Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin Harrington, Senior Lecturer in English and Cultural Studies, University of Canterbury

The premiere episode of Game of Thrones prequel House of the Dragon, The Heirs of the Dragon, establishes its central themes of gender and power in a bloody fashion. Its shocking depiction of a fatal cesarean birth is notable for its brutality – but also for how it reflects on histories of pregnant representation and reproductive politics.

The series dramatises a civil war in which factions of the Targaryen family fight for the Iron Throne of Westeros. As we start, young Princess Rhaenyra (Emma D’Arcy) has been overlooked by her father, King Viserys (Paddy Consedine). He desires a male heir, even as queen consort Aemma (Sian Brooke) suffers through stillbirths and miscarriages.

We quickly see how women are at the mercy of men’s decisions. “Here you are surrounded by attendants all focused on the babe – someone must attend to you”, says Rhaenyra to her heavily pregnant mother. “This discomfort is how we serve the realm”, Aemma replies; “The childbed is our battlefield”.

The king calls a tournament to celebrate the impending birth of what he hopes will be a male heir. Violent, rhythmic scenes showing knights jousting and bludgeoning each other to a bloody pulp are crosscut with upsetting images of Aemma’s labour.

Brutality and betrayal

Showrunner Miguel Sapochnik, speaking with the Los Angeles Times, notes that as with Game of Thrones’ battles, each birth on this show will explore a theme. This theme was “torture”.

The baby is breech, and the labour difficult. A male doctor tells the king that fathers must make impossible choices. Viserys quietly approves a plan to cut the baby out, in the hope that it is a boy.

It is a terrible betrayal: he holds Aemma’s hand while she is restrained and sliced open. She bleeds to death – and her newborn son only lives a short while. It is a shocking depiction of the world’s priorities.

Read more:
Game of Thrones prequel House of the Dragon confirms there will be no sexual violence on screen. Here’s why that’s important

Pregnancy in visual culture

Beyond its brutality, the scene illustrates vividly changes to the visibility of pregnancy in visual culture.

Throughout most of the 20th century, pregnancy and birth were largely invisible in visual media. Pregnancy was deemed private and domestic, even vulgar. Notably, scenes of childbirth were banned and pregnancy deemed taboo in Hollywood films from 1927-68, thanks to various censorship regimes. Later, pregnant actors in television series would be written out, or have their bodies hidden through costuming or editing.

Now, images of pregnancy and childbirth are significantly more visible and varied. A watershed moment came in 1991 when Annie Leibovitz’s impactful (and controversial) portrait of Demi Moore – naked, beatific, and 7 months pregnant – graced the front cover of Vanity Fair. It challenged the notion that pregnant bodies should be hidden.

More recently, British series such as historical drama Call the Midwife and the docu-drama One Born Every Minute, and American film Tully, have foregrounded female-led emotional and realistic representations of pregnancy and birth.

Pregnancies are more likely to be written in, not out, of television series. We have also seen the slow rise of sexy maternity fashion that shows off one’s “baby bump”, recently exemplified by singer and entrepreneur Rihanna’s boundary-pushing outfits. The overt images of Aemma’s pregnant body sit within this cultural shift.

Read more:
Madness, miscarriages and incest: as in House of the Dragon, real-life royal families have seen it all throughout history

Monstrous births and bodily autonomy

But this scene’s graphic nature is unusual in mainstream media. Instead, it resonates with the long history of monstrous births in science fiction and horror.

These genres offer a subversive language with which to explore reproductive anxieties openly. The paranoia and gaslighting in Rosemary’s Baby (1968), the chest-bursting scene in Alien (1979), the gruesome forced caesarean in A’ l’Interieur (2007), and the maternal dread in Mother! (2017) all illustrate fears about embodiment, maternity and personhood.

The content and tone of this scene, and its place as an inciting incident within the series’ narrative, also reflects contemporary issues regarding women’s bodily autonomy. These speak to widespread cultural tensions about the competing rights of the adult and the unborn.

This is an issue everywhere, but currently has particular political resonance in the United States in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade. This has quickly opened the doors to oppressive bans on abortion in some US states, even in cases where a pregnancy endangers the life of the mother.

At its most conservative and adversarial, this positions female reproductive bodies as little more than vessels. This misogynistic position suggests that an unborn person has more of a right to life than an adult subject, and that a woman does not have the right to make choices about her own life and body. It is dehumanising.

House of the Dragon dramatises this dynamic in the context of a deeply patriarchal system that is in ways not that far removed form our own. A war of succession is prompted because a society can’t countenance the idea of a woman taking the throne.

In a show that is interested in exploring the dynamics of gender and power through the lens of medieval fantasy, the conflict is not just that of ambitious uncle against powerful niece, but whether a woman has a right to be more than a womb.

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

– ref. Torturous births in House of the Dragon dramatise the question of whether women deserve to be more than just a womb – https://theconversation.com/torturous-births-in-house-of-the-dragon-dramatise-the-question-of-whether-women-deserve-to-be-more-than-just-a-womb-189529

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Barrett, Associate Professor in Commercial Law and Taxation, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Tax has again become an election issue, more than 12 months before voters go to the polls. Part of the current debate centres around tax brackets and whether the current cut-off points are fair.

New Zealand’s income tax system uses progressive rates. Higher slices of income are taxed at higher rates. Every dollar earned up to NZ$14,000 is taxed at 10.5%. Income above that level is progressively taxed higher until the final tax rate of 39% applies to every dollar earned over $180,000.

“Fiscal drag”, sometimes known as “bracket creep”, occurs when an increase in a taxpayer’s income takes their highest slice of income into a higher tax bracket without an increase in real income. This often happens when wages rise to compensate for inflation but tax bands are not adjusted.

The return of inflation

Addressing fiscal drag was an important policy focus in the last decades of the 20th century as countries tried to manage persistent inflation. But since 2000, most economically developed countries have experienced no or low inflation, putting fiscal drag on the back burner.

The COVID pandemic, however, led to supply chain interruptions and labour shortages. As a consequence, many countries are experiencing rates of inflation not seen for decades.

Arguments for linking income tax brackets to rising costs of living, also known as index linking, didn’t disappear in the era of low or no inflation but have recently been revived, including by the National Party.

While fiscal drag could be considered tax increase by stealth, when the Tax Working Group delivered its final report in 2019 the authors noted that “whether fiscal drag is of sufficient concern is a value judgement”.

Responding to fiscal fiscal drag

While the decision to address fiscal drag may be a value judgement, it’s worth understanding what it is and why successive governments have not fixed what intuitively appears to be an unfairness in the tax system.

Governments have long relied on inflation to reduce the real value of government debt. This allows them to take advantage of fiscal drag in times of economic rebuilding – notably when debt is high in comparison with gross domestic product, as they are now in many countries (though not currently in New Zealand).

However, if a government considers fiscal drag to be of sufficient concern, the most direct ways of overcoming the problem are to have a flat rate of income tax or to link tax brackets to an inflation measure, such as a consumer price index.

Read more:
Inflation is 2022’s boogeyman. How can we address rising living costs, while helping bring it down?

A flat rate of income tax would skew the overall tax system away from the usual expectation of ability to pay, with the wealthy benefiting the most. But index linking is, in effect, a tax cut that reduces a government’s capacity to provide public services.

The National-led government of John Key considered changing tax bands but recognised this would affect the funding of public services. In effect, they opted for fiscal drag. At the same time, Key’s government increased the rate of GST. If consumers keep spending during periods of rising inflation, the government’s GST take will also increase.

Current revenue minister David Parker has a different approach. He opposes readjustment of tax brackets in favour of identifying untaxed income, although it’s not obvious these are mutually exclusive.

Focusing on the middle

Different taxpayers are affected differently by tax increases, including fiscal drag. While many people will focus on their marginal tax rate – the tax rate paid on every extra dollar they earn – the focus should lie with average tax paid.

Let’s take the example of Anna who earns an income of $48,000. Her salary puts her right at the upper limit of the $14,000–$48,000 tax bracket. Her marginal tax rate is 17.5% but her average tax rate is 15.46%. If she receives a 5% salary increase, her marginal tax rate will rise to 30% and her average rate will be 16.15%.

Compare this with Bella who earns an income of $65,000 – placing her under the upper limit of $70,000 for the 30% tax bracket. Her marginal rate is also 30% but her average rate is 20.76%. So, crossing a bracket threshold and having more of your income taxed in a higher band increases your average tax rate. Fiscal drag affects both.

Read more:
With their conservative promises, Labour and National lock in existing unfairness in New Zealand’s tax system

Employees have little scope for reducing their taxable income and so may be affected more than some other earners. Research into tax bunching around so-called “kink points” (income levels just below a higher tax rate) indicates that non-employees – business people and contractors – are able to manipulate their incomes to ensure they fall below a higher tax bracket.

A tradie, for example, may inflate their expenses. A company director may retain funds within the company which is taxed at a flat rate of 28%.

From a policy perspective, therefore, it’s important to understand who is most affected by fiscal drag. Such an understanding might lead to increases in lower tax bands but not higher ones.

Drag less noticeable than a tax increase

Why do many employees not seem to care about fiscal drag? Perhaps it’s because, psychologically, it doesn’t feel the same as an overt tax increase. Even if the real value of your pay decreases, the amount you take home is stable.

Conversely, index linking may not feel like a tax cut. People understand that prices are rising but they may not necessarily link inflation to their tax levels.

We may hope for full transparency on the part of government, but some obscurity is inherent in the tax system. As Louis XIV’s finance minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert once observed, “the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.”

That hissing may grow louder as taxpayers increasingly experience fiscal drag.

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

– ref. Feeling that fiscal drag? Why you could be worse off even if your pay has gone up – https://theconversation.com/feeling-that-fiscal-drag-why-you-could-be-worse-off-even-if-your-pay-has-gone-up-188287

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

For Treasurer Jim Chalmers, this week’s jobs and skills summit is the prelude to what will be his main game, the October budget.

The summit, to be held in Canberra on Thursday and Friday, still has many moving parts, notably in the intense debate we’re hearing about what changes should be made to the wages system. But Chalmers can already welcome “a broad appetite” for raising permanent migration from the present cap of 160,000.

“We’ve got these skills and labour shortages running rampant through our economy,” he says. “So we need to move on this front, as well as other fronts simultaneously – not as a substitute for doing something meaningful on skills and training, but in addition to doing that”.

He accepts that boosting immigration will impose pressures, notably on housing. “That’s why I’ve been speaking a lot in the last week or so about housing, trying to work with the super funds and other big investors to see where we can incentivise some more investment in housing.”

On skills and training, Anthony Albanese will speak to premiers on Wednesday about “some of the things we might be able to advance”.

Ahead of the summit, Chalmers has been pleasantly surprised he’s had to do less beating back demands than he’d expected. “I thought that there was a risk that I’d just be sent a whole bunch of invoices for big, expensive policy ideas and asked to sort it out.” But people had recognised the constraints of the debt situation and that everything couldn’t be funded.

So for him, “there’s been less of the saying no, and there’s been more facilitating really productive conversations.”

Looking to the budget, Chalmers says it will be “very workmanlike” and not a great surprise packet. “I think it will be a budget where people know what’s coming.”

Despite calls for the government’s childcare package to be brought forward, Chalmers says the start date will remain at July next year. Acceleration was ruled out because of expense and possible operational difficulties.

He has an “open mind” on allowing older people to work more without losing their pension but “we would need to make sure that the costs would be worth it”.

“A theme of the budget will be around resilience – at a personal level, the community level, and at the national level,” Chalmers says.

A decade of conflict and “warped priorities” has made the Australian economy and its people more vulnerable to international shocks and health shocks, he says. “So my job, as I see it, and our job as a government is to take a community and an economy and a budget which is more vulnerable than it should be and to make it more resilient.

“And that’s why implementing our commitments, providing cost of living relief, trying to get value for money in the budget, dealing with the issues in the labour market [are] all so important.”

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

– ref. Treasurer Chalmers on boosting migration and a ‘resilience’ budget – https://theconversation.com/treasurer-chalmers-on-boosting-migration-and-a-resilience-budget-189632

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rick Sarre, Emeritus Professor of Law and Criminal Justice, University of South Australia

In December 2018, former professional rugby league player and high school teacher Chris Dawson, then aged 70, was arrested and charged with murdering his wife Lynette almost forty years previously.

Today, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Justice Ian Harrison declared: “I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the only rational inference (is that) Lynette Dawson died on or about 8 January 1982 as a result of a conscious or voluntary act committed by Christopher Dawson”.

Thus he found Dawson guilty of her murder. Dawson has now had his bail revoked and has been remanded in custody pending sentence.

How did we get here?

Beyond reasonable doubt

Lynette Dawson had gone missing from her home at Bayview in Sydney’s northern beaches between January 8 and 9, 1982. Soon thereafter Chris Dawson reported the disappearance to police.

He thereafter moved his teenage lover, referred to in the trial as “JC”, into his home. They later married.

After an acrimonious divorce, JC went to police and said she believed her former husband had murdered Lynette. A police investigation began, and JC was to become a key witness against him.

Justice Harrison presided over the trial without the benefit of a jury because of a perception that the publicity in the lead up to Dawson being charged was so prejudicial that a jury could not have been able to exercise their fact-finding without bias.

The prosecution case was that Dawson murdered Lynette so he could have an “unfettered” relationship with JC whom he had met when she was a year 11 student.

Dawson’s defence counsel, Pauline David, argued, to the contrary, that there was no weapon, and nor was there any forensic or scientific evidence of any murder. She questioned how the accused could have killed his wife and carried her body out to his car when the car was parked outside.

Defence arguments are always designed to raise doubts. In this case they failed. Justice Harrison said he was persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution had made out their case.

Dawson has always maintained he was not involved with Lynette’s disappearance. Her body has never been found.

The Teacher’s Pet

What makes this case so interesting is that a journalist with The Australian, Hedley Thomas, had engaged in his own fact-finding exercise.

He was scathing of the police investigation. He published a podcast, The Teacher’s Pet, which was broadcast between May and December 2018. It reached an estimated audience of 60 million listeners in which Thomas presented evidence that he maintained pointed clearly to Dawson’s guilt.

The podcast was taken offline in 2019 to avoid prejudicing the trial and influencing potential prosecution witnesses.

Notwithstanding, Dawson’s defence team attempted, unsuccessfully as it turned out, to get a permanent “stay of proceedings” (meaning the prosecution is halted in its tracks) on the basis that the podcast was so prejudicial that their client would not be able to get a fair trial.

Indeed, Thomas had been criticised for his extrajudicial enthusiasm, but Justice Elizabeth Fullerton, who heard the application to stay proceedings, was unmoved by the defence team’s pleading.

There are two other extraordinary features of this case. The first is that unedited conversations that Thomas had recorded were used as evidence in the trial, notwithstanding that the persons who were being interviewed would not have received the usual formal warnings concerning the use to which those interviews may later have been put.

Second, the trial judge heard that former NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller had directed senior investigating police to join Thomas for lunch at a Surry Hills restaurant before Dawson was charged. While such a conversation is not damning of a prosecution case, it can be frowned upon for police to engage in familial interviews with persons who have had no direct evidence of the matters at hand and who have formed their own conclusions concerning guilt and innocence.

It’s not uncommon for a journalist to go into bat for a person whom he or she thinks has been wrongly convicted. One of the more celebrated cases involved the conviction of Edward Splatt for the murder in Adelaide of Rosa Simper in 1977. The fearless case mounted by Stewart Cockburn in publishing a series of articles in May 1981 led to a Royal Commission and, finally, Splatt’s exoneration after he had spent more than six years behind bars.

But it’s highly unusual for a journalist to pursue someone he thinks has been involved in foul play, and to do so by publishing a popular podcast that presents a particular view of the facts in dispute. As he and his editors knew, the podcast would stray perilously close to being so prejudicial as to prevent the trial ever proceeding.

That being said, the trial verdict is one that will give Hedley Thomas enormous gratification, and is a clear victory for dogged investigative journalism.

But watch this space – Dawson’s lawyers have flagged an appeal.

Rick Sarre is affiliated with the SA Labor Party and the SA Council for Civil Liberties.

– ref. ‘A clear victory for dogged investigative journalism’: Chris Dawson found guilty of murdering wife Lynette in 1982 – https://theconversation.com/a-clear-victory-for-dogged-investigative-journalism-chris-dawson-found-guilty-of-murdering-wife-lynette-in-1982-189625

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ana Estefanía Carballo, Honorary Research Fellow in Mining and Society, School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, The University of Melbourne

Chile may soon be the second country in the world to grant constitutional rights to nature, under astoundingly progressive reforms proposed by the government. If approved in the national referendum on 4 September, the new constitution would deliver profound changes to the country.

It’s no surprise that 50 of the 387 constitutional provisions concern the environment. Like Australia, Chile is facing mounting environmental pressures. This includes an escalating water crisis made significantly more challenging by the mining industry, long seen as a key pillar of the economy.

The proposed constitution seeks to rapidly pivot Chile toward ecological democracy, one that can transition an economy long dependent on mineral extraction toward cleaner, less resource-intensive, and more socially just forms of living – _buen vivir_.

While the votes aren’t yet in, there are valuable lessons in this process for Australia and other countries grappling with similar concerns.

An era of change

This era of constitutional change began in 2019, when over one million Chileans took to the streets to voice their discontent over economic and social conditions in the country.

Initially unstructured and spontaneous, the protests were sparked by an increase in public transport costs, but quickly coalesced into a widespread constitutional crisis.

This crisis was an outcry against the deeply entrenched socio-economic inequalities seen as rooted in and perpetuated by the country’s legal framework. This is a legacy of the Pinochet dictatorship (1973-1990), which saw soaring wealth inequalities and power concentrated in the hands of business elites and private corporations.

Read more:
Chile’s political crisis is another brutal legacy of long-dead dictator Pinochet

In the face of both social and ecological breakdown, further intensified by the arrival of COVID-19, over 80% of Chileans voted in favour of re-writing the constitution in 2020.

In May 2021, a constitutional convention was elected, formed by 155 representatives from across the country. Notably, 50% of them were women, and it was led by Mapuche linguist and Indigenous rights activist Elisa Loncón.

In July 2022, the convention delivered the much-anticipated draft constitution, which was immediately heralded by supporters as an “ecological constitution”.

What are the reforms?

Over the last decade, both Ecuador and Bolivia have been at the global forefront of advocating for the “rights of nature” or “the rights of Mother Earth”. These rights have made it possible to bring cases on behalf of ecosystems into courts, and to challenge the extractive imperatives of state ministries.

The proposed changes to Chile’s constitution build on these experiments, but take them considerably further.

Not only would Chile become the second nation after Ecuador to grant nature constitutional rights, they would also create an “ombudsman for nature” tasked with monitoring and enforcing them. According to the draft text, it would be the duty of the “state and society to protect and respect these rights”.

Citizens would also be empowered to bring environmental lawsuits, even before an environmental impact assessment has been approved. The monitoring of these rights would extend all the way down to the local level, decentralising environmental regulatory authority that has historically been concentrated in the capital of Santiago.

But perhaps even more significant are the proposals aiming to reverse another legacy of the Pinochet dictatorship: Chile’s decades-long privatisation of water.

Chile is in an unprecedented water crisis, with over half of its 19 million people living in areas of severe water scarcity. Communities have fought numerous legal battles against extractive companies over a water allocation system that’s strongly biased toward industry.

Read more:
Chile: election of progressive indigenous academic to oversee constitutional reform is a blow to right-wing establishment

Articles in the proposed constitution concerning water rights, the human rights of water, and the protection of glaciers and wetlands significantly roll back these trends. They declare that water is not a commodity but, instead, incomerciable or “unsellable”.

Overturning this decades-long controversial market mechanism is the direct result of involving social and Indigenous movements in the constitutional process. It reflects and affirms their often-repeated recognition that Agua es vida, or “water is life”.

Beyond enshrining water protection measures, the draft constitution represents a renewed effort to bolster Chile’s natural resources governance, a move with significant impacts on the mining industry. It specifies that exploration and exploitation of mineral resources should ensure environmental protection and the interest of future generations.

There are also requirements to ensure sustainable management of land sites after a mine has closed, and for the promotion of value chain linkages (where mineral processing occurs in the country and benefits its people).

Read more:
We need lithium for clean energy, but Rio Tinto’s planned Serbian mine reminds us it shouldn’t come at any cost

Such considerations are particularly crucial for the global transition towards renewable energy, which poses high demands on Chile’s copper and lithium industry, minerals used for energy storage.

The global rush for these minerals is increasing governance challenges and putting pressure on communities already under environmental and water stress. Strong legal support for a more equitable, fair and sustainable governance framework is imperative.

Lessons for the world

Many questions remain about how these reforms would be put into practice. Nevertheless, they represent the culmination of dialogue between sectors that have historically been excluded from political power.

Australia has much to learn from this process. Most important, perhaps, is that despite the resistance of pro-market sectors, including the mining industry, sweeping and rapid transformations are indeed imaginable in the climate crisis. Other worlds are possible. Other forms of democratic practices are possible.

Addressing climate change while ensuring a sustainable energy transition with inter-generational and inter-cultural equity means prioritising the voices of those who have been systematically excluded – particularly Indigenous communities. Australia would do well to heed this lesson.

And the lessons aren’t just for Australia. While many countries have reluctantly acknowledged the climate emergency that continues to engulf us, Chile is nearly alone globally in acting with the sense of urgency required. What it has already achieved is historic.

From an outcry in the streets to the election of an outstandingly diverse constitutional convention, Chile has crafted one of the most progressive and environmentally conscious legal texts on the planet. Chile’s experience demonstrates that bold, just, and democratic action is not only possible, but necessary.

Read more:
Chile abolishes its dictatorship-era constitution in groundbreaking vote for a more inclusive democracy

Ana Estefanía Carballo is a Research and Programme Manager, Accountable Mining, Transparency International Australia.

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

– ref. ‘One of the most progressive and environmentally conscious legal texts on the planet’: Chile’s proposed constitution and its lessons for Australia – https://theconversation.com/one-of-the-most-progressive-and-environmentally-conscious-legal-texts-on-the-planet-chiles-proposed-constitution-and-its-lessons-for-australia-189389

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deborah Gleeson, Associate Professor in Public Health, La Trobe University

Inequitable access to COVID-19 vaccines has turned out to be the catastrophic moral failure the World Health Organization’s director-general warned about at the beginning of 2021.

International efforts to equitably distribute COVID-19 vaccine doses failed miserably during 2020-2021, when wealthy countries bought up the bulk of the global supply, leaving insufficient doses for countries that couldn’t afford to buy vaccines on the private market. This resulted in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths in low-income countries.

Unsettling (and familiar) trends emerge

Even today, with more than 12.5 billion doses now administered around the world, only around one in five people in low income countries have yet received a dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. And because the underlying problems of equitable distribution of previous vaccines haven’t been solved, inequitable access to monkeypox vaccines is set to be the next global disgrace.

Already we’re seeing the same patterns emerge: vaccine nationalism, as wealthy countries hoard the limited doses available, and exclusive rights to make medical products that are carefully protected by pharmaceutical companies in the West, while poor countries go without access to both the existing supply or the means to make their own.

Read more:
Monkeypox in Australia: should you be worried? And who can get the vaccine?

If we don’t reverse these trends, it will be very difficult to bring the monkeypox epidemic under control globally, and poor countries will once again bear the brunt of the health and economic effects.

Monkeypox or MPX: a public health emergency that calls for global solidarity

Monkeypox does not present the same level of threat as COVID-19, but it is still a major public health problem, with more than 44,000 cases reported in at least 99 countries since the beginning of 2022.

So far, most cases in 2022 have been in men who have sex with men, but anyone can get monkeypox. Some population groups, including young children, pregnant women and those with compromised immune systems are at greater risk of severe disease.

To reduce the risk of stigma associated with the term monkeypox, the World Health Organization is planning to change its name. A new name has not yet been announced, but many community organisations have started using MPX or similar terms.

Read more:
We need to talk about monkeypox without shame and blame

The 2022 outbreak is the first time there has been sustained transmission of MPX outside of Africa. The seriousness of the situation is reflected in the WHO’s decision to declare it a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) on July 23.

The global pattern of MPX cases and deaths

During the 2022 outbreak, the overwhelming majority of MPX cases have been reported in the Americas and Europe, accounting for over 62% and almost 37% of cases respectively in the last four weeks. Almost 89% of cases have been reported in the United States, Spain, Brazil, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Peru, Canada, the Netherlands and Portugal. Currently, new infections appear to be declining in Europe, but continuing to rise quickly in the United States.

Human cases of MPX have been reported in central and west Africa since 1970, but in 2022, there have been only 350 confirmed cases in these regions reported to WHO, representing 1% of global cases. However, Africa is over-represented when it comes to deaths. Six of the 13 deaths reported to WHO in the current outbreak (46%) have occurred in West and Central Africa.

During the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, thousands of MPX cases and hundreds of deaths occurred in Africa, according to the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC). But this situation drew little international attention, and the continent had no access to vaccines.

Vaccines for MPX are in short supply

Fortunately, there are several smallpox vaccines that can be used to prevent MPX.

The preferred vaccine is Modified Vaccinia Ankara – Bavarian Nordic (MVA-BN), a third-generation vaccine that has fewer side effects than older vaccines and can be safely administered to immunocompromised people and pregnant women. Two doses are needed to provide sufficient protection.

One company in Denmark, Bavarian Nordic, is the only supplier of MVA-BN. Its factory has reportedly been closed for months due to a planned expansion, and is not expected to be able to produce new doses until 2023.

According to the WHO, there are approximately 16 million existing doses of MVA-BN. Most of these are in bulk form rather than ready for use.

It’s currently unclear exactly how many doses will be needed to bring the outbreak under control, but 16 million doses may not be enough, especially if they are unequally distributed rather than available to the most high-risk groups in each country.

Wealthy countries are hoarding existing vaccine supplies

Most of the 16 million or so vaccine doses are either owned by or contracted to the United States, which funded some aspects of the vaccine’s development. Millions of doses made from the bulk vaccine will be “filled and finished” at facilities owned by the US government or by US-based companies.

Other wealthy countries have raced to secure doses from the remaining supply. The European Commission announced it had secured approximately 109 million doses from Bavarian Nordic in June 2022 and a further 54,000 doses in July.

The UK has also secured more than 100,000 doses, and Canada has also reportedly signed a multi-million dollar contract for a supply of the vaccine.

On August 4, Health Minister Mark Butler announced that Australia had ordered 450,000 Jynneos doses, of which 22,000 would arrive the same week and the remainder over 2022-2023.

While WHO has asked countries that have doses to share them, there is no sign this is happening to date.

It seems no African country has yet received a single dose. While the Africa CDC is attempting to negotiate access to the vaccine, news reports suggest there are no doses left to purchase from the private sector.

Bavarian Nordic recently announced it had entered an agreement with the Pan American Health Organization to provide access to the MVA-BN vaccine for Latin America and the Caribbean. Details of this agreement, including the number of doses and the recipient countries, are not yet publicly available.

Exclusive rights prevent more widespread manufacturing of vaccines

Currently, Bavarian Nordic essentially controls the global supply of a vaccine desperately needed by at least 99 countries. While it can’t make the vaccine itself right now due to its factory redevelopment, it can still prevent others from manufacturing the vaccine because of intellectual property rights underpinned by the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

These intellectual property rights include, among others, patent protection and trade secrets protection. Patent protection provides at least 20 years of exclusivity, during which no one else can make or sell the product without permission from the patent-holder. While TRIPS does allow for exceptions to patent protection in certain circumstances, trade secrets protection presents a formidable barrier to wider manufacturing of vaccines.

Attempts to negotiate a temporary waiver of TRIPS rules for COVID-19 vaccines did not produce a meaningful outcome, and a waiver limited to COVID-19 would not have helped to make vaccines available for other diseases like MPX.

As a global community, we need to do better

If the same mistakes are made in the global response to MPX as were made with COVID-19, it is unlikely the outbreak will be quickly controlled. The virus could become established in animal reservoirs and become endemic in many more countries.

The burden of suffering and death will fall most heavily on the countries that are least able to access the tools to prevent and manage it. We must do all we can to ensure that doesn’t happen.

Deborah Gleeson has received funding in the past from the Australian Research Council. She has received funding from various national and international non-government organisations to attend speaking engagements related to trade agreements and health. She has represented the Public Health Association of Australia on matters related to trade agreements and public health

– ref. Monkeypox – the next global vaccine equity failure? – https://theconversation.com/monkeypox-the-next-global-vaccine-equity-failure-189045

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Bennett, Chair in Epidemiology, Deakin University

New South Wales Premier Dominic Perrottet is driving a push to reduce isolation requirements for people who test positive for COVID from seven to five days. It’s slated for discussion at tomorrow’s National Cabinet meeting, with Perrottet urging a consistent approach across all states and territories.

Others, including Health Services Union president Gerard Hayes, have called for the isolation requirement to be scrapped altogether, and instead, urging people to stay at home if they’re infectious.

So what will states be weighing up? Here’s what the available evidence says.

How many infectious people are in isolation?

Not everyone tests for infection, even if they suspect they might have COVID. Many people won’t know to test if they have mild or no symptoms and are unaware they’ve been exposed.

Our latest serosurvey data, which tests for antibodies in blood donations, suggests around one quarter of the population has had a COVID infection in the three months up to June. That equates to about 6.8 million people.

But only 2.7 million infections were reported in that time period. And these will include cases where the same people had multiple infections. Therefore, it’s likely four to five million infections went untested or unreported.

Read more:
Can we really rely on people to isolate when they’re told to? Experts explain

Some people who don’t test or report a positive result might still isolate. At the same time, some who do report their infections may not isolate properly.

This isn’t just about people being compliant or not. It also reflects the large number of asymptomatic infections, as well as other respiratory symptoms that can mask COVID.

Read more:
Could I have had COVID and not realised it?

A survey of 210 people in the United States found only 44% were aware they’d had a recent Omicron infection. Among those, 10% reported having had any symptoms which they mostly put down to a common cold or other non–COVID infection.

For those who do test and isolate, it’s important to also ask how far into their infections they are when they start isolating.

Isolation starts with a positive test which, in most cases, follows the onset of symptoms, possibly by a day or two. If someone knows they have been a close contact of a case, they may be on the lookout for signs of infection, knowing they have been exposed. Others may miss the signs initially if they commonly experience respiratory symptoms from other causes.

How long are we infectious?

A UK study in The Lancet of 57 people who developed COVID while under daily monitoring tracked participants’ infectious viral load and symptoms.

It found half had an infectious period that lasted up to five days. One-quarter had an infectious period that lasted three days or less. Another quarter were infectious beyond seven days – though with much lower levels of live viral shedding late in their infection.

However, the infections in this study were the Delta variant, so may overstate the duration of infectious periods nowadays.

Read more:
How does Omicron compare with Delta? Here’s what we know about infectiousness, symptoms, severity and vaccine protection

A JAMA review of the time from exposure to symptoms found the mean incubation period has shortened with each new variant. It went from an average of 5 days for infections caused by Alpha, to 4.4 days for Delta, and 3.4 days for Omicron variant. Omicron may therefore also have a shorter overall infectious period on average than Delta.

In the Lancet study, vaccinated people also had a faster decline in their infectious viral load than those not fully vaccinated. The high rates of vaccination and hybrid immunity in Australia could also be shortening the time we are infectious compared to Delta infections.

The Lancet study also reported one-quarter of people shed infectious virus before symptoms started. Interestingly, it found RATs had the lowest sensitivity during the viral growth phase and viral load peak. This means people were less likely to have a positive result in the first days of their most infectious period.

So some people will not test positive, and therefore not isolate, until one or two days into their infections, even if they’re testing with a RAT every day.

Overall, when you sum up the infectious time for those who do not isolate, and the days before isolation for those who do, people with COVID spend more time infectious in the community than they do in isolation. And this includes the time they are at their most infectious.

So, how many exposure days are prevented by current isolation rules?

It’s impossible to know, but based on the above, at most it would be around one quarter, and will probably be much lower than that.

The question, then, is whether reducing isolation by two days towards the tail of the infectious period when infectious viral loads are low will have an impact.

This is unlikely, and that has been the experience overseas, probably because this is a marginal change to a risk-mitigation strategy that can only be partially effective at this stage in the pandemic.

However, there are ways to make the transition from seven to five days safer. This includes:

• requiring acute symptoms experienced in the initial stage of the COVID infection to have resolved before they end isolation, especially fever

• using negative RAT tests to allow people with a persistent cough or other lingering symptoms that may not be associated with an active infection to leave isolation

• screening workers from high-risk settings such as health care and aged care before they return to work

• providing clear information on the infection risk to others in the week following isolation, and how to minimise risk.

Whether we take half steps away from isolation or a large leap, the small risk that people may still be infectious enough to pass the virus on to others on leaving isolation – whether that’s at five or seven days – needs to be managed.

It will always be important to wear well-fitted masks, preferably respirators, when around others and avoid people with compromised immune systems for those first two weeks after a COVID infection begins when you may still be shedding live virus.

Catherine Bennett receives funding from the National Health & Medical Research Council, Medical Research Future Funds, and VicHealth, and an independent scientific advisor on the AstraZeneca Australian Vaccine advisory group, ResApp Health, and Impact Biotech Healthcare.

– ref. Should states cut COVID isolation from 7 to 5 days? Here’s what they’ll need to consider – https://theconversation.com/should-states-cut-covid-isolation-from-7-to-5-days-heres-what-theyll-need-to-consider-189387

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Martin, Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

One word gets mentioned more than “jobs” and more than “skills” in the briefing paper for Thursday’s jobs and skills summit. It’s “productivity”.

Which is odd, because although many of us think we know what productivity is, and although many more assume productivity can be easily measured, it’s a surprisingly slippery concept.

In a report released earlier this month, the Productivity Commission (yes, we have an entire commission devoted to productivity) makes the idea sound simple.

It presents an equation:

productivity = output divided by input

The commission makes the reasonable point that producing more output (of anything – flowers, healthcare, food) per unit of input, so long as the quality is maintained, ought to be the goal of life.

Who wouldn’t want to clean a house in five hours instead of ten? Who wouldn’t want to manufacture a car in five hours instead of ten?

Who wouldn’t want more for less?

You could use the freed-up time to kick back or make more of what you really want. And because you were producing more per hour worked, you would be in a good position to get a pay rise.

The commission is careful not to say you would get a pay rise. Instead it says that where there have been sustained pay rises above inflation, they have almost always been underpinned by increased productivity.

How much of the pay-off from an increase in output per hour worked goes to wages depends, among other things, on bargaining power.

Since 1990, the share of the spoils (technically, the share of total factor income) going to profits has climbed from 24% to 31%, while the share going to wages has fallen from 55% to 50%.

But it ought to be beyond doubt that the only guaranteed way to be able to lift living standards is to lift productivity. Beyond a certain point, working more hours won’t help, because, in the words of the commission, “there are only so many hours in the day to work”.

Nor will using more resources. They are finite. The only certain way to continue to get more of what we want is to get more from what we’ve got – which is the definition of productivity.

And just lately, productivity growth has slowed to a crawl, to what the briefing paper for the summit describes as the lowest rate in half a century.

Lifting productivity has become harder

It’s probably not because we’ve run out of ideas, although it might be because we used up a lot of good ones. Back when enterprise bargaining was introduced in the early 1990s, when we were asked to find improved ways of doing things at work in return for pay rises, we did it. But it became harder to keep finding gains as big.

More broadly, the extraordinary success of the productivity gains we made in manufacturing and agriculture have made them less important as employers. Now most of us (almost 90%) work in services. And services are hard to automate.

Worse still, it’s hard to tell what the output of many services is. There’s a reason the debate about the government’s commitment to defence is couched in terms of spending. It’s hard to tell what we get.

Productivity has become harder to measure

What about hairdressing? A hairdresser who trims twice as many heads per day isn’t necessarily twice as good, even if the quality of each trim remains the same. Part of a good hairdresser’s service is the quality of attention they offer each customer.

It’s the same for health care and education. That’s one of the reasons the Australian Bureau of Statistics doesn’t produce estimates of the productivity of the “health care and social assistance” or “education and training” industries, two of Australia’s biggest industries.

Read more:
Why productivity growth stalled in 2005 (and isn’t about to improve)

And many education and health services are provided free or subsidised, making the price charged an unhelpful measure of output.

(The bureau is planning to introduce “experimental” estimates of the productivity of the education industry next year, but it is finding it hard. It wants to define the output as the “organised communication of knowledge from teacher to student”, which gives an idea of how murky the whole idea is.)

Putting quality of work and life on the summit’s agenda

Economy-wide, the Productivity Commission relies on the bureau’s rough and ready measure: gross domestic product per hour worked, but it’s misleading for the same reason.

Labor came to office promising every Australian living in aged care would receive an average of 215 minutes of care per day.

When that happens, it will be a drag on measured productivity – on GDP per hour worked. Yet it will hugely improve the lives of Australians.

It makes sense for the summit to focus on productivity, given that measured productivity growth has slowed, but it should only be part of the conversation.

Other more personal things matter as well, among them the quality of our lives, the quality of our care, and the quality of our jobs – something those attending would be wise not to forget.

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

– ref. Summit cheat sheet: what is productivity, and how well does it measure what we do? – https://theconversation.com/summit-cheat-sheet-what-is-productivity-and-how-well-does-it-measure-what-we-do-189548

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Ledbury, Professor of Art History and Visual Culture, University of Sydney

In this new series, our writers introduce us to a favourite painting.

How can anyone love this dark and gruesome painting?

We’re a long way from Monet, Van Gogh and the perennial favourites of museum visitors.

Jacques-Louis David’s The Lictors Bringing to Brutus the Bodies of his Dead Sons is a history painting: a kind of art that attempts to give visual life to stories from history, religion and myth. This genre was regarded for centuries as the pinnacle of artistic achievement.

These days, many epic stories have faded from cultural memory and eyes used to modern art and the moving image can see history painting as dull, stilted dress-up.

But let’s not speed past the painting. Take a moment to dwell on its strange and compelling beauty.

Painting history

Jacques-Louis David (1748-1825) was a leader among the painters of a generation enthused by the revival of interest in ancient histories, cultures and art we now call neo-classicism.

After a rocky start, and a life-changing stay in Rome, David made his reputation with spectacular paintings derived from ancient history, shown at the Salon – the enormously popular public exhibitions of contemporary art held every two years in the Louvre palace.

These works included the Oath of the Horatii, which caused a sensation in 1785 and the equally remarkable Death of Socrates.

He painted The Lictors Bringing to Brutus the Bodies of his Dead Sons over the course of two years, before it premiered at the Salon in 1789.

It was first seen six weeks after the storming of the Bastille. The exhibition closed on October 6, the same day a revolutionary crowd spearheaded by Parisian women extracted Louis XVI and his family from the Versailles and placed them under house arrest in the Tuileries palace.

Read more:
What is Bastille Day and why is it celebrated?

An unorthodox composition

The Brutus depicts a terrible moment in the life of the (perhaps legendary) founder of the Roman republic Lucius Junius Brutus who, after the brutalisation of his own family and the rape of Lucretia, led the successful revolt that ended the reign of Tarquinius Superbus and founded the Roman republic.

After this coup, the exiled Tarquins attempted a counter-revolution. Brutus’s sons and his wife’s brothers were involved in this plot.

Uncovering their treason, Brutus was forced to follow his own anti-treason decree and presided over the judgement and execution of his sons.

David chose not to show the execution itself, described in Livy and Plutarch. Instead he imagined the moment when the lictors – the physical executioners and the bodyguards of the Republic – return the bodies to Brutus’ household for burial.

At the left of the 14-square-metre canvas, we see the tense, numb Brutus seated, uncomfortably, in the shadow of the Goddess Roma.

His facial expression is inscrutable, but his clenched feet, toes and right hand, clutching his anti-treason decree, betray his tension and pain. The corpses and the weight of history, office and the law seem to impose on him a heavy bodily and psychic burden.

The centre, where we might typically find the main actor of the scene, is occupied by furniture, a sewing basket and empty space.

This central still life is as powerful as it is unexpected.

The empty chair is a brilliant metaphor for the disruptions, absences and family disintegration brought about by Brutus’ submission to his own law.

The sewing basket, a bold and beautifully painted detail, seems banal and domestic, but the pin and thread, the ball and the scissors recall in miniature the scourging and execution of the sons.

To the right of this, brightly lit, is the maternal group.

The statuesque, shocked but defiant mother is the most active of all the figures. She makes eye contact with one of the executioners and past him to the corpses.

Her daughters collapse in grief, seeking shelter from the presence of death.

At the right edge of the painting sits another figure, a veiled servant, whose face David hides, perhaps echoing Timanthes’ depiction of the grieving Agamemnon. Her tense muscles and veins hint at grief and despair.

Pointing to the future

This unorthodox compositional strategy – the gaps, reversals and displacements, nuanced, sublimated emotions, the disjointed and scattered nature of its participants – gives the painting its power.

But notice, too, the strange beauty of David’s rough stone floors, polished and incised wood surfaces and tensely folded fabrics, all heavy with the weight of loss and uncertainty of the future.

That uncertain future happened to be unfolding right around the display of the painting in Paris at the beginning of the French Revolution.

In this context, Brutus took on unexpected new meanings: virtue and sacrifice; the violence and courage needed to overthrow tyrannical kings and maintain liberty; vigilance, loyalty, treason and death.

Events granted the painting new momentum and relevance and emboldened its creator, catalysing his transition from court artist to political painter.

David became ever more involved in Revolutionary politics, designing Revolutionary festivals and dress, signing death warrants and creating its most enduring image, the Death of Marat.

Brutus resonates not just because it demonstrates how politically alive painting can be, but also because it bends the rules of composition. By doing so, it enabled new generations of experiment. It broke the mould and redefined what is possible.

It points not to a distant past, but to the future.

Read more:
Hidden women of history: Adélaïde Labille-Guiard, prodigiously talented painter

Mark Ledbury has received funding for his work on Eighteenth-Century art and theatre from the ARC, and his work at the Power Institute is funded by the John Power Bequest and by a number of Philanthropic Foundations.

– ref. Jacques-Louis David’s The Lictors Bringing to Brutus the Bodies of his Dead Sons is a gruesome and compelling painting – https://theconversation.com/jacques-louis-davids-the-lictors-bringing-to-brutus-the-bodies-of-his-dead-sons-is-a-gruesome-and-compelling-painting-186745

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nareen Young, Industry Professor, Jumbunna Institute of Education and Research, University of Technology Sydney

On the eve of the federal government’s jobs and skills summit, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers, union representatives, peak bodies and researchers gathered in Canberra this week to ask some critical questions.

Now we have a new government and a new policy environment, what do First Nations people want around work and work policy? And how do we ensure Indigenous-led policy is a feature of the mainstream employment landscape?

This symposium was hosted by the First Nations Employment Alliance (which includes the Jumbunna Institute for Indigenous Education and Research, the ACTU, Reconciliation Australia, Kara Keys Consulting and PWC’s Indigenous Consulting). It aimed to

listen to mob and establish a work plan and strategy to explore the future of First Nations employment that is First Nations-led and implemented.

I attended the symposium as an organiser from Jumbunna and a researcher interested in workplace diversity and Indigenous experiences at work.

Hearing attendees talk about their experiences of work (paid and unpaid) was illuminating. It’s clear First Nations workers are everywhere, but labour market experiences can be very different to those of non-First Nations workers. Existing policy doesn’t always address those needs or relate to the experiences of First Nations workers.

Read more:
A law on workplace gender equality is under review. Here’s what needs to change

Regional jobs and the Community Development Program

One key reform area is the Community Development Program – introduced by the Abbott government – under which people who engage in “work-like activity” could be provided welfare benefits. The program is “a remote employment and community development service administered by the National Indigenous Australians Agency”.

The Australian government has already promised to replace this program with one developed in partnership with First Nations people.

“Work-like activity” is work. People who do this work should be paid proper wages, and be provided decent working conditions, superannuation and other rights at work. As outlined in one of seven goals developed by the symposium:

no community employment program should do work-like activities, unpaid or paid for long periods of time.

Creating a healthy regional jobs market has long been a wicked, intractable problem for governments and policymakers. But it is one the federal government must urgently address so Indigenous workers can find employment on Country and in their communities.

Redefining ‘work’

One crucial element of the regional jobs discussion is the need for a redefinition of “work”, to include community responsibilities, care and caring for land and Country (as outlined in another of the seven goals discussed at the symposium).

We know Indigenous people care for Country, and do enormous amounts of important community or caring work as part of cultural responsibilities. Redefining “work” to include these things would allow people to be paid for this work. These are jobs that need to be done and if they are not, broader society suffers.

Paying people for this work is not without precedent. See, for example, the way policy has been designed to ensure Indigenous rangers are paid for caring for Country work, to the great benefit of wider Australian society.

Policymakers could consider ways to expand such programs, and fund them properly.

Caring work done by Indigenous people as part of cultural responsibilities benefits wider Australia by easing pressure on the aged care and public health systems.

Redefining this as “work” could lead to people being paid for it, perhaps through an Indigenous-designed community development program run through the NDIS.

Read more:
10 ways employers can include Indigenous Australians

We have some data – but not enough

The Gari Yala report, which I co-authored, reveals many Indigenous people face workplace challenges that non-Indigenous workers do not.

Gari Yala, which means “speak the truth” in the Wiradjuri language, involved a survey of 1,033 Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander workers. It found:

• 38% reported being treated unfairly because of their Indigenous background sometimes, often or all the time

• 44% reported hearing racial slurs sometimes, often or all the time

• 59% reported comments about the way they look or “should” look as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person

• only one in three had the workplace support required when they experienced racism.

If these experiences recorded by people in paid work are any indication, there are clear problems with the way the labour market is experienced by many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers. Those in unpaid “work-like” jobs (via the Community Development Program) may also have had such experiences, or worse – but without high quality data on this question, we cannot say for sure.

The lack of proper data on First Nations workers – their numbers, pay, working conditions and experiences more generally – is a reccurring theme. The onus is on unions and governments to start collecting these data.

For example, we know anecdotally Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are concentrated in the health, education and care sector but we don’t have very good statistics on this. That makes it hard to identify what exact policy changes are needed.

The recent discussion about industry-wide bargaining could theoretically improve wages for Indigenous workers, but again we need to know more about where they are, their pay and working conditions. We must find the gaps so we can address them via Indigenous-designed policy.

First Nations workers are everywhere, working in mainstream employment, as your coworkers and staff. Australia needs industrial policy reflecting this fact, and Indigenous-led policy design to meet the needs of First Nations workers.

Nareen Young is a member of the NTEU and the ALP.

– ref. First Nations workers are everywhere. The jobs summit must tackle Indigenous-led employment policy too – https://theconversation.com/first-nations-workers-are-everywhere-the-jobs-summit-must-tackle-indigenous-led-employment-policy-too-189623

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paola Magni, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Science, Murdoch University

A crime scene can present itself in any form and size.

In recent weeks, an Aotearoa New Zealand family who’d purchased abandoned goods from a storage locker made the harrowing discovery of two sets of human remains hidden inside two suitcases.

Sadly, this is not a unique case – bodies of murder victims are found in suitcases with astonishing regularity. But they present a particular challenge for police investigating the crime, which is where forensic science comes in.

Why suitcases?

Forensic case history and crime news are sadly full of bodies found in suitcases, bags, wheelie bins, car trunks, fridges and freezers. Examples of such finds include a suitcase in a busy Tokyo train station in 2015, a suitcase on a Seattle beach in 2020, and the 2019 case of human remains in a suitcase left on the side of a South Australian highway.

There’s a simple reason why suitcases are so common in these situations. While most crime movies depict bodies abandoned above ground or buried in clandestine shallow graves, in reality murder victims are more often concealed in items arranged at the last minute.

These are things that are easy to obtain, accessible, large enough to fit a body, and easy to transport (preferably with wheels). They may also hide the smell of decomposition for a time – useful for the criminal to find an alibi or disappear.

Forensic researchers call such places “limited access environments”, because they limit, delay or totally impede one of the natural steps that happen after death: the arrival of hordes of insects.

The job of scientists like forensic entomologists is to assist crime investigation, but also to develop research that makes this task less difficult.

Read more:
Forensic entomology: the time of death is everything

Insects are key

In a criminal investigation involving a decomposing body, forensic entomologists can use insects to help estimate the time since death, retrace the movements of criminals and victims, and identify the presence of drugs and foreign DNA.

Carrion insects – such as blue and green bottle blowflies, flesh flies, house flies and coffin flies – have highly specialised olfactory systems they use to detect the smell of decomposition.

If a cadaver is left undisturbed on the ground in a temperate environment, carrion insects will soon colonise it, attracted by the smells produced by the bacteria-mediated decay process. Within a few hours, the insects will lay eggs on the body’s orifices and wounds, and the tiny larvae hatched from them will start consuming the body.

But a suitcase physically limits access for the insects. And so far, forensic research on how insect involvement changes in such limited access environments has received little attention.

To date, only two pilot studies on decomposition process in suitcases have been completed, one in the United Kingdom and another by our team in Western Australia. Both studies show carrion insects are extremely resourceful when it comes to getting access to concealed bodies.

Read more:
Forensic science isn’t ‘reliable’ or ‘unreliable’ – it depends on the questions you’re trying to answer

Suitcases in the bush

Hidden in a patch of bushland in Western Australia, we are currently running the largest-ever experiment on decomposition process in suitcases and wheelie bins, with almost 70 samples.

This first-of-its-kind work will provide useful data to investigate similar cases around the world. Each suitcase and wheelie bin contains a stillborn piglet, simulating a dead body; controls are placed in the environment for comparison. We have placed instruments for recording temperature, humidity and amount of rain both in the field and inside the containers.

The experiment started in early winter 2022 and will end in the summer; the first data will be presented in the world’s largest forensic science conference in February 2023.

Despite an initial delay in insect access during the cold and rainy WA winter, within a month of placing the suitcases we have observed egg clusters of blowflies on and around the suitcase zippers.

As we opened the suitcases at set intervals, we found the larvae of blowflies, along with coffin flies and some beetles active in the remains. This means the offspring of large flies and beetles must reach the body through the teeth of the zipper. Meanwhile, smaller flies can cross through the zipper as adults, and lay their eggs directly on the decomposing remains.

Once larvae complete their life cycle and emerge as adult flies, none of them can escape the suitcase. These trapped insects represent a rich source of information, as we know the habits and growth rates of various species, and can find toxicology data preserved in their exoskeletons.

From this, a forensic entomology expert can infer the time or season of death, possible relocation of the body, and assist in the interpretation of the causes and circumstances of death.

The investigation of human remains in a suitcase can often represent a Pandora’s box, full of complicated problems. But with the help of a humble carrion-eating fly trapped within, we gain a treasure trove of vital information that can help us solve crimes.

Read more:
Identifying the dead after mass disasters is a crucial part of grieving. Here’s how forensic experts do it

Research ongoing is performed in collaboration with Miss Hannah Andrews and Prof. Ian Dadour.

– ref. When remains are found in a suitcase, forensics can learn a lot from the insects trapped within – https://theconversation.com/when-remains-are-found-in-a-suitcase-forensics-can-learn-a-lot-from-the-insects-trapped-within-189315

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paola Magni, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Science, Murdoch University

A crime scene can present itself in any form and size.

In recent weeks, an Aotearoa New Zealand family who’d purchased abandoned goods from a storage locker made the harrowing discovery of two sets of human remains hidden inside two suitcases.

Sadly, this is not a unique case – bodies of murder victims are found in suitcases with astonishing regularity. But they present a particular challenge for police investigating the crime, which is where forensic science comes in.

A suitcase is a ‘practical’ option

Forensic case history and crime news are sadly full of bodies found in suitcases, bags, wheelie bins, car trunks, fridges and freezers. Examples of such finds include a suitcase in a busy Tokyo train station in 2015, a suitcase on a Seattle beach in 2020, and the 2019 case of human remains in a suitcase left on the side of a South Australian highway.

There’s a simple reason why suitcases are so common in these situations. While most crime movies depict bodies abandoned above ground or buried in clandestine shallow graves, in reality murder victims are more often concealed in items arranged at the last minute.

These are things that are easy to obtain, accessible, large enough to fit a body, and easy to transport (preferably with wheels). They may also hide the smell of decomposition for a time – useful for the criminal to find an alibi or disappear.

Forensic researchers call such places “limited access environments”, because they limit, delay or totally impede one of the natural steps that happen after death: the arrival of hordes of insects ready to consume the body.

The job of scientists like forensic entomologists is to assist crime investigation, but also to develop research that makes this task less difficult.

Read more:
Forensic entomology: the time of death is everything

Insects are key

In a criminal investigation involving a decomposing body, forensic entomologists can use insects to help estimate the time since death, retrace the movements of criminals and victims, and identify the presence of drugs and foreign DNA.

Carrion insects – such as blue and green bottle blowflies, flesh flies, house flies and coffin flies – have highly specialised olfactory systems they use to detect the smell of decomposition.

If a cadaver is left undisturbed on the ground in a temperate environment, carrion insects will soon colonise it, attracted by the smells produced by the bacteria-mediated decay process. Within a few hours, the insects will lay eggs on the body’s orifices and wounds, and the tiny larvae hatched from them will start consuming the body.

But a suitcase physically limits access for the insects. And so far, forensic research on how insect involvement changes in such limited access environments has received little attention.

To date, only two pilot studies on decomposition process in suitcases have been completed, one in the United Kingdom and another by our team in Western Australia. Both studies show carrion insects are extremely resourceful when it comes to getting access to concealed bodies.

Read more:
Forensic science isn’t ‘reliable’ or ‘unreliable’ – it depends on the questions you’re trying to answer

Suitcases in the bush

Hidden in a patch of bushland in Western Australia, we are currently running the largest-ever experiment on decomposition process in suitcases and wheelie bins, with almost 70 samples.

This first-of-its-kind work will provide useful data to investigate similar cases around the world. Each suitcase and wheelie bin contains a stillborn piglet, simulating a dead body; controls are placed in the environment for comparison. We have placed instruments for recording temperature, humidity and amount of rain both in the field and inside the containers.

The experiment started in early winter 2022 and will end in the summer; the first data will be presented in the world’s largest forensic science conference in February 2023.

Despite an initial delay in insect access during the cold and rainy WA winter, within a month of placing the suitcases we have observed egg clusters of blowflies on and around the suitcase zippers.

As we opened the suitcases at set intervals, we found the larvae of blowflies, along with coffin flies and some beetles active in the remains. This means the offspring of large flies and beetles must reach the body through the teeth of the zipper. Meanwhile, smaller flies can cross through the zipper as adults, and lay their eggs directly on the decomposing remains.

Once larvae complete their life cycle and emerge as adult flies, none of them can escape the suitcase. These trapped insects represent a rich source of information, as we know the habits and growth rates of various species, and can find toxicology data preserved in their exoskeletons.

From this, a forensic entomology expert can infer the time or season of death, possible relocation of the body, and assist in the interpretation of the causes and circumstances of death.

The investigation of human remains in a suitcase can often represent a Pandora’s box, full of complicated problems. But with the help of a humble carrion-eating fly trapped within, we gain a treasure trove of vital information that can help us solve crimes.

Read more:
Identifying the dead after mass disasters is a crucial part of grieving. Here’s how forensic experts do it

Research ongoing is performed in collaboration with Miss Hannah Andrews and Prof. Ian Dadour.

– ref. When a dead body is found in a suitcase, forensics can learn a lot from the insects trapped within – https://theconversation.com/when-a-dead-body-is-found-in-a-suitcase-forensics-can-learn-a-lot-from-the-insects-trapped-within-189315

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paula Ross, Sessional psychology lecturer, Australian Catholic University

It’s not uncommon these days to hear someone – such as an ex romantic partner or a politician – described as a “narcissist”.

Singer Robbie Williams recently told an interviewer he took an online test to see if he was one. He revealed the test suggested a “mild indication of narcissistic personality disorder”.

But what is narcissism, when is it a problem and can an online test really provide a reliable diagnosis?

A fixation on oneself

According to the Greek myth, a beautiful young man called Narcissus fell in love with his own reflection in a pool of water. He stayed staring at it for the rest of his life. His name gave rise to the term “narcissism”, characterised by a fixation on oneself.

Narcissism is a cluster of traits along a range of severity. At one end of the spectrum, people may be confident, charming and well-adapted.

In the middle of the spectrum, people may be overly focused on seeking out status, success and admiration at work or in their social lives. They can have a need to appear perfect, special or superior to others in order to feel OK about themselves.

At the very extreme end, it may become a disorder in which people can be self-centred, grandiose and destructive.

Read more:
Narcissists: there’s more than one type – and our research reveals what makes each tick

What’s ‘narcissistic personality disorder’?

“Narcissistic personality disorder” is a mental health diagnosis given to people with extremely narcissistic traits. These traits have reached the point where they start to impact on the person’s ability to function at work or socially.

Narcissistic personality disorder is relatively rare. It is estimated around 1% of the population has a diagnosable form of the condition.

Men tend to be more narcissistic than women. There is no evidence that young people are more narcissistic than previous generations at the same age.

Their symptoms are described as “pervasive”, meaning they are obvious across all of a person’s activities, not just in specific situations. So, on the face of it, pop star Robbie William’s insistence his score on the quiz reflected only his narcissistic personality on stage is not quite accurate.

People with narcissistic personality disorder tend to overestimate their abilities and exaggerate their achievements. And they are surprised or angry when others don’t notice their accomplishments.

They need constant confirmation of their value, specialness or importance. They may have fantasies about power, success, having perfect lives or relationships, believing these are not only achievable but deserved.

Specialness by association

People with narcissistic personality disorder might talk a lot about how people in their lives are extra special in some way – such as being the very best at something or leaders in a particular field – because it increases their own sense of specialness by association.

When their status or superiority is challenged they can respond with extreme anger, rage or belittling the person and their opinion. They find it difficult to tolerate the thought they may be flawed or vulnerable in some way.

In relationships, they can have exceedingly high expectations of devotion from partners and friends, but may themselves be low in empathy and lack of awareness of others’ needs. They may be envious of and unable to celebrate the success of others, and respond by devaluing them.

They are often unaware of the impact of their behaviours on others.

Read more:
‘Impulsive psychopaths like crypto’: research shows how ‘dark’ personality traits affect Bitcoin enthusiasm

How is it diagnosed?

Diagnosis should only be made by a mental health professional. Trying to diagnose yourself or someone else with an online quiz may give you results that are misleading and unhelpful.

Narcissistic personality disorder is a cluster of symptoms on a continuum and many diagnoses share similar symptoms. For a proper diagnosis, a clinician needs to assess which cluster of symptoms is present, how far along the continuum they are, and which other diagnoses to exclude.

But a symptom checklist might help you work out whether you should consider seeing a mental health professional for further assessment or support.

Read more:
Before you judge personality tests, consider what they don’t judge

How do people get this way?

We don’t know exactly what causes narcissistic personality disorder.

There is probably a genetic component. Traits such as aggression, poor emotional regulation and low tolerance to distress tend to be high in people diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder.

Certain experiences in childhood are also more likely to lead to narcissistic personality disorder. These might be either particularly negative, such as trauma or rejection, or overly positive, such as excessive praise or being constantly told you have extraordinary abilities. Parenting styles that are either very neglectful or overly protective are also associated with the development of narcissism.

People with narcissistic personality disorder often have other mental health conditions, particularly mood disorders. They also have a high rate of suicide. These conditions may have a common cause or they may be a result of the difficulties people with narcissistic personality disorder have with social interactions.

Can it be treated?

Narcissistic personality disorder is a lifelong condition that is considered manageable but not curable. There is no standard medicine or psychological treatment for narcissistic personality disorder.

Psychological treatment aims to reduce the severity of symptoms, improve mood, manage impulses, and build communication and relationship skills. One of the main goals of therapy is to develop more realistic expectations of others.

Medicines that help with other mental health problems like anxiety, depression and bipolar disorder may also help reduce some symptoms.

People are more likely to seek help for another mental health condition, such as depression. Getting treatment for these conditions can also positively impact on personality disorder symptoms.

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

Paula Ross is a psychologist and consultant in the alcohol and other drug sector and has a private practice.

Nicole Lee works as a consultant in the health sector and a psychologist in private practice. She currently and has previously been awarded funding by Australian and state governments, NHMRC and other bodies for evaluation and research work.

– ref. Is narcissism a mental health problem? And can you really diagnose it online? – https://theconversation.com/is-narcissism-a-mental-health-problem-and-can-you-really-diagnose-it-online-188360

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Virginia Barbour, Director, Open Access Australasia, Queensland University of Technology

Last week, the United States announced an updated policy guidance on open access that will substantially expand public access to science not just in America, but worldwide.

As per the guidance, all US federal agencies must put in place policies and plans so anyone anywhere can immediately and freely access the peer-reviewed publications and data arising from research they fund.

The policies need to be in place by the end of 2025, according to President Biden’s White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).

A substantial step

The new guidance builds on a previous memo issued by then president Barack Obama’s office in 2013. That one only applied to the largest funding agencies and, in a crucial difference, allowed for a 12-month delay or embargo for the publications to be available.

Now we’re seeing a substantial step forward in a lengthy effort – extending back to the beginning of this century – to open up access to the world’s research.

We can expect it to act as a catalyst for more policy changes globally. It’s also especially timely given UNESCO’s Open Science Recommendation adopted in 2021. The new OSTP guidance emphasises the primary intention is for the US public to have immediate access to research funded by their tax dollars.

But thanks to the conditions for opening up said research, people worldwide will benefit.

Read more:
Busting the top five myths about open access publishing

A discriminatory system

It might seem obvious that with our ubiquitous internet access, there should already be immediate open access to publicly funded research. But that isn’t the case for most published studies.

Changing the system has been challenging, not least because academic publishing is dominated by a small number of highly profitable and powerful publishers.

Open access matters for both the public and academics, as the fast-moving emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic amply demonstrated.

Even academics at well-funded universities can mostly only access journals their universities subscribe to – and no institution can afford to subscribe to everything published. Last year, estimates suggest some 2 million research articles were published. People outside a university – in a small company, a college, a GP practice, a newsroom, or citizen scientists – have to pay for access.

As the new guidance notes, this lack of public access leads to “discrimination and structural inequalities… [that] prevent some communities from reaping the rewards of the scientific and technological advancements”. Furthermore, lack of access leads to mistrust in research.

The accompanying OSTP memo highlights that future policies should support scientific and research integrity, with the aim of increasing public trust in science.

COVID-19 is not the first rapid global emergency, and it won’t be the last. For example, doctors not being able to access research on Ebola may have directly led to a 2015 outbreak in West Africa.

In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, the White House led calls for publishers to make COVID-19 publications open to all. Most (but not all) did and that call led to one of the biggest databases of openly available papers ever assembled – the CORD-19 database.

But not all of those COVID-19 papers will be permanently openly available, since some publishers put conditions on their accessibility. With the current spread of monkeypox, we are potentially facing another global emergency. In August this year, the White House once again called for publishers to make relevant research open.

The OSTP guidance will finally mean that, at least for US federally funded research, the time of governments having to repeatedly call for publishers to make research open is over.

Read more:
Not just available, but also useful: we must keep pushing to improve open access to research

The situation in Australia

In Australia, we don’t yet have a national approach to open access. The two national research funders, the NHMRC and ARC, have policies in place similar to the 2013 US guidance of a 12-month embargo period. The NHMRC consulted last year on an immediate open access policy.

All Australian universities provide access to their research through their repositories, although that access varies depending on individual universities’ and publishers’ policies. Most recently, the Council of Australian University Librarians negotiated a number of consortial open access deals with publishers. Cathy Foley, Australia’s Chief Scientist, is also considering a national model for open access.

So what’s next? As expected, perhaps, some of the larger publishers are already making the case for more funding for them to support this policy. It will be important that this policy doesn’t lead to a financial bonanza for these already very profitable companies – nor a consolidation of their power.

Rather, it would be good to see financial support for innovation in publishing, and a recognition that we need a diversity of approaches to support an academic publishing system that works for the benefit of all.

Read more:
Making Australian research free for everyone to read sounds ideal. But the Chief Scientist’s open-access plan isn’t risk-free

Virginia Barbour is the Director Of Open Access Australasia, which advocates for Open Access in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand.

– ref. The US has ruled all taxpayer-funded research must be free to read. What’s the benefit of open access? – https://theconversation.com/the-us-has-ruled-all-taxpayer-funded-research-must-be-free-to-read-whats-the-benefit-of-open-access-189466

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carolyn Holbrook, Senior Lecturer in History, Deakin University

The solicitor-general’s recent finding that former Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s furtive accrual of ministerial portfolios “fundamentally undermined” the principles of responsible government has drawn attention to the precarity of democracy. In seeking to safeguard our democracy, we must consider the extent to which Australians’ long-standing apathy about our democratic system allowed Morrison to treat it with such contempt.

Democracy is under threat around the world. Donald Trump’s autocratic populism and the attempted coup at the Capitol in January 2021 are familiar to Australians, but so-called “strongmen” have been white-anting democratic conventions in countries including the Philippines, Turkey, Hungary, Poland, Venezuela and Brazil for the past two decades.

Democratic government is a compact between the people and the state. It relies on robust institutions and an engaged and informed citizenry that holds its elected representatives to account. Complacency and ignorance provide fertile ground for populists and autocrats to spread misinformation, undermine institutions and disregard democratic conventions.

Read more:
Morrison’s multiple portfolios: why the law has nothing to do with it

Australians have recently shown enough concern to reject Morrison’s secretive and misleading government even before the ministries scandal was revealed.

Yet, worryingly, there is plenty of evidence that Australians remain both apathetic and ignorant about their democracy and its institutional guardrails.

Civics education was reintroduced in Australian schools in 1997. Yet, the most recent review of the civics curriculum indicated only 38% of Year 10 students – the level at which the compulsory civic curriculum finishes – are proficient in civics and citizenship knowledge. Young people care passionately about issues such as gender equality and climate change, yet are ill-equipped to participate in Australian democracy.

The data about civics education sit within a wider context that is highly concerning. Faith in our democracy has been plummeting since the early 21st century.

The 2019 ANU Australian Election Study found that trust in government had reached its lowest level on record, with only one in four Australians saying they had confidence in their political leaders and institutions.

The Edelman Trust barometer indicated a spike in trust in democracy in Australia during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. That pattern has not been sustained. The 2022 Edelman Trust Barometer found trust in democracy among Australians had fallen six points since 2021, the second biggest decline behind Germany.

If we are to protect our democracy from bad-faith actors in the future, we need to restore faith in government and equip people with the skills to be vigilant custodians. This formidable task must begin with encouraging a sentimental attachment to Australian democracy.

Federation disappeared from view

Unlike Americans, whose precarious democracy is extravagantly mythologised, Australians are not inclined to celebrate their democratic achievement. This tendency can be traced to our national beginnings.

When the Commonwealth of Australia was created in 1901, Australians were more inclined to believe that nations were made in war rather than an act of the British parliament. Some, like the first Attorney-General Alfred Deakin, sought to establish a commemorative tradition on January 1. Deakin suggested the date be known as Commonwealth Day but found little support among his colleagues. The Federation poet George Essex Evans tried to muster pride in the fact that Australia was “Free-born of nations, Virgin white, Not won by blood nor ringed with steel”. But the sentiment of journalist and author A.G. Hales more accurately represented the view of the majority:

A nation is never a nation

Worthy of pride or place

Till the mothers have sent their firstborn

To look death on the field in the face […]

The peaceful achievement of a national democratic government at Federation simply disappeared from view.

Anzac became our founding myth

Australians manufactured a creation myth 14 years later, during the first world war. According to the Anzac legend, Australia was born on April 25 1915 when Australian and New Zealander soldiers stormed the cliffs at Gallipoli.

The popularity of the Anzac legend declined during the 1960s and 1970s but has undergone a massive resurgence since then. Bob Hawke’s “pilgrimage” to Gallipoli with a group of elderly veterans in 1990 began the pattern of prime ministers inserting themselves at the heart of Anzac commemoration.

Since 2012, governments have channelled more than A$1 billion of taxpayer money into Anzac commemoration. This spending bonanza includes $550 million on the centenary of the first world war – more than any other nation and possibly more than all other nations combined. Governments have also spent $100 million John Monash Centre at Villers-Bretonneux in France and the controversial $500 million renovation of the Australian War Memorial.

This extraordinary outlay of money would be more wisely spent by our political leaders on sponsoring a mythology of Australian democracy.

Why we need a mythology of Australian democracy

Australia has more than enough material with which to build a democratic legend. As the political scientist Judith Brett has written, the Australian colonies and the early Commonwealth were

a laboratory for new ideas about democracy, and new methods of achieving them.

The colonies pioneered government-provided ballot papers and provided separate voting booths, which allowed people to cast their votes in secret. Women were early to get the vote, though when the Commonwealth enfranchised women in 1902 it disenfranchised Indigenous women and men.

In 1911, Saturday voting was introduced, making it easier for working people to cast their ballots. Preferential voting was introduced in 1918 and compulsory voting in 1924. Along with our non-partisan, bureaucratically managed election campaigns, compulsory voting helps Australia ameliorate the polarisation and voter suppression that are eroding American democracy.

While the Anzac legend is rooted in Australia’s Anglo-Celtic heritage, a democratic legend has the potential to appeal more widely. The latest census results confirm the cultural diversity of our population: 27.6% of us were born overseas, and 48.7% have at least one parent born overseas.

In addition to those who feel no connection to the Anzac legend, some of us come from places where democratic mores are not culturally entrenched. We need to include all Australians in the democratic project.

A concerted public education program must reckon with the failures of Australian democracy. These are most glaring in the treatment of Indigenous Australians and non-white people. The United States stands as a cautionary tale of a nation whose democratic swagger does not match reality.

Creating a sense of civic custodianship will not only protect our democratic system. It is also essential to achieving major initiatives such as an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, a republic and the federation reform that is urgently needed. Only eight of 44 referendums have succeeded since Federation, because Australians who are uncertain or disengaged simply vote “No”.

Read more:
Changing the Australian Constitution is not easy. But we need to stop thinking it’s impossible

Humans protect what they value. Australians are not inclined to learn about their democracy because they feel little attachment to it. This sentimental deficit must be filled by a concerted effort by government to enthuse Australians about our democratic system.

Imagine if the Commonwealth showed the same commitment to fanning a mythology of Australian democracy as it has to propagandising the Anzac legend. A $1 billion campaign to mythologise the democracy sausage – that could work.

Carolyn Holbrook receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She volunteered for the independent candidate for Goldstein in the May 2022 federal election.

– ref. Democracies are fragile. Australians must act urgently to safeguard ours – https://theconversation.com/democracies-are-fragile-australians-must-act-urgently-to-safeguard-ours-188580

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Roy Robins-Browne, Honorary Professorial Fellow, medical microbiology, The University of Melbourne

While much of our attention during the past few years has been focused on COVID, a more insidious and more dangerous pandemic has been spreading unabated. This pandemic concerns antimicrobial resistance, which is when bacteria evade the antibiotics we use to treat them. You’ve probably heard these bacteria called “superbugs” in the mainstream press.

A recently published study found that in 2019 around 5 million deaths were associated with antibiotic resistance, more than twice those due to COVID in 2020.

Read more:
We know _why_ bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, but _how_ does this actually happen?

The two main contributors to the emergence and persistence of antibiotic resistance are the ways antibiotics work and the ability of bacteria to combat them.

Bacteria are highly evolved lifeforms that have significant evolutionary advantages over us. One of these is their doubling time, which, for many of the common varieties of bacteria that infect us, is only 15 to 40 minutes.

In addition, bacteria grow exponentially, which means the time for one bacterium to become two, is the same as that for 100 million to become 200 million.

One consequence of this is if we kill 99.99% of bacteria, they can restore their numbers within a few hours. Importantly, some or all these bacteria may be resistant to the agent that originally killed most of their ancestors.

This process of bacterial survival is driven by evolution and the Darwinian principle of natural selection (survival of the fittest), which applies as much to microorganisms as it does to animals and plants.

How does antibiotic resistance come about?

Almost all current antibiotics work by killing microbes or inhibiting their replication. Bacteria acquire resistance to these antibiotics in two ways: mutation and horizontal gene transfer.

Mutations occur when cells replicate. Some random errors in the replication process may make bacteria better able to evade our treatments.

Horizontal gene transfer is the transfer of genes between bacteria. Most organisms only pass on genes vertically – that is from parent to offspring. But bacteria can exchange genes among themselves, including genes that enable them to resist antibiotics.

Another worrisome feature of current antibiotics is the fact they are indiscriminate. If you consume an antibiotic for an infection in your foot, it does not magically go to your foot alone, but is distributed throughout the body, affecting some of the “good” bacteria that live on and in us.

For this reason, many of the 100 trillion bacteria that live in each of us have become resistant to commonly used antibiotics. These “good” bacteria can then transfer resistance to their disease-causing companions.

Read more:
Five of the scariest antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the past five years

We need to change how antimicrobials work

In order to control antibiotic resistance we need to think about antimicrobial therapy in new ways. One of these ways is to tackle disease-causing bacteria selectively, without killing them.

This can work because most bacteria don’t need to cause disease in order to survive, and if our treatments aren’t designed to kill them, the selection for resistant mutants will be weak, and they can go on living, while causing us no harm.

This may sound fanciful, but it is already proving effective. For example, there are drugs for urinary tract infections, that do not kill the bacteria, but instead target the molecules the bacteria need to stick to the bladder wall. This means the bacteria can’t colonise our bladders and make us sick. But as we are not trying to kill them, they have no need to learn to evade our treatments.

Another approach is to target the genes bacteria require to cause disease, making them harmless without killing them.

An advantage of antimicrobials which target pathogens specifically is that they won’t affect the “good” bacteria some of which contribute to our resistance to infection.

One limitation of these types of treatment is they will need to be specific for each type of bacterium. This means it will take significant time and effort to develop treatments for the many different types of bacteria that infect us. However we know this can be done, since we already do it for viruses (anti-virals).

What has to happen now?

Until recently, major pharmaceutical companies responded to antibiotic resistance by developing new drugs to which bacteria were susceptible. Now, however, few such companies are showing interest in new agents. This is because it isn’t cost-effective to develop traditional, resistance-inducing antibiotics, which will become obsolete within a few years.

Read more:
Use them and lose them: finding alternatives to antibiotics to preserve their usefulness

As with climate change and other existential threats, antibiotic resistance will need to be tackled by governments in collaboration with scientists and industry.

There are other ways to combat bacterial resistance, including vaccines and ensuring antibiotics are used appropriately. But a coordinated effort comprising these strategies together with specially targeted anti-bacterial drugs, similar to those currently being used to treat viral infections, offers our best hope.

If we don’t act, we face an era resembling that before the advent of penicillin when a minor scratch could result in a fatal infection.

Roy Robins-Browne has received funding from The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, The Australian Research Council, the Bill and Melinda Gates Research Foundation, The US National Institutes of Health. He is affiliated with The University of Melbourne, The Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, The Royal Children’s Hospital, The University of Maryland, The Australian Society for Microbiology.

– ref. We need to change how antibiotics target bugs if we want them to keep working – https://theconversation.com/we-need-to-change-how-antibiotics-target-bugs-if-we-want-them-to-keep-working-183135

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gill Armstrong, Senior Project Manager – Buildings, Climateworks Centre

Energy-efficiency standards for new homes in Australia are being upgraded for the first time in a decade. New homes will be required to improve minimum performance from 6 stars to 7 stars under the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS). Federal, state and territory building ministers agreed on the change last Friday.

The rating will also use a whole-of-home energy “budget”. This will allow homes to meet the new standard in different ways. The standard will come into force in May 2023, and all new homes will have to comply by October 2023.

On Monday, the NSW government also announced large commercial developments, as well as big state projects, will have to submit a “net-zero statement” to gain planning approval. The statement must show their buildings are either all-electric or can fully convert to renewable energy by 2035. In addition, new homes and renovations will have to reach a 7-star rating under the state’s Building Sustainability Index (BASIX). The current minimum is 5.5 stars.

These upgrades represent a step in the right direction, but much more remains to be done to future-proof Australian homes. Buildings account for about 20% of the nation’s emissions. Further upgrades to the National Construction Code (NCC) are needed before 2030 to achieve Australia’s climate targets.

Read more:
Better building standards are good for the climate, your health, and your wallet. Here’s what the National Construction Code could do better

We’re still short of zero-carbon buildings

Across Australia, more than 5.5 million houses are predicted to be built between 2023 and 2050. The upgraded construction code means they will perform better in climate extremes and emit less carbon.

So this long-overdue change is good news for households and the planet. It means new houses will use an average of 24.5% less energy to keep warm and cool. And new condensation provisions will help to control mould growth, a health problem for tightly sealed homes with poor ventilation.

The International Energy Agency recommends advanced economies such as Australia have a “zero-carbon-ready building code” in place by the end of the 2020s. This would ensure all new buildings in the 2030s will be zero or near-zero carbon.

Governments around the world have already moved in this direction, including the European Union and California. Australia is still well behind international best practice in design and construction.

Best-in-class energy efficiency, full electrification and renewable energy supply will be crucial to fully decarbonise the building sector. Further updates to the National Construction Code in 2025 and 2028 will need to ensure Australia implements a “zero-carbon-ready” building code by 2030. Only then can Australia deliver on its legislated climate targets and protect Australians from a warming climate and higher energy prices.

Cost arguments against further upgrades don’t stack up

Australia can’t wait another decade to upgrade building standards again. Arguments against higher standards tend to focus on the ticket price of new houses, but most homes are bought with mortgage loans and monthly repayments.

Higher standards would reduce energy consumption to near zero, providing a buffer against energy price spikes and increases. Low or negative energy bills (as a result of payments for exporting electricity) will largely offset the initial cost of building better-performing homes. Households will also be less vulnerable to wider climatic events such as heatwaves.

A cornerstone of the policy-making process is cost-benefit analysis undertaken by government. The analysis behind the NCC update failed to fully grasp the economic, social and environmental benefits of higher standards.

Cost-benefit guidelines, which are set by the Office of Best Practice Regulation, should be reviewed. Any analysis must properly reflect costs and benefits over the lifetime of a home, including the impacts of reduced energy and health bills on mortgage repayments. Ensuring further changes to the NCC accurately represent the full benefits will be critical to avoid another decade of stalled action.

Banks have already started to recognise the value of sustainable housing. Their lowest mortgage rates are for new green homes.

What about all the existing homes?

While ensuring all new buildings are built to zero-carbon standards after 2030 will be important, improving the quality and performance of the majority of Australia’s 10.9 million homes is equally if not more important. Existing building stocks are inadequate – most housing was built before energy performance standards existed.

Read more:
The other 99%: retrofitting is the key to putting more Australians into eco-homes

A major wave of retrofitting is needed to upgrade these homes. Deeper upgrades can be done during renovations to deliver improved performance, safe indoor temperatures and lower energy use and bills.

Existing Australian homes for the most part rate below 2 stars in energy performance. Their occupants experience extremes of temperature during summer and in winter in areas such as Melbourne, Canberra, Adelaide and Tasmania.

Extreme hot and cold are harmful to human health. The impacts are greatest for people on low incomes and/or who rent.

We have many examples of how to cost-effectively retrofit housing. These changes can have significant impacts on household bills and health.

Retrofitting will be more resource-efficient than demolishing and rebuilding. It will also retain the architectural and heritage value of our cities and suburbs.

However, a number of measures will be required to retrofit housing on the scale needed. These include financial incentives from banks, government subsidies, minimum requirements at point of sale, minimum rental standards, education of landlords, etc.

Read more:
Keen to retrofit your home to lower its carbon footprint and save energy? Consider these 3 things

Net-zero code and retrofitting should be top of the agenda

Australian building ministers are due to meet again early next year. They must quickly turn their attention to ensuring the 2025 and 2028 upgrades pave the way to a zero-carbon-ready building code by 2030.

Governments should also work towards a national retrofit wave strategy that aims for a step change in the energy performance of existing homes. Essential elements of the strategy include the introduction of mandatory disclosure of home energy performance and the full electrification of Australian homes.

Without such changes, Australian housing and households risk being locked into poor-quality, under-performing and costly housing for decades.

Gill Armstrong is part of Climateworks Centre which receives funding from several philanthropic foundations, and project-specific financial support from a range of private and public entities. Gill is also part of a research project at University of Technology Sydney, which has received funding from City of Sydney for the STAR Toolkit research project

Alan Pears receives funding from RACE for 2030 CRC, Australian Alliance for Energy Productivity, Energy Efficiency Council and University of Melbourne. He is affiliated with Renew and several other community groups.

Margot Delafoulhouze is part of Climateworks Centre, which receives funding from several philanthropic foundations, and project-specific financial support from a range of private and public entities. Margot is a Board Director of Climate for Change, a not-for-profit organisation empowering individuals to act on climate.

Trivess Moore has received funding from various organisations including the Australian Research Council, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Victorian Government and various industry partners. He is a trustee of the Fuel Poverty Research Network.

– ref. 7-star housing is a step towards zero carbon – but there’s much more to do, starting with existing homes – https://theconversation.com/7-star-housing-is-a-step-towards-zero-carbon-but-theres-much-more-to-do-starting-with-existing-homes-189542

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Beryl Exley, Professor, Griffith Institute for Educational Research, Griffith University, Griffith University

Australia’s state and federal education ministers recently agreed to work on a plan to fix the country’s teacher shortage.

The plan is due in December and one of five priority areas is “strengthening initial teacher education”.

Initial teacher education is the university degree students undertake to become registered classroom teachers. Worried that too many students are not completing their teaching degrees, federal Education Minister Jason Clare has asked Sydney University vice-chancellor Professor Mark Scott to report back on the issue by the end of the year.

We draw on our experience as teacher educators and educational researchers to suggest four ways to help increase the pace and rate of students completing their teaching degrees.

But first: what is the problem?

It looks like there is no shortage of people wanting to be a teacher – at least to begin with.

Figures from the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership show there is actually a modest increase in students signing up to initial teacher education courses. Between 2005 and 2019, numbers rose from 24,285 students to 28,694.

Even accounting for some natural attrition, these numbers are enough to sustain the teaching workforce. But the figures for program completion are significantly lower.

In 2005, 16,526 teachers graduated and in 2019 it was 16,644. We also know that while the number of students graduating from all fields of study at university increased by 40% from 2009 to 2019, the number of students graduating from teacher education declined by 5%.

Why might this be so?

1. Unreasonable testing demands

LANTITE is the national Literacy and Numeracy Test for Initial Teacher Education. It’s a two-hour literacy test and a two-hour numeracy test, undertaken in formal exam-like conditions. All student teachers must pass both components in order to graduate.

There are logistical challenges with undertaking LANTITE. Opportunities to sit the test are limited to four testing windows a year, with in-person testing centres in a relatively small number of locations.

Read more:
‘It hurt my heart and my wallet’: the unnecessary test stressing teachers before they even make it to the classroom

This forces student teachers from regional and rural areas who prefer to attend a physical test centre to bear the extra effort associated with time away from home, including travel and accommodation costs.

The test is in addition to other university courses and costs A$196 per attempt. Research has found the test is not only highly stressful, but also expensive and not an accurate indicator of teacher quality.

It’s time to find more convenient and less costly ways to assess student teachers’ literacy and numeracy skills.

2. Costs of getting qualified

Student teachers must undertake uninterrupted blocks of professional experience in schools in each year of their degree. While this is a critical part of the degree, it comes at great personal cost.

The intensity of the professional placement, including full days in schools and time spent in the evenings gathering resources, planning lessons and marking students’ work, means student teachers can’t do other paid work.

It may mean they can’t earn an income for up to six weeks at a time. On top of this, there are also travel expenses to get to school each day. They may also need to buy stationery and resources to use in their lessons.

A guaranteed stipend that takes into account the real costs of undertaking a teaching placement is essential.

3. No guarantee of a permanent job

Despite the media talk about the teacher shortage, many student teachers are unable to secure permanent employment in their preferred subjects, especially in city areas. The greatest need for teachers, and the greatest opportunity for permanent employment, is in rural and remote areas. However, it is not possible for all graduates to relocate for work.

Many new teachers seeking a job close to home are forced to cobble together a series of part time or short-term contracts, across a range of schools, year levels and subjects. Teaching out of their field of expertise is not unusual.

This means student teachers face uncertainty around their careers and the links between their studies and job prospects. High-performing student teachers need to know at the outset that there will be fair and reasonable opportunities to get a secure job close to home in their areas of expertise.

4. Declining status

In March 2022, when he was acting federal education minister, Stuart Robert blamed
“dud public school teachers” for the decline of academic results of Australian students.

Read more:
No wonder no one wants to be a teacher: world-first study looks at 65,000 news articles about Australian teachers

Recent research that looked at media reporting on teachers in Australia for the past 25 years also found “teacher bashing” to be the norm. The media also made out that teachers’ work was simple, and easy.

This reporting devalues the profession and weighs heavily on students when they are considering their commitment to their teaching studies (which are already costly and don’t guarantee a job close to home and in their area of expertise).

We need to make sure student teachers know they are doing important and complex work and that it is valued by the schools and communities where they teach.

Beryl Exley is an AITSL Accreditation Panel Chair and interstate panellist.

Donna Pendergast is a Director of AITSL and Chair of the Queensland Council of Deans of Education.

– ref. Too many people drop out of teaching degrees – here are 4 ways to keep them studying – https://theconversation.com/too-many-people-drop-out-of-teaching-degrees-here-are-4-ways-to-keep-them-studying-189233

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darryl Gobbett, Visiting Fellow, South Australian Centre for Economic Studies, University of Adelaide

This article is part of The Conversation’s series looking at Labor’s jobs summit. Read the other articles in the series here.

With historically low unemployment and “we’re hiring” signs all over the place, there’s an understandable push for more skilled migrants. There’s a session on it at the jobs summit on Friday morning.

But there’s a quicker fix: an untapped source of hundreds of thousands of skilled workers, who are already in the country, many of whom would like to work but would be penalised for it.

Age pensioners who earn more than a minimal amount from paid work (A$490 a fortnight for singles) lose 50 cents out of every extra dollar they earn in reduced pension payments.

It’s a powerful disincentive. $490 a fortnight is $245 per week: that’s about nine hours’ income for a worker on the minimum wage with a casual loading.

Read more:
Forget more compulsory super: here are 5 ways to actually boost retirement incomes

Relaxing the income test – or at least the test on income from work – would have benefits beyond helping to meet our immediate need for skills and experience.

Longer term, it would reduce the need for bureaucrats to compile lists of skill shortages and attempt to pick migrants with the right skills to fill those gaps.

It would also ease the pressure that higher migration puts on the housing market, putting upward pressure on prices.

Given the jobs summit is looking for solutions with widespread support, unlocking retirees’ skills would be a good place to start.

Few pensioners work

The idea is backed by small and big business lobby groups, as well as National Seniors Australia and key federal independent MPs.

As of March 2021, about 2.5 million people were receiving the age pension. Only 92,000 – just 3.6% of them – declared earnings from employment.

There are three main ways we could make it easier for pensioners to work:

1. lift the income test threshold for how much can be earned from working

2. cut the income test when the threshold is reached

3. remove the income test entirely

The third option isn’t as radical as it seems. Several countries, including Britain and New Zealand, don’t apply an income test.

The simplest would be option 1, allowing age pensioners to earn (say) an additional $500 per fortnight, which would amount to $990 per fortnight, or $25,700 per annum.

Getting more into work needn’t cost much

Our calculations suggest giving age pensioners who are currently working these hours the full pension would cost less than $442 million per year.

This cost would amount to 0.8% of the $54,153 million budgeted to be paid as support to seniors in 2022/23.

If more pensioners worked more hours, the cost would climb to $1,664 million, which is 3.1% of this year’s budgeted support for seniors.

The benefits would be substantial.

Each one percentage point increase in workforce participation of those 65 years and older would boost the Australian labour force by around 43,000.

Hundreds of thousands more workers

As importantly, Australians aged 65 years and over are expected to be the fastest growing population group by 2030.

On current population projections, by then each one percentage point increase in labour force participation by this age group would amount to 54,000 people.

If the change boosted participation by several percentage points, it would produce hundreds of thousands more workers, all of them already locals and most already trained.

It looks to us to be an idea too good for the summit to pass up.

Read more:
Is education or immigration the answer to our skills shortage? We asked 50 economists

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

– ref. A fast fix for the jobs summit: let retirees work without docking their pension – https://theconversation.com/a-fast-fix-for-the-jobs-summit-let-retirees-work-without-docking-their-pension-188704

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Forsyth, Distinguished Professor of Workplace Law, RMIT University

This article is part of The Conversation’s series looking at Labor’s jobs summit. Read the other articles in the series here.

The trade union movement’s push to reform Australia’s enterprise bargaining system looks set to be a major issue at this week’s Jobs and Skills Summit.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions’ plan for sectoral or industry-level bargaining was outlined by secretary Sally McManus last week:

The way we’d see it working is that, where it makes sense to have multi-employer bargaining, both the workers’ representatives and the employers sit down and negotiate across their sector.

Innes Willox, chief executive of Australian Industry Group, labelled the proposal “seriously misguided” and a “throwback” to the 1960s. He warned it “would reduce opportunities for employers and employees to negotiate genuine improvements in productivity and work conditions that suit their workplace”.

But employer groups’ reactions have been far from unanimous.

The Council of Small Business Organisations Australia has agreed to work with the ACTU on industry bargaining reforms. The council’s chief executive, Alexi Boyd, said:

The current bargaining system was not built for us. It is not efficient and is too complicated. We welcome the opportunity to explore new flexible single- or multi-employer options that can be customised to our circumstances. The one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work.

What is industry bargaining?

Industry bargaining is a common approach to wage negotiations in most European countries. It involves representatives of workers and employers negotiating over the pay and conditions to apply across specific sectors of the economy.

New Zealand is in the midst of introducing a form of industry bargaining through its Fair Pay Agreements Bill, currently before the NZ parliament.

An industry-level approach to award wage negotiations also operated in Australia up to the early 1990s, before the Hawke-Keating government introduced enterprise bargaining (negotiating agreements by workplace).

Enterprise bargaining is broken

Hawke and Keating saw enterprise bargaining as the way to modernise the industrial relations system in line with their mission to make Australia globally competitive.

Thirty years on, though, it is not delivering for employers or workers.

Unions can be involved in enterprise bargaining where they are strong enough. However, in many workplaces there is no negotiation. The employer simply puts out its proposed agreement for a vote by the employees, then submits it to the industrial relations umpire (the Fair Work Commission) for approval.

It has become increasingly apparent over the past decade that enterprise bargaining is broken. In 2012, 27% of employees were covered by an enterprise agreement. By 2021 it was just 15%.

Read more:
There’s one big reason wages are stagnating: the enterprise bargaining system is broken, and in terminal decline

Fears of militant unions

A major concern of business advocates such as the Australian Industry Group is that industry bargaining – backed by the right to take industrial action – will further empower unions such as the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union to pursue “pattern bargaining” claims – by which a union secures gains from one employer and then demands the same from others.

There is indeed a risk that extending the right to bargain and strike across industries will add to the potency of some already powerful unions.

But this cannot be the perennial excuse for doing nothing to give greater leverage to hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers, doing the vital work that keeps our economy and society functioning.

The ACTU’s proposal will not be a return to the 1960s or ‘70s, when union membership was more than 50% of the workforce and there were regular strikes in support of wage demands.

In those days, unions were able to push for better pay and conditions through adjustments to awards, overseen by the industrial relations court, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Awards no longer serve that purpose, now being a “safety net” for workers on minimum wages.

Why care workers would benefit

Changing the Fair Work Act to enable industry bargaining would particularly benefit workers in industries such as child care, aged care and disability support.

These are highly feminised sectors where enterprise bargaining has not delivered for a variety of reasons – including the role of government funding in setting wages, and workers’ reluctance to take industrial action that is detrimental to their clients. This has led to care workers being stuck on award-level wages.

Read more:
Wages and women top Albanese’s IR agenda: the big question is how Labor keeps its promises

Industry bargaining would enable funding bodies to be brought into pay negotiations in these sectors.

It would also enable workers and unions to negotiate with other business entities beside direct employers that have influence over the wages ultimately paid to employees.

This is important given the use of franchising structures, labour hire arrangements and complex supply chains to obscure the employment relationship between the worker and the business employing their labour.

To take one example, a union representing cleaners and security guards working out of the same CBD building must currently make separate agreements with the different contracting firms that employ those workers.

In a system of multi-employer bargaining, the building owner or building services management company – which ultimately benefits from the workers’ labour and determines its price through the contracts it makes with the cleaning and security companies – would be brought into the equation.

In this way, industry or multi-employer bargaining would ensure a level playing field.

Businesses would not have to fear a competitive disadvantage from having to pay higher wages than rival businesses. Nor could they undercut each other by outsourcing to avoid higher wages and conditions in an agreement.

Anthony Forsyth is affiliated with the Centre for Future Work (Australia Institute) and the Migrant Workers Centre in Victoria. He has received funding from the Australian Research Council Linkage Program (industry partners: Australian Council of Trade Unions & The Union Education Foundation).

– ref. Why unions and small business want industry bargaining from the jobs summit – and big business doesn’t – https://theconversation.com/why-unions-and-small-business-want-industry-bargaining-from-the-jobs-summit-and-big-business-doesnt-189394

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Helena Gjone, PhD candidate (creative writing), Griffith University

As an international student at the Bolshoi Ballet Academy in Moscow in 2012, I remember studying Rekviem (requiem) by Russian poet Anna Ahkmatova, an elegy she penned in secret as a tribute to the countless victims of Stalin’s murderous purges.

Akhmatova’s writing revived the atrocities, delivering their darkness into the light.

Her words spoke of constant fear permeating lives; of distrust, anxiety and betrayal; of the secret police arriving to drag you or your family away.

To avoid detection and retribution, Ahkmatova whispered the poem to her friends who committed it to memory. She burned the incriminating scraps of paper.

In the first four-and-a-half months following Putin’s attack against Ukraine, over 13,000 anti-war protesters were detained in Russia.

Some estimates are that hundreds of thousands fled Russia in early 2022, among them thousands of artists who no longer felt safe in the climate of increasing censorship.

Some of these artists have found themselves in Kirkenes, a small Norwegian town 15 kilometres from the Russian border.

Russia’s protest art

Russian and Soviet artists have a long history of art as protest.

The poem Stalin’s Epigram (1933) authored by Osip Mandelstam depicted Stalin as a gleeful killer. Authorities imprisoned and tortured Mandelstam, then deported the poet to a remote village near the Ural Mountains.

After returning from exile, he persisted writing about Stalin until he was sent to a labour camp in Siberia, where he died in 1938 at the age of 47.

Under the comparatively liberal rule of Stalin’s successor Nikita Khrushchev from 1953, the Soviet Union began to enjoy previously unimagined freedoms.

Protest art reflected these newfound liberties, becoming increasingly provocative and experimental.

Many famous art movements surfaced during this period, including Sots Art — a fusion between Soviet and Pop Art — as Russian artists tested the boundaries, exposing the grim realities and unhappiness of life under Stalin’s regime.

In 1962, the legendary composer Shostakovich set his 13th symphony to a series of poems by his contemporary, Yevgeny Yevtushenko. One of these poems was Babi Yar, which criticised the Soviet government for concealing the massacre of 33,371 Jews in a mass grave outside Kyiv.

Read more:
Decoding the music masterpieces: Shostakovich’s Babi Yar

In contemporary Russia, Pussy Riot came to the attention of the world in 2012 when members stepped behind the altar in Moscow’s golden-domed Christ the Saviour Cathedral wearing neon-coloured balaclavas to deliver a “punk rock prayer”.

Their voices echoed off the cavernous, hand-painted ceilings, raging against Putin’s affiliation with the Orthodox church and the homophobic, anti-feminist policies that followed.

They were sentenced to two years imprisonment.

Today, pictures from Russia reveal anonymous anti-war graffiti on the sides of buildings, “no war” chiselled into a frozen river, and yellow and blue chrysanthemums and tulips left at the feet of Soviet war memorials.

Cross-border collaborations

Pikene på Broen (girls on the bridge) is an arts collective based in Kirkenes.

They have spent the past 25 years curating art projects to promote cross-cultural collaboration and tackle political problems in the borderland region.

Pikene på Broen is host to the the annual art festival Barents Spektakel (spectacle), an international artist residency including Russian, Norwegian and Finnish creatives, the gallery and project space Terminal B in Kirkenes town, and the debate series Transborder Café.

The venue has become a hub for open discussions relating to current political and cultural issues, drawing contributions from artists, musicians, writers, politicians and researchers.

Evgeny Goman, an independent theatre director from Murmansk, Russia – about 200 kilometres from Kirkenes – has been collaborating with Pikene på Broen for over 10 years.

After moving to Norway in early 2022, Pikene på Broen worked with Goman to organise Kvartirnik (from the word kvartira, meaning apartment), an online talk group for Russian and Norwegian artists to exchange ideas.

Following Putin’s attack on Ukraine, Kvartirnik shifted to an underground movement for dissident artists. Ironically, the name Kvartirnik derives from the clandestine concerts arranged in people’s apartments during the Soviet Era when musicians were banned from performing in public.

Party of the Dead is one of several Russian protest art groups who participated in Kvartirnik.

Pictures from the snow-decked Piskaryovskoye Cemetery in Saint Petersburg reveal members dressed as skeletons, holding placards reading: “are there not enough corpses?”.

I spoke with Goman about the art coming out of Kvartirnik today.

“In peaceful times, art is more about entertaining,” he says.

But in war and conflict, art is more important because it’s the language we use to express our pain. And through metaphors and symbolism, it allows us to speak about things that are censored.

Countering propaganda

Kvartirnik collaborators in Murmansk have also produced and distributed Samizdat (self-publishing), an anonymous newsletter containing art suppressed by the state.

“We have to be really smart now about how we do things in Russia,” Goman says. “Subtle.”

Goman is pessimistic about Russia’s future. But he believes the key to moving forward is keeping communication open. He tells me the West’s decision to ban Russian culture has backfired on their plan to pressure Putin into ending the war against Ukraine.

Instead, he says, the divide is steadily increasing, leaving dissident artists isolated inside a country operating on fear and propaganda, furthering Putin’s agenda.

“Putin wants us to not affect Russian minds. And that’s why we have to keep the dialogue going,” he says of the importance of cross-border collaborations like those he has undertaken in Kirkenes.

If we stop communicating, Putin wins. Propaganda wins.

Read more:
A former journalist recalls Ukraine’s 1991 vote for independence — and how its resilience endures

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

– ref. ‘If we stop communicating, Putin wins. Propaganda wins’: how a Norwegian organisation is supporting Russian protest art – https://theconversation.com/if-we-stop-communicating-putin-wins-propaganda-wins-how-a-norwegian-organisation-is-supporting-russian-protest-art-186911

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

On Saturday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese met with former NBA star and current TV personality Shaquille O’Neal in Sydney to enlist the sport star’s support for constitutional recognition for an Indigenous voice. O’Neal voiced his support for changes to the Australian Constitution, but is his voice the right one?

The prime minister claimed O’Neal reached out to him because “he wanted to inform himself about what this debate was about”.

Now O’Neal will be a part of the government’s campaign to change the constitution, recording a 15-second advertisement for free. He is meant to be the first of many stars, including unnamed players in the AFL, NRL basketball and netball organisations, to offer their public support for an Indigenous Voice to parliament.

Whose voice should be heard on the issue?

For many, the selection of “Shaq” as a spokesperson for the Indigenous Voice to parliament is a strange one. O’Neal is well-known for his viral and sometimes problematic performances on and off the court.

During his NBA career, O’Neal built a reputation as an overpowering post presence and a savvy media jokester. In his current job as a sports analyst on the popular television show Inside the NBA, he hosts a popular segment known as “Shaq’tin A Fool,” which features bloopers from recent games.

Read more:
Sit on hands or take a stand: why athletes have always been political players

He has made some foolish decisions himself over the years: his feud with Kobe Bryant filled the tabloids for years, the film Kazaam was a ratings failure, and he has made and apologised for a range of racist or possibly homophobic comments.

Most Americans see O’Neal as a charismatic, even playful, person rather than as an engaged athlete activist. The prime minister claimed O’Neal had done great work in the US around “social justice and lifting people up who are marginalised” but has not followed up those comments with any specifics.

Raising awareness

Averill Gordon, Senior Lecturer in Public Relations at Auckland University of Technology, believes the choice of O’Neal will garner widespread domestic and international awareness and support for the Voice to Parliament.

“Athletes are a great way to internationalise an issue as sport and music are key themes used to drive most global PR campaigns.”

“The biggest challenge in a PR campaign is to move the people who are unaware of an issue to become aware,” she said. “Shaquille’s involvement and subsequent communication means people will become aware of this issue and may even become active. It also creates global traction that will feed back to Australia and circulate the message further, adding global interest that will ironically increase Australian awareness.”

Read more:
Establishing a Voice to Parliament could be an opportunity for Indigenous Nation Building. Here’s what that means

She notes the Australian government is addressing a global issue that “affects Australia’s country branding.”

“The (Albanese) government is garnering popular international support to drive a national issue. By using a US opinion leader, it moves this national issue to be recognised as a common global issue.”

Support for conservative causes

The inclusion of O’Neal in the Voice campaign undoubtedly brings attention to the government’s position, but the choice is still considered an odd one by many. Albanese’s problem is not people’s unfamiliarity with the debate over the Indigenous voice, but rather that few people yet know the proposed language of any constitutional change.

It’s important to also note that O’Neal is not an avatar of the sort of progressive politics that encompasses issues like the Voice. In the increasingly political NBA, players such as Lebron James and general managers like Daryl Morey have opened political firestorms with their critiques of Donald Trump and the Chinese government.

O’Neal has previously been tied to more conservative causes. He is a strong supporter of police and sheriff’s departments across the United States, including in Los Angeles, Miami and, controversially, Maricopa Country, Arizona. Maricopa County’s former sheriff, Joe Arpaio, faced criticism for racial profiling, poor conditions for undocumented immigrants, and eventually received a pardon from Trump following his conviction for criminal contempt of court.

O’Neal’s strong support for law enforcement, despite the Black Lives Matter protests in the United States, might make activists working in the Stop First Nations Deaths in Custody uncomfortable, as it has for many African Americans too.

Read more:
‘I can’t breathe!’ Australia must look in the mirror to see our own deaths in custody

If O’Neal has become a progressive, the change happened recently, since he admitted in 2020 that he had never voted. In subsequent political commentary, he argued athletes should keep quiet in the press and social media. He told Sports Illustrated:

My thought is that if you are not an expert on it, or if you haven’t been doing it, don’t do it.

So when did he become an expert on constitutional issues in Australia?

Indigenous voices divided?

The government must also take care that any Voice spokespeople, including O’Neal, do not replace the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander people. There is a vigorous debate among Indigenous people about the shape of any Voice to parliament.

Minister for Indigenous Australians and Wiradjuri woman Linda Burney was with Albanese and O’Neal on Saturday. She lauded O’Neal’s efforts, presenting the American with a boomerang made by Indigenous artist Josh Evans and a South Sydney Rabbitohs Indigenous round jersey.

Indigenous politicians from across the political spectrum have illustrated the complexity of this issue in Australia and the unsuitability of O’Neal as a commentator on it. On the political right, Country Liberal Party Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, a Warlpiri woman, said “I’ve no doubt Shaq’s a top bloke but it’s a bit insulting to call on a black American to help with black Australians as if this is all about the colour of one’s skin.” She followed up by calling Albanese’s move a desperate measure.

Green Party’s Senator Lidia Thorpe, of DjabWurrung, Gunnai, and Gunditjmara descent, also took aim at O’Neal. She wrote on Twitter:

‘Nothing about us without us’

In fact, there is reason to worry the selection of O’Neal as a spokesperson might overshadow the work Indigenous Australians have done in the sports space already.

In the past, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander athletes in a range of disciplines including athletics, AFL and Rugby League have used their sporting prestige to bring attention to Indigenous issues. Albanese could conceivably call on a range of beloved current and retired indigenous sports stars, such as Cathy Freeman, Adam Goodes or Ash Barty, to address this complicated issue.

Many Australian sporting institutions, including the Australian Olympic Committee, already have committees devoted to including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices. But that would require Albanese to wade into the complexities of Indigenous politics in Australia rather than take advantage of a celebrity from America.

Read more:
Most Australians support First Nations Voice to parliament: survey

Polling shows many Australians are already supportive of an Indigenous Voice to parliament. Many in the public, as well as in Canberra, are wary of any decision made without appropriate consultation with Indigenous people and without clear language dictating the relationship between the Indigenous Voice and parliament.

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

– ref. Is Albanese ‘Shaqtin’ a fool’ over the Indigenous Voice to parliament? – https://theconversation.com/is-albanese-shaqtin-a-fool-over-the-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-189533

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Guangyi Pan, PhD candidate, UNSW Sydney

Two months of scorching heatwaves and drought plunged China into an energy security crisis.

The southwest province of Sichuan, for example, relies on dams to generate around 80% of its electricity, with growth in hydropower crucial for China meeting its net-zero by 2060 emissions target.

Sichuan suffered from power shortages after low rainfall and extreme temperatures over 40℃ dried up rivers and reservoirs. Heavy rainfall this week, however, has just seen power in Sichuan for commercial and industrial use fully restored, according to official Chinese media.

The energy crisis has seen Beijing shift its political discourse and proclaim energy security as a more urgent national mission than the green energy transition. Now, the government is investing in a new wave of coal-fired power stations to try to meet demand.

In the first quarter of 2022 alone, China approved 8.63 gigawatts of new coal plants and, in May, announced C¥ 10 billion (A$2.1 billion) of investment in coal power generation. What’s more, it will expand the capacity of a number of coal mines to ensure domestic supply as the international coal market price jumped amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

China is responsible for around a third of global carbon dioxide emissions, which makes this latest rebound to fossil fuels a climate change emergency.

How did it come to this?

In 2021, China’s CO₂ emissions rose above 11.9 billion tonnes – their highest level in history and dwarfing those of other countries. And according to the International Energy Agency, rapid GDP growth and electrification of energy services caused China’s electricity demand to grow by 10% in 2021. This is faster than its economic growth at 8.4%.

China had been attempting to reduce its dependency on coal for decades, with the growth of coal consumption gradually flattening from 2014.

During its 13th Five-Year Plan (2016-2020), the government called off a number of coal power projects. Thermal power investment halved over this time, dropping from C¥ 117.4 billion in 2016 to 55.3 billion in 2020 (A$24.7-11.2 billion).

In September 2020, President Xi Jinping delivered China’s “dual carbon” goal at the United Nations General Assembly, saying China will hit peak emissions before 2030 and reach net-zero by 2060.

A few months later, this goal was moved ahead of schedule. At a summit of global leaders, Jinping promised that China’s coal use would peak in 2025.

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

But the downward trend of coal consumption started to rebound in 2021, with a 4.6% year-on-year increase, the highest growth rate in a decade.

Over 33 gigawatts of coal power generation, including at least 43 new power plants and 18 new blast furnaces, started construction in China in 2021. This is the highest level since 2016 and almost three times the rest of the world combined.

Then, in 2022, we witnessed the international coal market skyrocket as geopolitical tension from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and economic recovery from the pandemic boosted global demand. Beijing, in turn, increased domestic coal production with double-digit growth in the first half of 2022.

Tug of war between green energy and security

The current energy crisis is not only an unintended consequence of the drought, but also a result of its long-term net-zero emissions goal. Increased coal import costs and rash control of domestic coal production put China’s energy supply in question, and renewable energy wasn’t ready to fill the gap.

Indeed, it isn’t the first energy security crisis China has endured in recent years. Last year, dozens of provinces experienced “power cuts” partly due to long-term reductions in coal production between 2016-2020.

In response to the crisis, the People’s Daily newspaper – the mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party – stated “the rice bowl of energy must be held in your own hands”. And Chinese Energy News called energy security a matter of national destiny.

Caught between green energy promises and dwindling energy supply, Beijing turned to see green energy as a secondary goal that could be put aside after energy security is fully guaranteed.

Read more:
China is gunning for supremacy in the global green hydrogen race. Will it shatter Australia’s dreams?

The principle of “establishment before abolition” (establishment of energy security before abolition of coal, xian li hou po) was reaffirmed in “Two Sessions”, an important political event in China held in March this year.

Chinese premier Li Keqiang positioned energy security to the same level of importance as food security in a Two Sessions government report.

A global emergency

The push for more coal power is at odds with China’s climate goals. According to China’s 13th Five Year Plan, coal-fired plants should be capped at generating 1,100 gigawatts of electricity.

To date, China has 1,074 gigawatts of coal power in operation, but more than 150 gigawatts of new plants have either been announced or permitted, according to the Global Energy Monitor.

The China Electricity Council – the industry group for China’s power sector – recommends the country reaches 1,300 gigawatts of coal-fired power in 2030 to meet the rising demand and strengthen energy security. If this occurs, it would see more than 300 new plants built.

Read more:
Beyond net-zero: we should, if we can, cool the planet back to pre-industrial levels

Without more restrictions against China’s use of fossil fuels, the world will hardly meet Paris Agreement climate targets.

China is expected to cease coal use entirely by 2050 in order to successfully meet promised climate targets. But the more resources are invested, the harder it’ll be for China to get rid of fossil fuels.

The 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025) will be crucial in determining how China meets its carbon commitments and whether the world is on track to meet the 1.5℃ target. Under this plan, China wants carbon to peak by 2030, but the action plan remains vague.

As Professor David Tyfield of the Lancaster Environment Centre asserted: “until China decarbonises, we’re not going to beat climate change.”

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

– ref. ‘Matter of national destiny’: China’s energy crisis sees the world’s top emitter investing in more coal – https://theconversation.com/matter-of-national-destiny-chinas-energy-crisis-sees-the-worlds-top-emitter-investing-in-more-coal-189142

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Guangyi Pan, PhD candidate, UNSW Sydney

Two months of scorching heatwaves and drought plunged China into an energy security crisis.

The southwest province of Sichuan, for example, relies on dams to generate around 80% of its electricity, with growth in hydropower crucial for China meeting its net-zero by 2060 emissions target.

Sichuan suffered from power shortages after low rainfall and extreme temperatures over 40℃ dried up rivers and reservoirs. Heavy rainfall this week, however, has just seen power in Sichuan for commercial and industrial use fully restored, according to official Chinese media.

The energy crisis has seen Beijing shift its political discourse and proclaim energy security as a more urgent national mission than the green energy transition. Now, the government is investing in a new wave of coal-fired power stations to try to meet demand.

In the first quarter of 2022 alone, China approved 8.63 gigawatts of new coal plants and, in May, announced C¥ 10 billion (A$2.1 billion) of investment in coal power generation. What’s more, it will expand the capacity of a number of coal mines to ensure domestic supply as the international coal market price jumped amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

China is responsible for around a third of global carbon dioxide emissions, which makes this latest rebound to fossil fuels a climate change emergency.

How did it come to this?

In 2021, China’s CO₂ emissions rose above 11.9 billion tonnes – their highest level in history and dwarfing those of other countries. And according to the International Energy Agency, rapid GDP growth and electrification of energy services caused China’s electricity demand to grow by 10% in 2021. This is faster than its economic growth at 8.4%.

China had been attempting to reduce its dependency on coal for decades, with the growth of coal consumption gradually flattening from 2014.

During its 13th Five-Year Plan (2016-2020), the government called off a number of coal power projects. Thermal power investment halved over this time, dropping from C¥ 117.4 billion in 2016 to 55.3 billion in 2020 (A$24.7-11.2 billion).

In September 2020, President Xi Jinping delivered China’s “dual carbon” goal at the United Nations General Assembly, saying China will hit peak emissions before 2030 and reach net-zero by 2060.

A few months later, this goal was moved ahead of schedule. At a summit of global leaders, Jinping promised that China’s coal use would peak in 2025.

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

But the downward trend of coal consumption started to rebound in 2021, with a 4.6% year-on-year increase, the highest growth rate in a decade.

Over 33 gigawatts of coal power generation, including at least 43 new power plants and 18 new blast furnaces, started construction in China in 2021. This is the highest level since 2016 and almost three times the rest of the world combined.

Then, in 2022, we witnessed the international coal market skyrocket as geopolitical tension from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and economic recovery from the pandemic boosted global demand. Beijing, in turn, increased domestic coal production with double-digit growth in the first half of 2022.

Tug of war between green energy and security

The current energy crisis is not only an unintended consequence of the drought, but also a result of its long-term net-zero emissions goal. Increased coal import costs and rash control of domestic coal production put China’s energy supply in question, and renewable energy wasn’t ready to fill the gap.

Indeed, it isn’t the first energy security crisis China has endured in recent years. Last year, dozens of provinces experienced “power cuts” partly due to long-term reductions in coal production between 2016-2020.

In response to the crisis, the People’s Daily newspaper – the mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party – stated “the rice bowl of energy must be held in your own hands”. And Chinese Energy News called energy security a matter of national destiny.

Caught between green energy promises and dwindling energy supply, Beijing turned to see green energy as a secondary goal that could be put aside after energy security is fully guaranteed.

Read more:
China is gunning for supremacy in the global green hydrogen race. Will it shatter Australia’s dreams?

The principle of “establishment before abolition” (establishment of energy security before abolition of coal, xian li hou po) was reaffirmed in “Two Sessions”, an important political event in China held in March this year.

Chinese premier Li Keqiang positioned energy security to the same level of importance as food security in a Two Sessions government report.

A global emergency

The push for more coal power is at odds with China’s climate goals. According to China’s 13th Five Year Plan, coal-fired plants should be capped at generating 1,100 gigawatts of electricity.

To date, China has 1,074 gigawatts of coal power in operation, but more than 150 gigawatts of new plants have either been announced or permitted, according to the Global Energy Monitor.

The China Electricity Council – the industry group for China’s power sector – recommends the country reaches 1,300 gigawatts of coal-fired power in 2030 to meet the rising demand and strengthen energy security. If this occurs, it would see more than 300 new plants built.

Read more:
Beyond net-zero: we should, if we can, cool the planet back to pre-industrial levels

Without more restrictions against China’s use of fossil fuels, the world will hardly meet Paris Agreement climate targets.

China is expected to cease coal use entirely by 2050 in order to successfully meet promised climate targets. But the more resources are invested, the harder it’ll be for China to get rid of fossil fuels.

The 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025) will be crucial in determining how China meets its carbon commitments and whether the world is on track to meet the 1.5℃ target. Under this plan, China wants carbon to peak by 2030, but the action plan remains vague.

As Professor David Tyfield of the Lancaster Environment Centre asserted: “until China decarbonises, we’re not going to beat climate change.”

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

– ref. ‘Matter of national destiny’: China’s energy crisis see the world’s top emitter investing in more coal – https://theconversation.com/matter-of-national-destiny-chinas-energy-crisis-see-the-worlds-top-emitter-investing-in-more-coal-189142

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Jennings, Senior Lecturer in Religious Studies, University of Divinity

The newly formed “Diocese of the Southern Cross” has broken away from the Anglican Church of Australia to form a denomination committed to a highly conservative position on sexuality and marriage equality.

Global Anglican Futures Conference (GAFCON), the association supporting the breakaway denomination, claim Anglican bishops “were unable to uphold the Bible’s ancient teaching on marriage and sexual ethics”, making their defection necessary.

One question Australians, the majority of whom support marriage equality, may ask is – why is sexuality such a significant issue for the Christians who have left to form this group, and many conservative Christians generally?

According to GAFCON, the answer is “orthodoxy”. In the sense used here, orthodoxy refers to “right teaching” (this is broader than the word’s more specific meaning in Eastern Orthodox Christianity). Permitting anything other than heterosexual relations or marriage, GAFCON argues, is a departure from Christianity’s long-held orthodox stance.

However, this understanding of orthodoxy is not “ancient teaching”, but new.

The claim that sexuality has always been central to Christianity is shaky

Historically, Christian orthodoxy had nothing to do with sexuality.

The first time there was a need for Christians to define orthodoxy was in the late third century. Around this time, a renegade priest named Arius began teaching that Jesus Christ was an important human being, but not the divine Son of God.

Beginning with the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, seven Ecumenical Councils of the church were convened in order to establish the orthodox “doctrines and dogmata” – theological statements and principles – about the nature of God and Jesus.

The formal statements of belief were orthodox because they concerned what might be called Christianity’s “logic of salvation” – how humanity was saved from sin and death by Jesus.

“Heresy”, or false teaching, was perceived as a threat to the faith’s existence.

Read more:
Anglican disunity on same-sex marriage threatens to tear the church apart

Not only is the claim that sexuality is central to Christian orthodoxy dubious, but it’s not certain same-sex sexuality has always been condemned by the church. Bible scholars such as William Loader and Heather R. White call into question the interpretation of Biblical passages that conservative Christians claim exclude same-sex sexuality.

Historians like John Boswell, Judith C. Brown, and Mark D. Jordan have shown that while same-sex sexuality was at times prohibited, at other times it was tolerated and even celebrated over the course of Christian history.

So the argument that sexuality has always been central to Christian orthodoxy is shaky. Yet, it seems that for some conservative Christians, this view of sexuality has become more important than doctrines that really are central to orthodoxy, traditionally understood.

Read more:
A thousand years ago, the Catholic Church paid little attention to homosexuality

So why is sexuality so important to conservative Christians now?

This leaves us with our initial question unanswered – why is sexuality so important for this group of Christians now?

One answer is to be found in the work of the 20th century French academic Michel Foucault.

Foucault was fascinated by how certain ways of understanding and speaking about the world actually shape what we can see and say – making some things very visible and important, while other things become invisible and impossible.

Foucault called this “discourse”, which for him had a broader meaning than our everyday usage. He argued discourse was more than words or discussion on a topic. Discourse includes that, but also the practices, language, techniques and overall conditions that produce the acceptable “truth” in relation to something.

In The History of Sexuality, Foucault argued sexuality was the discourse of sex, or the set of conditions that create the acceptable “truth” concerning sex. He observed two such discourses, both emerging in the mid-19th century.

The first was concerned with classifying sexual practices in order to declare some healthy and normal, and others wrong or requiring “treatment”.

The second was a “reverse discourse”, opposed to the criminalisation of homosexuality and promoting sexual freedom.

Conservative Christians tend to align with the first discourse, firmly holding that same-sex sexuality is opposed to God’s “truth” of sex. In fact, being the ones who have the authority to say what is and is not the “truth” of sexuality has become a marker of who is “really” Christian. As Church of England priest and educator Mark Vasey-Saunders puts it, “an issue that had never featured in any evangelical basis of faith came to represent the definitive mark of authentic Christian identity”.

The conflict that has led to the Diocese of the Southern Cross breaking away from the Australian Anglican church isn’t based on ancient teachings, as the new group claim. The ancient meaning of “orthodoxy” had nothing to do with sexuality, but concerned matters related to the nature of God and Christian salvation.

The position of the new denomination is the result of a modern discursive conflict over the “truth” of sex. The fact that sexuality has become central in a way it never has been before helps explain why this group decided it was important enough to leave their former church. It couldn’t be more important, as in this new “orthodoxy” the cost of giving ground is ceasing to be truly Christian at all.

Mark Jennings is employed by the Anglican Diocese of Perth

– ref. The Anglican split: why has sexuality become so important to conservative Christians? – https://theconversation.com/the-anglican-split-why-has-sexuality-become-so-important-to-conservative-christians-189130

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Conley Tyler, Honorary Fellow, Asia Institute, The University of Melbourne

The government of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has just reached 100 days, a time to assess its performance.

Looking at foreign policy, the question is whether there has been continuity or change from the policies of prior governments. The correct answer is usually both.

Commentators will rightly say there has been great continuity on international policy with no revolutionary change in direction. As Minister for Foreign Affairs Penny Wong recently said,

I have made clear that our national interests, our strategic policy settings haven’t changed – but obviously the government has, and how the government approaches engaging with the world and articulating those interests has changed.

Read more:
First Newspoll since election gives Albanese ‘honeymoon’ ratings; Australia’s poor success rate at referendums

So where can we see this change?

Increased international engagement

The first change is in the simple volume of international engagement. The day after he was sworn in, Albanese was in Tokyo for the Quad Leaders’ Summit, quickly followed by his first bilateral visit to Indonesia.

Wong has made four separate trips to the Pacific (Fiji, Samoa and Tonga, New Zealand and Solomon Islands, as well as July’s Pacific Islands Forum Summit) and three to Southeast Asia (Vietnam and Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia twice).

Minister for Defence Richard Marles has visited Singapore, India, the United States and the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Rwanda. And Minister for Trade Don Farrell was busy in Geneva with the WTO Ministerial Conference and bilateral meetings.

Some of this activity is due to the fortuitous timing of international meetings, but the rest is a conscious choice to prioritise international engagement. It suggests a certain amount of pent-up energy among new ministers with much on their agendas after so long in opposition.

The overall impression is of a government focused on international matters, which has perhaps adopted the mindset that external policy is as important as domestic policy. Albanese defended his trip to the NATO summit and Ukraine saying,

we can’t separate international events from their impact on Australia and Australians.

Resetting key relationships

The second change is a reset in some key relationships. Every new government should use the opportunity to get rid of barnacles that have attached themselves to the ship of state.

This was most notable in the reset in relations with France, still seething from the cancellation of its submarine construction deal in favour of AUKUS, the trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The diplomatic freeze with China was broken by the two ministers for defence meeting at the Shangri-La Dialogue and the ministers for foreign affairs meeting soon after. This was presented as “stabilising the relationship”, with the government stressing that there has been no change in policy position.

Changes in climate, Pacific and South-East Asia

Third, there has been a substantive policy change on climate action. This has had an impact on Australia’s international relations, particularly in the Pacific, where there had been no secret about Pacific leaders’ disappointment in Australia’s lack of climate ambition.

Read more:
Laggard to leader? Labor could repair Australia’s tattered reputation on climate change, if it gets these things right

Only four days after being sworn in, Wong spoke to the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat to herald “a new era in Australian engagement in the Pacific” based on standing “shoulder to shoulder with our Pacific family” in response to the climate crisis.

Pacific leaders including the prime ministers of Samoa and Tonga welcomed this policy shift. While it won’t all be plain sailing ahead – with Australia likely to continue to face pressure around the speed of its transition away from fossil fuels – relations are much more positive.

Fourth, there has been a change in tone on some issues. For example, in South-east Asia former Prime Minister Morrison’s framing around an “arc of autocracies” was viewed as proposing a binary choice between democratic and authoritarian blocs. The Albanese government’s messaging emphasises “strategic equilibrium” where “countries are not forced to choose but can make their own sovereign choices, including about their alignments and partnerships”.

Increasing Australia’s international capability

Finally, the government is beginning the hard work of increasing Australia’s international capability across all tools of statecraft. It has announced a Defence Strategic Review and is updating its International Development Policy.

Read more:
Diplomacy is essential to a peaceful world, so why did DFAT’s funding go backwards in the budget?

The government has also committed to building the capability of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade after decades of declining funding. Allan Gyngell, National President of the Australian Institute of International Affairs (AIIA), sees this as a significant change:

“After years of marginalisation, foreign policy has been restored to a more central part of Australian statecraft.”

Long-term goals

Overall, after the flurry of early visits, the Albanese government gives the impression of a government settling in for the long-term.

Looking back on nine years of the previous government – with three prime ministers creating a sense of constant campaign mode – domestic politics often seemed to dominate. The new government gives the impression it is building relationships for the long-term – three, six or more years.

In its first frenetic days, the Albanese government took the opportunity to reset some key relationships. Now it’s all about steadily building these relationships and the capability to enable Australia to pursue its national interests in the long-term.

Melissa Conley Tyler is Executive Director of the Asia-Pacific Development, Diplomacy & Defence Dialogue (AP4D), a platform for collaboration between the development, diplomacy and defence communities. It receives funding from the Australian Civil-Military Centre and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

– ref. Foreign policy and the Albanese government’s first 100 days – https://theconversation.com/foreign-policy-and-the-albanese-governments-first-100-days-189460

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Clare Collins, Laureate Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Newcastle

Arthritis is a disease that affects body joints. There are more than 100 types of arthritis, with more than 350 million people affected around the globe, including about four million Australians.

Arthritis causes pain and disability and commonly reduces quality of life. In Australia in 2015, about 54,000 people aged 45–64 couldn’t work due to severe arthritis. Their median income was only a quarter of the income of full-time workers who did not have arthritis.

So it is not surprising some people want to try different diets, supplements or therapies to see if they alleviate symptoms or help them gain a sense of control over their condition.

However, a major review found specific supplements or food components were unlikely to lead to significant improvements in arthritis outcomes such as stiffness, pain and function.

The main nutrition recommendation was to adopt healthy eating patterns.

Remind me, what causes arthritis? And what are the symptoms?

Risk factors for developing arthritis include ones you can’t control – such as genetics, sex, and age – and some you may be able to, such as smoking, repetitive injuries, body weight, occupation and some infections.

Types of arthritis include osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, juvenile arthritis, gout, systemic lupus erythematosus (lupus) and scleroderma.

Read more:
Arthritis isn’t just a condition affecting older people, it likely starts much earlier

Common symptoms include:

• pain
• stiffness or reduced joint movement
• swelling, redness and warmth in the joints.

Less specific symptoms include tiredness, weight loss or feeling unwell.

So what does the evidence say about supplements?

The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, the expert European group on arthritis, recently published a detailed critique on diet and supplement use in arthritis. It synthesised findings from 24 systematic reviews of existing research as well as an additional 150 extra studies, covering more than 80 different dietary components and supplements.

The alliance identified there were limited studies on each individual product with the majority of studies being of low quality. This means that for most supplements they couldn’t make recommendations about whether or not to use them.

However, for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, although most studies were of low or moderate quality, a few supplements had positive effects.

Vitamin D, chondroitin and glucosamine

For osteoarthritis, there was moderate-quality evidence supporting a small positive effect on pain and function for taking vitamin D, chondroitin and glucosamine (both compounds found in cartilage) supplements.

Here, moderate quality means although the studies had some limitations and their results should be interpreted with caution, they can be used to guide recommendations.

This suggests people could choose to try these common supplements for a few months and see whether they get any benefit, but stop taking them if there is no improvement in their symptoms.

Fish oil

For rheumatoid arthritis, there was moderate quality evidence for a small positive effect on pain for omega-3 (fish) oils.

Again, people could try these supplements for a few months and see whether they get any benefit, but stop taking them if there is no improvement.

Other supplements

For all other arthritis categories, and other specific dietary components or supplements, the evidence was rated as low to very low (see tables 1–5 in this link).

This means any improvements in arthritis outcomes could be due to chance or bias, with positive results more likely to be published, or potential bias occurring when a trial was sponsored by a supplement manufacturer.

Read more:
I’m taking glucosamine for my arthritis. So what’s behind the new advice to stop?

What does it all mean?

Current research indicates it’s unlikely specific foods, supplements or dietary components affect arthritis outcomes to a large degree.

However, given the higher risk for heart disease associated with arthritis, the recommendation is to have a healthy diet and lifestyle in order to improve your overall health and wellbeing.

So how do you improve your health and wellbeing? Here are five key things to consider:

1. Eat a healthy, varied diet

Eating food – rather than taking supplements – means you get the other nutrients that foods contain, including healthy sources of fat, protein, dietary fibre and a range of vitamin and minerals essential to maintain a healthy body.

This is why the recommendation for people with arthritis is to eat a healthy diet, because vegetables, fruit, legumes and wholegrains contain a range of phytonutrients needed to help dampen down oxidative stress triggered by inflammatory processes associated with arthritis.

Read more:
What is a balanced diet anyway?

A healthy diet includes foods rich in omega-3 fats such as fatty fish (salmon, tuna, sardines), chia seeds, flaxseed oil, walnuts, canola oil, and vitamin D (eggs, fish, and milk or margarine fortified with vitamin D). And don’t forget sun exposure, which allows the body to produce vitamin D.

2. Avoid alcohol

Alcohol intake should be discussed with your doctor as it can interact with other treatments.

Small amounts of alcohol are unlikely to have negative impacts on arthritis, unless you have other health issues like liver disease or you take certain medications such as methotrexate or leflunomide.

For rheumatoid arthritis, moderate alcohol consumption could increase the risk of arthritis flare ups.

Alcohol can also increase the risk of gout flare ups.

Read more:
Got gout? Here’s what to eat and avoid

3. Aim for a healthy weight

Aiming for a healthy weight can help arthritis by reducing the load on affected joints such as hips and knees, and by boosting your intake of healthy foods rich in phytonutrients.

Ask your doctor for support to achieve well managed, intentional weight loss if you’re carrying excess weight. You may need referral to an accredited practising dietitian for personalised medical nutrition therapy or to a physiotherapist or exercise physiologist for specific help to improve mobility and physical activity.

Read more:
Health Check: what’s the best diet for weight loss?

4. Be cautious with supplements

If you decide to try specific complimentary therapies or dietary supplements, discuss potential side-effects or interactions with your regular medicines with your doctor and pharmacist.

Try the products for a few months (or as long as one container lasts) so you can monitor any side-effects versus your sense of wellbeing, reduction in use of pain medications and the cost. If you’re not getting any benefit then spend that money on more healthy foods instead.

Find out how healthy your diet is by taking our free Healthy Eating Quiz.

Clare Collins is a Laureate Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics at the University of Newcastle, NSW and a Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI) affiliated researcher. She is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Leadership Fellow and has received research grants from NHMRC, ARC, MRFF, HMRI, Diabetes Australia, Heart Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, nib foundation, Rijk Zwaan Australia, WA Dept. Health, Meat and Livestock Australia, and Greater Charitable Foundation. She has consulted to SHINE Australia, Novo Nordisk, Quality Bakers, the Sax Institute, Dietitians Australia and the ABC. She was a team member conducting systematic reviews to inform the 2013 Australian Dietary Guidelines update and the Heart Foundation evidence reviews on meat and dietary patterns.

– ref. Can supplements or diet reduce symptoms of arthritis? Here’s what the evidence says – https://theconversation.com/can-supplements-or-diet-reduce-symptoms-of-arthritis-heres-what-the-evidence-says-184151

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milena Bojovic, PhD Candidate, Macquarie University

The global dairy industry is changing. Among the disruptions is competition from alternatives not produced using animals – including potential challenges posed by synthetic milk.

Synthetic milk is produced without animals. It can have the same biochemical make up as animal milk, but is grown using an emerging biotechnology technique know as “precision fermentation” that produces biomass cultured from cells.

More than 80% of the world’s population regularly consume dairy products. There have been increasing calls to move beyond animal-based food systems to more sustainable forms of food production.

Synthetic milks offer dairy milk without concerns such as methane emissions or animal welfare. But it must overcome many challenges and pitfalls to become a fair, sustainable and viable alternative to animal-based milk.

Not a sci-fi fantasy

My recent research examined megatrends in the global dairy sector. Plant-based milks and, potentially, synthetic milks, emerged as a key disruption.

Unlike synthetic meat – which can struggle to match the complexity and texture of animal meat – synthetic milk is touted as having the same taste, look and feel as normal dairy milk.

Synthetic milk is not a sci-fi fantasy; it already exists. In the US, for example, the Perfect Day company supplies animal-free protein made from microflora, which is then used to make ice cream, protein powder and milk.

In Australia, start-up company Eden Brew has been developing synthetic milk at Werribee in Victoria. The company is targeting consumers increasingly concerned about climate change and, in particular, the contribution of methane from dairy cows.

CSIRO reportedly developed the technology behind the Eden Brew product. The process starts with yeast and uses “precision fermentation” to produce the same proteins found in cow milk.

CSIRO says these proteins give milk many of its key properties and contribute to its creamy texture and frothing ability. Minerals, sugars, fats and flavours are added to the protein base to create the final product.

Towards a new food system?

Also in Australia, the All G Foods company this month raised A$25 million to accelerate production of its synthetic milk. Within seven years, the company wants its synthetic milk to be cheaper than cow milk.

If the synthetic milk industry can achieve this cost aim across the board, the potential to disrupt the dairy industry is high. It could steer humanity further away from traditional animal agriculture towards radically different food systems.

A 2019 report into the future of dairy found that by 2030, the US precision fermentation industry will create at least 700,000 jobs.

And if synthetic milk can replace dairy as an ingredient in the industrial food processing sector this could present significant challenges for companies that produce milk powder for the ingredient market.

Some traditional dairy companies are jumping on the bandwagon. For example, Australian dairy co-operative Norco is backing the Eden Brew project, and New Zealands largest dairy cooperative, Fonterra last week annouced a joint venture to develop and commercialise “fermentation-derived proteins with dairy-like properties”.

Synthetic milk: the whey forward?

The synthetic milk industry must grow exponentially before it becomes a sizeable threat to animal-based dairy milk. This will require a lot of capital and investment in research and development, as well as new manufacturing infrastructure such as fermentation tanks and bioreactors.

Production of conventional animal-milk in the Global South now outstrips that of the Global North, largely due to rapid growth across Asia. Certainly, the traditional dairy industry is not going away any time soon.

And synthetic milk is not a panacea. While the technology has huge potential for environmental and animal welfare gains, it comes with challenges and potential downsides.

For example, alternative proteins do not necessarily challenge the corporatisation or homogenisation of conventional industrial agriculture. This means big synthetic milk producers might push out low-tech or small-scale dairy – and alternative dairy – systems.

What’s more, synthetic milk could further displace many people from the global dairy sector. If traditional dairy co-ops in Australia and New Zealand are moving into synthetic milk, for example, where does this leave dairy farmers?

As synthetic milk gains ground in coming years, we must guard against replicating existing inequities in the current food system.

And the traditional dairy sector must recognise it’s on the cusp of pivotal change. In the face of multiple threats, it should maximise the social benefits of both animal-based dairy and minimise its contribution to climate change.

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

– ref. Not like udder milk: ‘synthetic milk’ made without cows may be coming to supermarket shelves near you – https://theconversation.com/not-like-udder-milk-synthetic-milk-made-without-cows-may-be-coming-to-supermarket-shelves-near-you-189046

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ralf Buckley, International Chair in Ecotourism Research, Griffith University

Australia’s national parks in several states are under siege from privatisation by stealth. Developers are using the lure of ecotourism to build posh private lodges with exclusive access deep inside many iconic parks.

The problem is, not everyone can afford private lodges. There’s a real danger in letting developers take over precious parts of nature. We know nature is good for our mental health – and the wilder the better. One in five Australians report at least one episode of mental illness in the previous year.

Our new research shows protected areas in Australia boost the mental health of visitors, seen in productivity gains of up to 11% for people who visit at least once a month. Nationwide, that means our national parks give us a productivity gain of 1.8% and cut healthcare costs by 0.6%. We found the therapeutic effects of nature for mentally unhealthy park visitors are 2.5 times greater than for mentally healthy visitors.

Access to nature in national parks is one of the few free mental health boosts available to the less well-off as well as the wealthy. If creeping privatisation takes root in our parks – replacing campsites with expensive accommodation – those who most need the boost from nature will find it harder to get.

The public doesn’t want private development in parks

In national parks, the public wants signs, tracks, toilets, and tent sites, run by parks agencies and available to everyone. The public almost always opposes permanent accommodation in parks, whoever owns it, based on the belief private lodges and camps should be on private land.

But state governments in New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and South Australia have enabled this regardless. Think of the pristine Ben Boyd National Park near Eden in NSW, slated for eco-tourism cabins at the expense of campers. Or of the Cooloola Recreational Area in Queensland’s Great Sandy National Park near Noosa, where luxury cabins are planned.

The examples go on: ecotourism cabins in Main Range National Park in Queensland, Tasmania’s private Three Capes walk in Tasman national park and a resort in Freycinet National Park, as well as Kangaroo Island in South Australia.

Read more:
Buzz off honey industry, our national parks shouldn’t be milked for money

While visitors to ecotourism developments report improved wellbeing and mental health, the issue is about who gets access. Private developments exclude the wider public, both physically and financially.

Some 70% of Australians visit a national park at least once a year. These visits reduces our healthcare costs by A$12.3 billion a year, and increases economic productivity by A$35 billion a year.

Worldwide, we have estimated the money saved through better mental health deriving from visits to protected areas to be around A$8.5 trillion per year.

Socialise the costs?

Private lodges impose costs on cash-strapped parks agencies, due to their fixed footprints, permanent occupation and need for new access roads and paths. Lodges can also increase management costs for park staff through weed control, pathogens, feral animals, noise, bushfires and water pollution.

When some in-park enterprises collapse, they can leave large clean-up costs for the taxpayer, as we’ve seen at Queensland’s Hinchinbrook Island.

Read more:
From Kangaroo Island to the Great Barrier Reef, the paradox that is luxury ecotourism

Parks agencies sometimes have to buy back rights given away free, such as after the collapse of the Seal Rocks centre on Victoria’s Phillip Island.

Private development also comes with increased legal and financial risks for the state, such as after the Thredbo landslide in 1997.

All these costs cut into funds allocated for conservation.

If we let the tourism industry take greater control over park access for private profit, we risk turning famous natural places into exclusive havens for people with money.

This is not to say tourist ventures have no place. Commercial nature tourism businesses can benefit, and contribute, by guiding inexperienced visitors to visit national parks. But the parks themselves, and all their facilities, should remain publicly owned and accessible to all.

National parks are a major tourism drawcard. Commercial enterprises benefit from visitor spending along access routes, in gateway settlements outside park boundaries, and by operating mobile guided tours inside parks under similar conditions to independent visitors. Private lodges inside parks compete with these existing businesses.

Read more:
‘Laid awake and wept’: destruction of nature takes a toll on the human psyche. Here’s one way to cope

We don’t have to give private interests everything they ask for

While some other countries do allow private lodges in national parks, the models are very different from those in Australia.

In Botswana, for example, private leases in protected areas are short, facilities are fully removable, and private tour operators pay 80% of the parks agency budget.

For comparison, proposals for a private island heli lodge in Tasmania’s Lake Malbena offered only A$4,000 a year.

In the US, the National Parks Service subcontracts visitor services to private concessionaires, but owns the facilities, requires bonds equal to 100% of capital value, and sets all conditions and prices.

In India, luxury lodges must generally be located outside park gates, while private hotels inside parks in China have been removed by the parks agency.

The quiet privatisation of access to national parks risks restricting nature’s mental and physical health benefits to the well-heeled. We need to protect public access to wild places meant for the public.

Read more:
Is nature-based tourism development really what our national parks need?

Funding for published research as cited here, declared in publications. Ralf Buckley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

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

– ref. ‘Stealth privatisation’ in iconic national parks threatens public access to nature’s health boost – https://theconversation.com/stealth-privatisation-in-iconic-national-parks-threatens-public-access-to-natures-health-boost-188063

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leigh Carriage, Senior Lecturer in Music, Southern Cross University

After 45 years together the B-52’s have announced they are unplugging and de-wigging for their final US tour. “No one likes to throw a party more than we do, but after almost a half-century on the road, it’s time for one last blowout with our friends and family… our fans,” said Fred Schneider.

Who was to know that an impromptu jam session in 1976 in the American college town of Athens, Georgia, would be the foundation of a 45-year career?

The innovative band that formed in 1976 originally consisted of Cindy Wilson (vocals and guitar), Kate Pierson (vocals and keyboards), Fred Schneider (vocals), Ricky Wilson (guitar) and Keith Strickland (drums).

The world’s introduction to the B-52’s was the almost seven-minute song Rock Lobster. An unexpected hit, this uplifting musical concoction is comprised of a baritone-tuned Mosrite electric guitar riff, interspersed with stabbing Farfisa organ accents, and an array of vocal interplay with jazz-esque backing vocal parts.

These are interspersed with Pierson’s dolphin like vocal sounds while Schneider’s unique lead vocal spoken delivery offers lyrics about a crustacean. The accompanying video presented a mixture of pop culture’s past with 1950’s cartoonist hair styles, surf culture, combined with uniquely erratic choreography, but musically there are elements that serve as a disruption to pop music.

Rock Lobster reached number one in Canada, three in Australia, 37 on the UK singles charts and 56 on the US Billboard Hot 100.

Influences and scene

The band’s influences draw from diverse sources across pop culture, such as B-grade movies, Captain Beefheart, 60’s dance moves, Dusty Springfield, comic books, animated cartoons, the composer Nino Rota (Fellini films), pulp science-fiction and Yoko Ono.

This is perhaps best illustrated in the song Planet Claire (1978) which opens instrumentally with intermittent radio frequencies that fade to a central guitar riff derived from Mancini’s Peter Gunn theme, then bongos and keyboards stabs, and Pierson’s mesmerising unison singing (chromatic long notes) with the DX7 keyboard part. This is followed by witty, farcical lyrics with an abundance of sci-fi references: satellites, speed of light, Mars.

The B-52’s emerged from the 1970’s New Wave (rock) scene with their own combination of non-threatening post-punk and alternative surf rock musical aesthetics. Subversion was in the form of less musical dissonance and less density, more freedom, more harmonies, more play. Less aggressive, more diva, with an infectious enthusiasm.

They created their own niche that was unquestionably southern, and importantly broke new ground as LGBTIQ+ icons, by infusing an uncompromisingly camp and queer sensibility into pop culture.

From 1979 to 1986, the band recorded four studio albums that were best known for dance grooves, featuring the distinctive vocals of Schneider using sprechgesang (a spoken singing style credited to Humperdinck in 1897 and Schoenberg in 1912), the highly experimental vocal approaches of Pierson, growls and harmonies by Wilson, and Strickland’s surf guitar riffs.

They made novel instrumentation choices: toy pianos, walkie talkies, glockenspiels, and bongos, coupled with the innovative use of up-cycled fashion and costumes evoking individuality and liberation.

The exception was the EP Mesopotamia (1982) produced by David Byrne, a significant departure from their previous song production. Most noticeable is the slower tempo of Mesopotamia, 119 beats per minute (BPM) compared with Rock Lobster’s (1978) 179 BPM and Private Idaho’s (1980) driving 166 BPM tempo. Mesopotamia features additional synthesizer parts, poly-rhythmic beats (the combination of two or more different rhythms following the same pulse) and world beat influences.

On the surface the B-52s lyrics could be misconstrued as merely comedic, or nonsensical, however there are deeper underlining lyrical meanings that speak for the marginalised, referencing the band’s political ideology: environmental causes, feminism, LGBTIQ+ rights, and AIDS activism.

Late 1980s and early 1990s

Bouncing Off The Satellites took three years to complete and was released in 1986. Sadly, Ricky Wilson died from HIV/AIDS related illness in 1985 just after the recording sessions were complete. The B-52s reshaped the band with Strickland switching from drums to lead guitar. Later, the band also added touring members for studio albums and live performances.

The B-52s album with the greatest commercial success was Cosmic Thing (1989) co-produced by Don Was and Nile Rodgers. The single Love Shack, went double platinum, reached number 1 for eight weeks, and sold 5 million copies.

The song opens with engaging drum sounds at an infectious dance tempo of 133 BPM (beats per minute). Schneider’s distinctive vocal enters, then the bass and guitar parts. The arrangement places the hooks at the front in the song, with chorus vocal parts in 4ths.

Adding to the infectious groove is the live band sound featuring real brass section, and bass guitar and a bluesy guitar riff with crowd noises in the background. The alluring backing vocal parts on the lyrics “bang, bang, bang, on the door baby” are clearly reminiscent of the Batman television theme music.

Into the 21st century

In 2008 the band re-emerged from a 16-year recording absence with the 11-track album Funplex. There are notable modifications to the B-52s signature sound. Funplex is not the frenetic and spontaneous party music of previous albums. There are a few adaptations vocally too, with a change of roles with spoken word from Wilson and Pierson.

The band has toured every summer, with a variety of other bands on the circuit, the Tubes, Go-Go’s, Psychedelic Furs and KC & The Sunshine Band building new audiences.

Their appeal is still broad. In 2020, Rock Lobster was used in Australia for an Optus ad.
The farewell tour billed as “their final tour ever of planet Earth” commences in August this year in Seattle.

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

– ref. Get out your glitter and head down the Atlanta Highway – the B-52s are setting out on their final dance party! – https://theconversation.com/get-out-your-glitter-and-head-down-the-atlanta-highway-the-b-52s-are-setting-out-on-their-final-dance-party-182934

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Hall, Senior Researcher, Environmental Law Initiative and Visiting Scholar, Faculty of Law, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Hundreds of endangered sea turtles have been caught in New Zealand’s commercial fisheries since 2002, according to a recent report released by the Department of Conservation (DOC).

At least 80% are leatherback turtles, most likely from their western Pacific subpopulation which is considered critically endangered. The captures occur overwhelmingly in the surface longline fishery off the east coast of the North Island between January and April.

Although this DOC report is recent, the authors make it clear the underlying data have been known to the New Zealand government for years.

The lack of action to reduce the turtle bycatch risks damaging the reputation of New Zealand’s seafood industry.

The DOC report summarises observer and fisher data. It found 50 leatherback turtles were reported during 2020-2021.

Reporting of bycatch species by fishing vessels is known to under-represent actual capture numbers and observers are only onboard a small percentage of the time.

A 2021 report for the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) extrapolated data from vessels with observers across the rest of the fishing fleet and estimated that the average number of turtles caught across the New Zealand fleet each year ranges between 23 to 127.

Read more:
How a new app helps fishing boats avoid endangered species

Threat to turtles

To put these bycatch numbers in perspective, the estimated population of western Pacific leatherback turtles is as low as 1,000 nesting females per year.

All sea turtle species found in New Zealand waters – leatherback, green, hawksbill, loggerhead and olive ridley – are listed on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list of threatened species, but the leatherback western Pacific subpopulation is listed as critically endangered, due to a large and continuing drop in population size.

Read more:
Dolphins, turtles and birds don’t have to die in fishing gear – skilled fishers can avoid it

The DOC report cites other studies of what happens to turtles once they’ve been caught on a fishing line. About 5% are dead on capture, but many will die later from their injuries.

One study concluded 27% of turtles hooked externally or with line left attached die after release. This increases to 42% for those hooked in the mouth or ingesting the hook. Leatherback turtles are thought to suffer a slightly higher mortality rate than other turtle species.

The US government authority on marine management, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), acknowledges the impact on turtles from fishing bycatch. It states:

The primary threat to sea turtles is their unintended capture in fishing gear which can result in drowning or cause injuries that lead to death or debilitation.

New Zealand lacks bycatch mitigation measures

New Zealand currently has no mandatory mitigation measures to prevent the bycatch of turtles. DOC has a protected species liaison programme that issues guidance to fishers, but the measures are voluntary and unenforceable.

In fact, New Zealand has an exemption from the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) mitigation measures on the basis of a low rate of turtle bycatch.

However, as the DOC report details, a rate is a questionable way to decide whether mitigation measures should apply – total numbers are what matter to the turtle population. Regardless, the DOC report also suggests that New Zealand has frequently breached the rate below which the exemption applies.

The turtle bycatch figures provided by New Zealand at a recent WCPFC meeting in August paint a different picture to the DOC and MPI reports described here. Only turtle captures from when an observer was onboard are included.

Observer coverage in these fisheries in New Zealand is low – at only 5.8%, according to a 2016 DOC report. The same report also recommends a review of observer coverage as it is essentially in the wrong time and place to monitor turtle captures.

US mitigation and legislation

The lack of mitigation in New Zealand contrasts strikingly with other countries. For example, Hawai’i has reduced its turtle bycatch by 90% using a suite of measures, including hook and bait restrictions, a total fishery cap (16 leatherbacks), individual vessel limits, 100% observer coverage, oceanographic modelling to predict turtle location and closure of high-risk areas.

The US doesn’t focus solely on what happens in its own fisheries. Laws exist in the US in part to protect their own fishers from being undercut by seafood products from countries with lower environmental standards. The intention of these laws is to lift the performance of countries wanting to use US ports or to sell their seafood products in the US market.

Read more:
Catch-22: technology can help solve fishing’s environmental issues – but risks swapping one problem for another

One such law is currently being tested by the environmental organisation Sea Shepherd in relation to Māui dolphins. The group is challenging the US government under the Marine Mammals Protection Act (US) for its failure to ban seafood imports from New Zealand fisheries known to affect Māui dolphins.

Another law, the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act is relevant as well. It requires NOAA to identify countries whose fishing vessels catch protected marine life shared with the US and whose measures are less protective than those of the US.

NOAA undertakes a three-step process of identification, consultation and certification that can result in denial of US port access and potential import restrictions on fish or fish products.

The US takes a particular interest in the bycatch of turtles. US researchers have estimated that without concerted conservation measures Pacific leatherbacks could be extinct by the end of this century. Last year, NOAA identified Mexico and 28 states that fish for tuna under the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas for not having measures “comparable in effectiveness to those of the US to reduce or end the bycatch” of sea turtles.

Read more:
Scientists at work: Helping endangered sea turtles, one emergency surgery at a time

New Zealand has traditionally prided itself on having a world-leading fisheries management system. But unless it takes fast and concerted mitigation action on a par with that found in the US, the New Zealand government is placing itself at significant legal and reputational risk.

The fate of the Pacific leatherback turtle also hangs in the balance.

Matthew Hall is a Senior Researcher at the Environmental Law Initiative.

Ingrid O’Sullivan is a Senior Researcher at the Environmental Law Initiative.

– ref. NZ’s inaction on turtle bycatch in fisheries risks reputational damage — and it’s pushing leatherbacks closer to extinction – https://theconversation.com/nzs-inaction-on-turtle-bycatch-in-fisheries-risks-reputational-damage-and-its-pushing-leatherbacks-closer-to-extinction-189042

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist), The Conversation

The Victorian election will be held in three months, on November 26. A Victorian state Newspoll, conducted August 22-25 from a sample of 1,027, gave Labor a 56-44 lead (57.3-42.7 at the 2018 election). Primary votes were 41% Labor (42.9% at election), 36% Coalition (35.2%), 13% Greens (10.7%) and 10% for all Others (11.2%).

Labor Premier Daniel Andrews had a 54% satisfied and 41% dissatisfied rating, for a net approval of +13, while Liberal leader Matthew Guy was at 49% dissatisfied, 32% satisfied (net -17). Andrews led Guy as better premier by 51-34. Newspoll figures are from The Poll Bludger.

Labor has a large poll lead, and would easily retain its majority in the Victorian lower house if this poll were replicated at the election. There are still three months to go, and Coalition parties in the states should do better with a federal Labor government.

At the federal election, independents won ten of the 151 House of Representatives seats, an increase of seven from the 2019 election, and six of those seven new independents were “teals”. It will be interesting to see whether the teals succeed at the state election; a teal candidate has nominated for the normally safe Liberal seat of Kew.

A Victorian state Resolve poll for The Age, conducted with the federal Resolve poll last week that gave Labor a massive lead, had Labor leading the Coalition by 42-21 on best party to govern with integrity and honesty.

By 53-18, voters expected Labor to win the election. As this poll was a subsample of the national poll, the sample was only “more than 500” – not enough for a voting intentions poll.

Before the federal election campaign, Resolve was giving voting intentions from Victoria and NSW every two months based on state subsamples from their national monthly polls that averaged two months’ data. If Resolve does a national poll in September, I expect Victorian voting intentions from an average of that poll and this one.

Federal Essential: leaders’ favourability ratings

A federal Essential poll asked respondents to rate several party leaders on a scale from 0 to 10. Scores of 0-3 were counted as negative, 4-6 as neutral and 7-10 as positive. As well as neutral, there were “unsure” and “never heard of” categories. Ratings for Albanese and Dutton should not be compared with standard approve or disapprove questions.

Albanese was at 43% positive and 23% negative, Dutton was at 34% negative and 26% positive and Nationals leader David Littleproud was at 27% negative, 21% positive. Greens leader Adam Bandt was at 37% negative, 23% positive, Jacqui Lambie was at 27% positive, 27% negative and Pauline Hanson was at 48% negative, 22% positive.

80% thought the government should have an active role in shaping the economy, while 20% thought the government should stay out and leave it up to the market. 58% thought Australia’s economic system is broken and the government needs to make fundamental changes, while 42% thought our economic system is basically sound and only minor changes are required.

By 57-9, respondents thought small business views of the economy aligned with their best interests. Community organisations were at 51-9, unions at 36-28 and big business at 31-29 against alignment. This Essential poll was taken in the days before August 23 from a sample of 1,065.

There has not been a federal Newspoll since August 1. After a long break following the 2019 federal election, Newspoll usually appeared once every three weeks until it was ramped up early this year prior to the election. During the election campaign there was a Newspoll every week. It’s plausible the long gap between Newspolls now is to offset the intense campaign period.

Federal parliament resumes for two weeks on September 5. Labor will aim to pass their climate legislation through the Senate. The Greens supported it in the House of Representatives after Labor made changes. Labor has 26 of the 76 senators and the Greens 12, so Labor needs one more vote, most likely from either David Pocock or the Jacqui Lambie Network.

Read more:
Final Senate results: Labor, the Greens and David Pocock will have a majority of senators

Australia Institute survey on China

Dynata conducted surveys about China in both Taiwan and Australia for the left-wing Australia Institute, from samples of just over 1,000 in both countries. The Poll Bludger reported that 47% of Australians expected a Chinese attack on Australia soon (9%) or sometime (38%), with just 19% opting for never and 33% uncommitted.

By 60-21, respondents did not think Australia would be able to defend itself from such an attack without international assistance. 57% thought support would come from the US, 11% thought not and 19% said “it depends”. 35% thought the US and Australia would defeat China, 9% that China would win and 24% a draw of some sort.

The surveys were conducted August 13-16, after US Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan on August 2, and China responded with military exercises from August 4 to 7.

Tasmanian EMRS poll: Liberals regain ground

A Tasmanian state EMRS poll, conducted August 8-11 from a sample of 1,000, gave the Liberals 41% of the vote (up two since June), Labor 31% (up one), the Greens 13% (steady) and oll Others 15% (down three). Liberal incumbent Jeremy Rockliff led Labor’s Rebecca White as preferred premier by 47-35 (47-34 in June).

A Tasmanian upper house byelection will occur in the Labor-held Pembroke on September 10. According to analyst Kevin Bonham, the upper house currently has an 8-7 left majority, so a Liberal win would see the right gain control.

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

– ref. Victorian Newspoll gives Labor big lead three months before election – https://theconversation.com/victorian-newspoll-gives-labor-big-lead-three-months-before-election-189473

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gretchen Benedix, Professor, Curtin University

With weather conditions currently at 80% favourable, NASA is launching the Artemis 1 mission today from Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The launch window opens at 8.33am EDT (10.33pm AEST).

This milestone mission will usher in a new era of human space exploration beyond low Earth orbit, and the first step in getting humans back to the Moon.

The 42-day uncrewed mission will test the capabilities of the new heavy lift Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, as well as the space readiness and safety of the Orion spacecraft. Orion is designed to send humans further into space than ever before.

In addition, Orion will launch ten small satellites called CubeSats for both scientific and commercial purposes.

These will be used to investigate different areas of the Moon, look at sustainability in the use of spacecraft, and even send one spacecraft to a near-Earth asteroid. All these CubeSats have been built by industry (small and large) and/or scientific groups in the effort to expand space exploration.

A fitting name for a long-awaited step

A lunar deity, Artemis is the Greek goddess of the hunt, and Apollo’s twin sister. It’s a fitting name for the program that will send the first woman and first person of colour to the Moon by 2030.

The Artemis program will build capacity in steps, similar to how the Apollo program worked in the 1960s. Each mission will build on the knowledge gained from the previous one to test equipment and instruments under controlled conditions, until finally, all is ready for a crewed landing on the Moon.

With the Artemis program, Earth as a global community has the opportunity to participate and push back the frontiers of human knowledge and innovation.

Humans were last on the Moon nearly 50 years ago, when the Apollo 17 astronauts spent 12 days roving and exploring an area known as the Taurus-Littrow Valley.

Since that time, most human exploration of space has been from the International Space Station, which orbits about 400km above the surface of Earth. For comparison, the Moon is around 950 times further (around 385,000km) away, representing a much more significant challenge.

As a global community, we have already learned much from using robotic missions to the Moon and other planets in our Solar System. The Moon has been imaged at a resolution of roughly 5 metres per pixel, therefore we can see and pick safer landing areas in heavily cratered areas like the south polar regions.

The Indian Chandrayaan-1 mission discovered water ice, and China’s Chang’e 5 mission recently brought samples back to Earth that come from the youngest known area of the Moon. We will apply this information to our next steps.

Read more:
Artemis 1: maiden flight of spacecraft set to take humans back to the Moon – here’s what needs to go right

This time, the ‘space race’ is different

The 20th century “space race” that drove humans to the Moon in the 1960s and ‘70s was fuelled by competition between the two global superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, with the rest of the planet experiencing the excitement of visiting a world other than Earth.

Chinese officials recently announced an International Lunar Research Station jointly planned with Russia, a project that includes a new crew launch vehicle and the heavy lift rocket Long March 9, but details on this program are relatively scant for now.

While NASA leads the charge this time around, the Artemis program will be an international effort. It will take lessons from the success of the International Space Station, which was built by five, and has been used by astronauts from, 20 countries.

For this first Artemis mission, several European countries are involved in both the SLS and Orion. More (including Australia) will contribute to building and operating a base and rovers on the Moon in the future. Global collaboration is at the forefront of this effort.

The benefit is for all

Space exploration leads to new scientific discoveries, significant economic benefits, and inspiration for people to reach farther and higher. It is not just financial expenditure with no return – it earns back in spades and sometimes in ways we can’t predict.

The invention of cordless tools and velcro are often associated with NASA and space exploration; in reality, those were invented before the Apollo program (NASA did, however, make good use of them).

Although those weren’t invented because of space exploration, there are plenty of things that have been – from memory foam to suits for race car drivers, to cancer-sniffing instruments. A landing on the Moon also provided a unique view of Earth that showed our big blue marble in space. We are a connected community.

We, the humans of this planet, need to go back to the Moon for many reasons, but the most important one is the challenge – to extend ourselves to innovate and progress.

The effort put into this will lead to new ways to look at and solve problems not only for living and working in Space, but for improving how we live and work on Earth.

Read more:
NASA’s Artemis 1 mission to the Moon sets the stage for routine space exploration beyond Earth’s orbit – here’s what to expect and why it’s important

Gretchen Benedix is a member of the Space Science and Technology Centre, in the School of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Curtin University. She is also a (unfunded) senior scientist at the Planetary Science Institute (based in Arizona, in the US). She receives funding from the Australian Research Council to conduct research on Mars and meteorites.

– ref. NASA is launching the 1st stage of the Artemis mission – here’s why humans are going back to the Moon – https://theconversation.com/nasa-is-launching-the-1st-stage-of-the-artemis-mission-heres-why-humans-are-going-back-to-the-moon-189137