Australia (and its allies) respond to North Korea.

Why it matters

Research shows recognising others’ concerns as valid is key to resolving long-term conflicts. But, by reinforcing a negative, often adversarial stance towards North Korea, the media effectively demonise North Korea’s interests and close off the possibility of engagement.

This locks North Korea and the “civilised” West into a mutually antagonistic relationship that precludes any solution other than the enemy being eliminated through conversion or destruction.

Read more: Beyond the war of words: how might the Australian media’s coverage of China affect social cohesion?

The Australian media would be substantially enlivened by more stories illustrating individual and community life. This would give North Koreans a human face and offer the Australian public a less singular, monotonous depiction of a country so often written about with such a limited lexicon.

Access into North Korea can be tricky for journalists. But our analysis found even where human stories of refugees exist, they are often tied to negative metaphors. For the sake of balance, the media should resist common, creative descriptions and let North Korean refugees speak for themselves.

Such journalism would alter the way we view North Korea and soften the tendency to see it as an adversarial, irrational, rogue state populated by brainwashed citizens devoted to the cult of the Kims. It also should seek to better capture some of the complexities and differences of opinion that make the North Korean problem so difficult to resolve.

– ref. Hermit kingdom, nuclear nation … If the media keep calling North Korea names, it will only prolong conflict – http://theconversation.com/hermit-kingdom-nuclear-nation-if-the-media-keep-calling-north-korea-names-it-will-only-prolong-conflict-112507

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kim Felmingham, Chair of Clinical Psychology, University of Melbourne

The conviction of Cardinal George Pell on childhood sexual abuse charges has dominated the media this week, rocked the Catholic Church and led to much public anger and confusion.

But the most important consideration at this time must be with the survivors of clerical abuse and their families.

While this conviction will provide a sense of justice and validation for many, the reactions of survivors and their families are likely to be complex and varied and may include anger, validation, sadness, loss and relief.

Read more: We knew George Pell was guilty of child sex abuse. Why couldn’t we say it until now?

Ongoing psychological trauma

While not every child who has experienced abuse develops symptoms of mental illness, research shows childhood sexual abuse can have profoundly damaging effects on people’s long-term psychological and social functioning.

Common outcomes can include post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), shame and anger, depression, substance abuse and addiction, suicide and impaired capacity for intimacy or relationships.

People’s self-identity, spirituality and capacity to trust others may be particularly impaired with clerical sexual abuse.

A key factor of psychological trauma among survivors of childhood abuse is not having their experience heard, validated or recognised. This has been the unfortunate experience of many survivors of sexual abuse at the hands of the clergy.

Survivors and their families rightfully feel a sense of rage at the abusers, and at the institutions that protected them.

People who have experienced sexual abuse during childhood are at high risk of mental health problems during later life. From shutterstock.com

The Catholic Church has only recently begun to recognise the extent and reality of clerical sexual abuse, most evident in their summit on clerical sexual abuse at the Vatican in the recent weeks.

How survivors might feel now

At a time like this, survivors may feel less alone in being a survivor of clerical abuse, or child sexual abuse more generally.

They may also feel pride in the courage of other survivors in having come forward with their experiences. The news may even motivate some survivors to consider reporting their own abuse.

Some survivors will feel a sense of justice. But they may equally feel anger at the length of time this verdict has taken, and rage at the power structures in the Catholic Church that protected these abusers for so long.

For many families who have lost their children to suicide or drug addiction, this result will not replace their pain or loss.

For survivors or families who have not had their abuse or the abuse of their loved ones recognised, or had their abusers convicted, this may stir up further feelings of rage and frustration.

Read more: Complex trauma: how abuse and neglect can have life-long effects

The media plays an important role

Previous research of mass media exposure of large-scale trauma events has shown that intensive media exposure can increase PTSD symptoms in the short-term, particularly in those who have experienced previous trauma.

For many survivors who have ongoing PTSD, media reports may trigger reminders of their own abuse, leading to an escalation in PTSD symptoms including intrusive memories, nightmares and sleeping problems.

The media must carefully consider how they cover these events. While it’s important to widely report these convictions to break the silence that so often surrounds childhood sexual abuse and abuse by the clergy, the level of detail in which these events are reported may be triggering.

Read more: Do trauma victims really repress memories and can therapy induce false memories?

If you hear details about a childhood sexual assault, and you have experienced something similar, it can trigger memories of your own abuse — even if you haven’t thought of these things for a long time.

Any sexual contact with a child is abuse and violation and must be considered a serious crime, but reporting graphic accounts of these events is not necessary.

How to get help

If you are experiencing an escalation of distress, it’s important to seek positive and compassionate support from people you trust.

Try to avoid conflict or pressure, and be compassionate to yourself. Give yourself a break and accept where you are at in your recovery.

Try to keep balanced by eating well, exercising and allowing yourself time to rest.

Specialist trauma and childhood sexual abuse treatment services are available in the community. You may choose to discuss your needs with a GP who can refer you to appropriate services, such as a clinical psychologist.

It should also be recognised that many people in the Catholic and wider community will be feeling shocked, confused and disturbed by these events. Many people who have not been personally affected by child sexual abuse will still be feeling angry and betrayed.

If this is familiar, seek support from others and talk about your concerns so you’re able to process these events.

If this article has raised issues for you or you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 44.

– ref. Triggering past trauma: how to take care of yourself if you’re affected by the Pell news – http://theconversation.com/triggering-past-trauma-how-to-take-care-of-yourself-if-youre-affected-by-the-pell-news-112608

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

This is part of a major series called Advancing Australia, in which leading academics examine the key issues facing Australia in the lead-up to the 2019 federal election and beyond. Read the other pieces in the series here.

This election campaign, Labor’s health focus is expected to be on Medicare, which it regards as one of its defining achievements. But with almost half the population covered by private health insurance, Labor needs to tread carefully on this vexed topic.

Government subsidies for private health insurance premiums cost over A$6 billion a year. Is it time to scrap the rebate and redirect these funds elsewhere in the health system?

If Labor sees private health insurance as a system that provides unnecessary extravagances that Medicare won’t cover, it can’t justify this type of subsidy.

But picking a fight with the private health insurance industry would be politically foolhardy. And families have factored the subsidies into their budgets, so cutting or eliminating the subsidies would put further pressure on family finances at a time of wage stagnation.

Read more: Do you really need private health insurance? Here’s what you need to know before deciding

We’re unlikely to see much of a discussion about private health insurance during the election campaign. But the party that wins government must commit to reforming the ailing private health insurance system.

How did we get here?

Private health insurance has been a contested policy zone for more than 50 years.

Gough Whitlam prompted a bitter debate over whether government health insurance should be for everyone (universal) or just for the poor (residual), when in 1968 he committed Labor to a universal scheme to replace the then residual model. The new universal model eventually became Medibank in 1975, then Medicare in 1984.

It wasn’t until the 1996 election that then opposition leader John Howard formally conceded defeat on this issue, acknowledging that Medicare should be for all. However, Liberal governments keep returning to “residual” rhetoric, arguing wealthy people should pay directly for health care rather than use the universal scheme, Medicare.

After winning the 1996 election, Howard opened a second front in the health-care war by reinstituting government subsidies for private health insurance.

The cost of the first subsidy scheme – known as the Private Health Insurance Incentive Scheme – was estimated at A$600 million a year. Two decades later, the private health insurance subsidy has increased ten-fold to more than A$6 billion a year.

Getting people to sign up and stay

Liberal governments offer carrots to encourage people to take out insurance – subsidies for premiums – but also use two sticks to penalise people for not taking out insurance. The sticks have proved to be more effective than the carrots in increasing insurance enrolment.

The first stick penalises the rich if they don’t have private health insurance. It is based on the “residual” ideology, that those who can afford to pay their own way should take out private health insurance and not use public hospitals. This stick takes the form of a Medicare Levy surcharge, starting at 1% of income to be paid by singles who earn more than A$90,000 a year, or families on more than A$180,000 a year. People who have private health insurance are exempt from the surcharge.

Read more: Private health insurance premium increases explained in 14 charts

The second stick penalises people who do not take out private health insurance before turning 31. They have to pay higher premiums if they join later in life. When introduced in 2000 this scheme – known as Lifetime Healthcover – increased coverage from about 30% to around 45% of the population.

What is private health for?

Neither side of politics has confronted the fundamental question: what is the role of private health care and private health insurance, given we have universal health coverage?

Private health insurance can complement universal health insurance, providing insurance for services not covered by Medicare. Dental insurance is a good example.

Private health insurance can also be a substitute, where it overlaps with or replaces the public scheme, such as insurance for private hospital care for hip replacements. More than half of all hip replacements are done in private hospitals.

The Liberal approach is simple: private health insurance is both an essential substitute for the universal public hospital system (“it takes pressure off the public hospital system”) and a complement (“it gives people choice of doctor”).

Labor approaches private health insurance a bit like one might approach a dead cat on the table – as an issue that has to be dealt with, but that everybody wishes would just go away.

But private health insurance won’t go away. If Labor sees it solely as a complement, providing unnecessary extravagances not covered by Medicare, then the argument for any public subsidy is weak.

But if Labor sees private care primarily as a substitute, then the A$6 billion of subsidy to private care through the rebate may be better value for money than further support for public hospitals. If that is the case, Labor will have to confront the issue of whether to continue some combination of carrots and sticks, and what can be done to make the industry more efficient.

Time for real reform

Private health insurance premiums have risen dramatically, faster than average weekly earnings, as have consumer complaints.

Labor is seeking to exploit public outrage at high private health insurance premiums by promising to establish a Productivity Commission review into the sector.

In the meantime, Labor would freeze private health insurance premium increases – in effect, kicking the policy can two years down the road.

Whichever party wins the election, it ought to revisit our nation’s history with failing industries. Over recent decades we have learnt that propping up industries in the face of consumers turning away from their products is not a long-term proposition.

Private health insurance is no car industry, but it’s not a sunrise industry either. Yet it receives a greater subsidy than manufacturing at its subsidised peak at the end of the 1960s.

The government has to decide why it’s subsidising the private health care industry. If it decides it doesn’t want to in future, it needs a carefully managed transition.

Read more: Private health insurance rebates don’t serve their purpose. Let’s talk about scrapping them

Even if private care is seen primarily as a substitute for the public sector – and a way to take some demand off – subsidies for private care may be counter-productive.

Doctors earn more for each hour worked in the private sector, which makes it harder for public hospitals to attract staff. So subsidies may end up undermining access to care in the public system.

Australians feel pressured to take out private health insurance because of the sticks, but the product is only sustainable with its current level of coverage because of the carrots: the hefty public subsidies. Without the carrots and sticks, coverage would probably return to the pre-1996 levels of around one-third of the population.

The incoming government should look at the effectiveness and efficiency of the carrots and sticks, whether consumers and taxpayers get value for money from private health insurance, and how to address rising out-of-pocket costs.

– ref. Is it time to ditch the private health insurance rebate? It’s a question Labor can’t ignore – http://theconversation.com/is-it-time-to-ditch-the-private-health-insurance-rebate-its-a-question-labor-cant-ignore-111171

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Madden, Senior Research Consultant at the Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney

Almost half of Australia’s packaging waste is not being recovered for recycling, according to the first comprehensive study to track the fate of used packaging materials.

Overall, 56% of packaging was recovered for recycling in 2017-18, according to our study, carried out at the UTS Institute for Sustainable Futures and published by the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation, a not-for-profit group that aims to reduce the environmental impact of packaging and is leading the effort to implement the National Packaging Targets.

Only 32% of plastic packaging was recovered for recycling, whereas the figure for paper and cardboard was 72%.

Total amounts of packaging waste generated and recovered in Australia for the 2017-18 financial year. APCO/UTS ISF

Used packaging materials such as glass, paper, metal and plastic make up 15% of all recyclable waste generated in Australia, according to our calculations based on available government data. By taking a snapshot of our current performance in recovering these materials, we can identify which areas are most in need of attention. This will help us work towards a “circular economy” approach in which packaging materials are reclaimed, reused and recycled, rather than thrown away.

Read more: Explainer: what is the circular economy?

The chart below shows that the most significant losses to landfill happen before waste is collected for sorting. Households and businesses are still throwing recyclable packaging, approximately 32% of total packaging consumed, into red bins instead of into recycling.

The fate of Australia’s recyclables. APCO/UTS ISF

The 56% recovery figure includes packaging material recovered for export, as well as materials that are currently stockpiled. This includes glass which is not currently in high demand for local manufacturing.

Waste exported overseas represents a significant proportion – about 34% – of total packaging waste recovered. Evidently, there is a clear opportunity to improve local waste management practices and grow local demand for products that contain recycled materials. This would help make Australia’s packaging system more resilient to fluctuations in global markets.

The biggest recent market shock was the recycling crisis sparked by China’s decision to limit the imports of large amounts of recyclable materials.

Read more: A crisis too big to waste: China’s recycling ban calls for a long-term rethink in Australia

In April last year, state and federal environment ministers and local governments reacted to that crisis with the launch of the National Packaging Targets. This included a pledge to pursue circular economy principles.

In practice, this means avoiding packaging waste, improving local recovery of recyclables, and increasing the demand for products that contain recycled materials. Already we have seen major brands such as Unilever commit to using at least 25% locally sourced recycled plastic in packaging such as shampoo bottles. This is a big step in the right direction, and aligns with the trending global agenda to eliminate plastic pollution.

However, developing a circular economy for packaging in Australia requires coordinated action across the whole supply chain. This includes manufacturers, brand owners, consumers, and the resource recovery sector.

Better source separation is important and this requires consumer education and awareness raising, as well as smarter design of packaging to make it easier to recycle. These strategies are already supported by the new Australasian Recycling Label, which could potentially be mandated for all types of packaging.

A further consequence of better source separation is a reduction in the contamination of the collected materials. This would improve the efficiency of the material recovery facilities (MRFs) that sort the mixed recyclables into separate streams for reprocessing.

What we also need is more and better data on packaging consumption and recycling infrastructure capabilities. Some future actions are clear, such as addressing problematic plastic packaging. Others decisions that might involve broad systemic interventions need more information about the best way to encourage packaging circularity. Key to success will be the willingness of all stakeholders to develop a collective, consistent and proactive approach to information sharing and problem solving.

This article was coauthored by Brooke Donnelly, chief executive of the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation.

– ref. Only half of packaging waste is recycled – here’s how to do better – http://theconversation.com/only-half-of-packaging-waste-is-recycled-heres-how-to-do-better-112231

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stewart Lockie, Director, The Cairns Institute, James Cook University

This is part of a major series called Advancing Australia, in which leading academics examine key issues facing Australia in the lead-up to the 2019 federal election and beyond. Read the other pieces in the series here.

Rural and regional Australia is a big place – too big to be contained in one rural policy or represented by a single political party.

Several features of contemporary rural and regional Australia stand out, though, as deserving of serious policy attention.

Read more: Report recommends big ideas for regional Australia – beyond decentralisation

The Indigenous estate

Indigenous peoples are among rural and regional Australia’s largest landholders. Native title rights are recognised on more than 37% of the Australian landmass. Exclusive possession native title applies to around 13%. Both these numbers will grow.

The cultural and social significance of the Indigenous estate is immense. So too is its economic significance. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander enterprises are active in agriculture, mining, infrastructure development, land and water management, and protected area management.

Governments have taken some positive steps to assist Indigenous enterprise. Changing procurement policy to encourage local suppliers is an excellent example. This must be seen in the context, however, of the missteps of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy and failure to engage with the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Read more: Building in ways that meet the needs of Australia’s remote regions

Respecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander aspirations for sovereignty and “closing the gap” on health, safety, education and employment are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, finance, insurance and business models that are relevant to the collective and enduring nature of native title rights will go a long way towards realising the economic potential of the Indigenous estate.

Native Title determinations as at December 31 2018. Native Title exists in green areas (darker green denotes exclusive title) and does not exist in brown areas (lighter brown denotes title extinguished). National Native Title Tribunal, CC BY

Read more: The Indigenous community deserves a voice in the constitution. Will the nation finally listen?

New labour markets

Agriculture, mining and other resources industries contribute mightily to Australia’s GDP. Yet their contribution to employment is comparatively small.

In 2016, agriculture, forestry and fishing accounted for 215,601 jobs in regional Australia. Mining provided 102,639 jobs. By contrast, health care and social assistance provided 445,087 jobs, retail 341,190, construction 292,279, education and training 291,902 and accommodation and food services 253,501.

Health care and social assistance and education and training contributed more new regional jobs over the last decade than any other industry.

This is not about commodity price cycles and their short-term impact on labour demand. It is about the relentless substitution of labour with technology as business owners strive to lift productivity and lower costs. Advances in automation and telecommunications will accelerate this trend.

The policy imperative is not to ignore resource industries or the workers who depend on them, but to face up to structural change in the labour market.

It is not unreasonable for regions hit by job losses following mine or plant closures to look for new projects to fill the void. But it is important to recognise that fewer jobs will be on offer in the resources industries. And these jobs will require higher levels of skills and training.

Maintaining high employment across non-metropolitan regions will depend, ultimately, on continued growth in other industries.

Read more: The best way to boost the economy is to improve the lives of deprived students

Climate action

In the land of drought and flooding rain, climate variability is a given.

Whether or not climate change is behind severe drought, rural and regional communities must take a precautionary approach. Dean Lewins/AAP

Managing for that variability is something we need to do better, even before taking climate change into account. The South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission into water use shows that political commitment to cross-border cooperation and the maintenance of environmental flows is fragile.

What evidence we do have on rural and regional Australians’ beliefs about climate change suggests uncertainty and lack of trust in government are more prevalent than outright denial. A precautionary approach to climate is favoured over business as usual.

Why a precautionary approach? Because failure to act on climate presents a number of risks. These include:

• reduced market access for regions and industry sectors not seen to be reducing emissions
• failure to develop cost-effective and industry-specific technologies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions
• lost opportunities to develop markets in carbon sequestration
• escalating economic and social impacts on rural and regional communities as climate variability increases.

Importantly, only the last of these risks is actually contingent on climate change.

Transition planning

The sustainability challenges facing rural and regional Australia are not solely environmental.

In the 21st century, industries require stable, high-speed telecommunications infrastructure. That’s no less true of agriculture and mining than it is of tech start-ups and e-retailers. Unfortunately, the digital divide between urban and rural Australia is a significant constraint on innovation.

Read more: Will Australia’s digital divide – fast for the city, slow in the country – ever be bridged?

The industries of the 21st century also require stable and responsive institutional and governance infrastructure.

The rural politics we see reported in the media looks every bit as polarised and resistant to change as anywhere. Yet Australia’s best rural policies have always been the result of collaborative approaches to planning and innovation.

Landcare and regional natural resource management programs stand out for the positive relationships they have built across the agriculture, conservation, industry and Indigenous sectors.

While federal and state infrastructure funding is critical for the regions, so too is support for integrated and collaborative planning. Place-based approaches are not a panacea but it is always in specific places, and specific communities, that business, services, natural resource management, energy, transport and telecommunications infrastructure, and so on, come together.

Electoral diversity

Social conservatism, support for traditional rural industries and scepticism about climate change are all highly visible in rural politics today.

I have outlined some of the risks arising from climate scepticism, but contemporary social conservatism carries political risks too.

Most obvious is the alienation of voters who do not share these views. They include:

• farmers who want meaningful action on climate
• lifestyle migrants with no historical loyalty to the National Party
• young people with more socially progressive attitudes.

Read more: Meet the new seachangers: now it’s younger Australians moving out of the big cities

It is worth remembering that in the plebiscite on marriage equality most rural and regional electorates took the progressive option and voted yes.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voters warrant extra attention. Indigenous voters have swung elections in the Northern Territory with their preference for candidates who respect local leadership and priorities over traditional party allegiances and ideologies. Candidates for any seat with a large Indigenous population ignore these voters at their peril. As the Australia Electoral Commission works to lift the Indigenous vote, this influence will grow.

In sum, the issues that matter to rural and regional Australians are far more diverse than those discussed here. Many will disagree with how I have represented one or other issue. That, really, is the point.

– ref. People and issues outside our big cities are diverse, but these priorities stand out – http://theconversation.com/people-and-issues-outside-our-big-cities-are-diverse-but-these-priorities-stand-out-110971

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rosalind Smith, Professor and Acting PVC Research and Innovation, University of Newcastle, University of Newcastle

The dramatic life of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots is a hot topic in popular culture. Josie Rourke’s 2018 film Mary Queen of Scots has reached wide audiences, while the Sydney Theatre Company play Mary Stuart is playing to packed houses. What fuels this interest in a queen who died over 400 years ago?

As the differing treatments of her life in the film and play demonstrate, Mary Stuart is a figure open to opposing interpretations of what it means to be a powerful woman. They explore deeply held cultural anxieties over what might happen if a woman holds the role of head of state, which resonate today.

She was queen of France through marriage in her teenage years, then returned to Scotland in 1561 to rule as queen by birth. Her Scottish reign was initially successful, but errors in managing the powerful factions and religious divides of her court and nation led to a series of disastrous events in 1567.

Mary Queen of Scots, oil on canvas, 17th century (artist unknown). Wikimedia Commons

Following the murder of her second husband, Lord Darnley, she quickly married one of his supposed killers, Lord Bothwell. She was then driven from the throne and forced to abdicate. Fleeing to England, Mary sought protection from her Protestant cousin and fellow queen, Elizabeth I.

But instead of finding refuge, she was kept under house arrest in England for 19 years, before she was publicly beheaded in 1587 for treason.

If this colourful history were not enough, portrayals of Mary Stuart since the Renaissance have been sharply divided.

Catholic defences viewed her as an innocent victim of scheming and powerful men, wholly virtuous and martyr to the Catholic cause. Protestant attacks viewed her as an adulterer and murderer, driven by private passion to abandon her realm.

This polarised view of Mary’s reign has persisted over centuries. Biographers in the 19th century, such as Agnes Strickland, used the queen as an example of why women’s “feminine” qualities conflicted with their ability to exercise power. They were seen as too weak, or too irresponsible. Mary’s short and disastrous life as queen of Scots is often contrasted with Elizabeth I’s long and peaceful reign, making Elizabeth the exception rather than the rule.

Read more: Mary, Queen of Scots was a poet – and you should know it

In 2019, the question of whether women have the capacity to be successful leaders is still contested. Hillary Clinton, with years of political experience, was defeated by Donald Trump, with none, in the 2016 US election. In Australia, Deputy Prime Minister Julie Bishop was not put forward to lead the Liberal Party and nation in a recent leadership spill, despite her qualifications.

Two very different stories

In Josie Rourke’s film, we see a sophisticated and beautiful queen (played by Saoirse Ronan) who is ruled by the heart: falling in love with the handsome Lord Darnley (Jack Lowden) in an unwise match that leads to the murders and schemes eventually forcing her abdication.

Mary’s passionate reign is contrasted with Elizabeth’s icy political acumen. Mary Stuart has a lover and a son but no kingdom, while Elizabeth (Margot Robbie) is lonely and barren but successful. Each wants what the other has and is obsessed by personal rivalry with the other.

Mary Queen of Scots (2018) trailer.

The message the film sends is not only that women cannot have it all, but if they do exercise power they will be derailed by jealousy and caught up in trivial power struggles. It ends with an image of a male king, Mary’s son James (Andrew Rothney), uniting England and Scotland in peaceful prosperity once Elizabeth and Mary’s exhausting personal battle is over.

This provides a deeply conservative take on women’s ability to exercise power responsibly and to balance emotional, familial and workplace demands. Set in the past, it suggests that this is a universal story: that women are unsuited to leadership and unable to govern themselves and others. It forms part of a wider political backlash against women’s potential in positions of authority.

By contrast, Kate Mulvany’s adaptation of the 19th century play Mary Stuart, originally by Friedrich Schiller, tells a very different story of women’s leadership. The two queens are initially opposed, with Mary (played by Caroline Brazier) isolated in prison and Elizabeth (Helen Thomson) surrounded by male courtiers at the height of her power.

But the play slowly uncovers their shared experiences in a society where power is everywhere held by men. It provides a sympathetic, but not sanitised, treatment of women’s experience of leadership, friendship and rivalry.

Helen Thomson as Elizabeth I and Caroline Brazier as Mary Stuart in STC’s Mary Stuart. The play presents both queens as complex women. Brett Boardman

Both queens are portrayed as complex women of intelligence, wit, courage and humour. Mary’s relationship with her jailer Paulet (Simon Burke) gives a sense of her warmth and bravery in the face of deprivation and illness, and her exchanges with the militant Mortimer (Fayssal Bazzi) reveal her strategic and political power even in confinement.

Elizabeth is similarly seen to be confident in the exercise of her authority, playing mercilessly with the ambitions of the French ambassador to marry her to his king, and engaged in a spectrum of relationships with her courtiers, from intimacy to reciprocal ties of duty and care.

The third act brings the queens together. If Mary is first Elizabeth’s echo, submissive and secondary, they move through shared points of connection until Mary becomes the aggressor, claiming her right to the English throne. Key to their alignment is their experience of sexual abuse by men: Elizabeth as a 14-year-old raped by her stepfather, Mary by her Scottish husbands (at least as the play tells it).

Caroline Brazier in Sydney Theatre Company’s new production of Mary Stuart. Brett Boardman

In the final scene, both recite the same prayer, Elizabeth in the vernacular English of Protestantism and Mary in the Latin of Catholicism, while their maid sings a version of Greensleeves that concludes “all are in captivity”.

The experience of these queens is the experience of so many women, as the #MeToo movement has shown. At a time when the disenfranchised are seen to be both victims and agents in speaking out against sexual abuse, the story of Mary Stuart takes on new relevance.

Rather than exceptions, or polarised versions of idealised and vilified femininity, the queens are at once victims and agents, disempowered and empowered, flawed and inspiring.

The retelling of Mary Stuart’s history in popular forms can repeat and reinforce old stories about women and power. But it can also break these open, reaching into the past to imagine new and complex ways in which women might be leaders: at once vulnerable and flawed, strategic and successful.

– ref. Mary, Queen of Scots is newly relevant in the age of #MeToo – http://theconversation.com/mary-queen-of-scots-is-newly-relevant-in-the-age-of-metoo-111604

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elise Bant, Professor of Law, University of Melbourne

At last, our corporate watchdog has a strong set of teeth with which to fight crime and serious misconduct in the financial sector.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill finally made it through parliament last week.

In cases of serious misconduct it will empower the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to seek new, hefty fines. For example, in cases of unconscionable conduct, ASIC can seek A$10.5 million (up from the previous A$1 million), to get back three times the proceeds of (or expense saved from) the misconduct, or fine a corporation 10% of its annual turnover up to a maximum of A$210 million, whichever is the greatest.

The enhanced fines were recommended by the Treasury’s ASIC Enforcement Review Taskforce which predated the financial services royal commission.

The legislation (and the speed with which it was finally passed) makes it clear that parliament wants to stop fines and penalties being viewed simply as a cost of doing business.

This has been made even clearer by courts being given power to make “relinquishment orders” that aim to strip any remaining profits from wrongdoers over and above the penalties.

Also important is the bill’s change to the definition of the word “dishonest”.

The new definition requires courts simply to focus on whether the conduct was dishonest “according to the standards of ordinary people”.

Read more: Banking Royal Commission: no commissions, no exemptions, no fees without permission. Hayne gets the government to do a U-turn

Previously courts were required to use an “eye of the beholder” definition that required plaintiffs to prove that the wrongdoer also understood the conduct was dishonest according to those standards.

As the royal commissioner Kenneth Hayne noted, under the previous definition it was all too easy for directors and senior managers to blame misconduct on “processing and administrative errors” – in effect saying wrongdoers didn’t realise they were being dishonest even if ordinary people would have thought they were.

Strong, yet imperfect

While there is much to be applauded in this legislation, there are serious remaining problems raised in submissions to the Treasury that have been left unaddressed.

That might in part be due to the speed with which the bill was prepared and passed, but it is also the result of a wider systemic problem.

The pieces of legislation expressly changed by the bill were the major ones dealing with corporations, financial service providers, consumer credit providers, and insurance.

That meant that other statutes that also prohibit misconduct in trade and commerce remain unchanged, and were apparently not taken into account in drafting the bill. It has made the treatment of similar misconduct inconsistent.

An example illustrates the problem.

The pieces of legislation changed provide a defence to a civil pecuniary penalty order only where a defendant made a “mistake of fact”, established by considering whether the defendant “considered whether or not facts existed” and “was under a mistaken but reasonable belief about those facts”.

But an unchanged part of the law, Section 226 of the Australian Consumer Law, allows the court to show leniency where it establishes that “the person acted honestly and reasonably and, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, ought fairly to be excused”. So rather than having its hands tied, the court can consider all the circumstances, including whether the seriousness of the breach (for example, causing physical harm to consumers) demands a large penalty, notwithstanding that the defendant made an honest and reasonable mistake.

The second approach is arguably better, but the discrepancy between the two is likely to lead to “regulatory arbitrage” as both sides tie up the legal system trying to establish which part of the law should apply.

Anything but a complete redesign

This government, like many before it, has responded to deficiencies in the law by attempting to patch it up. It said it couldn’t respond to the royal commission’s recommendations before parliament closed because it would need to amend more than 40 pieces of legislation.

But that’s indicative of the problem. Patching up legislation, rather than replacing it with something simple, runs the risk of making it worse. Hayne spoke about enforcing core principles. We’re not there yet.

Read more: Understanding Hayne. Why less is more

– ref. Fines that’ll hurt. ASIC’s powerful, if ill-fitting, teeth – http://theconversation.com/fines-thatll-hurt-asics-powerful-if-ill-fitting-teeth-112298

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Flora D. Salim, Associate Professor in Computer Science, RMIT University

Most of us know tech platforms such as Facebook and Google track, store and make money from our data. But there are constantly new revelations about just how much of our privacy has been chipped away.

The latest comes from the Wall Street Journal, which dropped a bombshell on Friday when its testing revealed many popular smartphone apps have been sending personal data to Facebook. That reportedly includes data from heart rate monitoring and period tracking apps:

Flo Health Inc.’s Flo Period & Ovulation Tracker, which claims 25 million active users, told Facebook when a user was having her period or informed the app of an intention to get pregnant, the tests showed.

When we use technologies that track our data, we enter a system governed by algorithms. And the more information we hand over, the more we become entwined with algorithmic systems we don’t control.

We urgently need protections that look after our personal interests in this system. We propose the concept of “algorithmic guardians” as an effective solution.

Read more: What are tech companies doing about ethical use of data? Not much

How do data tracking algorithms work?

Daily, without our knowledge, technology companies use our data to predict our habits, preferences and behaviour. Algorithms that operate behind everything from music recommendation systems to facial recognition home security systems use that data to create a digital twin version of us.

We are then served content and advertising based on what the algorithm has decided we want and need, without explaining how it came to that decision, or allowing us any input into the decision making process.

And our interests likely come second to those who developed the algorithm.

Contrary to what the concept suggests, we don’t directly control “personalisation”, and we have almost no way to protect our autonomy in these transactions of data and decision making.

What is an ‘algorithmic guardian’?

We have proposed the concept of algorithmic guardians, which could be programmed to manage our digital interactions with social platforms and apps according to our personal preferences.

They are envisaged as bots, personal assistants or hologram technology that accompany us everywhere we venture online, and alert us to what’s going on behind the scenes.

These guardians are themselves algorithms, but they work for us alone. Like computer virus software, those that fail to protect users will go out of business, while those that gain a reputation as trusted guardians will succeed.

In practical terms, our guardians would make us recognisable or anonymous when we choose to be. They would also alter our digital identity according to our wishes, so that we could use different services with different sets of personal preferences. Our guardians keep our personal data in our own hands by making sure our backups and passwords are safe. We would decide what is remembered and what is forgotten.

Read more: Facebook needs regulation – here’s why it should be done by algorithms

An algorithmic guardian would:

• alert us if our location, online activity or conversations were being monitored or tracked, and give us the option to disappear

• help us understand the relevant points of long and cumbersome terms and conditions when we sign up to an online service

• give us a simple explanation when we don’t understand what’s happening to our data between our computer, phone records and the dozens of apps running in the background on our phones

• notify us if an app is sending data from our phones to third parties, and give us the option to block it in real time

• tell us if our data has been monetised by a third party and what it was for.

We envision algorithmic guardians as the next generation in current personal assistants such Siri, Alexa or Watson. Thanks to wearable technology and advanced human-computer interactions models, they will be constantly and easily accessible.

Our digital guardians need not be intelligent in the same way as humans. Rather they need to be smart in relation to the environment they inhabit – by recognising and understanding the other algorithms they encounter.

In any case, even if algorithmic guardians (unlike third party algorithms) are user-owned and are totally under our own control, being able to understand how they work will be a priority to make them fully trustworthy.

Read more: We don’t own data like we own a car – which is why we find data harder to protect

When will algorithmic guardians arrive?

The technology to enable algorithmic guardians is emerging as we speak. What’s lagging is the widespread realisation that we need it.

You can see primitive versions of algorithmic guardians technology in digital vaults for storing and managing passwords, and in software settings that give us some control over how our data is used.

Explainable machine learning is a hot topic right now, but still very much in the research domain. It addresses the “black box” problem, where we have no insight into how an algorithm actually arrived at its final decision. In practice, we may know that our loan application is denied, but we don’t know if it was because of our history of unpaid power bills, or because of our surname.

Without this accountability, key moments of our lives are mediated by unknown, unseen, and arbitrary algorithms. Algorithmic guardians could take on the role of communicating and explaining these decisions.

Now that algorithms have become pervasive in daily life, explainability is no longer a choice, but an area urgently requiring further attention.

We need to develop specific algorithmic guardian models in the next couple of years to lay the foundations for open algorithmic systems over the coming decade. That way, if an app wants to tell Facebook you’re pregnant, you’ll know about it before it happens.

– ref. Your period tracking app could tell Facebook when you’re pregnant. An ‘algorithmic guardian’ could stop it. – http://theconversation.com/your-period-tracking-app-could-tell-facebook-when-youre-pregnant-an-algorithmic-guardian-could-stop-it-111815

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Kaine, Associate Professor UTS Centre for Business and Social Innovation, University of Technology Sydney

This is part of a major series called Advancing Australia, in which leading academics examine the key issues facing Australia in the lead-up to the 2019 federal election and beyond. Read the other pieces in the series here.

With all the hype around the future of work, you could be forgiven for thinking the biggest issue in the future of employment is the impending takeover of your job by a robot or an algorithm.

Talk about the workplace of the future has become fixated on technological displacement almost to the point of hysteria. There is little doubt that technological development will change the way we work, as it has in the past.

But for most Australians the reality will be much less dramatic. The biggest changes in the working lives of Australians over the past 20 years have arguably not been technological – few of us are sending our avatars to meetings or writing code.

Many of us are, however, lamenting the paradox of feeling overworked yet, at the same time, insecure in our employment. A significant proportion contend with record low wages growth. Others remain less than fully employed.

Read more: Our culture of overtime is costing us dearly

Some will say that the rate of insecure or non-permanent work has remained fairly constant over the past two decades. This belies the lived experience of workers. They have repeatedly been found to perceive their connections to the workplace and labour market as precarious and laden with personal risk.

Power has been shifting

The changes have often involved the fragmentation or fissuring of work through outsourcing, global supply chains, independent contracting, labour hire and digital labour platforms.

But there has been more to it than the tweaking of business practices. The relationship between business and the state has been subject to a fundamental realignment.

Since the industrial relations changes in the early 1990s, which moved the setting of wages and conditions away from centralised institutions towards the workplace, the locus of power in the labour market has undergone substantial recalibration.

Collective representation of workers has declined sharply. This is recognised as contributing to the wage stagnation being felt in Australia and other rich nations.

A 2018 article in The Economist acknowledged this, noting that while politicians were scrambling for scapegoats and solutions, addressing stagnant wages required “a better understanding of the relationship between pay, productivity and power”.

A crucial aspect of understanding this relationship is recognising the impact that business consolidation has had. It has not only changed the experience of work, but also altered the balance of power between businesses and workers and between some businesses and other businesses.

Read more: This is what policymakers can and can’t do about low wage growth

The ascendance of global monoliths − such as Walmart, Amazon, Apple and Uber (and the big retailers and e-tailers in Australia) – has resulted in organisations that wield enormous economic and cultural power. This has led not only to a reduction in worker power but also to the creation of a crushingly competitive environment for the businesses that have to contend with contract terms dictated by the corporate giants.

What has been the result of the combination of changing business models, reconfigured institutions and the onslaught of business consolidation?

We have seen hyper-competition based on low labour costs, management approaches that skirt worker protection laws, and weaker regulatory oversight.

It has manifested in almost weekly scandals regarding sham contracting, exploitation of workers and what appears to be an epidemic of underpayment in a roll call of some of Australia’s most “successful” companies, among them 7-Eleven, Caltex and Domino’s) .

We can shift it back

The policy prescription to remedy the scourge of work insecurity and exploitation is decidedly unsexy. It goes against the zeitgeist that seems to suggest that any change that disrupts an existing system, rule or institution should be hailed as “innovative” and be uncontested.

It requires some reflection and the rebirth of aspects of our industrial relations system that have been lost but have redeeming features.

Key among these old-fashioned remedies is the encouragement of workers and employers to organise and recentralise bargaining.

A stated aim of the federal Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 was “to facilitate and encourage the organisation of representative bodies of employers and of employees”.

Granted, back then the act was also about keeping industrial peace by preventing lockouts and strikes. This is no longer much of an issue in our era of record low industrial action. But, in the current context of fragmented work, it is unrealistic to expect individual employers and employees to engage in endless rounds of labour-intensive productivity bargaining, with little to show for it.

The economies of scale that were part of a centralised system were lost when workplace-based bargaining system took over. These could be regained, to the advantage of both employees and employers.

Read more: Bargaining the Qantas way: how not to run an industrial dispute

While that policy prescription looks similar to the original Conciliation and Arbitration system, the rationale behind it differs markedly.

No longer would it be simply about addressing the power dynamics between employers and employees. It would also be about addressing the inequitable power dynamics between mega-corporations and businesses subjected to their might.

A challenge for left and right

Arguments relating to the need for flexibility and regulatory reform, which were the basis of the 1990s decentralisation, were not without merit. Global competition was accelerating and there was a real concern that the Australian economy would not be able to keep pace. So greater agency was given to businesses so they could adjust and lift productivity.

But we are now living in very different times. Neither excessive industrial action nor the spectre of poor productivity looms. It is neither intellectually or politically honest to use these as a basis for opposing proposals to recentralising bargaining.

Also, we need to acknowledge that the biggest beneficiaries of the disaggregation introduced in the early 1990s were the biggest businesses.

A more centralised system could allow employers and employees to combine their power to counter competitive pressures from mega-corporations that want to reduce labour standards. They have facilitated toxic workplace practices, including intensive surveillance, unrealistic performance expectations, avoidance of entitlements and exploitation of workers further down supply chains.

Constructing an industrial relations framework that tackles the insecurity that is being experienced now and the further insecurity that may be wrought by technological change is potentially confronting for both sides of the ideological divide.

Elements on the left may be reluctant to acknowledge that not all businesses are the same, that some are being squashed by the structure of the market. Some on the right might not be prepared to concede that the bright idea of the 1990s – reducing union influence and worker voices – has succeeded so well as to create perverse and economically unhelpful outcomes.

Both sides need to lift their gaze above the workplace. They need to recognise that earlier reforms are no longer the right ones now, admit that individual business might not be the best level at which to manage the technological change, and acknowledge where the new power lies, then act accordingly.

Read more: Why are unions so unhappy? An economic explanation of the Change the Rules campaign

– ref. The workplace challenge facing Australia (spoiler alert – it’s not technology) – http://theconversation.com/the-workplace-challenge-facing-australia-spoiler-alert-its-not-technology-111492

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Garrick, Senior Lecturer, Business Law, Charles Darwin University

Former federal trade minister Andrew Robb says he has quit his A$880,000-a-year consultancy job with Chinese-owned Landbridge Group because it didn’t have anything for him do.

Former Victorian premier John Brumby says he has quit as a director of Chinese tech giant Huawei in Australia because he has too much else to do.

Former federal foreign minister and ex-NSW premier Bob Carr has quit his job as director of the Australia-China Relations Institute, an organisation bankrolled by a Chinese billionaire with a history of using donations to cosy up to politicians.

It might be just a coincidence that these decisions have come just days before new foreign influence transparency laws come into effect on March 1.

The new laws are supposed to make visible the “nature, level and extent of foreign influence on Australia’s government and political process”. There is more than enough evidence that greater transparency is needed. But the extent to which the new rules will achieve this is questionable.

Andrew Robb with Bob Carr at an Australia China Relations Institute seminar in 2015. Jeremy Piper/AAP

Money talks

Federal parliament passed the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act (FITS) in December. The Act obliges individuals to register if they act on behalf of “foreign principals” – be they governments, government-related entities, political organisations or government-related individuals.

Failing to apply for (or renew) registration, providing false and misleading information or destroying records may lead to a prison term of up to six years for individuals and fines of A$88,200 for companies.

Registrable activities include:

• parliamentary and political lobbying on behalf of a foreign principal
• communications activities for the purpose of political or government influence
• employment or activities of former cabinet ministers.

An example of the latter is Andrew Robb.

In February 2016 Robb resigned as federal trade minister and announced he would not recontest his seat. He left parliament in July. Three months later he had his new job, getting paid way more than the prime minister as a consultant to the Landbridge Group.

Read more: View from The Hill: Would Landbridge be on or off the government’s register of foreign interests?

It is always instructive to note the first jobs taken by politicians after they leave parliament. Those appointments generally reflect relationships already well-groomed.

Landbridge is a privately owned Chinese company, but like many Chinese companies has strong ties to the ruling Chinese Communist Party. Its substantial interests in petrochemicals and ports includes a 99-year lease over the Darwin port, which is considered of strategic importance in China’s diplomatic dance with the United States.

Qualitative differences

China isn’t the only foreign power interested in having influence in Australia, of course. Historical ties have meant that Britain once dictated Australia’s foreign policy. Since World War II the United States has had almost as much power.

Now China, Australia’s largest trading partner, taking about 30% of our exports, looms large. But the power exercised by the Chinese regime is qualitatively different.

For all its economic liberalisation since the death of Mao Zedong in 1976, China remains a one party state, with repression worsening under Xi Jinping. On freedom of the the press, for example, China ranks 176 out of 180 countries.

Commercial, military and political influences are wrapped up together. Lines between state and private enterprises are blurred. When Chinese business interests curry favour with foreign politicians and officials, there’s a high chance that statecraft is also being advanced. “Soft power” is used extensively.

Sam Dastyari announces his resignation from federal parliament at a press conference on December 12, 2017. Ben Rushton/AAP

Agent of influence

This is what made the tawdry scandal involving former NSW senator Sam Dastyari so alarming.

Though a humble senator, Dastyari was a key Labor Party fundraiser and powerbroker. He later admitted that vanity and arrogance made him susceptible to the charm offensive of Huang Xiangmo – the billionaire who courted Bob Carr to head up the Australia-China Relations Institute.

Dastyari accepted financial gifts from Huang’s company, including a A$44,000 payment to settle a legal dispute, along with payments from other donors connected to the Chinese Communist Party.

Read more: The foreign donations bill will soon be law – what will it do, and why is it needed?

Such payments made it obvious why he defied his own party’s policy and defended China’s militant stance in the South China Sea. He was subsequently labelled a Chinese “agent of influence”.

These revelations resulted in Dastyari resigning from parliament in 2017. Earlier this month it was revealed the federal government had rejected Huang’s bid to become an Australian citizen and stripped him of his permanent residency visa.

Read more: Why do we keep turning a blind eye to Chinese political interference?

On the basis of these examples highlighted above, there’s a strong case for making influence peddling open and transparent.

Whether the new laws can achieve that is another matter. They may curtail flagrant scenarios where those leaving public office sell their wares to the highest bidder. But to work effectively, the laws and their enforcers will need to constantly adapt and evolve as agents look for creative ways to wield influence from the shadows.

– ref. Agents of foreign influence: with China it’s a blurry line between corporate and state interests – http://theconversation.com/agents-of-foreign-influence-with-china-its-a-blurry-line-between-corporate-and-state-interests-112403

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Serena Love, Honorary Research Fellow, The University of Queensland

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.

Who was the first ancient mummy wrapped up? – Luke, age 5, Swansea.

The first mummy to be wrapped up comes from the Chinchorro culture of South America, in the area of southern Peru and northern Chile. The oldest of these mummies was a person who died in 5050 BC, over 7,000 years ago. These Chinchorro mummies are 2,000 years older than the mummies in ancient Egypt!

One of these Chinchorro mummies was preserved by nature, and was not wrapped up, and it is 9,000 years old (meaning it is from 7,020 BC).

Chinchorro means “gill netters”, which is their way of fishing with nets. The Chinchorro people lived by the sea, the Atacama Coast, along the Pacific Ocean. Most of what they ate was seafood (fish and shellfish), sea birds and sometimes sea lions. They also hunted animals for meat and collected some plants, too.

Pictures of these mummies may frighten some curious kids. Parents are advised to search and look at images online before showing them to children.

This map shows you where Chile is in relation to Australia. Google Maps

These mummies have remained the same until today because the place where the Chinchorro lived was very dry, even though they lived by the ocean. Much of this area is a desert and some areas have not had rain in over 400 years!

Read more: Curious Kids: who were the Spartans?

How are Chinchorro mummies made?

The Chinchorro had different ways of preserving (to keep safely so that it does not spoil) the dead bodies. They would start by removing all the organs inside the body, even the brain. The hair and skin would also be removed using stone tools, not metal knives. Some of the sharpest knives were made using a pelican’s beak.

Sometimes, the head, arms and legs would be removed and the body was put back together later. The body would be dried out using a mixture of hot coals from a fire, as well as ash. They would place sticks inside the body to keep the body stiff and fill the insides with straw and feathers. The face would be covered in clay and left out to dry for 30-40 days. Sometimes the bodies would be painted red or black.

How did the Chinchorro mummies die?

Some of these bodies had diseases and broken bones. Arthritis and bone decay are two common diseases. Some mummies have damage in their ears suggesting that some people may have been deaf. This damage likely came from diving in the ocean for shellfish. Many mummies have broken bones that have gotten better. These injuries are either from accidents at work or fighting inside the community.

Unlike in ancient Egypt where only the very rich people were made into mummies like this one, the Chinchorro people made mummies from people of different backgrounds. andersphoto/shutterstock, CC BY

All sorts of people were made into mummies – men, women and children, young and older people, too. Even some babies were mummified, which could be because they died during childbirth; these babies were some of the most decorated mummies.

After the mummy was finished, it was not buried. People would put them in their houses and other places where people lived, worked and played. Some people think the mummies brought good luck.

We are not exactly sure why the Chinchorro made these mummies but we think it is because they cared for their dead families and wanted to keep their physical body, and their memory, alive forever.

Read more: Curious Kids: Are zombies real?

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

CC BY-ND

Please tell us your name, age and which city you live in. We won’t be able to answer every question but we will do our best.

– ref. Curious Kids: who was the first ancient mummy? – http://theconversation.com/curious-kids-who-was-the-first-ancient-mummy-110436

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon D Angus, Associate Professor, Monash University

What can you do with 99 seconds? Check your email? Fire off a tweet? Walk 100 metres?

For current men’s marathon world-record holder, Kenyan Eliud Kipchoge, 99 seconds is all that stands between him and the sub two-hour (or “sub-2”) marathon run.

Breaking the two-hour barrier in the men’s marathon could be the defining moment of Kipchoge’s illustrious career.

Read more: Five tips to help your kid succeed in sport – or maybe just enjoy it

But how close is he? How hard is dropping 99 seconds, really?

To find out, in a study published today in Medicine and Science of Sports and Exercise, I crunched the data on all male and female marathon world record times since 1950.

The barrier broken

Kipchoge could break the sub-2 barrier tomorrow, but it is very very unlikely: there’s just a 2% chance of it ever happening, to be precise.

The more likely answer is that we will have to wait until May 2032 to see someone – most likely not Kipchoge – go sub-2 in an official event. By that time, the chance of someone going sub-2 increases to 10%.

But we may have to be even more patient: 2054 sees the probability of a sub-2 marathon rising to 25%.

The reason for the shifting date is that from the standpoint of statistics, there is a direct connection between the predicted date of arrival of the sub-2 moment, and its probability of happening.

The key insight of the approach comes down to the difference between what is likely to happen on average, and what is likely to happen in just one single realisation of the future.

The Bradman average

Take Australian cricketing legend Don Bradman’s phenomenal test batting average of 99.94 runs. This number represents the average over Bradman’s 80 innings (including ten not-outs).

But what we should remember is that, when using this average to predict the future, the average has some variation associated with it. So actually, we should probably quote the Don’s average as 99.94, within the range 71.0 to 128.8.

What these numbers mean is that if Bradman were to have played another ten test innings, then the average of those ten innings would lie, with 95% chance, within the range 71.0 to 128.8. (For the statistician in all of us, yes, that’s a confidence interval.)

Which is helpful. But what if the English skipper who faced Bradman, Norman Yardley, is playing one of those fictional next games. He cares more about what Bradman might score right now, at the crease, not over a series of ten such events.

At this point, Yardley needs what is called a “prediction interval”: the likely range of a single inning’s score (not the average over a number of innings).

Sorry Yardley. The answer is a tad demoralising: the prediction interval for Bradman’s test innings is from 0 to 343.5 runs!

In other words, with 95% likelihood, a single Bradman innings will fall anywhere in the interval 0 to 343.5 runs.

A marathon prediction

Back to the marathon, it is exactly this insight that helps us to make a more accurate point-prediction for when the sub-2 marathon will be run, leading to our May 2032 estimate (with 10% likelihood).

The table (above) shows how the men’s marathon times have been tumbling, especially in more recent years.

The neat thing about the modelling framework is that we can also calculate the likely fastest ever men’s marathon time, again at 10% likelihood. That comes in at 1:58:05 (1h 58m 5s), a prediction that turns out to be remarkably close (within seven seconds) to one made on entirely physiological grounds in 1991.

Importantly, we can also explore female marathon times in the same way.

For instance, in the analysis, the likely fastest ever women’s marathon time equates to 2:05:31 (2h 5m 31s), around ten minutes faster than the current world record, set in 2003, of Paula Radcliffe (UK).

The UK’s Paula Radcliffe at a half marathon in Portugal just months are she took the world record for the full marathon in 2003. EPA/Luis Forra

But what time target would be the equivalent for women of the men’s sub-2?

Knowing the limits of male performance, we can simply calculate the distance from the male limiting time (1:58:05) to the 2 hour time, a difference of 1 min, 55 secs.

We can then express this difference as a percentage of the male limiting time, giving 1.62%, add it to the female limiting time. This procedure gives us a time that is the same distance, in performance terms, from the female limiting time as the sub-2 barrier is from the men’s.

The result? 2:07:33 (2h 7m 33s) which doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue.

The sub-120 and the sub-130

For this reason, I suggest that a reasonable choice for an arbitrary focus for elite female performance could be 130 minutes (2h 10m 0s). Let’s call it the “sub 130 minute marathon”. (Remember, the sub-2 – or sub 120 minute – barrier is itself entirely arbitrary.)

Which leads us to another important observation.

Paula Radcliffe’s remarkable 2:15:25 (2h 15m 25s) world record was set one sunny day in London in April 2003 – and here we are, almost 16 years later, and the time still stands (see table, below).

For context, the male world record mark has been improved on seven times over the same period. So where are all the female world-record marathoners?

Read more: The science of parkour, the sport that seems reckless but takes poise and skill

I don’t have a full answer to that question. But a fascinating study from 2014 of the characteristics of the best male and female marathoners in recent times gives us an important clue.

While for male marathoners, African runners better their best non-African counterparts to the tune of around 2.5%, for female marathoners, no difference presently exists between African runners and the best of the rest by continent.

It would seem to me that there is likely a group of world-record smashing African female marathoners living somewhere on the planet today, but nobody knows who they are. Yet.

– ref. How long before we break the two-hour barrier in the men’s marathon? – http://theconversation.com/how-long-before-we-break-the-two-hour-barrier-in-the-mens-marathon-112505

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christine A McDaniel, Senior Research Fellow, George Mason University

Digital platforms provide a host of challenges for governments. Questions about how to best protect privacy, democracy, and speech online become more pressing every year.

But policies that affect online platforms also affect international trade. Many Australian small businesses rely on digital platforms to stay on par with their international competitors.

As Australia starts tackling the challenges wrought by digital platforms, policymakers should be careful not to undo the good things that stem from an evermore connected world. That includes the critical role of these platforms in helping retailers sell their products to overseas customers.

Read more: The law is closing in on Facebook and the ‘digital gangsters’

Platforms facilitate exports

As my new research with colleague Danielle Parks shows, digital platforms appear to significantly reduce the economic distance and trade costs between buyers and sellers.

Take Facebook, for example. Facebook is both a social networking platform and digital market platform, where Facebook’s Marketplace helps business owners connect with potential customers.

The social networking interface allows buyers and sellers to message each other and exchange information about what the seller has, and what the buyer wants. Meanwhile, Marketplace features like identity verification and buyer ratings help to facilitate connections more quickly, and with more trust, than might otherwise be possible.

There isn’t a lot of large-scale data on cross-border e-commerce, so researchers must get creative to study digital platforms and trade. The findings are extraordinary.

One study found that 97% of US-based eBay sellers export product to overseas buyers. Another found the “economic effect of distance” to be 65% smaller on eBay. In other words, the digital platform reduces the challenges of selling to people in other countries.

Read more: Innovative e-commerce approaches can help small businesses in Africa

Research conducted by PayPal showed that 79% of US small businesses on its platform sell to foreign markets. And PayPal merchants that exported, outperformed businesses in general. Interestingly, that finding held for coastal and non-coastal businesses, and for rural and urban businesses alike.

In our new study, we surveyed Australian businesses on Facebook. We found that those with a Facebook presence were 63% more likely to export their products internationally than other businesses. The propensity to export was higher across all business sectors and nearly all company sizes.

This emerging pattern shows how world markets are opening up to smaller businesses that might not otherwise be able to compete with their larger, multinational rivals. These findings can partly be attributed to export-prone firms being more likely than others to use digital platforms. But there is no question that the platforms can also enable trade.

Most governments recognise the need to dismantle barriers to foreign market access, and any new policies regarding digital platforms should not make it harder for small and medium sized businesses to engage in trade.

How regulation could hurt small businesses

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is currently conducting an inquiry into digital platforms at the request of the treasurer.

The ACCC’s preliminary report recognises how digital platforms have revolutionised the ways consumers and businesses communicate with one another. The report also highlights concerns over data privacy and the influence of bad actors producing and spreading misinformation.

The final report, expected in June, will make policy recommendations that aim to address these concerns. But these policies could also inadvertently threaten the revenue streams of businesses that advertise on these platforms or that use them to facilitate online sales.

Restrictions on the cross border flow of consumer information could interfere with everyday business practices. For example, a key advantage of e-commerce, especially for small businesses, is using search engine techniques to reach larger audiences, and target potential customers. So, search engine restrictions could limit the way businesses target customers with advertising, therefore limiting a business owner’s ability to reach customers abroad.

Other regulations could restrict business owners from storing the personal information of customers – such as credit card information, consumer preferences and purchase history. That would then limit businesses in how they interact with customers at home and abroad.

Read more: Taking on big tech: where does Australia stand?

What’s happening at the moment

Australia is not alone in considering these tough issues. The landscape of digital data flows, data privacy, and e-commerce is a work in progress for governments across the globe.

The EU recently enacted data privacy regulation called the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which is designed to:

[…] fundamentally reshape the way in which data is handled across every sector, from health care to banking and beyond.

Meanwhile, the United States Congress will likely consider new internet privacy legislation this year.

Provisions on digital data flows have been included in major recent international trade agreements. Both the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) bar data localisation requirements. That means foreign companies would only be allowed to work in a country if they built out or leased separate data infrastructures in that country – a costly endeavour, especially for smaller businesses.

On the other hand, USMCA and TPP do not allow participating countries to require that platforms disclose their source code or algorithms. These provisions do not necessarily preclude countries from adopting privacy protections, but they do make it easier for platforms like Facebook to operate without fear that they will be asked to handover important intellectual property.

As the government considers the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission report, one thing should be clear: any policy changes should not overlook the role of these platforms in helping Australian small businesses sell goods to customers in the global marketplace.

– ref. Regulating Facebook could hinder small businesses with overseas customers – http://theconversation.com/regulating-facebook-could-hinder-small-businesses-with-overseas-customers-111822

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Juanita Westbury, Senior Lecturer in Dementia Care, University of Tasmania

Last month the aged care minister Ken Wyatt announced he would introduce regulations to address the use of “chemical restraint” in residential aged care – a practice where residents are given psychotropic drugs which affect their mental state in order to “control” their behaviour.

Psychotropic medications used as “chemical restraints” are antipsychotics, antidepressants, anti-epileptics and benzodiazepines (tranquilisers).

Wyatt followed this announcement this month with a A$4.2 million funding pledge to better monitor care in nursing homes through mandatory “quality indicators”, and including one covering medication management.

Of course, you would be hard pressed to find a staff member admitting to controlling a resident by giving them a tablet. Instead, most staff would stress that medication was given to calm or comfort them.

Read more: Physical restraint doesn’t protect patients – there are better alternatives

But our research shows psychotropic use is rife in Australia’s aged care system.

Reforms are desperately needed, but we need to develop the right approach and learn from countries that have tried to regulate this area – most notably the United States and Canada.

What’s the problem with antipsychotic drugs?

Antipsychotic drugs such as risperidone and quetiapine are often used to manage behavioural symptoms of dementia.

But large reviews conclude they don’t work very well. They decrease agitated behaviour in only one in five people with dementia. And there is no evidence they work for other symptoms such as calling out and wandering.

Due to their limited effect – and side effects, including death, stroke and pneumonia – guidelines stress that antipsychotics should only be given to people with dementia when there is severe agitation or aggression associated with a risk of harm, delusions, hallucinations, or pre-existing mental illness.

The guidelines also state antipsychotics should only be given when non-drug strategies such as personalised activities have failed, at the lowest effective dose, and for the shortest period required.

Read more: Needless treatments: antipsychotic drugs are rarely effective in ‘calming’ dementia patients

The high rates of antipsychotic use in Australian aged care homes indicates the guidelines aren’t being followed.

In our study of more than 12,000 residents across 150 homes, we found 22% were taking antipsychotics every day. More than one in ten were were charted for these drugs on an “as required” basis.

We also found large variations in use between nursing homes, ranging from 7% to 44% of residents. How can some homes operate with such low rates, whereas others have almost half their residents taking antipsychotic medications?

Regulations to reduce chemical restraint

Of all countries, the US has made the most effort to address high rates of antipsychotic use.

After reports in the 1980s highlighting poor nursing home care, Congress passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act which sets national minimum standards of care, guidelines to assist homes to follow the law, and surveyors to enforce it.

For residents with dementia and behavioural symptoms, the regulations require documentation of the behaviour, a trial of non-drug strategies such as activity programs, and dose reductions after six months.

Prescribing practices vary widely between institutions. From shutterstock.com

Homes that don’t meet these regulations are subject to a series of sanctions, ranging from financial penalties to closure.

The regulations were initially associated with substantial declines in antipsychotic use. By 1995 only 16% of residents were taking them.

But average rates of use rose to 26% by 2010. And in 2011, a Senate hearing found 83% of claims for antipsychotics in nursing homes were prescribed for unlicensed use.

This led advocates to conclude the regulations and surveyor guidance were ineffective.

Quality indicators to reduce chemical restraint

Another way to reduce antipsychotic use in aged care homes is by mandatory quality indicators, along with public reporting. The US introduced this in 2012. A similar system was instituted in Ontario, Canada, in 2015.

Measures are essential for quality improvement. But they can also lead to unintended consequences and cheating.

In the US, antipsychotic rates for people with dementia has allegedly reduced by 27% since the start of their quality indicator program.

But those diagnosed with schizophrenia were exempt from reporting. Then the percentage of residents listed as having schizophrenia doubled from 5% to nearly 10% of residents within the first few years of the initiative. So 20% of the reduction was probably due to intentional mis-diagnosis rather than an actual decrease in antipsychotic use.

Read more: What is ‘quality’ in aged care? Here’s what studies (and our readers) say

A recent US study has also shown that the use of alternative sedating medications not subject to reporting, specifically anti-epileptic drugs, has risen substantially as antipsychotic use declined, indicating widespread substitution.

In Ontario, the use of trazadone, a sedating antidepressant, has also markedly increased since its antipsychotic reporting program began.

Reporting issues

In the US, nursing homes self-report indicators. A recent study compared nursing home data with actual prescribing claims, concluding that homes under-reported their antipsychotic prescribing, on average, by 1 percentage point.

Public reporting is often also time-consuming, with some researchers arguing that time spent managing quality indicators may be better spent providing care for residents.

Where to now?

Awareness of a problem is the first step to addressing it, and chemical restraint is a key issue coming to light in the aged care royal commission.

The proposed regulations and new quality indicator will allow homes and regulators to monitor the use of chemical restraint, but more importantly, should be used to assess the impact of training and other strategies to ensure appropriate use of psychotropic medications.

But to meet their full potential, these programs need to be carefully designed and evaluated to ensure that cheating, under-reporting and substitution does not occur like it did in North America.

– ref. Chemical restraint has no place in aged care, but poorly designed reforms can easily go wrong – http://theconversation.com/chemical-restraint-has-no-place-in-aged-care-but-poorly-designed-reforms-can-easily-go-wrong-112218

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Oisín Sweeney, Senior Ecologist at the National Parks Association of NSW, Research Fellow, University of Sydney

Since colonisation, a dizzying array of Australia’s native species and ecosystems have been altered or removed altogether. It therefore seems natural to consider the idea of restoring what’s been lost – a process termed “rewilding”.

Now a global trend, rewilding projects aim to restore functional ecosystems. The rationale is that by reactivating the often complex relationships between species – such as apex predators and their prey, for example – these ecosystems once again become able to sustain themselves.

Rewilding has successfully captured the public interest, particularly overseas. Conservation group Rewilding Europe has a network of eight rewilding areas and a further 59 related projects, covering 6 million hectares in total.

The reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park in the United States remains the most recognised example of rewilding. The wolves reduced elk numbers and changed their behaviour, which allowed vegetation to grow and stabilise stream banks.

Read more: From feral camels to ‘cocaine hippos’, large animals are rewilding the world

It’s not hard to see why rewilding is popular, given that it sounds a note of hope and inspiration amid the seemingly endless stories of despair over ecological disaster.

But in Australia, we need to do rewilding differently. The particular challenges we face with issues such as introduced species mean that, like Vegemite, our rewilding future must have a unique flavour.

Australian values

Our recently published paper builds on findings from a rewilding forum held in Sydney in late 2016. Academics, government and non-government agencies met to discuss some of the outstanding issues around rewilding in Australia. Despite the large, diverse audience and wide-ranging views, the forum succeeded in identifying some key themes.

Peninsulas often good locations for rewilding in Australia because their geography allows the impacts of introduced predators to be minimised. Booderee National Park at Jervis Bay has reintroduced long-nosed potoroos, southern brown bandicoots and eastern quolls.

A much bigger Peninsula, Yorke, in South Australia, is the site of an ambitious project to reintroduce 20 species currently extinct in the area.

The widespread removal of dingoes has reduced natural control on introduced species such as foxes and cats. This in turn has allowed feral cats and red foxes to prey on small digging native mammals in the absence of a larger competitor. Meanwhile, declines in Tasmanian devils have been mirrored by declines in smaller predators like eastern quolls, and changes to cat behaviour, suggesting devils indirectly affect other species.

Many of these digging mammals have declined continent-wide and disappeared completely from other areas. This in turn has resulted in knock-on effects, such as altered fire regimes and changes to plant diversity.

It’s no surprise, then, that our workshop identified restoring predators and small mammals as priorities in Australia. Lots of work is already going on to restore small mammal populations, such as via Australian Wildlife Conservancy’s and Arid Recovery’s fenced exclosures, from which foxes and cats have been eliminated.

But exclosures are also contrary to the aims of rewilding, because they need ongoing maintenance and do not help the ecosystem inside to be self-sustaining. They can also exacerbate prey naïveté, whereby the native mammals fail to recognise and avoid introduced predators.

It may therefore be useful to view fences as a stepping stone to restoring small mammal populations to broader landscapes, helped by a variety of means including promoting co-evolution of native and introduced species, incentives to farmers, and the use of guardian animals.

Australia is different

Passive rewilding – the removal of human agriculture, resulting in the return of natural vegetation – has had positive impacts on biodiversity in Europe. It could have similarly positive impacts here, for example by increasing the density of tree hollows in previously logged forest and woodland. But a complete removal of management is unlikely to be effective because of, for example, the need to manage fire and the presence of introduced species like miner birds that exert influences on other species and even entire ecosystems.

In arid areas, simply removing agriculture is unlikely to halt the declines in biodiversity unless deliberate steps are taken to control pest plants and animals and to shift the ecosystem into a preferred state. In oceans, where rewilding is no less urgent due to declines in large predatory fish, passive rewilding may be more feasible, as marine protected areas can result in recovery of fish, provided certain key criteria are met.

Reintroducing large (bigger than 100kg) herbivores is part of rewilding efforts in Europe and Asia. Yet in Australia, all large herbivores are introduced and are generally perceived as having negative impacts.

“Natural” control of such species is not possible due to a lack of big native predators. Introducing “surrogates” of long-extinct predators (as are used elsewhere in rewilding) would have predictable results in terms of human acceptance (farmers wouldn’t like it), but uncertain impacts on ecosystems.

What about people?

People can benefit from rewilding – either directly, through wildlife tourism income or reduced kangaroo grazing on farmland, or indirectly such as via provision of services like flood control. So rewilding should not, as has been suggested elsewhere, necessarily separate humans from nature. Aboriginal owned and managed land offers huge opportunities in this regard because it covers 52% of the country and is home to many threatened species. In urban areas, rewilding will have to be a compromise between what is acceptable to humans and what benefits ecosystems most.

Read more: Should we move Tasmanian Devils back to the mainland?

There is clearly an appetite among scientists and managers for bold interventions such as trial reintroductions of Tasmanian devils to mainland Australia to restore ancient food chains or allowing dingoes to return to areas where they occur at low densities and are functionally extinct. Rewilding’s focus on restoration of ecosystem processes can complement, but not replace, existing conservation approaches. For example, we still need to achieve a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve network on land and at sea.

Development of a rewilding vision and strategy would be a valuable first step towards maximising the potential of rewilding, tracking success, and persuading governments to fund it.

The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the contribution of Dr Andy Sharp, Natural Resources Northern and Yorke Manager Planning and Programs, to this article.

– ref. We can ‘rewild’ swathes of Australia by focusing on what makes it unique – http://theconversation.com/we-can-rewild-swathes-of-australia-by-focusing-on-what-makes-it-unique-111749

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marcus Horwood, PhD Candidate, Educational Psychology and Public Policy, Australian Catholic University

Principals (including principals, assistant principals and deputy principals) are nation builders. They play a vital role in shaping our society and significantly influence our children in ways academic and non-academic, well beyond graduation. They help mould our future leaders, the success of the economy, and us as a nation.

But according to our latest report from the 2018 Australian Principal Occupational Health, Safety and Well-being Survey, many school leaders are at breaking point.

Read more: Bullying, threats and violence: report details the difficult job of a principal

Principals’ health and well-being is diminishing from being overburdened with red tape, under-resourced, and mistreated. Fewer people are willing to step into the role. At a time when 70% of school leaders will reach retirement age in the next few years, we’re ignoring a looming national crisis.

These working conditions significantly affect not just principals, but also our students. For example, the extent of reported exhaustion of educators has been tied to students’ school grades. On the other hand, principals with greater autonomy and leadership support has lead to increases in school performance.

One in three school leaders are seriously distressed

In 2018, 2,365 participants completed the survey. There are around 10,000 principals in Australia. They have consistently reported average working hours too high for a healthy lifestyle. More than half work upwards of 56 hours each week.

It is worth noting that although principals may benefit from reporting inflated figures, the large number of new and returning principal participants each year, in addition to this survey being conducted yearly since 2011, supports the legitimacy of the consistent upward trend of concerning statistics.

Compared to the general population, principals report:

• 1.5 times higher job demands
• 1.6 times more burnout
• 1.7 times more stress
• 2.2 times more difficulty sleeping
• 1.3 times more depressive symptoms.

One in three principals were flagged as so distressed their physical and mental health were seriously at risk. The two largest sources of stress have consistently been the quantity of work, and lack of time to focus on teaching and learning.

Read more: Why is being a school principal one of the most dangerous jobs in the country?

Worrying trends reflect an unhealthy society

The steady increase of stress caused by handling the mental health issues of students and staff over the past eight years, in conjunction with increasing staff shortages, is a worrying trend.

More concerning is the level of offensive behaviour directed at principals. Almost one in two (45%) reported being threatened with violence in 2018, compared to 38% in 2011.

Principals are frequently threatened with violence. from www.shutterstock.com

One in three principals (37%) reported actual physical violence in 2018. That’s 9.3 times the national average, up from seven times higher in 2011.

These statistics are, of course, not confined to schools. All front-line services are reporting similar increases in offensive behaviour.

It’s long overdue to call time on this. We need to decide as a nation how to respond – individually and systemically. We’re all responsible for this incivility. What you’re prepared to walk past is what you’re prepared to accept.

How we compare globally

Although the situation for principals in Australia is dire, this appears to be on par with school leaders in New Zealand and Ireland, the two countries where this project has expanded. The similarities between the national cultures and education structures implies systematic and nationwide issues. These need long-term strategies.

This is not the first time a country has faced a similar educational crisis. Approximately 40 years ago, Finland revolutionised their struggling system by depoliticising education (placing educators rather than politicians in charge of education policy) – something Australia should seriously address. Finnish academics have attributed Finland’s success in international rankings to collaboration, creativity, trust in teachers and principals, professionalism and equity.

How can we better support our school leaders?

No single group of people is responsible for this crisis, nor can any one group of people effectively fix the system. But the solution is conceptually simple: either the job demands must decrease, or the resources needed to match the demands must increase. So, either administrative demands that interfere with teaching and learning need to decrease, or school budgets, salaries and autonomy need to increase (not just increased responsibilities labelled as increased autonomy).

We need a unified approach to education. We currently have eight individual state and territory governments with eight different education policies lasting as long as the state government is in power. Principals and teachers are unable to create long-term plans or set long-term budgets, and are continuously required to retrain and familiarise themselves with ever-increasing rules and regulations.

Read more: Bullies, threats and violence: who would want to be a school principal?

We need to implement one federal body to oversee education, similar to Finland, perhaps with a governance structure similar to the reserve bank: accountable to government but independent from it. We can no longer afford our methods of educating our children to be used as a political brand differentiation.

Labor’s shadow education minister, Tanya Plibersek, recently announced the party would establish a National Principal’s Academy to give support and training to principals if elected in May. This provides a glimmer of hope for a national overseeing body. But this announcement too is tied to a political party, and only time will tell whether the academy will be established, whether it’s effective, and whether it survives the next election.

We need to create policies and schools that give principals what they need to use their considerable expertise to flourish, so they can help our teachers and students flourish too.

– ref. One in three principals are seriously stressed, here’s what we need to do about it – http://theconversation.com/one-in-three-principals-are-seriously-stressed-heres-what-we-need-to-do-about-it-110774

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liz Allen, Demographer, ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods, Australian National University

This is part of a major series called Advancing Australia, in which leading academics examine key issues facing Australia in the lead-up to the 2019 federal election and beyond. Read the other pieces in the series here.

Australia has a problem with population. It’s a problem with the potential to result in enormous chaos, risking the nation’s economic well-being. And this problem is moving like an overcrowded Sydney train, careering out of control towards inevitable carnage.

Much of this population problem is of our own making: past demographic successes and policy and funding complacency have created a ticking time bomb. Politicians have struggled to manage the population problem, but no longer have the luxury of looking away.

Read more: Australia doesn’t have a population policy – why?

With the dial on public sentiment set to outrage, fuelling a population problem far removed from reality, it’s time for a reasoned consideration of the population policy needs of Australia.

An effective population policy would focus on quality of life, from the cradle to the grave. Numerous policy domains feature: education and training, health care, housing, employment, the environment, and many more.

The problem with population

Australians’ average life expectancy is among the longest in the world. Much of our longevity is thanks to medical technology and investments in childhood immunisations.

Access to birth control allows greater freedom to choose the number of children we have. Women have benefited from social change that has enabled a world outside the home and transformed traditional caring roles – although gender equality remains a work in progress.

We’ve invested in ourselves, and the investment has paid off.

But our successes have created a different demography. We’re living longer and not replacing ourselves through births. The result is a bigger bulge in the relative proportion of older people, an ageing population.

Population ageing in its own right isn’t a concern. The challenges it poses can be turned into opportunities.

Difficulties come from the balance of the population contributing income tax versus people no longer in the workforce. As government coffers get tighter, determining what should and can be funded is a challenge. For example, the education needs of young people will compete with the growing healthcare costs of older people.

If we stop immigration and let population ageing accelerate, who will pay for the increased healthcare costs? Dan HImbrechts/AAP

Immigration has featured as an important complement to natural increase (births minus deaths) as a way to offset the shortfall in the workforce resulting from population ageing, as well as enriching our multicultural nation.

Australia’s policy response to the challenge of an ageing population have been inadequate. In the absence of any coherent policy, the nation’s economy has come to rely on a quasi-population policy. Governments use an immigration ceiling as the lever over time to respond to workforce needs stemming from demographic pressures.

Immigration is the easiest of the demographic levers to pull. But focusing solely on immigration as an approach to population policy undermines the suite of issues that comprise the full population puzzle.

How Australia grows

Australia has grown at a higher rate than most OECD countries. Overall population size, age structure and density, and a country’s stage of economic development are factors that help explain this.

An obsession with the rate of growth has plagued public discourse and pressured decision-makers to bow to populist fears. An example is cutting immigration intake contrary to the evidence.

Latest data show Australia’s population grew by 1.6% in the 12 months to June 2018. This growth was comprised of 153,800 people from natural increase and 236,700 people from net overseas migration.

Population growth, and demography generally, is seen as an inevitable thing: destiny. Demography as destiny appears to have been the motivator for successive Australian governments to simply shut their eyes to the issues of population growth.

Where people live across Australia has become a major focus, particularly in the main destinations for immigrants: Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. Concerns have been raised about inadequate infrastructure in our main cities.

Population policy solutions

A coherent whole-of-government population policy is a priority for Australia’s government.

Population policy is too often overlooked because, let’s face it, it’s hard. But solving the population problem is crucial to Australia moving forward without the presently inevitable train crash.

Population policy isn’t just about population growth, distribution and change. Education and employment, healthcare, transport, housing and the environment must feature in a joined-up approach to population policy.

Effective population policy would be to set a blueprint for the future of what we want and should be, then mapping milestones to ensure we’re tracking against the aims. This requires significant commitment and transformation in government and in public sentiment – no easy feat.

There is no need for an overall population target, or growth target. The current immigration intake ceiling is about right. If anything, immigration could be increased.

Read more: Migration helps balance our ageing population – we don’t need a moratorium

Policy must engage the people

The first steps toward a solution for Australia involves taking back the narrative of population, from problematising to problem-solving. We all have a role. The focus needs to be on advancing a fair Australia by creating opportunities out of the challenges of population ageing. That means investing in Australians (locals and migrants) to live quality lives.

Quality of life is one thing that unites all Australians, regardless of whether they’re pro-immigration or not. This is how all Australians can be appealed to in order to gain buy-in from the electorate. Commitment from politicians to avoid divisive practices could be harnessed through innovation narratives.

Public engagement with the process of making opportunities of population ageing challenges could be achieved through a program similar to the Challenge of Change campaign. Ideally, such an undertaking would not be partisan.

The Challenge of Change was an attempt to get Australians to engage with the 2015 Intergenerational Report, but partisan aspects of the campaign caused controversy.

In the medium term Australia needs to plan for growth, even if immigration were to be cut. Accommodating population growth is about planning, including adequate funding. Healthy, prosperous communities and cities across Australia require adequate investment in essential infrastructure.

Sending migrants to regional areas and imposing punitive measures if they try to leave is not the answer. Cities are the main receivers of migration because this is where most of the population lives, and thus where the opportunities exist.

Read more: Migrants are stopping regional areas from shrinking

Australia must have strong global cities. To this end transportation, housing, employment and education in the major cities should continue to be built upon. At the same time, promoting regional living for overseas migrants and locals is a worthwhile endeavour if essential infrastructure is adequate.

Population is ultimately a bunch of people with aspirations and dreams trying to find their way. We just need the leadership.

– ref. Solving the ‘population problem’ through policy – http://theconversation.com/solving-the-population-problem-through-policy-110970

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Garrick, Senior Lecturer, Business Law, Charles Darwin University

Former federal trade minister Andrew Robb says he has quit his A$880,000-a-year consultancy job with Chinese-owned Landbridge Group because it didn’t have anything for him do.

Former Victorian premier John Brumby says he has quit as a director of Chinese tech giant Huawei in Australia because he has too much else to do.

Former federal foreign minister and ex-NSW premier Bob Carr has quit his job as director of the Australia-China Relations Institute, an organisation bankrolled by a Chinese billionaire with a history of using donations to cosy up to politicians.

It might be just a coincidence that these decisions have come just days before new foreign influence transparency laws come into effect on March 1.

The new laws are supposed to make visible the “nature, level and extent of foreign influence on Australia’s government and political process”. There is more than enough evidence that greater transparency is needed. But the extent to which the new rules will achieve this is questionable.

Andrew Robb with Bob Carr at an Australia China Relations Institute seminar in 2015. Jeremy Piper/AAP

Money talks

Federal parliament passed the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act (FITS) in December. The Act obliges individuals to register if they act on behalf of “foreign principals” – be they governments, government-related entities, political organisations or government-related individuals.

Failing to apply for (or renew) registration, providing false and misleading information or destroying records may lead to a prison term of up to six years for individuals and fines of A$88,200 for companies.

Registrable activities include:

• parliamentary and political lobbying on behalf of a foreign principal
• communications activities for the purpose of political or government influence
• employment or activities of former cabinet ministers.

An example of the latter is Andrew Robb.

In February 2016 Robb resigned as federal trade minister and announced he would not recontest his seat. He left parliament in July. Three months later he had his new job, getting paid way more than the prime minister as a consultant to the Landbridge Group.

Read more: View from The Hill: Would Landbridge be on or off the government’s register of foreign interests?

It is always instructive to note the first jobs taken by politicians after they leave parliament. Those appointments generally reflect relationships already well-groomed.

Landbridge is a privately owned Chinese company, but like many Chinese companies has strong ties to the ruling Chinese Communist Party. Its substantial interests in petrochemicals and ports includes a 99-year lease over the Darwin port, which is considered of strategic importance in China’s diplomatic dance with the United States.

Qualitative differences

China isn’t the only foreign power interested in having influence in Australia, of course. Historical ties have meant that Britain once dictated Australia’s foreign policy. Since World War II the United States has had almost as much power.

Now China, Australia’s largest trading partner, taking about 30% of our exports, looms large. But the power exercised by the Chinese regime is qualitatively different.

For all its economic liberalisation since the death of Mao Zedong in 1976, China remains a one party state, with repression worsening under Xi Jinping. On freedom of the the press, for example, China ranks 176 out of 180 countries.

Commercial, military and political influences are wrapped up together. Lines between state and private enterprises are blurred. When Chinese business interests curry favour with foreign politicians and officials, there’s a high chance that statecraft is also being advanced. “Soft power” is used extensively.

Sam Dastyari announces his resignation from federal parliament at a press conference on December 12, 2017. Ben Rushton/AAP

Agent of influence

This is what made the tawdry scandal involving former NSW senator Sam Dastyari so alarming.

Though a humble senator, Dastyari was a key Labor Party fundraiser and powerbroker. He later admitted that vanity and arrogance made him susceptible to the charm offensive of Huang Xiangmo – the billionaire who courted Bob Carr to head up the Australia-China Relations Institute.

Dastyari accepted financial gifts from Huang’s company, including a A$44,000 payment to settle a legal dispute, along with payments from other donors connected to the Chinese Communist Party.

Read more: The foreign donations bill will soon be law – what will it do, and why is it needed?

Such payments made it obvious why he defied his own party’s policy and defended China’s militant stance in the South China Sea. He was subsequently labelled a Chinese “agent of influence”.

These revelations resulted in Dastyari resigning from parliament in 2017. Earlier this month it was revealed the federal government had rejected Huang’s bid to become an Australian citizen and stripped him of his permanent residency visa.

Read more: Why do we keep turning a blind eye to Chinese political interference?

On the basis of these examples highlighted above, there’s a strong case for making influence peddling open and transparent.

Whether the new laws can achieve that is another matter. They may curtail flagrant scenarios where those leaving public office sell their wares to the highest bidder. But to work effectively, the laws and their enforcers will need to constantly adapt and evolve as agents look for creative ways to wield influence from the shadows.

– ref. New laws can shine light on foreign influence, but agents will remain in the shadows – http://theconversation.com/new-laws-can-shine-light-on-foreign-influence-but-agents-will-remain-in-the-shadows-112403

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julian Meyrick, Professor of Creative Arts, Flinders University

“This”, the Chicago Tribune critic reminds us on the billboard of seemingly every tram stop in Melbourne, “is why we go to the theatre”. Before killjoy wags respond – “to see a stage version of a film version of a book series popular 15 years ago?” – it is worth knowing the genealogy of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, the theatrical spectacular that has opened at Marriner’s Princess Theatre and could run until the next millennium.

That genealogy may not be noble, but it is old. It has little to do with wizards and spells per se, though these have made solid appearances over the centuries. It is not a genre or a stage style. Nor is it culturally-specific, since it can be found in the pasts of many nations. It exists as a phenomenon in its own right.

It is, of course, The Big Show, and before its stentorian rhetoric (“the most awarded production of the Broadway season”) and promises of visual superfluity (“the sets, the scene changes, the costume, actual magic”) rational thinking bends its knee, and die-hard Potter fans stow dissatisfaction with its narrative presumptions (“Harry as an adult?”).

Theatre has its reason that reason does not know. When it pulls out all its scenic, choreographic and performative stops, who can resist, even at up to $A175 a ticket?

The Australian company of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. Photo Matt Murphy

Ancient Rome and all that

The writer Apuleius described a scene from The Judgement of Paris, staged in the first century CE:

There was a hill of wood, similar to that famous mountain which the poet Homer called Ida. It was fashioned as a lofty structure, planted with foliage and live trees, from the highest peak of which a flowing stream ran from an artificial fountain. A few goats grazed upon the grass. Then… through a concealed pipe, there burst on high saffron mixed with wine which, falling in a perfumed rain upon the goats, changed their white hair to a fairer shade of yellow. And with the entire theatre sweetly scented, an opening in the ground swallowed up the wooden hill.

The ancient Romans did not invent The Big Show, but they brought it into purpose-built venues. The Theatre of Pompey (55 BCE), one of the first, had an auditorium 500 feet in diameter and seats for 18,000 people.

Productions used crane-like mechane, thunder boxes, rope systems, trapdoors, and complicated pegma, or flying machines. (One unfortunate actor came loose from his harness during an enactment of the Icarus myth, and hit the floor so close to Nero he splattered the Emperor’s clothes with blood).

Jan Goeree: A Reconstruction of the Theatre of Pompey (before 1704). Wikimedia Commons

Ancient Greek tragedy with its speechifying family dramas (The Oresteia) and worthy plays about the refugee crisis (The Trojan Woman) could not compete, and faded from the repertoire. The bitter struggle between The Small Show and The Big Show has been going on ever since.

Masque costume Wikimedia Commons

Over the last 2000 years, the latter has taken many and impressive forms. There were Medieval mystery plays, with their beautifully decorated maisons and whole towns given over to extravagant recreations of bible stories, and Jacobean Court masques, with intricate designs by the architect Inigo Jones; eye-popping, 18th-century perspective scenery, with families like the Bibiennas dedicated to painting extravagant Baroque trompe l’oeil; and the actor-managers of the 19th century who, as the theatre ticked into a new fascination with realism, cast children dressed as adults and placed them at the back of vast stages to heighten the audience’s sense of distance.

The 20th century saw more than its fair share of epic theatrical spectacle. One proponent was Austrian director Max Reinhart. His extravaganza, The Miracle, was presented in London in 1911 before a pole-axed audience of 30,000, with a multi-national cast of principals, and 1,800 extras. Glen Byam Shaw who played the part of a cripple miraculously cured described its monumentality:

I was brought in on a stretcher, supposedly completely paralysed, and laid out on the front of the main stage. The priest started chanting prayers, and this was taken up by the whole cast, number 250 people. It grew louder and louder. At a certain point I started to move my arms very slowly, and then to drag myself off the stretcher and crawl along the floor… I reached the steps leading to the niche where the Madonna was standing. I struggled up them… gave an agonised cry, and was restored to health… Then the whole crowd cheered, and the orchestra and choir burst out into a hymn of praise.

Big Show, Big Risk

Such productions are obviously costly. For most of their existence they have been possible only through imperial, Church or royal patronage. Patronage is still a factor – think of the millions governments pump into Olympic Games ceremonies today – but in the last 200 years commercial theatre has claimed The Big Show for its own. Ticket sales have replaced treasury gold, and market considerations have edged out political ones.

Print for a 1907 J.C. Williamson production of A Country Girl. Wikimedia Commons

In Australia, the entrepreneurial genius of J.C. Williamson fashioned a vast conveyor belt transferring theatrical product from Britain to Australia for the purposes of having fun and making money (or making money from having fun). The key, as with Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, was franchising.

In the 1880s, Williamson bought the license to perform Gilbert and Sullivan operettas in Australasia, and his fortune was made. But in theatre, as in cake baking, luck doesn’t last forever. By 1975, the Williamson empire was on its last legs, and it looked to be over for commercial theatre in Australia.

Instead, taxpayer subsided companies became the major purveyors of professional live performance, later joined by a sprouting of international arts festivals. The Big Show survived the transition, though in an art-ified way, absorbed into a different style of programming.

The Sydney Theatre Company’s production of Nicholas Nickleby in 1984 is sometimes considered to be the moment when state theatres, previously dedicated to classics, George Bernard Shaw, and the odd Australian play, took a Big Show turn.

Since then The Big Show has hovered uneasily between a rump commercial sector (Harry Miller, Michael Edgley, Gordon Frost etc.) and state company seasons, especially the STC and MTC, who have pockets long enough to compete in the major musicals market. Broad appeal productions have become increasingly important in an era of declining government subsidy, so commercial and non-commercial theatre have drifted closer in sensibility and offerings as a consequence.

Depending on your view this is a step towards accessibility or a rank betrayal of art. One thing is certain: Big Shows impose big strains on budgets, and when they tank, they leave holes in which Small Shows disappear.

And beyond the financial issues, lie aesthetic considerations. As this brief history suggests, The Big Show’s strength is meeting expectations, not subverting them, while its proclivities are the visual and spectacular, not the verbal and intellectual.

It has its place, but its dominance in the marketplace can be oppressive. Williamson’s empire ruled Australian theatre for nearly 100 years. It was not an especially impressive reign.

Harry Potter and The Cursed Child, however, is the brainchild of overseas producers and occupies a dedicated commercial theatre venue in the Princess (one of Williamson’s, built in 1886, with a retractable roof, currently unused, alas. It is unlikely to complete with small-scale interpretive dance productions on global warming, or outdoor revivals of Attic tragedy.

It will be amazing, and incredible, and have stage effects in it that people will talk about for years and years. Until the next Big Show, in fact.

And that will be the real magic.

– ref. The Cursed Child is the latest in a line of Big Shows that date back to the Romans – http://theconversation.com/the-cursed-child-is-the-latest-in-a-line-of-big-shows-that-date-back-to-the-romans-112394

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Singleton, Associate Professor of Sociology and Social Research, Deakin University

In January, I met up with an old family friend. He’s a lifelong Catholic who goes to Mass every week. He had no idea Cardinal George Pell’s trial was already done. Not as tech-savvy as some, he hadn’t caught up with the recent, open reporting from several international Catholic and other news agencies about Pell’s fate.

We talked about Pell’s poor public image, damaged by his demeanour at the Royal Commission, the seeming mean-heartedness of the Melbourne Response, his accompanying of Gerald Ridsdale into court.

Confronted with news about Pell’s guilt, my friend was shocked but had little sympathy for the cardinal. He then proceeded to tell me about the arrogance and aloofness of his local bishop. None of this, however, has led my friend to abandon his religious faith, despite enduring terrible revelations over more than two decades.

A lot will be written in the next while about what Pell’s conviction means, how Pope Francis will respond to this, and the wider crisis of sexual abuse. Already, a few steps have been taken to address the issue more systematically, the most recent of which is a meeting of senior clerics in the Vatican last week. Church critics and victims of sexual assault have already argued this is not enough.

What about Australian Catholics? How will Pell’s conviction affect them? We’re often told how disheartened and disillusioned the laity has become. That Cardinal Pell, as Vatican treasurer, is the most senior Catholic official to be found guilty may not affect ordinary Australian Catholics more than earlier scandals. But his seniority at the Vatican will place Pope Francis under more pressure than ever before. This is global news, and it’s being covered as such.

The damage has already been done. For decades now, instances of sexual abuse perpetrated by priests have been reported widely, and priests have been defrocked and prosecuted.

Thousands of Australian Catholics have stopped attending church in recent decades. Research conducted more than a decade ago suggests sexual abuse scandals and disagreement with the Church’s moral teachings play a part in their decision to leave.

Among those who continue to identify as Catholic, the majority remain only marginally committed to their denomination. This is especially so among the present generation of Catholic teens. The AGZ Survey, a recent national survey of Australians aged 13 to 18, found less than a fifth of Catholic teens attend Mass regularly. Even fewer (13%) think religious faith is important to their daily life.

Read more: New research shows Australian teens have complex views on religion and spirituality

Furthermore, Australian Catholic teens express views that are at odds with official church teaching. For instance, 86% agree “secondary schools should allow students to openly express any sexual or gender orientation” and 85% support marriage equality. It’s hard to envisage how Pell’s fall from grace could do anything but further entrench the disconnection between young Catholics and the Catholic hierarchy.

Others, typically older Catholics, like my friend, have stayed more engaged. Seeking to effect reform and change from within, the church owes them a debt of gratitude for staying true. It may be harder for the younger generations. A decade ago, I watched a group of committed Catholic teens conduct a role-playing exercise on how to reach out to nominal Catholics. One of the things they discussed at length was how to deal with tough questions about “paedo [paedophile] priests”. Witnessing them negotiate this challenge, something not of their making, was sobering.

So far, much of the Catholic hierarchy’s response to the sexual abuse crisis (including cover-ups) has been reactive, responding to secular processes such as royal commissions and criminal trials. The recent summit called by Pope Francis has been widely criticised for being long on talk and low on change. The Vatican has long turned inward and protected its own.

Read more: Why it’s so hard to hold priests accountable for sex abuse

In the 1960s, the Catholic Church held a series of formal meetings, called Vatican II, that modernised one of the west’s oldest and most powerful institutions. This took place over three years and was characterised by acknowledgement that radical change from within was required.

It’s time for an equally searching investigation, one that produces genuine reform. It demands changes to Canon law, doctrine and practice, characterised by an accountability to and understanding of the world outside the church.

Ask rank-and-file Catholics what this would entail, especially young ones, and you hear about a desire for priests being allowed to marry, modern attitudes to contraception, the ordination of women and greater empowerment of the laity. Only then can the church and its people properly move forward.

– ref. After Pell, the Catholic Church must undergo genuine reform – http://theconversation.com/after-pell-the-catholic-church-must-undergo-genuine-reform-112511

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Douglas, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Western Australia

Cardinal George Pell, Australia’s most-senior Catholic, one of the most powerful Catholics in the world and a man once praised by Tony Abbott as a “fine man”, molested two choirboys in the 1990s.

On 11 December 2018, a jury found Pell guilty of one charge of sexually penetrating a child under the age of 16, as well as four charges of an indecent act with a child under the age of 16. He did this when he was Archbishop of Melbourne. The incidents took place at St Patrick’s Cathedral.

The verdict and the proceedings that led to it were subject to blanket ban suppression orders, which prohibited any reporting on proceedings involving Pell. Today those orders were lifted.

But today’s story has been a long time coming.

In December, a number of Australia’s leading news organisations published headlines about the Pell verdict without mentioning him by name. They referred to “the nation’s biggest story” while carefully, yet begrudgingly, providing no details.

Less reputable corners of the internet were spilling the beans too. #Pell was trending on Twitter and on the front page of Reddit in Australia.

An Australian could easily find foreign news coverage of the matter on Google. So what’s the point of the suppression order at all?

The Pell trials

The verdict came after a trial, which was described as the “cathedral trial”, in Victoria’s County Court.

An earlier 2018 trial on the same charges as the cathedral trial resulted in a hung jury. The retrial began in November and the conviction followed in December.

Pell was also facing a separate jury trial – known as the “swimmers trial” – in respect to different events. That trial would have dealt with alleged child sexual offences at a swimming pool in Ballarat in the 1970s.

Last Friday, evidence prosecutors were relying on for the swimmers trial was deemed inadmissible. As a result, the swimmers trial will now not proceed.

Read more: Why the public isn’t allowed to know specifics about the George Pell case

The end of the swimmers trial means the suppression orders are no longer needed. But there is still information that hasn’t been made public.

We still don’t know the identity of a survivor of Pell’s crimes whose evidence was key to Pell’s conviction in the cathedral trial. Through his lawyer, that man has asked for privacy. He deserves it. Sadly, the other former choirboy died in 2014.

The tension between the survivor’s position, and the public’s interest in understanding the full horror of Pell’s crimes and hypocrisy, demonstrates how Australian law strikes a balance between open justice and other values.

Open justice and suppression orders

The principle of open justice is summed up by the idea that “justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done”. It is a fundamental principle of our legal system.

But it is not an absolute principle. Courts have various powers to depart from open justice by closing proceedings to the public, concealing information from those present in court, or by prohibiting or otherwise restricting publication of material.

A “suppression order” is a kind of court order that prevents people from reporting on court proceedings. In Pell’s case, the suppression orders were made under section 17 and section 18(1)(a) of Victoria’s Open Courts Act 2013.

The court decided it was “necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice that [could not] be prevented by other reasonably available means”.

Read more: When a fair trial could be at risk, suppression is the order of the day

A misconception is that the suppression orders were sought to protect Pell’s reputation, or that of the Catholic Church. Although that may have been an indirect result of the suppression orders, that is not why they were made.

The orders were sought by the prosecutors to protect the integrity of the swimmers trial.

They were made under legislation from Victoria. Other parts of Australia deal with open justice differently. But courts in every state have principles that share the common value that the administration of justice may justify suppressing information in certain cases.

A fundamental democratic value is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Media reporting on Pell’s case may have resulted in “prejudicial publicity”, undermining the neutrality of the jury system, and so undermining the integrity of a conviction.

The concern was that reporting of the cathedral trial by the media would have had the effect of prejudicing the impartiality of the jury in the subsequent swimmers trial (were it to go ahead).

An unusual case?

In Victoria, blanket ban suppression orders are often made when an accused is facing multiple criminal trials. In this sense, the Pell suppression orders were not unusual. However, such orders appear to be less common in other Australian jurisdictions.

Today’s story for a long-time coming. STEFAN POSTLES/AAP

In a recent judgment of the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, Nationwide News Pty Limited v Qaumi, it was observed that a back-to-back trial is an “exceptional case”. Nevertheless, in rare circumstances, the continued suppression of information of a first trial might be justified to protect a second trial.

The outrage surrounding the Pell suppression orders should be understood against this backdrop. But there are still things to be concerned about.

The public should be told why this case was suppressed

Given the current misconceptions about the purpose of the suppression orders in the Pell trials, the public ought to be provided with a set of written reasons explaining why the court decided they were justified.

Courts have a duty to provide reasons for their decisions. This duty flows from the principle of open justice.

The public is more likely to have confidence in an open and transparent system of justice. The rule of law works best if society believes the law is being applied fairly.

The court’s written reasons for suppression in the Pell trials – if they exist – should be easily available to the public to aid their understanding of this case.

Suppression in the digital age

Journalists who ignored the court’s order now face serious consequences. They could be “found in contempt” for disobeying the court. It has been reported as many as 100 journalists are in the firing line.

A person found guilty of contempt could face imprisonment, or fines, or both. Recent experience suggests Australian courts are willing to flex their muscles over people who disobey suppression orders. For instance, in 2017, blogger Shane Dowling was sent to jail for refusing to remove identifying information about alleged affairs.

But Australian courts, like those of other places, do not have authority over the entire world. The court’s jurisdiction – its “authority to decide” – is limited by geography. In a practical sense, Australian courts don’t have authority over foreign journalists based overseas. Enforcement of an order against international media organisations without a presence in Australia would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Read more: You wouldn’t read about it: Adrian Bayley rape trials expose flaw in suppression orders

Where an order can’t be backed up with a threat of physical force, you might call it futile. Such orders have been called “paper tigers”. To put it another way: a court should not bark unless it can bite.

The Pell trials illustrate how attempts by courts to control the dissemination of news in Australia may be rendered futile by foreign press, social media, and old-fashioned word of mouth.

As one journalist said:

The idea that one judge in a Melbourne court could really define what the world can read about a figure of such global significance I think is a real shock to the world.

However, it is rare for an Australian suppression order to be rendered futile by the global media market. Most cases where suppression orders are granted are only of interest to local media. Media organisations generally comply with these orders and the vast majority are effective.

In this case, although it was a pain in the neck for journalists, arguably, the suppression order achieved its purpose. The sanctity of Pell’s swimmers trial was protected. Every Australian should be entitled to a fair trial.

Going forward

The laws that suppressed Pell’s guilty verdict are under review. Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews vowed to overhaul the state’s approach to suppression orders, implementing many recommendations of a recent review of the 2013 Open Courts Act.

Although other states don’t share Victoria’s act, it would be sensible for the whole of Australia to revisit the circumstances in which courts prohibit access to information and hold individuals in contempt. Courts should be open as much as possible.

Political philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, once wrote that “publicity is the very soul of justice”. The message echoes in 2019 with the slogan, “Democracy Dies in the Darkness”. Now that Pell’s guilt is out in the open, we can finally see that justice has been done.

– ref. We knew George Pell was guilty of child sex abuse. Why couldn’t we say it until now? – http://theconversation.com/we-knew-george-pell-was-guilty-of-child-sex-abuse-why-couldnt-we-say-it-until-now-112521

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tracy Comans, NHMRC Boosting Dementia Research Leadership Fellow, The University of Queensland

During the first round of hearings in the aged care royal commission, we heard many Australians would prefer to receive help at home than move into an aged care facility.

This will not solve all the problems in the aged care system, but it can be possible for eligible older Australians to stay living at home rather than enter an aged care facility via the provision of a “home care package”. The Coalition government has announced funding for 40,000 new home care packages over the last year.

The term “home care package” refers to a fixed amount of money allocated by the federal government to an older person to provide services which will enable them to continue to live independently. The amount of money provided depends on the person’s needs, as assessed by an independent assessment agency.

The person does not receive the cash in hand. Rather, they are allocated a code which they take to an approved service provider who they work with to decide how the money is going to be spent.

Read more: We’ve had 20 aged care reviews in 20 years – will the royal commission be any different?

There are a fixed number of home care packages available. This means a person may be assessed as needing a package but must wait in a national queue, managed by My Aged Care, until a package is allocated to them.

As of June 30 2018, 91,847 people had a home care package managed by one of almost 900 providers. Close to 70,000 people remain on the waiting list.

What support is available?

Most people start using aged care services when they need just one or two services. These might include cleaning, help with showering, or basic home maintenance such as changing light bulbs and installing a raised toilet seat. Services could also include help with shopping and meal preparation, and some allied health services such as physiotherapy.

This entry level of support is provided through the Commonwealth Home Support Programme (CHSP), which 783,043 people accessed last financial year.

Older people may benefit from the assistance of a family member or friend when registering for their home care package. From shutterstock.com

When a person’s needs change and they require more than one or two services, need additional help coordinating the care they receive, or have more complex needs, they may be eligible for a home care package.

There are four package levels that reflect the spectrum of care needs. A level 1 package is for those with the lowest care needs, and level 4 the highest.

How can someone access these services?

Access to all home support services or home care packages is through My Aged Care, the government portal. A person might be referred through a hospital or their GP. They can also contact My Aged Care directly, or have a family member or other trusted person do so on their behalf.

Registration can be done online or by phone. This can be challenging if people don’t have access to the internet at home or are not digitally literate. And for people with cognitive or physical conditions that limit their ability to communicate, the system can be difficult to navigate.

It’s important that a person who needs help nominates a trusted person who can manage the process; ideally a close family member or friend. They will assist with the assessment process, choosing a quality provider and selecting services that are best suited to their loved one’s needs.

Read more: Seven steps to help you choose the right home care provider

The complexity of navigating the current system means agents or brokers have entered the market. Some recruit older people by door knocking or dropping leaflets, offering to act on their behalf. These people may charge large commissions for their work.

It’s important to be on the lookout for what sound like good deals such as “free packages” with no contribution from the consumer. These are often inferior products that deliver very little in actual support for the person.

The provisions of a home care package might include installing equipment, such as hand rails, in the person’s home. From shutterstock.com

Who is eligible?

A CHSP assessment will be conducted by a regional assessment team. If you are assessed as needing higher care, an Aged Care Assessment Team (ACAT) will then assess your eligibility for home care packages and residential care. The assessors are usually nursing or allied health professionals who are trained to assess care needs according to the government guidelines.

Read more: FactCheck: is the Coalition spending ‘$1 billion extra, every year’ on aged care?

They will do a comprehensive assessment of the person’s cognition and physical capacity to manage at home. This will allow the assessor to understand the person’s needs and recommend what type of services would be best suited to support them, such as physiotherapy or personal care.

They will also take into account personal preferences and informal care levels, such as care by family members, friends or even neighbours who help with shopping, cleaning and other tasks.

Someone with a lower functional level and greater needs may receive less funding support than someone functioning at a higher level due to differences in the care available to them.

After an aged care package has been approved, they will be placed in the queue for their approved package level. Once a place is available, the person can nominate a provider to co-ordinate their care.

Care needs will be negotiated with the provider and a plan will be developed. The provider may deliver some or all of the care needs or broker other providers if they don’t have those services, or if the person wants a different provider. They may have a local podiatrist they already use, for example, and want to keep seeing that person to receive care under their package.

What is each package worth?

Packages range from A$8,250 a year for a level 1 package to A$50,250 for a level 4 package, as seen in the table below.

Anyone receiving a package is expected to provide a co-contribution that is fixed at 17.5% of the single aged pension (currently A$10.43 a day or A$3,807 a year). This can be waived for hardship.

Beware admin and exit fees

Managing a package requires administration and case co-ordination. But administration fees are currently not transparent. Providers have been able to charge what they feel is appropriate, which has made it very difficult for consumers to compare different fees.

The government is instituting new rules from July 1 2019 to increase transparency and accountability.

A person can change provider at any time. But providers are able to charge exit fees (although not all do) so it’s important to understand the fees and charges – and what you’re agreeing to – before signing any contracts.

As of September 30 2018, the average maximum exit amount was A$232 and 42% percent of providers stated they would not deduct any exit fee.

You’re on the list, now what?

Waiting times have become a key issue with some people waiting lengthy periods for a package to become available. The royal commission heard current waiting times are be between 18 and 24 months.

While waiting for a home care package, a person can receive entry level support through the Commonwealth Home Support Programme, or may have the option to take up a lower level interim package if one is available.

Two criteria determine how long someone will have to wait: length of time in the queue and urgency of need. A person is assessed as high priority if they would be at high risk of absolute crisis without support. So those with the highest needs should receive a package sooner.

Read more: Aged care royal commission benefits Generation X: it’s too late for the silent generation

– ref. Explainer: what is a home care package and who is eligible? – http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-home-care-package-and-who-is-eligible-112405