Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lindy Willmott, Professor of Law, Australian Centre for Health Law Research, Queensland University of Technology, Queensland University of Technology

Voluntary assisted dying has been available to eligible Victorians for more than two years, and to Western Australians since July 2021. Laws also passed this year in Tasmania, South Australia and Queensland, with schemes to commence after an implementation period.

On Thursday, New South Wales parliament will debate a bill drafted by independent MP Alex Greenwich. It’s still unclear which way the numbers will go, and whether the bill will pass – it’s likely to be a tight vote.

So how does this bill compare with other state laws? And what should voting MPs take into account?

How is it similar to other state laws?

Overall, the NSW bill reflects the broad Australian voluntary assisted dying model. The eligibility criteria, which determine who can access the scheme, are strict, and note the person must have:

• decision-making capacity
• a condition that is advanced, progressive and will cause death within six months (or 12 months for a neurodegenerative disease), and which causes intolerable suffering.

The request and assessment process also largely reflects laws of other states, including that the person must make three requests, and be assessed as eligible by two senior doctors who have completed mandatory training.

After the patient is assessed as eligible, the NSW bill requires the doctor to apply to the Voluntary Assisted Dying Board for authorisation to proceed. This requirement, which we argue delays the process without adding any further safeguard, is also contained in the Victorian, Tasmanian and South Australian legislation.

The NSW bill permits health professionals to conscientiously object to participation, a feature of all Australian Acts. It also regulates the extent to which institutions can refuse to provide the service. This is also dealt with in the South Australian and Queensland laws.

Consistent with other states, a board will be established to monitor the operation of the NSW Act.

How is it different to other states?

The proposed NSW model differs from (most of) the other laws in two main ways.

First, the period between the person’s first and final request for voluntary assisted dying is five days. It’s nine days in most of the other states, though it’s shorter in Tasmania.

This period may have been shortened in light of emerging evidence from Victoria that patients sometimes die during the process.

Read more:
Victoria’s voluntary assisted dying scheme is challenging and complicated. Some people die while they wait

The second difference is the patient is able to choose between self-administration (where they consume the substance themselves) and practitioner administration (where the doctor administers the substance).

In other states, self-administration is the default method, although the states vary regarding when practitioner administration is permitted.

What happened recently in Queensland?

If the recent Queensland experience is anything to go by, the NSW debate will be calm and measured and, for some MPs, informed by the emerging body of evidence on how the scheme has been operating in Victoria to date.

Queensland passed the legislation by a majority of 61:30 after a debate over three days. Two issues were prominent:

1. the need for greater funding for palliative care (for which there was unanimous support)

2. the extent to which the Queensland public wanted choice at the end of life.

The argument that vulnerable cohorts will disproportionately seek voluntary assisted dying was raised, but did not feature prominently – perhaps because this claim is not supported by the evidence.

Read more:
Voluntary assisted dying could soon be legal in Queensland. Here’s how its bill differs from other states

In voting against the bill, Queensland MP Andrew Powell declared his Christian beliefs influenced his decision, but said “it pains me to disappoint many in my electorate”.

While Mr Powell is to be commended for his transparency, he chose his own religious convictions to guide his vote, rather than seeking to reflect the values of the majority in his electorate.

How is the debate likely to play out in NSW?

Voluntary assisted dying has been debated in NSW on multiple occasions between 1997 and 2017. The Greens initiated most bills, though the 2017 Bill – which lost by only one vote in the Legislative Council – was introduced by Nationals MP Trevor Khan.

This time the debate will occur in an unusual political environment. New premier Dominic Perrottet describes himself as a practising Catholic and opposes voluntary assisted dying. Deputy premier Paul Toole and Labor leader Chris Minns also oppose voluntary assisted dying.

Perrottet will allow a conscience vote, as has been the convention for such bills in Australia for more than 20 years.

The NSW bill will be introduced by an independent, but has around 30 signatories, including government and cross-bench members.

Read more:
FactCheck Q&A: do 80% of Australians and up to 70% of Catholics and Anglicans support euthanasia laws?

MPs should rightly consider a range of factors during this debate, including how the bill achieves its policy objectives and how the many safeguards will operate.

But MPs must also be transparent about the values that guide their decision. Does their vote reflect their own values, or are they seeking to reflect the views of the majority of their constituents?

Lindy Willmott has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council and Commonwealth and State Governments for research and training about the law, policy and practice relating to end-of-life care. In relation to voluntary assisted dying, she (with colleagues) has been engaged by the Victorian and Western Australian Governments to design and provide the legislatively-mandated training for doctors involved in voluntary assisted dying in those States. She (with Ben White) has also developed a model Bill for voluntary assisted dying for parliaments to consider. Lindy Willmott is a former member of the board of Palliative Care Australia.

Ben White receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council and Commonwealth and State Governments for research and training about the law, policy and practice relating to end-of-life care. In relation to voluntary assisted dying, he (with colleagues) has been engaged by the Victorian and Western Australian Governments to design and provide the legislatively-mandated training for doctors involved in voluntary assisted dying in those States. He (with Lindy Willmott) has also developed a model Bill for voluntary assisted dying for parliaments to consider. Ben White is a recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (project number FT190100410: Enhancing End-of-Life Decision-Making: Optimal Regulation of Voluntary Assisted Dying) funded by the Australian Government.

– ref. Voluntary assisted dying will be debated in NSW parliament this week. Here’s what to expect – https://theconversation.com/voluntary-assisted-dying-will-be-debated-in-nsw-parliament-this-week-heres-what-to-expect-169468

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Larcombe, Associate Professor and Head of Respiratory Environmental Health, Telethon Kids Institute

From October 1, it’s been illegal to buy e-liquids containing nicotine without a prescription from a doctor everywhere in Australia, except South Australia.

But vaping with nicotine-free e-liquids is not illegal in Australia (though in some jurisdictions the e-cigarette devices themselves are illegal).

Vaping is increasing in popularity in Australia, particularly among young people.

I co-led a research team that wanted to find out what’s in the nicotine free e-liquids that vapers inhale, and their potential health effects.

Our study, published this week in The Medical Journal of Australia, found most e-liquids contained chemicals known to cause respiratory issues and lung damage when inhaled. Most contained ingredients that have since been banned by Australia’s drug regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

We also found all e-liquids contained substances for which the health effects of inhalation exposure are unknown.

It’s clear vaping isn’t safe, and e-cigarettes haven’t been approved as smoking cessation devices.

Read more:
Vaping: As an imaging scientist I fear the deadly impact on people’s lungs

What did we study?

A few years ago, we conducted a small study which involved chemically analysing ten e-liquids purchased in Australia. All of them were labelled “nicotine free”.

Our research, published in The Medical Journal of Australia in 2019, was surprising and concerning. We found 60% of the liquids contained nicotine. In some instances, this was at levels high enough not to be just trace contamination.

We also found all ten e-liquids contained a chemical called “2-chlorophenol”, which is often used in pesticides and disinfectants and is a known irritant to the skin and lungs.

Most of the e-liquids also contained “2-aminooctanoic acid, which is an amino acid found in the biological products of mammals, including faeces, urine and blood. Its presence was potentially a result of contamination with one of these substances during the manufacturing or packaging processes.

Our findings prompted us to expand on our previous study.

This time we analysed 65 Australian e-liquids, including using a method aimed at better understanding how heating the e-liquids for vaping might change their chemical components.

This was the most expansive analysis of Australian e-liquids to date, and was led by Curtin University and the Wal-yan Respiratory Research Centre, in conjunction with Lung Foundation Australia, the Minderoo Foundation, and Cancer Council Western Australia.

All of the e-liquids we studied were purchased online or from brick-and-mortar stores across Australia. All were advertised as being “best-sellers”, Australian made, and nicotine free, so it’s likely they’re representative of what many Australian vapers might be using.

None of the e-liquids were labelled with a comprehensive ingredient list, so it’s impossible for users to know what chemicals they’re inhaling. It also means all the e-liquids we tested wouldn’t be compliant with European Union labelling regulations.

Read more:
Vaping is glamourised on social media, putting youth in harm’s way

What else did we find?

Many of the flavouring chemicals we detected are “generally regarded as safe” by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when used in foods and drinks. But there’s a big difference between a chemical that’s safe to ingest and one which is safe to inhale long-term.

We also detected nicotine in some e-liquids, however, it was found much less frequently and at much lower concentrations than in our previous study. This may be indicative of a cleaner manufacturing process.

We only tested for “freebase” nicotine, which is typically used in both conventional cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapies. So, the e-liquids may have contained a different type of nicotine, called nicotine salts, which are much more commonly used now than they were a few years ago.

We also found 2-chlorophenol again, although it was only in about half of the e-liquids tested. Regardless, the contamination of e-liquids with this known toxic chemical, which has no valid reason for being present, remains a significant problem.

A range of other chemicals of concern were commonly detected, including benzaldehyde, trans-cinnamaldehyde and menthol. These chemicals are added for their almond, cinnamon and mint flavours, respectively.

Benzaldehyde was found in every e-liquid except four, while menthol and trans-cinnamaldehyde were found in about three-quarters of the e-liquids. The presence of these chemical flavourings was concerning for a number of reasons.

Firstly, they’re all known to alter the effects of nicotine. Menthol makes nicotine more addictive.

Benzaldehyde and trans-cinnamaldehyde are known to inhibit an enzyme called “CYP2A6”. CYP2A6 is responsible for metabolising and detoxifying many drugs humans are exposed to, including nicotine.

When its function is impaired by these flavouring chemicals, it means a vaper using e-liquids containing nicotine is going to have nicotine in their body for a longer period of time before it’s processed by the body.

Benzaldehyde is also a respiratory irritant and can reduce a person’s ability to fight off lung infections. Trans-cinnamaldehyde has even more severe effects on the immune cells in the lung.

Both of these chemicals are now included on the TGA’s list of prohibited e-liquid ingredients, meaning they’re banned in Australian e-liquids. Menthol isn’t banned by the TGA, but it’s prohibited in tobacco cigarettes in some countries. In this study, the e-liquids were analysed before the ban came into force.

This research clearly shows Australian e-liquids contain a range of chemicals that are either known to negatively impact health, or for which the potential health impacts of inhalation exposure are unknown.

A lot more research is needed in this space before informed decisions on both nicotine free and nicotine e-cigarette usage can be made, and to better understand how vaping impacts our health.

The author would like to acknowledge Professor Ben Mullins and Dr Sebastien Allard, of Curtin University, who were co-leads on this research project.

For this study Alexander Larcombe, Ben Mullins and Sebastien Allard received funding from Lung Foundation Australia, Minderoo Foundation and Cancer Council WA. Alexander Larcombe is affiliated with ACOSH – the Australian Council on Smoking and Health.

– ref. Many e-cigarette vaping liquids contain toxic chemicals: new Australian research – https://theconversation.com/many-e-cigarette-vaping-liquids-contain-toxic-chemicals-new-australian-research-169615

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tomas Trescak, Senior Lecturer in Intelligent Systems, Western Sydney University

Graduates entering an ever-more-competitive job market are often unaware of the skills and values they offer employers. The challenge is greater with emerging job roles that require certifications and both multidisciplinary skills and specialist knowledge, even for entry-level positions.

We seek to empower our graduates and maximise their career prospects. New research has enabled us to harness the power of artificial intelligence for a custom-designed course planning and recommendation system for students based on the skills their desired jobs actually require. We named these curriculum delivery models JobFit and ModuLearn.

Read more:
Migration is a quick fix for skills shortages. Building on Australians’ skills is better

JobFit: a career-driven curriculum

JobFit builds on a simple premise of informing students about the skills they will gain by completing a knowledge unit. This helps students to analyse skills gained from an individual study pathway and how these relate to career prospects.

Students can explore and experiment with various pathways. This “what if?” analysis is tailored to their career goals and knowledge preferences. The system monitors their study progress and proactively offers alternative pathways to maximise their acquisition of skills related to their goals.

We base the skills on recognised frameworks. For science, technology and business, we use the Skills for Information Age (SFIA) framework version 8, defining 121 skills, each on seven different levels.

For example, performing a basic risk assessment in an organisation requires “information security” skill at the lowest level. At the highest level it enables the person to design organisational and governmental policies assuring global information security.

Governments and organisations in Australia, United States, United Kingdom and European Union have created datasets using SFIA skills to define desired job profiles.

Drawing on these datasets, we designed a prototypical course-planning tool. (To login, please provide your email and role you would like to play in the system. A password is not required.) Western Sydney University students can use it to explore their skill compatibility with ICT job roles.

The chart above shows the compatibility with general role profiles, for Bachelor of ICT students considering junior-level positions. The video below shows the possibilities of this tool.

This approach has several benefits. First, students understand how their studies develop their skills. They can then set career-driven goals and make well-informed decisions about their study pathways.

Solid understanding of skills and knowing how to express these in CVs and cover letters are increasingly important. This is because human resource departments are adopting automated approaches to search for and filter out candidates, using algorithmic processing and text mining.

We can use SFIA to express skills in technology-related areas. However, it does not apply to other areas such as engineering, human sciences, law or medicine.

We are looking at acquiring data from an external partner to analyse and process required skills from live job offers across all industries. We will then be able to inform students on the quantity, variety and compatibility of actual job offers in any industry based on their knowledge profile.

This approach will also benefit curriculum designers facing the challenges of new subjects being rapidly introduced to maintain an advantage over competitors. The result is often an incoherent curriculum, particularly when it comes to meeting industry and employer needs.

A lack of understanding of what skills are desired in the job market and ad-hoc additions have led to programs that do not provide clear study pathways and relevance to work roles. Our model allows curriculum designers to analyse and validate their curriculum against job market needs.

Last, working with industry partners, we defined custom job profiles for the industry area of interest and locality. Students who target such custom skill sets are in a stronger position when applying for work with an industry partner.

Read more:
How work-integrated learning helps to make billions in uni funding worth it

ModuLearn: promoting cross-disciplinary skills

Informing students on the skills they are acquiring is only half of the job. A student must also acquire all their desired skills in a relatively short period.

In undergraduate degrees, much of the course is typically pre-defined with core subjects. Students are often left with only one or two semesters to focus their knowledge on particular employers’ desired skill set. It’s even more of problem in shorter courses such as diplomas or certificates.

It’s likely too that a student’s faculty or school does not offer some critical skills. Students are often reluctant to study in a different school or faculty, fearing the challenge of a new environment.

To overcome these issues, we looked at ways to increase the variety and number of knowledge units with diverse skills. We found inspiration in Charles Sturt University’s Engineering Topic Tree. It allows students to customise their degree by choosing from over 1,000 different topics. Topics are organised by disciplines, with well-organised prerequisites and pathways.

What this topic tree lacks is the backing of technology that allows students to easily explore all their options. We built on the topic tree idea and designed skill-informed modules. These are study units usually lasting two to eight weeks. Each module clearly defines the skills required as prerequisites and the skills it delivers.

An intertwined network of modules delivers fundamental and applied knowledge but each module requires less of a commitment from students than semester-long subjects. We hope in this way to encourage students to study across disciplines.

However, managing all the possible module combinations, prerequisites and user preferences is a significant technological challenge. This called for novel research, not just an application of existing AI approaches.

Read more:
Artificial intelligence is now part of our everyday lives – and its growing power is a double-edged sword

Working with the Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (IIIA) in Barcelona, we developed technological means to design and maintain a module-based curriculum for both curriculum designers and students. Delivery models can be adapted to different public or private financing options and educational standards, such as the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF).

Curriculum development tends to lag behind technology development and shifting market needs. Ideally, curriculum development should be more responsive and future-focused rather than reactive. With smaller modules instead of semester-long subjects, it is possible to adapt much more quickly to ever-changing job market needs.

I would like to acknowledge the rest of our team, Professor Juan Antonio Rodriguez and Dr Filippo Bistafa from IIIA, Spain, Ms Lynn Berry, Professor Simeon Simoff and Professor Andrew Francis from Western Sydney University.

Tomas Trescak 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. How AI can guide course design and study choices to help graduates get the jobs they want – https://theconversation.com/how-ai-can-guide-course-design-and-study-choices-to-help-graduates-get-the-jobs-they-want-167055

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

Never has an inquiry into the skyrocketing price of homes been more urgent.

Rarely has one been as insultingly ill-suited as the one under way right now.

Midway through last year in the midst of COVID, the average forecast of the 22 leading economists who took part in The Conversation mid-year survey was for no increase in home prices whatsoever in the year ahead (actually for slight falls).

At that time the typical (median) Sydney house price was A$1 million, where it stayed until the end of the year.

Then it took off. In the ten months to the start of this month the typical Sydney house price soared $300,000 to $1.3 million – a breathtaking increase (and an awfully big penalty for delaying buying) of $1,000 each day.

For apartments, the increase isn’t as big, although still extraordinary. The cost of delaying buying a typical Sydney apartment has been $334 each day.

The cost of delaying buying a typical Melbourne house has been close to $600 per day, the cost of delaying buying a typical Melbourne apartment $150 per day.

Read more:
Home prices are climbing alright, but not for the reason you might think

In that time, in the year in which the typical Australian home price climbed 20.3%, the typical Australian wage climbed just 1.7%

What people stretched to the limit or now locked out of the housing market are desperate to know is

• why it is happening

• when it is likely to stop

• what (if anything) we can do about it.

Instead, we have been given an inquiry into affordability in name only. Seriously. The parliamentary inquiry commissioned by the treasurer in July and chaired by backbencher Jason Falinski is called an inquiry into affordability and supply, but the word “affordability” appears in none of its three terms of reference.

It’s an inquiry into ‘supply’

Instead, the terms of reference refer to the impact of taxes, charges and other things settings on “housing supply”.

I guess the idea is that it is obvious that supply is the key to affordability, but it rather negates the idea of holding an inquiry, and it sits oddly with the explosion in prices we have seen in a year in which building approvals have surged by a near-record 224,000 and our population has as good as stayed still.

In its submission to the inquiry the Reserve Bank includes a graph showing the supply of housing (the stock of houses and apartments) outpacing population growth for the best part of the decade leading up to the latest price explosion.

Supply has been holding up

But in a sense (and stay with me here) whoever drafted the restricted terms of reference is right. Housing affordability is linked to the supply of housing.

And housing affordability has been doing okay.

In evidence to the inquiry last month Treasury assistant secretary John Swieringa drew a distinction between housing affordability (best measured by the cost of renting housing) and the cost of buying a house, which was partly an investment.

When you are a purchaser of a house you are partly investing in an asset and partly buying dwelling services; whereas when you are renting it’s probably a cleaner read on what cost dwelling services is.

That clean read – rent as a proportion of income – hasn’t much changed in 20 years. For middle earners it has remained comfortably between 20% and 25% of household disposable income.

The Reserve Bank says advertised rents for units in Sydney and Melbourne have drifted down by $30 to $50 per week over the past five years while rents in other places have mostly drifted higher.

As it happens, it says another measure of housing affordability is also improving.

The cost of home loan payments as a proportion of income has been falling since the onset of COVID. Dramatically lower interest rates mean payments take up less household disposable income than they did five years ago, even with the much higher prices.

The problem is accessibility

What has changed is what the Reserve Bank calls “housing accessibility”, to distinguish it from housing affordability.

Accessibility is the ability of a first time owner or renter to get into the market at all by finding the deposit or bond.

Astounding price growth and five years of weak income growth have pushed up the cost of an average first home deposit from 70% of income to more than 80%.

On average it now takes a 24-35 year old nine years of tucking away one fifth of their income each year to save for a typical Sydney deposit, up from five to six years a decade ago.

Average First Home Buyer Deposit

It’s okay if you have a parent who can get their hands on money, almost impossible if you don’t. In the words of former Reserve Bank official Peter Tulip, it’s making home ownership hereditary.

He’s not the first person to have noticed.

Liberal backbencher John Alexander chaired the Coalition’s 2015 inquiry into home ownership. He said then we were “on track to becoming a Kingdom where the Lords own all the land and the biggest Lord will be King and the enslaved serf tenant is paying rent to the Lord to become wealthier”.

Ownership is becoming hereditary

Prime Minister Turnbull and Treasurer Scott Morrison used the 2016 election (in which they attacked Labor’s plan to limit tax breaks for landlords) to shut down Alexander’s inquiry, and only agreed to restart it with someone else as chair. It had considered 30 hours of evidence.

The chair of this current (limited) inquiry seems unperturbed.

He opened September’s hearings saying no question was off-limits, no idea too stupid, all forms of inquiry were worthwhile. It’d be great if that was true.

Peter Martin 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. As home prices soar beyond reach, we have a government inquiry almost designed not to tell us why – https://theconversation.com/as-home-prices-soar-beyond-reach-we-have-a-government-inquiry-almost-designed-not-to-tell-us-why-168959

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

Never has an inquiry into the skyrocketing price of homes been more urgent.

Rarely has one been as insultingly ill-suited as the one underway right now.

Midway through last year in the midst of COVID, the average forecast of the 22 leading economists who took part in The Conversation mid-year survey was for no increase in home prices whatsoever in the year ahead (actually for slight falls).

At that time the typical (median) Sydney house price was A$1 million, where it stayed until the end of the year.

Then it took off. In the ten months to the start of this month the typical Sydney house price soared $300,000 to $1.3 billion – a breathtaking increase (and an awfully big penalty for delaying buying) of $1,000 each day.

For apartments, the increase isn’t as big, although still extraordinary. The cost of delaying buying a typical Sydney apartment has been $334 each day.

The cost of delaying buying a typical Melbourne house has been close to $600 per day, the cost of delaying buying a typical Melbourne apartment $150 per day.

Read more:
Home prices are climbing alright, but not for the reason you might think

In that time, in the year in which the typical Australian home price climbed 20.3%, the typical Australian wage climbed just 1.7%

What people stretched to the limit or now locked out of the housing market are desperate to know is

• why it is happening

• when it is likely to stop

• what (if anything) we can do about it.

Instead, we have been given an inquiry into affordability in name only. Seriously. The parliamentary inquiry commissioned by the treasurer in July and chaired by backbencher Jason Falinski is called an inquiry into affordability and supply, but the word “affordability” appears in none of its three terms of reference.

It’s an inquiry into ‘supply’

Instead, the terms of reference refer to the impact of taxes, charges and other things settings on “housing supply”.

I guess the idea is that it is obvious that supply is the key to affordability, but it rather negates the idea of holding an inquiry, and it sits oddly with the explosion in prices we have seen in a year in which building approvals have surged by a near-record 224,000 and our population has as good as stayed still.

In its submission to the inquiry the Reserve Bank includes a graph showing the supply of housing (the stock of houses and apartments) outpacing population growth for the best part of the decade leading up to the latest price explosion.

Supply has been holding up

But in a sense (and stay with me here) whoever drafted the restricted terms of reference is right. Housing affordability is linked to the supply of housing.

And housing affordability has been doing okay.

In evidence to the inquiry last month Treasury assistant secretary John Swieringa drew a distinction between housing affordability (best measured by the cost of renting housing) and the cost of buying a house, which was partly an investment.

When you are a purchaser of a house you are partly investing in an asset and partly buying dwelling services; whereas when you are renting it’s probably a cleaner read on what cost dwelling services is.

That clean read – rent as a proportion of income – hasn’t much changed in 20 years. For middle earners it has remained comfortably between 20% and 25% of household disposable income.

The Reserve Bank says advertised rents for units in Sydney and Melbourne have drifted down by $30 to $50 per week over the past five years while rents in other places have mostly drifted higher.

As it happens, it says another measure of housing affordability is also improving.

The cost of home loan payments as a proportion of income has been falling since the onset of COVID. Dramatically lower interest rates mean payments take up less household disposable income than they did five years ago, even with the much higher prices.

The problem is accessibility

What has changed is what the Reserve Bank calls “housing accessibility”, to distinguish it from housing affordability.

Accessibility is the ability of a first time owner or renter to get into the market at all by finding the deposit or bond.

Astounding price growth and five years of weak income growth have pushed up the cost of an average first home deposit from 70% of income to more than 80%.

On average it now takes a 24-35 year old nine years of tucking away one fifth of their income each year to save for a typical Sydney deposit, up from five to six years a decade ago.

Average First Home Buyer Deposit

It’s okay if you have a parent who can get their hands on money, almost impossible if you don’t. In the words of former Reserve Bank official Peter Tulip, it’s making home ownership hereditary.

He’s not the first person to have noticed.

Liberal backbencher John Alexander chaired the Coalition’s 2015 inquiry into home ownership. He said then we were “on track to becoming a Kingdom where the Lords own all the land and the biggest Lord will be King and the enslaved serf tenant is paying rent to the Lord to become wealthier”.

Ownership is becoming hereditary

Prime Minister Turnbull and Treasurer Scott Morrison used the 2016 election (in which they attacked Labor’s plan to limit tax breaks for landlords) to shut down Alexander’s inquiry, and only agreed to restart it with someone else as chair. It had considered 30 hours of evidence.

The chair of this current (limited) inquiry seems unperturbed.

He opened September’s hearings saying no question was off-limits, no idea too stupid, all forms of inquiry were worthwhile. It’d be great if that was true.

Peter Martin 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. As home prices soar beyond reach, we’ve a government inquiry almost designed not to tell us why – https://theconversation.com/as-home-prices-soar-beyond-reach-weve-a-government-inquiry-almost-designed-not-to-tell-us-why-168959

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brianna Chesser, Senior Lecturer in Criminology and Justice, RMIT University

The Australian Capital Territory has set a legal precedent by becoming the first jurisdiction in Australia – and one of just a few in the world – to outlaw the act of “stealthing”, or the non-consensual removal of a condom during sex.

The ACT’s amended Crimes Act now makes it illegal to remove a condom during sex or to not use a condom at all, in circumstances when condom use was previously agreed on.

The legislation was introduced by Liberals’ leader Elizabeth Lee, who said it was aimed at providing clarity in the law before someone became a victim.

We cannot wait for cases to come before courts before stealthing is specifically outlawed – we need to act proactively and send a clear message to the community that this behaviour is unacceptable and a crime.

How prevalent is stealthing?

Stealthing is not a new issue in the community, but it has only recently come to the attention of lawmakers in many countries.

In 2015, journalist and author Monica Tan described stealthing as “sort-of” rape after she was stealthed by her then-partner.

In 2017, American civil rights lawyer Alexandra Brodsky described the act as being “rape-adjacent”, inspiring a bill in California that just became law.

In the same year, Triple J’s Hack program in Australia shared stories from both stealthing survivors and perpetrators. Stealthing has also been depicted recently on the screen, in Michaela Coel’s television series I May Destroy You.

In specifically changing the law to criminalise stealthing, the ACT has recognised the inherent harm caused by the action to the physical and psychological well-being of survivors.

Recent studies suggest stealthing affects more members of our community than we might think. A 2018 study by Monash University and the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre surveyed 2,000 people and found one in three women, and almost one in five men who have sex with men, had experienced stealthing.

A 2019 paper published in the National Library of Medicine in the US found 12% of women aged 21 to 30 reported an experience with stealthing.

Another American study of men between the ages of 21 and 30 found that 10% had non-consensually removed a condom during sex. Those men admitted having done so, on average, three to four times in their lives.

Read more:
Rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment: what’s the difference?

Stealthing cases before the courts

Courts in numerous countries, including New Zealand, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, have deemed stealthing to be sexual assault.

These countries, however, have fallen short of specifically outlawing stealthing in legislation.

In Australia, there has been much debate over whether stealthing is already included under existing sex crimes laws, or if it needs to be specifically written into the law.

Some argue stealthing already falls under the existing law that states a person does not consent to sex if he or she is mistaken about the “nature of the act”.

However, legal experts argue that in cases where stealthing occurs, the sexual nature of the act is understood, but the condition placed on the consent – condom use – is what is not agreed on.

There is a case involving stealthing currently before the courts in Victoria, but it has been significantly delayed by COVID-19 and will not be heard until 2022.

It was hoped this case would set a legal precedent and ultimately lead to a change to the state’s sex crimes law. However, parliament is unlikely to look at changing any laws until the case is adjudicated.

Read more:
Case in Victoria could set new legal precedent for stealthing, or removing condom during sex

California takes a different approach

California’s new law, which also passed last week, is the first in the US to specifically outlaw stealthing. This law also provides a persuasive precedent for other states and countries to follow.

California has taken a different approach to the ACT. The new law adds stealthing to the state’s civil definition of sexual battery, allowing victims to sue perpetrators for damages.

It would not, however, make stealthing a crime that could result in jail time. Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia has failed on two previous occasions to pass a law criminalising the act.

The difficulty in passing stealthing laws reflects a general reluctance to make the act a criminal offence. US legal commentators said stealthing could already be considered “misdemeanor sexual battery” in California, even though it isn’t explicitly mentioned in the state’s criminal code.

The reluctance appears to come from the potential difficulties of legally proving an intentional act of stealthing. Importantly, though, legal analysts acknowledged that stealthing was rarely prosecuted in California under the state’s old misdemeanor laws – indicating the need for further legislative clarity.

Both the ACT and Californian laws are a step in the right direction, demonstrating the need for a new legal approach. As Brodsky, the civil rights lawyer, put it,

I think law, at its best, can express a community norm and how we should treat each other. I do think a lot of survivors would find affirmation in the fact that this state legislature agreed what happened to them was wrong.

Brianna Chesser 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. In an Australian first, stealthing is now illegal in the ACT. Could this set a precedent for the country? – https://theconversation.com/in-an-australian-first-stealthing-is-now-illegal-in-the-act-could-this-set-a-precedent-for-the-country-169629

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bronwyn Carlson, Professor, Indigenous Studies, Macquarie University

This article mentions the ongoing colonial violence towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people

This week, actress Sam Frost made headlines for the use of the word “segregation” in an Instagram video. Frost, who is white, spoke emotionally about how her choice to remain unvaccinated made her feel “less of a human” in Australian society.

The video, which Frost has now deleted, refers to New South Wales easing restrictions on travel and socialising. She complains that vaccinated people are allowed out of lockdown as of October 11, while unvaccinated people have to wait until December 1.

The post received significant critique on social media where some called it an expression of white privilege.

By invoking segregation to describe what she frames as prejudice against her vaccination status, Frost likened her experiences as a white settler with unimpeded access to free health care to the violent racial discrimination, incarceration and forced removal experienced by Indigenous and migrant communities in Australia.

Comments like Frost’s demonstrate ignorance towards the many structural inequalities experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and other marginalised peoples in Australia.

Settlers co-opting language they’ve used to oppress

Frost’s comments are part of a trend of white public figures and officials co-opting language describing racial violence and colonial government policies for their own means.

White settlers are co-opting terms like “medical apartheid” and “lynch mob”. These terms are used to describe inconveniences rather than the systemic injustices and violence they actually refer to.

In 2019, Donald Trump, then president of the United States, referred to his impeachment inquiry as “a lynching”.

Earlier this year, a deputy president at the Fair Work Commission, Lyndall Dean, likened vaccine mandates to “medical apartheid”.

Read more:
Whiteness in the time of COVID: Australia’s health services still leaving vulnerable communities behind

Using terms like these is controversial not only because it appears to trivialise the mistreatment of marginalised people, but also because language communicates power. This is especially true in settler colonial nations like Australia and the United States. In these countries, white settlers use language to control, terrorise and marginalise Indigenous peoples, refugees and migrants.

Settler governments use language to create racial policies, including the forced removal and segregation of Aboriginal people. This entailed moving families off their homelands and onto missions and reserve lands where many people still live to this day.

So when terms like segregation are used, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are reminded what they really mean. Even if the person invoking it is only talking about having to stay inside.

The pandemic has highlighted privilege

White settlers and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have not been impacted the same by the COVID-19 pandemic. White women like Frost feel free to deny free, potentially life-saving health care. Aboriginal women with COVID-19, meanwhile, are turned away from hospitals and fined for driving to get groceries.

Racial discrimination and segregation in Australia is not a thing of the past. Neither lockdown measures, nor the COVID vaccination rollout, have been equal or racially neutral.

Many have noted the differences of lockdown measures across suburbs. Western Sydney, which has one of the largest Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and migrant populations in Australia, was heavily policed during lockdown. Whereas, the affluent eastern and inner city suburbs had more relaxed restrictions.

The New South Wales government has not prioritised regional Aboriginal communities in COVID-19 plans. As a result, communities in Wilcannia, Dubbo and Bourke have been subject to deadly outbreaks, slower vaccination rates, and military presence.

As states and territories begin reopening, the levels of anxiety and dread are rising in these communities – especially in places where less than 35% of Aboriginal and Torres Islander people over the age of 12 are double vaccinated.

This is one reason why Aboriginal health services are racing to make sure people in our communities are getting vaccinated.

Read more:
Hidden women of history: Isabel Flick, the tenacious campaigner who fought segregation in Australia

A history of medical apartheid

Any vaccine hesitancy in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities is understandable considering the history of racialised medical violence in Australia. This includes medical experimentation in “lock hospitals”, where some people never returned from.

African-American medical ethicist Harriet A. Washington has researched similar instances of what she refers to as “medical apartheid” in the US. Washington writes of the way western medicine both neglects and relies on the abuse of Black and Indigenous peoples.

In Australia, Aboriginal community-controlled health organisations continue to respond to issues caused by racism in mainstream health services. We are only just beginning to see how much lockdown measures and barriers to accessing health care have harmed and endangered marginalised communities.

Much of what we know so far is thanks to diverse journalists covering events as they unfold at ABC, SBS and NITV. There has also been grassroots coverage from marginalised communities through media outlets such as IndigenousX and Transdemic.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are also battling vaccine and COVID misinformation. Commentary from Frost and other Instagram influencers is not only dangerous, but also spreads inaccurate narratives of white victimhood.

It is a privilege to reject life-saving health interventions while others experience structural barriers to appropriate medical care.

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. Sam Frost knows nothing about segregation: white settlers co-opting terms used to oppress – https://theconversation.com/sam-frost-knows-nothing-about-segregation-white-settlers-co-opting-terms-used-to-oppress-169613

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

The political temperature is rising in the South China Sea, and its effects will be felt in the South Pacific before long.

Recent incursions by the Chinese air force into Taiwan’s air defence zone have ratcheted up already tense relations, with the US and Australia both warning China about undermining regional peace and stability.

Chinese shows of strength are nothing new, but these air incursions have gone from about 300 last year to 500 in the first nine months of 2021 – primarily near the contested Pratas Island, occupied by the Taiwanese military but also claimed by China.

With Britain recently dispatching a warship through the Taiwan Strait, and Japan talking of potentially helping to defend Taiwan, New Zealand is again placed in the difficult position of balancing its traditional alliances with its largely neutral and trade-dependent relationship with China.

A diplomatic tightrope

The complexities of Taiwan’s place in the modern era can be traced back to the war in Vietnam and the American rapprochement with China that helped end it. Having previously been seen as a bulwark against communism by the West, Taiwan found itself on the outer.

New Zealand followed the US in switching diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing and has since adhered to a “one China policy” that stipulates Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China.

Read more:
Why Taiwan remains calm in the face of unprecedented military pressure from China

So while New Zealand does not maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan, it has a vibrant trading, economic and cultural relationship, including a trade agreement worth about $NZ2.12 billion annually.

This all presents ongoing diplomatic challenges. For example, because of Taiwan’s excellent COVID-19 response, New Zealand supported their having observer status at the World Health Organization – earning a rebuke from China.

Even more awkwardly, Taiwan has applied to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), the trade pact designed by the Obama presidency to prevent Chinese trade dominance. Donald Trump subsequently refused to sign, but China now wants to sign.

All eyes on the US

It might almost be amusing if it weren’t so dangerous. It has been a long-standing article of faith in Beijing that Taiwan would be reunited with China under some kind of one-country-two-systems arrangement – with Hong Kong the model.

This vision ran headlong into the reality of what has happened to Hong Kong’s autonomy after Chinese reunification.

Nonetheless, Chinese President Xi Jinping has continued to insist “complete reunification” with Taiwan will happen. And China has made clear that any attempt by Taiwan to reach for full and formal independence would mean war.

Read more:
Taiwan: how the ‘porcupine doctrine’ might help deter armed conflict with China

While the US Taiwan Relations Act does not obligate military intervention if Taiwan were attacked, it does contain a promise to provide the means of defence. Just how the US would respond, however, is hard to predict. On balance, it’s likely it would get involved.

Taiwan now shares American democratic values and Joe Biden has a poor relationship with China. The pressure to lead in the event of a Chinese annexation, especially in front of US regional allies, would be strong.

And the secret deployment by Trump (continued under Biden) of special operations troops to help train the Taiwanese military does not suggest a hands-off approach.

Principles should guide policy

For New Zealand, navigating a middle path between China and the US is becoming increasingly complex. The Ardern government has criticised China for cyber-attacks, but taken a softer stance on human rights abuse. For better or worse, New Zealand was not included in the recent AUKUS agreement.

But this also opens up opportunities for independent thinking about keeping the peace, based on New Zealand’s recently stated five foreign policy principles: respect for the rules, openness, inclusivity, respect for sovereignty, and transparency.

Read more:
The AUKUS pact, born in secrecy, will have huge implications for Australia and the region

That means New Zealand respects Chinese sovereignty and the one-China policy. To avoid doubt, this would involve clearly stating New Zealand does not support calls for the formal independence of Taiwan.

At the same time, by reiterating support for the status quo, New Zealand would by implication be calling for Chinese military restraint in the contested zones around Taiwan, and the exit of American military trainers in Taiwan.

Towards a rule-based order

Inclusivity and openness can be promoted by supporting Taiwan’s membership of international organisations and agreements, especially where China and Taiwan might mutually benefit.

Most importantly, New Zealand can stand for a system of international relations based on negotiation and independent adjudication of disputes.

Read more:
New drives to counter China come with a major risk: throwing fuel on the Indo-Pacific arms race

If there are gaps in the rules governing control of disputed islands or increased regional militarisation, New Zealand should offer to help draft and negotiate new ones. Calls for a peaceful resolution of territorial disputes in the South China Sea should be consistently applied to both China and Taiwan.

Ultimately, only a rule-based international order can secure a peaceful future for large and small states alike.

Alexander Gillespie 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. Taiwan is becoming a flashpoint for China and the West – how does New Zealand respond? – https://theconversation.com/taiwan-is-becoming-a-flashpoint-for-china-and-the-west-how-does-new-zealand-respond-169532

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Roger Patulny, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Wollongong

Many of us have been struggling with isolation and loneliness during COVID lockdowns, despite the increase in online interactions.

Amid concerns over lost friendships and social skills, people may be wondering if their social lives will “go back to normal” as restrictions begin to lift around the country.

Our new study looks at what happened to Australians’ social lives during lockdown. The findings suggest COVID may have had a long-term impact on our friendships, and not necessarily for the better.

Our study

During 2020-21, we surveyed more than 2,000 Australians about their experiences during and after lockdown. Each person was surveyed three times, and asked about their interactions, lifestyles and plans.

Our survey approach was qualitative, letting us capture the respondents’ detailed, personal experiences of lockdown in their own words. Participants came from every state and territory, ranged in age from 18 to 88, and around two-thirds were female.

Australia is uniquely positioned for this kind of study, thanks to our (temporary) early exit from lockdown in 2020. This means we were able to find out about Australians’ COVID experience both during and many months post-lockdown.

Loneliness is a serious social and health issue, linked to poor mental health and early death. It occurs when our relationships don’t meet our social needs – so we can be lonely if either the quantity or quality of our friendships break down.

Social scientists have been concerned about loneliness in recent decades because of such things as rising individualism in our culture and an increase in single person households. COVID may have accelerated the impact of such changes.

Indeed, many of the Australians we surveyed reported a reduction in the quality and size of their friendships, not just at the height of the pandemic last year, but months after lockdown finished in 2020.

Why is this so? And what does this mean as we once again begin to emerge from lockdowns again?

Increased disconnection

Unsurprisingly, many participants reported an increase in disconnection and loneliness during lockdown. Interactions with friends were “just not the same”. More concerning, though, was that these feelings continued months after lockdown had ended. Some respondents described a lasting impact on their attitudes to friendship and socialising.

Everyone became withdrawn … No one wants to hang out anymore.

Another respondent noted:

We have remained in contact through social media and video calls, but have drifted to some degree.

A sense of social fatigue and apathy was visible in many accounts months after lockdown. As respondents explained: “face-to-face feels tiring”. Another interviewee noted:

COVID has given me licence to withdraw into myself more. Now things are opening up I don’t want to come back out.

Shrinking friendship networks

Participants also described how friendship networks shrank as they “pruned” out more distant connections during lockdown. They described this as “more time with close friends. Less time with acquaintances”.

Some participants’ networks shrank because of a lack of opportunity to catch up, others described how pandemic stress left them wanting to connect only with those they cared about most. Unfortunately for many, friendship networks remained smaller months after lockdown.

Continued restrictions on group activities extended feelings of disconnection. Younger people were also prevented from forming new relationships as university study moved online and many casual jobs were cut.

meeting someone feels pretty impossible this year.

Those who moved back home to save money also experienced social disruption – stuck inside with family instead of friends or colleagues.

What about new or improved online friendships?

Although lockdown physically disconnected people, it massively increased social media use, online gaming and videoconferencing.

Lockdowns, together with this boom in digital communication, helped connect distant friends:

I’m closer to friends as we are forced to connect online… no more making excuses about being busy (like) pre-COVID.

But this could not overcome an overall increase in loneliness or adequately substitute for physical interaction. Our data attributes this to “touch hunger” or lost physical connection, and a dissatisfaction with videoconferencing:

Zoom always seems so forced.

The importance of ‘regrowing’ in-person friendships

Previous studies have found digital communication can help reduce loneliness when used for interactive (rather than passive/lurking) purposes to help shore up existing in-person relationships.

Read more:
‘I tell everyone I love being on my own, but I hate it’: what older Australians want you to know about loneliness

But our study shows shows how digital connections cannot make up for in-person friendships post-COVID on their own.

We should be careful before embracing changes that entrench our reliance on digital interaction, like completely virtual offices. Instead, we must remember the value (and fun!) of in-person socialising and take care to reconnect with old and new friends going forward.

Our study shows we cannot take post-COVID socialising for granted. It will not necessarily snap back to the way it was, once restrictions ease. We will have to make conscious efforts to meet with old friends and make new ones when we are allowed to do so in person.

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. Lonely after lockdown? How COVID may leave us with fewer friends if we are not careful – https://theconversation.com/lonely-after-lockdown-how-covid-may-leave-us-with-fewer-friends-if-we-are-not-careful-168844

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

So far in the pandemic, state public health advice has been front and centre of public messaging about protecting the community from the spread of COVID-19.

But merely following the public health orders won’t necessarily meet employers’ obligations to protect staff from COVID, especially as restrictions ease in the Eastern states.

Protecting employees from COVID is good for staff, of course, and also good for the organisation because it will reduce the potential for staff being off sick.

Vaccination alone won’t guarantee a COVID-safe workplace. Even double-vaccinated people can be infected. Vaccination reduces the chance of infection by between 60% (AstraZeneca) and 80% (Pfizer). And double-vaccinated people can also transmit the virus, although again at a much lower rate.

As part of the scientific advisory group OzSAGE, we’re issuing guidance to employers about creating COVID-safe working environments. We propose organisations follow a four-level hierarchy of COVID controls.

Level 1: vaccination and working from home

The most effective protections against COVID are vaccinating to reduce the risk of infection, and limiting interactions with infected people. These are the two standard public health measures seen in state public health orders.

Employers should encourage employees to get vaccinated by providing:

• leave or paid time off to get vaccinated
• reliable and up-to-date information on the effectiveness of vaccinations
• the details of the locations nearby where vaccinations are available
• on-site vaccination, if possible, for shift workers and those who can’t easily attend a GP or vaccine hub appointment
• incentives, such as additional annual leave days for vaccinated workers.

In some circumstances – especially where the organisation is responsible for caring for people at a higher risk of infection – mandatory vaccination of employees might also be considered.

Read more:
If you’re going to mandate COVID vaccination at your workplace, here’s how to do it ethically

Staff should be encouraged to work from home if that’s possible, while risk of infection is still high. Working from home doesn’t eliminate the risk of COVID, but it eliminates the risk of contracting (and transmitting) COVID in the workplace.

Putting in place “hybrid” working arrangements reduces the number of people in the workplace at any one time, and therefore the risk of transmission.

Level 2: safe indoor air

State public health orders have essentially focused on density limits. These are important, but don’t guarantee good ventilation and clean air.

COVID spreads by aerosols. Respiratory aerosols from breathing and speaking accumulate in indoor spaces, resulting in increasing risk over time.

Poor ventilation (stagnant air) in public buildings, workplaces, schools, hospitals, and aged care homes contributes to viral spread.

Read more:
Australia must get serious about airborne infection transmission. Here’s what we need to do

Good ventilation is a key part of reducing the risk of COVID transmission.

As the number of people inside a space increases, CO₂ will increase to varying degrees, depending on the effectiveness of ventilation and the volume of the space. Measuring carbon dioxide (CO₂) is therefore a useful surrogate indicator to assess the relative infection risk of COVID in an indoor space.

It’s recommended employers invest in CO₂ monitoring and use that as a trigger to reduce occupancy and/or increase the provision of outdoor air and HEPA (high-efficiency particulate air) filtering to ensure the risk of COVID-19 is appropriately mitigated.

Having automated alerts (in non-HEPA filtered areas) from CO₂ monitors will prompt action to improve ventilation or leave the workplace.

Level 3: administrative measures

Organisations should be ready to manage COVID outbreaks – especially in New South Wales and Victoria, where public health contact tracing is at capacity.

Organisations might also use regular rapid antigen testing (where practical and feasible, considering cost and logistics), to prevent or limit outbreaks when people are shedding the virus but are asymptomatic.

Read more:
Rapid antigen tests have long been used overseas to detect COVID. Here’s what Australia can learn

The risk of an organisation-wide shutdown can be minimised by creating work bubbles – teams coming to work on different days – and other measures to reduce physical interactions.

Staggering work hours to reduce congregating at lift spaces is another useful, low-cost strategy.

Level 4: masks

COVID-19 is an airborne disease, so the use of masks is integral to reduce transmission and to offer some protection if there is any breakdown of other controls.

Masks are also essential because 30–70% of transmission may be asymptomatic: from infected people who look and feel well and may not be aware they are infected.

Basic cloth masks and surgical masks reduce the transmission of COVID. The effectiveness of masks increases when they fit snugly on the wearer’s face.

Read more:
Evidence shows that, yes, masks prevent COVID-19 – and surgical masks are the way to go

Workers should be provided with appropriate fitted masks and should be trained in how and when to use them. At a minimum, where workplaces are in areas with community transmission of COVID, masks should be worn whenever workers are indoors.

Rates of COVID are still high in NSW, Victoria, and the ACT. Employers, especially in those jurisdictions, should review their work health and safety plans to ensure their workers and customers are properly protected.

This article was co-authored by occupational and environmental physician Karina Powers, engineer and scientist Kate Cole, Flinders University Professor Richard Nunes-Vaz, and other members of the OzSAGE advice for business working group.

Stephen Duckett is member of OzSAGE’s independent experts group.

Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute’s activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities, as disclosed on its website.

– ref. Keeping workers COVID-safe requires more than just following public health orders – https://theconversation.com/keeping-workers-covid-safe-requires-more-than-just-following-public-health-orders-169617

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lurion De Mello, Senior Lecturer in Finance, Macquarie University

Far from emerging from the COVID shock awash with fuel, as might be expected after an economic slowdown, the world is entering a new energy crisis the like of which hasn’t been seen since the 1970s.

European and Asian gas prices are at an all-time high, the oil price is at a three-year high, and the price of coal is soaring on the back of energy shortages across China, India and Germany.

The surge in demand is being driven mostly by recovering economies and anticipated extreme weather across Europe and north-east Asia. China is stockpiling domestic coal and gas reserves, and Russia is reluctant to supply gas to Western Europe.

Closer to home, Australia’s gas prices are soaring, but might soon plummet.

Petrol pandemonium

In Britain, a shortage of the truck drivers who move fuel has led to panic-buying amid fears of a shortage. After Brexit, many European truck drivers went back to their home countries and never returned.

Compounding Britain’s problem was its so-called “windless summer” in which renewable power production was much lower than normal. This put a significant strain on electricity generation as around 40% of its power is produced by wind.

Britain has transitioned away from coal as an electricity source and with low emergency supplies will find it difficult to suddenly switch back to coal.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson remains committed to wind generation and says he wants the UK to become the “Saudi Arabia of wind power” with offshore wind farms generating enough electricity to power every UK home within a decade.

Oil on a roll

Oil prices have soared in response to the windless summer and British and German difficulties in getting access to Russian gas. Those increases will soon hit Australia which imports 80% of its petrol, diesel and jet fuel.

OPEC+ (OPEC and a Russia-led group of oil producers) have agreed to boost production, but only in measured steps.

If and when Britain and Germany resolve their gas supply issues with Russia, perhaps by mid-2022, gas and oil prices will slide.

Read more:
No, Barnaby. The UK energy crisis has nothing to do with its net-zero target, and to suggest otherwise is outrageous

This will put severe pressure on Australia’s 20 to 30 lucrative long-term supply contracts with Japan, South Korea and Taiwan which expire in a few years.

It is possible that other nations in the Indo-Pacific investing heavily in their gas infrastructure, such as Vietnam and India, will pick up the slack.

Coal comfort

The crunch in the gas market is forcing countries to revert to coal for electricity generation and for industry. Thermal coal prices in Asia keep hitting record highs.

In Asia, there isn’t enough coal to meet expected demand. A cold winter followed by a hot summer and stronger economic growth has led to greater Chinese demand. It is the main cause of an emerging electricity crisis in China.

China, which eased up on coal consumption a few months ago to meet emission targets, is back in the market as stockpiles run low. India faces a similar predicament as coal stockpiles are running low.

Read more:
Oil: why higher prices will complicate the energy transition

There is speculation China might do a U-turn on its unofficial ban on Australian coal and once again embrace Australian imports.

In Europe, the early closure of nuclear plants and record gas prices are set to boost coal use. The price for thermal coal is hitting record highs in Europe, and in Australia the price of Newcastle coal is up 250% and close to its 2008 record high.

Future in flux

The crisis suggests the transition to renewables will take longer than expected and be more complicated than expected.

It will cast a shadow over the COP26 UN climate change talks due to begin in Glasgow on October 31.

Lurion De Mello 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. Suddenly we are in the middle of a global energy crisis. What happened? – https://theconversation.com/suddenly-we-are-in-the-middle-of-a-global-energy-crisis-what-happened-169614

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Keir Reeves, Professor of History & Director Future Regions Research Centre, Federation University Australia

Review: New Gold Mountain, directed by Corrie Chen.

The beautifully shot and evenly paced New Gold Mountain, the new series from SBS, is an 1850s-era murder mystery set in the Ballarat goldfields during the gold rush heyday.

In 1851, gold was discovered in Ballarat – a little known pastoral outpost of the British empire. News of the strike quickly spread and the town rapidly developed. Initially, the first arrivals came from other parts of Victoria. Others followed from other Australian colonies. Soon after, international arrivals came from all regions of the globe and in 1952 many arrived from Southern China in search of gold.

New Gold Mountain focuses on this Chinese-Australian goldfields experience, primarily from the point of view of Leung Wei Shing (Yoson An), the brooding headman of the Chinese miners and his relationships with his younger, errant brother Leung Wei Sun (Sam Wang) and his loyal assistant Gok (Chris Masters Mah).

The narrative is widened to include Belle Roberts (Alyssa Sutherland), the English widow turned newspaper proprietor; Hattie (Leonie Whyman), the resilient Indigenous woman trying to get by; and Patrick Thomas (Christopher James Baker), the troubled Irish miner whose wife’s disappearance drives the plot.

In their own ways, each character is caught between different cultures, friendships and allegiances in the rapidly forming goldfields frontier society on the far side of the world.

A Chinese Australian tale

Chinese migration patterns to Australia were largely based on regional associations, particularly in the localities of Toi Shan, Sze Yup and Sam Yup in Guangdong, Southern China. These regional associations and “brotherhoods”, as they are referred to in the series, were labour recruiting mechanisms similar to the one Wei Shing runs at this Chinese camp.

Here, Cheung Lei (Mabel Li) brings into play the connections, allegiances and complexities between Chinese gold seekers in the Australian colonies and their backers in China.

On one hand, relations between key characters and groups (primarily between the Chinese and Europeans) are typified by racism and hostility. But there is also cooperation, as Wei Shing and Belle unite to solve the murder. Sometimes there is brutal friendship, as when Wei Shing and the Chinese protector, Standish (Dan Spielman), finally establish exactly where they stand with each other.

Director Corrie Chen and creator Peter Cox pull no punches while maintaining a compelling murder mystery and this lively ensemble offers a nuanced reading of the Australian goldfields experience, telling a mature and ambiguous account of the frontier.

The other stars of the series are the distinctive former mining landscapes and Sovereign Hill providing the visual backdrops for the 1850s goldfields society. You can imagine how startled recent arrivals from the bustling South China trading ports of Guangzhou, Hong Kong and Macau must have been on disembarkation. The flora and fauna – literally everything – was so different to home.

Chen explores this shock in a moment of brief magical realism with Wei Shing’s encounters with a kangaroo. It seems the bush sees all. The Chinese miners and their Indigenous and European counterparts were all coming to terms with a landscape broken by mining and colonised by a disparate society coming to terms with its own experiences and opportunities. New Gold Mountain evocatively captures this moment.

Read more:
Friday essay: the story of Fook Shing, colonial Victoria’s Chinese detective

The gold rush on screen

Australian goldfields life has been shown on television before, notably Rush, the Victorian gold rush era drama from the 1970s.

But the obvious cultural point of reference is Deadwood (2004-06), David Milch’s multi-layered historical narrative based on the 1850s gold-rush town in the Black Hills Indian Cession, a region that subsequently became South Dakota.

Much of Deadwood centres on the business dealings between the Chinese headman, Mr Wu, and the corrupt saloon owner and town powerbroker, Al Swearengen. The inherent racism of frontier life is apparent, as is the mutual respect the two men have for each other as they seek to benefit from nefarious business dealings.

Similar complex, intertwined plots of shifting alliances and a mutual desire to win money run through New Gold Mountain.

On closer viewing, the series also shares a watermark with the New Zealand made Illustrious Energy (1988), directed by Leon Narbey, which also explored the goldfields experience from a Chinese perspective. Other Australian colonial stories have been told in John Hillcoat’s The Proposition (2005) and Jennifer Kent’s recent The Nightingale (2018).

Yoson An’s smouldering portrayal of Wei Shing resembles Jay Swan’s character in Mystery Road (2018–). Both are extremely resourceful, conflicted and move between different worlds while confronting the ghosts of their own respective pasts in remote Australia.

Historical voices together

New Gold Mountain emphasises the little told history of the Chinese on the diggings. The paradoxical nature of the colonial gold seeking era is best understood when all the historical voices are heard together. If one story dominates, much of the historical themes which help to explain Australian society in the present day are missed.

The show also reminds us of the complex enduring relationship between China and Australia, which has often been driven by the mining industry.

But, ultimately, it’s a cracking murder mystery that reminds viewers the first Australian multicultural moment happened in the mid-19th century – not the 20th.

New Gold Mountain premieres on SBS Wednesday 13 October.

Read more:
From lurid orange sauces to refined, regional flavours: how politics helped shape Chinese food in Australia

Keir Reeves 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. New Gold Mountain review: a compelling murder mystery shines light on early Australian multiculturalism – https://theconversation.com/new-gold-mountain-review-a-compelling-murder-mystery-shines-light-on-early-australian-multiculturalism-169527

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Malcolm Boyle, Academic Lead in Paramedic Education and Program Director Paramedicine Programs, Griffith University

Long lines of ambulances idling outside hospitals have shocked the public in recent news reports, especially in states with high COVID case numbers and increased hospital admissions.

Mick Stephenson, executive director of clinical operations at Ambulance Victoria told ABC radio he’d “never seen the health system under the pressure it is under at the moment” and he expected worse to come.

In fact, ambulance ramping is an issue even in states with low or no COVID cases, pointing to health systems under stress. It’s a problem that risks the health of patients and paramedics.

Read more:
Hospital emergency departments are under intense pressure. What to know before you go

After bypass was banned

Ambulance ramping appears to have increased since some Australian states banned hospital bypass. Hospital bypass previously allowed overwhelmed hospital emergency departments (EDs) to request ambulances “bypass” them for another hospital. But this just shifted a patient’s treatment to another hospital. An ambulance that would have bypassed a hospital under the strategy is now potentially ramped there.

Still, ambulance ramping is not a new phenomenon. It’s a decades-old problem and an international one, not limited to Western countries.

The Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM) explains ramping as when

[…] ambulance officers and/or paramedics are unable to complete transfer of clinical care of their patient to the hospital ED within a clinically appropriate timeframe, specifically due to lack of an appropriate clinical space in the ED.

Overseas, ramping is also referred to as “off-stretcher time delays”, “ambulance turnaround delays” or “ambulance offload delay”.

Bad for patients and paramedics

Ambulance ramping delays access to appropriate management for the ramped patient. It has long been known to contribute to longer ED stays and stress on service provision.

Ramping leads to a lack of ambulance resources to respond to new cases and delayed response times. When multiple crews are ramped at a hospital like Melbourne’s Northern Hospital or sitting with patients in hospital corridors while they wait to be seen, other crews might need to travel much farther to respond to life-threatening emergencies. Paramedic morale can suffer and lead to disillusionment with the potential for paramedic “burnout”.

News reports have identified people suffering and dying after long periods of ramping, even in states not greatly affected by high COVID cases.

Ambulance ramping is what the public see and hear about via news reports. They might be less aware of bed shortages or access blocks in the aged care sector, which flows back to the hospital bed availability. This in turn flows back to the ED.

As with many aspects of health care, COVID has highlighted and worsened existing problems and pressures.

Read more:
Health workers are among the COVID vaccine hesitant. Here’s how we can support them safely

A complex problem

Some state ambulance services have had extremely high demand which has stretched service delivery, especially when combined with ramping.

Ambulance Victoria has announced plans to use the military, other non-government staff and student paramedics to drive ambulances to cope with the anticipated surge in demand. Given the number of graduate paramedics in Australia without current employment in state or territory ambulance services, such graduates would be a better option as they at least know how to be part of a “paramedic crew”.

Hospital ED blockages and delays are caused by a number of factors. Some patients could be adequately managed by a GP. An ageing population means patients with complex medical conditions, who take longer to treat in the ED. Patient treatment may be delayed while they wait for a procedure room to become vacant and a lack of hospital beds for ED patients who need to be admitted. The time needed to assess and treat COVID patients and to maintain a COVID-safe environment also leads to longer waits.

The impact of states with significant COVID cases re-opening once certain vaccination percentanges have been reached has yet to be seen in Australia. Based on overseas experiences, patients may face trying to access a health system that becomes completely overwhelmed.

What’s needed now

Rather than a piecemeal state-by-state approach to community paramedicine, there is a need for national role definitions and educational standards. Instead of the current situation of emergency calls and ramping, a workforce of advanced or extended care paramedics could safely manage many patients in a community setting, rather than take them to hospital.

Some hospitals have tried to implement processes to improve ED, but a patient’s progress still might come down to a bed being available in the hospital.

The issue remains a state or territory and federal problem with beds needed beyond the ED to ease pressure there. The federal government funds a significant amount of aged care beds and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) slow processing of hospital patients means they are often stuck in a hospital awaiting a place in an aged facility or a NDIS-funded facility. This continues to limit or block access to hospital beds.

Ambulance ramping is one symptom of a multi-factorial health system failure. Until there is sufficient federal funding for aged care beds, improved NDIS processes and funding to allow GPs and allied health workers to manage patients in the community, we will continue to see patients and paramedics put at risk.

Read more:
‘Living with COVID’ looks very different for front-line health workers, who are already exhausted

Malcolm Boyle is receiving funding from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications. Malcolm Boyle previously worked for Ambulance Victoria and interacts with Queensland Ambulance Service as part of his role at Griffith University.

– ref. Bad for patients, bad for paramedics: ambulance ramping is a symptom of a health system in distress – https://theconversation.com/bad-for-patients-bad-for-paramedics-ambulance-ramping-is-a-symptom-of-a-health-system-in-distress-169528

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lukasz Swiatek, Lecturer, UNSW

The two journalists who won this year’s Nobel Peace Prize have become international celebrities overnight. Maria Ressa and Dmitry Muratov will no doubt benefit from their increased prominence and status. At the same time, the celebrity that comes with the prize will bring a host of other challenges the winners will have to navigate.

I have researched the impact the Nobel Peace Prize has had on winners in recent decades, both in terms of the unexpected challenges they face in their work and the newfound attention it brings.

Both Ressa and Muratov will likely face similar pressures, especially considering they have worked to combat authoritarianism in two countries (the Philippines and Russia) where the government has actively tried to silence them.

Read more:
Maria Ressa: Nobel prize-winner risks life and liberty to hold Philippines government to account

How the award immediately changes lives

Ressa has been lauded for challenging Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte’s deadly anti-drug campaign. Muratov, a Russian journalist, has been honoured for speaking truth to power as one of the founders of a prominent independent newspaper.

Excitement surrounded the winners after the announcement. Ressa, looking visibly shocked in a Zoom panel discussion, shared her gratitude with supporters. Muratov was greeted with flowers and champagne by colleagues.

During Nobel Week in December, the laureates will receive their medals and the money that accompanies the prize. Each will be awarded 5 million Swedish kronor (A$783,000 or US$572,000). The funds will be a welcome boost in their fight for freedom of expression.

Like many Peace Prize laureates before them, Ressa and Muratov will undoubtedly use their acceptance speeches (and other appearances) as an opportunity to advance their causes and condemn repression by authoritarian governments.

Read more:
Nobel peace prize: how Dmitry Muratov built Russia’s ‘bravest’ newspaper, Novaya Gazeta

This opportunity carries significant weight: the recordings and publications from these events are carefully put together to present the prize winners and their messages in a particular way. They become part of an authoritative archive about the Nobel Peace Prize. In short, their words will be immortalised.

‘The remarkable powers of an Open Sesame’

Both journalists have now attained what one scholar has called “achieved celebrity” on an international level, or fame gained through accomplishments or successes in a particular field.

In the short term, both Ressa and Muratov will benefit from the enormous international exposure they have received. Their messages will be relayed by media outlets around the world. The journalism profession is also benefiting, given the stature of the prize.

Previous winners were able to reap the benefits of their skyrocketing fame in various ways. For example, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, an Argentine artist and human rights activist who won the Peace Prize in 1980, suddenly found he had access to senior US lawmakers and European government officials.

According to one analysis, it helped him and the NGO he co-founded strengthen the human rights movement in Latin America and contributed to democratisation in the region.

South African anti-apartheid activist Desmond Tutu, the 1984 winner, once said the prize had “the remarkable powers of an Open Sesame”. He remarked,

[…] things you said before you got the Nobel Peace Prize and not too many people paid attention. You say the same things [afterwards], and people think it’s pearls from Heaven.

Increased scrutiny and tensions with colleagues

However, celebrity comes with increased levels of scrutiny. The world keeps a close eye on Nobel Peace Prize winners, and outcries are common after even the smallest missteps, especially in the age of social media.

Recently, for example, women’s education activist Malala Yousafzai, who became the world’s youngest Nobel Prize laureate in 2014, questioned the institution of marriage in a British Vogue interview, provoking fury in her native Pakistan.

How the prize winnings are spent is always a major focus of attention. This extends to the humanitarian organisations created by the winners — and the way others use donated funds.

For example, former US President Barack Obama, the 2009 laureate, donated his winnings to 10 different charities; the head of one of these charities admitted in 2014 to mismanaging and personally profiting from the money.

Read more:
The Nobel Prizes’ controversial push for popularity

The awarding of the Peace Prize also sometimes creates tension between the winners and their colleagues. This is partly because of the Nobel Foundation rules, which state that a Nobel Prize can’t be given to more than three people in a given year.

So, while some winners become overnight celebrities, their former colleagues are sometimes sidelined. Perhaps most sensationally, the 1997 awarding of the prize to Jody Williams and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines led to bitter in-fighting within the organisation.

More dire threats from authoritarian regimes

One of the biggest, immediate threats facing both Ressa and Muratov is potential harsh repression from the authorities in their home countries.

Over the years, many Peace Prize winners – and their supporters – have faced severe repercussions after winning the award.

For example, Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo spent years in detention for “inciting subversion of state power” until his death in 2017. The Chinese government depicted him as a stooge of the west and blocked information about him online. His wife spent nearly eight years in house arrest despite never having been charged with a crime.

Other winners, such as Myanmar pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and Iranian political activist Shirin Ebadi, also had to weather political backlashes. For this reason, one commentator has pointed out the Peace Prize sometimes brings little peace.

Tensions may already be appearing in Russia following Muratov’s win. Even though the Kremlin congratulated Muratov – calling him “talented” and “brave” – authorities have begun to label other journalists and media organisations “foreign agents”.

Supporters of the imprisoned opposition leader Alexei Navalny have also expressed disappointment over the choice of winner, as well as Muratov’s approach of trying to engage with Russia’s leaders.

Ressa, meanwhile, has faced a torrent of online trolling and threats throughout her career, which have continued with ferocity after her win.

For all the glamour and worldwide attention it brings, Nobel Peace Prize celebrity has a darker side, which all winners have to handle. As Ressa has said, there is only one way to deal with it:

When we came under attack, there wasn’t really any other choice, the phrase we used is ‘hold the line’.

Lukasz Swiatek 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. The Nobel Peace Prize brings overnight celebrity, but also frequent scrutiny, trolling and persecution – https://theconversation.com/the-nobel-peace-prize-brings-overnight-celebrity-but-also-frequent-scrutiny-trolling-and-persecution-169567

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yee-Fui Ng, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Monash University

Today Victoria’s anti-corruption commission begins public hearings into allegations of branch stacking by Labor MPs and their staff.

This follows news Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews is being questioned by the Victorian Independent Broad‑based Anti‑corruption Commission (IBAC) over his dealings with the firefighters union (Andrews says he has behaved “appropriately”).

It also comes as New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian sensationally fell on her sword last month. She resigned after revelations the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) was investigating whether there was a conflict between her public duties and private interests, which she denies.

This has all further heated up the debate about the proposed federal integrity commission. The Morrison government is expected to introduce legislation establishing the Commonwealth commission by the end of the year. But its proposed model has been criticised as being too weak.

So, what are these anti-corruption commissions? And what are differences between ICAC in NSW and IBAC in Victoria?

What are anti-corruption commissions?

Anti-corruption commissions investigate corruption in government. They can be given strong coercive powers to do so, including the power to compel documents and witnesses.

ICAC was established in NSW in 1988 by then premier Nick Greiner. A few years later, Greiner became the first premier to resign due to an ICAC investigation. Victoria’s IBAC was set up in 2012 following an election commitment by the Baillieu Coalition government (who made the pledge during opposition).

There are three main differences between IBAC and ICAC – jurisdiction, power and procedures.

IBAC vs ICAC

When IBAC was set up, it was criticised by prominent former judges at the Accountability Roundtable as a “toothless tiger,” given the high threshold of what it could investigate – it must be “serious corrupt conduct” before an investigation can start.

We should note here, the investigation threshold for the proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission is even higher, requiring a reasonable suspicion of corruption amounting to a criminal offence before an inquiry can even begin. This is a difficult hurdle to clear.

Read more:
A federal ICAC must end the confusion between integrity questions and corruption

The Andrews government increased the jurisdiction of IBAC in 2016, removing the requirement for corrupt conduct to be “serious”, and adding the ability to investigate misconduct in public office.

But IBAC’s jurisdiction remains more limited than ICAC’s, which has broad powers to investigate any allegation upon suspicion of corruption. This includes alleged substantial breaches of the ministerial and MP codes of conduct.

IBAC’s powers are also more limited than ICAC. It is unable to use coercive powers to conduct preliminary investigations to determine whether matters warrant full examination. By contrast, ICAC has the full use of coercive powers, including for preliminary investigations.

Read more:
As a NSW premier falls and SA guts its anti-corruption commission, what are the lessons for integrity bodies in Australia?

Finally, ICAC holds public hearings as a matter of course. But IBAC can only hold public hearings in exceptional circumstances and when it is in the public interest to do so.

In short, ICAC is a more powerful commission than IBAC.

Who watches the watchdogs?

A big question is about how we ensure anti-corruption commissions do not overstep their bounds. Given their broad coercive powers, how do we hold them to account?

In Australia, anti-corruption commissions are subject to a strong system of accountability through parliaments and the courts.

IBAC and ICAC report to dedicated parliamentary committees who scrutinise their actions and decisions. Complaints against IBAC and ICAC can be made to a dedicated inspectorate – an independent statutory officer who oversees their actions.

Where the anti-corruption commissions go beyond the legal boundaries of their roles, the courts will police it. For example, in 2015, the High Court shut down an investigation against crown prosecutor, Margaret Cunneen. The court found ICAC had no power to investigate allegations Cunneen had advised her son’s girlfriend to fake chest pains to avoid a breath test after a car crash. This is because Cunneen’s actions occurred when acting as a private citizen (not as crown prosecutor) – and so did not fit the definition of “corrupt conduct” in the NSW legislation.

So the idea that anti-corruption commissions are not accountable is simply untrue.

Under attack

Anti-corruption commissions like IBAC and ICAC tend to be unpopular within governments because they scrutinise government action and may expose improper conduct or corruption within their ranks.

It is regrettably common for governments hostile to anti-corruption commissions to attack them, including by reducing their powers or funding.

Read more:
ICAC is not a curse, and probity in government matters. The Australian media would do well to remember that

In this vein, the latest barrage of criticisms by politicians of ICAC following Berejiklian’s resignation is rather predictable. It is part of a broader pattern of attacks on oversight bodies that police government action.

This is despite their integral role in our democracy. Alongside other oversight bodies such as the ombudsman and auditor-general, anti-corruption commissions form part of an intricate, interlocking integrity framework that monitors executive action.

In this light, the design of the proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission is fundamental. Australians deserve a robust system of accountability that will keep our politicians honest.

Yee-Fui Ng 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. IBAC vs ICAC: what are these anti-corruption commissions and how do they compare? – https://theconversation.com/ibac-vs-icac-what-are-these-anti-corruption-commissions-and-how-do-they-compare-169544

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Javier Alvarez-Mon, Professor in Near Eastern Archaeology and Art, Macquarie University

Inhabitants of the ancient city-states of the Middle East enjoyed a vibrant social and economic life centred on palace and temple institutions, supported by surrounding agricultural and pastoralist communities. People, goods and ideas flowed between these cities generating a cultural sphere within which strong local identities and customs were preserved.

One such custom that arose in the area of Syria was the professional acrobat, or huppû, attached to the royal court.

The first known mention of the huppû is in administrative documents from the ancient city of Ebla (Tell Mardikh) in Syria dated as early as 2320 BCE. Details of the profession can be further pieced together from snippets of information in a royal archive (1771-1764 BCE) of about 20,000 tablets preserved at the neighbouring city of Mari (Tell Hariri) on the Euphrates River.

Accounting records and personal letters unveil troupes of huppû who performed several times per month for special events to celebrate the king’s safe return to the city, the arrival of special visitors and religious festivals. The program for the festival of the goddess Ishtar included huppû, wrestlers, and lamentation priests who sung in the ancient Sumerian language accompanied by drums.

These productions were so admired, the cast and crew accompanied the king to entertain in foreign kingdoms.

Craft of the huppû

There are just two surviving adjectives used to describe the performances of the huppû, but they evoke a visual feast of high-energy movement.

The first, mēlulu, variously meant “to play”, “to act” and “to fight”.

The second, nabalkutu, was applied to a range of bold and dynamic actions: “to clear an obstacle”, “to rebel against authority”, “to turn upside down”, “to change sides”, “to tumble” (said of a flying bird) and “to roll” (said of waves and earthquakes).

We can envisage groups of huppû showcasing a choreographed blend of acrobatic feats and dance, harmonising physical strength and control with bodily expression to win over an audience.

The craft appears to have been a male-only pursuit. There are no records of a female form of the noun huppû, nor any documented huppû with a female name.

Access to formal education in writing and the arts in ancient Syria, as elsewhere in the Near East, was determined primarily by one’s family status: most children followed in the footsteps of their parents.

Specialist conservatories existed for promising male and female musicians and singers while, much like modern athletes, young male huppû apprentices were sent to dedicated academies to learn mastery through years of repetitive and strenuous drills.

Through preserved correspondence between the literate elite, it seems the divide between artistic conservatories and athletic academies reflected a mind-body split in cultural values.

Tension between the schools surface in a letter composed by the beleaguered head of the royal huppû troupe, Piradi, to the king Zimri-Lim, dated around 1763 BCE.

First appealing to the king’s good judgement (“my lord knows when I am lying and when I am not”) Piradi goes on to lament the under-appreciated difficulty of his art (a grievance somewhat verified by a pay disparity between musicians and acrobats in the royal accounts) and the contempt he endures from the musicians.

Indeed, from one musician’s own pen: “if I break my oath, they can chase me down and make me a huppû!”

Read more:
The perils of history and antiquity in Syria

Living as a huppû

Troupe members lived outside the palace and most probably had families – although not always happy ones, judging by Piradi’s declaration a woman had just left his house and robbed him of his possessions.

Employment was on a casual basis. Payments were collected after performances, probably several times per month, in the form of silver shekels.

A surviving list of palace disbursements for a tour to a neighbouring town points to a reasonable living: an ordinary huppû collected one shekel; the second-in-command two; and the head five.

(For perspective, a single silver shekel bought 300 kg of barley.)

The head huppû was an especially privileged role. Piradi enjoyed direct access to the ear of the king, and he attracted extravagant gifts including “first quality” garments, silver weapons and wine.

But head of troupe was a high-stress position in a competitive line of work.

The huppû from the city of Mari faced an ever-present threat of outside competition, especially rivals from the famed huppû school of nearby Halep (modern Aleppo), and potential work shortages and lay-offs with the arrival of a new ruler targeting funding cuts in the arts.

A lasting legacy

The huppû profession sustained itself under the same name – and probably much the same form – for well over a thousand years.

This is attested by a legal contract signed by a private huppû coach named Nanā-uzelli in 628 BCE about 450 km from Mari at Borsippa, near Babylon in Iraq. For the price of two silver shekels, he would train a man’s son for a period of two years and five months.

Further evidence for the vast spread of the huppû craft through the Middle East from its Syrian homeland is a royal banquet scene engraved inside an Elamite bronze bowl from southwest Iran around 600 BCE.

One of the oldest depictions of its kind, the bowl displays an ensemble of musicians performing in tandem with a troupe of back-bending, stilt-balancing, hand-walking acrobats.

Next time you are watching the gymnastics, or see some acrobats at the circus, have a think back on the ways humans have been pushing their bodies to the limits for thousands of years.

Javier Alvarez-Mon received funding from the Australian Research Council (Future Fellowship) from 2014 to 2018

Yasmina Wicks 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. The world’s first professional acrobats were flipping through the Middle East 4,000 years ago – https://theconversation.com/the-worlds-first-professional-acrobats-were-flipping-through-the-middle-east-4-000-years-ago-165968

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Janet Hunt, Honorary Associate Professor, CAEPR, Australian National University

There is a contradiction between the New South Wales government’s plan for Closing the Gap and its persecution of Aboriginal people on the New South Wales south coast who want to maintain their saltwater culture.

The government needs to rethink what it is doing if it is to achieve the Closing the Gap outcomes it wants to see there.

In the early years of colonisation, Aboriginal people played crucial roles in the establishment of fishing industries on the NSW south coast, but are now almost entirely excluded from them.

Following colonisation, Aboriginal people continued to fish as a source of food, with some bartering and small-scale trading, called “cultural-commercial fishing”. South coast Aboriginal people are proud of their saltwater culture, but tired of being stigmatised as “poachers” who plunder the ocean.

Closing the Gap targets

The New South Wales government signed the 2020 National Agreement on Closing the Gap which includes targets for “strong, supported and flourishing” cultures and languages, and for Aboriginal adults and young people to no longer be overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Other targets focus on health and increasing employment and economic participation.

However Indigenous people are overrepresented among those jailed or convicted in New South Wales for offences related to abalone fishing. Rather than supporting a flourishing culture, the continued prosecution of south coast Aboriginal people won’t reduce Aboriginal incarceration, contribute to their employment or improve their health.

Many people have been charged with abalone diving here, including Aboriginal grandfather, Kevin Mason.

Once Aboriginal people have a criminal conviction, their chances of gaining employment plummet. And while fishing provides people with healthy food and exercise, prosecuting them for this act instead causes stress. This is not conducive to a long healthy life.

Exclusion and poverty

There are high rates of poverty and unemployment among Aboriginal people on the south coast; both Eurobodalla and Bega shires reflect this. Poorer education outcomes and longstanding racism have been factors in this.

Harvested seafood has been part of south coast Indigenous peoples’ diets since before colonisation. The sea has always been their supermarket, as an Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) study recognised:

As saltwater people, all of the knowledge and practices related to marine foods are central to their culture, and part of what makes it unique. This means that fishing and gathering other seafood is one of the main ways people practice their culture. It’s also about getting out on country, and feeling connected to country and ancestors by fishing and gathering the way they did.

The ability of older people to take young people out fishing and diving is essential to being able to pass on their knowledge of the marine environment.
The AIATSIS study also found:

[…]taking children fishing is necessary for their cultural education. Through fishing they learn cultural knowledge of local fauna and flora, different fishing techniques and practices, knowledge of their country and the right places to get different species – as well as the stories of those places. They also learn the cultural laws that govern fishing.

Furthermore, no review of Aboriginal cultural fishing or any fishery in NSW has identified this practice as having a negative impact on marine resources. As such, it is not clear why this persecution persists.

It can’t be to protect the fish stocks, as most total allowable catch assessments (TACs) for the New South Wales coast, designed to manage stocks at sustainable levels, don’t even collect data on Aboriginal peoples’ catches.

While some illegal fishing of abalone is acknowledged in the Abalone TAC, overall, fishing for abalone in the state remains sustainable.

As AIATSIS found:

Many participants felt that cultural fishers were needlessly overregulated. To them it seemed hypocritical for Fisheries [NSW] to focus on the compliance of the small number of cultural fishers, and for them to be characterised as threats to the marine environment, when their total take pales in comparison to that of the commercial fisheries.

Read more:
To enable healing, there’s a more effective way to Close the Gap in employment in remote Australia

Caught in a bind

The NSW government says its vision is for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to determine their own futures. A clear message coming from NSW Aboriginal people is that maintenance of their culture is central to their vision of the future.

Ironically, south coast Aboriginal people are being asked to prove they continue to practise this fishing culture in the assessment of their current native title claim.

While the Commonwealth government’s Native Title Act requires them to demonstrate continuance of their cultural practices to gain their native title rights, the state government pursues and criminalises them if they do so. It’s a no-win situation.

The NSW government needs to stop the harassment and prosecutions of Indigenous people for maintaining their cultural practices if the state really wants to Close the Gap on incarceration, health and employment for Aboriginal communities.

Janet Hunt 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. The NSW government needs to stop prosecuting Aboriginal fishers if it really wants to Close the Gap – https://theconversation.com/the-nsw-government-needs-to-stop-prosecuting-aboriginal-fishers-if-it-really-wants-to-close-the-gap-168749

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Donne Potter, Professor, Research Centre for Hauora and Health, Massey University

As New Zealand switches from elimination to suppression, those who argue that COVID-19 will become endemic and part of our lives either do not understand or ignore what this would actually mean.

Elimination has always been a tricky word because it implies eradication. But we have only ever eradicated one human disease — smallpox — and are close with several others.

For some, the end of elimination now means we should let the virus spread. But semantics matter less than policy. If we don’t eliminate, we must still aim to contain, mop up, reduce close to zero and thwart this pandemic.

Because we certainly cannot live with endemic SARS-CoV-2.

The Delta variant spreads ominously and without controls, every infected person, on average, would infect six more, then 36, 216, 1296, 7776, 46,656 — we would get to more than twice New Zealand’s five million with three more cycles.

We must continue to either stamp out the virus or keep case numbers very low. To contain case numbers, we need to keep up border protection, mask wearing, distancing, bubbles, contact tracing, testing of people and waste water, and vaccination.

In the current Delta outbreak, more than 95% of those infected were either unvaccinated or had received only their first dose.

Read more:
COVID will likely shift from pandemic to endemic — but what does that mean?

Delta is nothing like the flu

Our most common endemic infections include the common cold (caused by hundreds of different viruses that circulate freely) and the flu (caused by a group of influenza viruses).

Those who dismiss a mild case of COVID-19 as being “no worse than the flu” have forgotten how appalling a case of flu really is. They might also have forgotten that, even with effective vaccination, influenza has a case fatality risk of about 0.1% — it kills about 500 people in New Zealand each year.

Yet some seem to expect that COVID-19 will learn to behave and become endemic. Some even seem to welcome this, claiming a “disease becomes endemic when it is manageable”.

This is not true. Being manageable is not part of the definition of endemic disease. A disease becomes endemic when it is more or less always present in a population. It does not care whether it is manageable.

Read more:
NZ needs a more urgent vaccination plan — with nearly 80% now single-dosed, the majority will support it

Seasonal influenza has a basic reproduction number (R0) of about 1.5, meaning one infected person spreads the disease to fewer than two other people, on average. This is why it takes very little to break the chain of transmission. The annual flu epidemic declines because we have effective vaccines and because seasonal conditions during summer are less favourable to the survival of the virus.

However, as we already mentioned, the Delta variant has an R0 of at least six. This will be as low as it gets from here onward. If a new variant supplants Delta, it will do so because it is even more transmissible.

There will be no season for COVID-19, no breaks in transmission, no declines in infectiousness. We have been struggling worldwide with this virus for 18 months, with spikes everywhere in every season.

School and business closures part of new normal

If COVID-19 becomes endemic, there will not be one or two people sick in a workplace or a home. We will have waves and clusters and multiple local outbreaks. Schools and businesses will close for days, even weeks, because too many people are sick. It will cost the world trillions — consider what it has already done to global supply chains.

If COVID-19 becomes endemic, the burden on our healthcare system will be immense. It will not involve a predictable, modest increase in hospital admissions. Waves and clusters will characterise endemic COVID-19 in the same way they have characterised pandemic COVID-19, overwhelming local healthcare without warning.

If COVID-19 becomes endemic, Merck’s new antiviral drug Molnupiravir will be an important addition to the toolkit because it will be much cheaper than monoclonal antibodies, easy to store, easy to transport and people can take it at home.

The as yet unpublished trials suggest the treatment could cut hospitalisations in half, markedly improving outcomes for those already infected. But it will not reduce the number of cases by even one.

Treatment never does — only prevention, public health measures and vaccination reduce case numbers. Those who are less sick and treated at home could spread the virus even more.

If COVID-19 becomes endemic, when the healthcare system fails to accommodate the latest wave, more people will die.

Long-term costs to health and economy

Even if we managed to get COVID-19 down to the severity of influenza (for an individual), endemic Delta – with an R0 about five times that of flu and the fully vaccinated still able to become infected and spread – would still mean thousands of hospitalisations and deaths each year.

Just four cycles of Delta infection could result in more than 250 times as many cases as four cycles of flu.

If COVID-19 becomes endemic, every year, many of us will know someone who dies.

If COVID-19 becomes endemic, more than a third of unvaccinated cases, even the asymptomatic, will have symptoms months later. Flu leaves little lasting damage. Long COVID damages the lungs, heart, brain, hearing and vision as well as the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas, causing diabetes.

The cost of COVID-19 is so much higher than that of the flu, not just because of higher case numbers, hospitalisations and deaths, but more long-term damage and disability.

Read more:
Take-at-home COVID drug molnupiravir may be on its way — but vaccination is still our first line of defence

If COVID-19 becomes endemic, we will live with a stressed, often overwhelmed healthcare system, with schools subject to unpredictable closures, with unsafe workplaces, with a disrupted economy, with our children under threat, with death and disability at a persistently higher level than we have known — probably for decades.

We do not care what the current strategy is called as long as we persist with border protection and public health measures until we achieve close to universal vaccination. Otherwise, many thousands of New Zealanders will be hospitalised, die or experience long COVID.

Ultimately, we will need a sterilising vaccine (one that protects people from getting infected) because we cannot live with endemic COVID-19.

Graham Le Gros receives funding from MBIE to support Vaccine Alliance Aotearoa New Zealand, Ohu Kaupare Huaketo for the development and manufacture of a COVID19 vaccine for Aotearoa NZ.

John Donne Potter and Rod Jackson 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. Why we must not allow COVID to become endemic in New Zealand – https://theconversation.com/why-we-must-not-allow-covid-to-become-endemic-in-new-zealand-169608

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sora Park, Associate Dean of Research, Faculty of Arts & Design, University of Canberra

The impacts of COVID-19 on Australian university researchers are likely to have consequences for research productivity and quality for many years to come.

According to an online survey of academics at the University of Canberra between November 2020 and February 2021, they have deep concerns about their ability to undertake research during the pandemic and the flow-on effects of this. The findings are consistent with those of Research Australia from research in 2020 and 2021 and suggest Australia’s research sector will take a substantive hit from COVID-19.

The knowledge produced by university research generates an estimated 10% of Australia’s GDP. Without access to JobKeeper in 2020, universities across the sector cut back on casual staff and increased the teaching load of full-time academics. Combined with the challenges of working from home, this has had a real impact on research, not just immediately but in the longer term.

Read more:
$7.6 billion and 11% of researchers: our estimate of how much Australian university research stands to lose by 2024

Almost three-quarters (73%) of respondents reported teaching commitments increased in the transition to online learning. Almost two-thirds reported delays in project milestones (63%) and publication (62%).

In addition to reduced research productivity, staff expressed concerns about the quality of outputs as they are aware their general mental well-being has been affected. As one academic said:

“Although I have completed the usual number of papers, I am concerned about their quality due to the sense of being so overwhelmed by work and the COVID impacts that I couldn’t apply my usual critical judgements.”

Impacts on researchers are highly uneven

About half (52%) of respondents felt positive about the flexibility of working from home. In fact, we may see a shift in the work culture following the pandemic. An Australian Bureau of Statistics survey in June found one-third (33%) of Australians said working from home was the aspect of COVID life they would most like to continue.

However, working from home did not translate into work-life balance and productivity for many academics. Domestic arrangements for a significant number have had an overall negative impact. These impacts particularly affected those with carers’ responsibilities.

Of those with children up to year 12, 64% said working at home had a negative impact on the hours of work, compared with 50% of those with no children at home. Those with children at home were three times more likely to say their domestic responsibilities had a negative impact on their research.

The impacts of COVID-19 on academic staff are not evenly distributed. There was a disproportionate gender impact, which is in line with previous reports across the sector. Impacts were greatest on academics in the early stages of their careers, often with young families.

This differential impact is reflected in other research into academic publishing, which shows the gender gap widening during the pandemic.

Read more:
How COVID is widening the academic gender divide

What does the future hold?

Research is a long-term endeavour. It takes years and even decades for research to come to fruition.

We asked respondents how they saw the future of their research. The majority felt pessimistic about all aspects of research: funding, publication, collaborating and supervising PhD students. More than two-thirds of respondents had negative views about their ability to attract funding and pursue research projects in the near future.

More importantly, those who have young families are feeling despondent about their research careers. A majority of them say their ability to publish will be hampered for the next two to three years. This group is the future of Australian academic research, so the negative impact of COVID-19 is of serious concern.

This is bad for Australia in terms of lost or delayed advances in science and technology, stalled or postponed advances in health care and treatment, reduced capacity to inform public debate, and fewer opportunities to contribute to Australia’s lifestyle and culture. The impacts of the pandemic on the emerging generation of researchers will have long-term consequences.

Read more:
Early and mid-career scientists face a bleak future in the wake of the pandemic

In June, the ABS survey of pandemic impacts found one in five (20%) Australians experienced high or very high levels of psychological distress due to COVID-19. This has not changed since last November. Like many Australians, academics are under enormous pressure trying to balance work and home life.

As well as the concerns about the blurring of work and home life, we found evidence of low morale and exhaustion among staff. These findings match those of a report released today by Professional Scientists Australia.

There is a need for both the government and universities to develop a long-term, tailored strategy to support the research community. This will help ensure Australia’s research effort continues at its above-world-class level, with the associated societal benefits it brings.

The survey and the analysis of the data were carried out in collaboration with Janie Busby Grant, Elke Stracke, Simon Niemeyer, Roland Goecke, and Dianne Gleeson at the University of Canberra.

Sora Park receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Alannah Madeline Foundation, NAMLE and Social Science Research Council.

Jennie Scarvell and Linda Botterill 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. Hit hard by the pandemic, researchers expect its impacts to linger for years – https://theconversation.com/hit-hard-by-the-pandemic-researchers-expect-its-impacts-to-linger-for-years-169366

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Terry Goldsworthy, Associate Professor in Criminology, Bond University

Data released by the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) this week show fatal police shootings in Australia have reached an all-time high.

With the move to weaponise our police with widespread access to weapons such as military-style rifles and crowd control equipment munitions, are we seeing a move from a community service focus to a more force-orientated model of policing?

Fatal police shootings

The report on deaths in custody in 2019-20 indicated that there were 24 deaths in police custody or custody-related operations. Of these, 16 were attributable to police shootings. This is the highest number of shooting deaths since record keeping began in 1989-90.

Over that period, Australian police have shot dead some 164 people. The latest AIC report shows there has been a 78% increase in fatal police shootings between 2018-19 and 2019-20.

New South Wales and Queensland had the most police shootings with five each, followed by Victoria and Western Australia with two each.

Two of those fatally shot were Indigenous, 11 were non-Indigenous, and in three cases the Indigenous status was not stated.

Read more:
Why Australia should be wary of the rise of the warrior cop, with tools to match

The threat environment

The National Police Memorial lists those police who have been killed on duty or have died as a result of their duties. Since 2010, 22 police members have died, only five of those through the actions of armed offenders. Four involved firearms and one a knife.

To put this is perspective, in 2019-20 there were 58,514 sworn police officers in Australia. While the number of deaths is small, it must be acknowledged that policing is still an inherently dangerous and difficult occupation.

In terms of the general population, homicides in Australia are at historic lows and compare well against international trends.

Crime in general has declined in Australia. This trend has continued
since the COVID pandemic began.

Read more:
Explainer: why homicide rates in Australia are declining

Are police becoming more enforcement-orientated?

There is little doubt Australian police forces are weaponising in the same way as police in the United States have done in recent years. The rise of the warrior cop is well documented. But it seems the COVID pandemic has also encouraged a move away from community engagement to enforcing health directives with little room for tolerance.

New South Wales Police Commissioner Mick Fuller instructed his staff to move to a more enforcement-focused approach to COVID health order restrictions.

I am asking you to put community policing to the side for a short period of time […]

In recent weeks, we saw Victoria Police fire rubber bullets to disperse anti-lockdown protesters as their use-of-force choice. Police warned the protesters:

Leave now or force may be used. No further warnings will be given.

Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Shane Patton later confirmed police used a variety of weapons including pepper balls, foam baton rounds (theses are a less lethal alternative to traditional bullets, also known as kinetic impact projectiles), smoke bombs and stinger grenades that deploy rubber pellets. He justified the use by arguing:

These crowd control equipment munitions were necessary […] because we can’t allow this type of conduct to go on.

Yet when the unlawful gathering of large crowds took place for Black Lives Matter protests during COVID restrictions, Victoria Police took little or no action. Such inconsistency in responses simply undermines the legitimacy of police.

Victoria Police deployed a Bearcat armoured vehicle in response to an anti-lockdown protest. This is despite the claim these vehicles would only be used in high-risk incidents such as sieges or the apprehension of armed offenders.

Holding police accountable

Any use of force must be lawful, and simply being a police officer does not necessarily provide that justification. The application of force, be it lethal or otherwise, must be authorised, justified or excused by law. If not, then the use of such force may be criminal.

In Western Australia, a police officer is on trial for the death of Indigenous woman Joyce Clarke, who was fatally shot while allegedly armed with a knife in 2019.

In the Northern Territory, Constable Zachary Rolfe is charged with the alleged shooting murder of Indigenous man Kumanjayi Walker.

In 2018, the Queensland government agreed to a $30 million payment following a Federal Court ruling that claimants were deemed to have suffered racial discrimination at the hands of police in their response to the 2004 Palm Island riots. The Queensland Police Union of Employees disagreed with the government’s decision.

What do complaint levels about use of force tell us?

In 2019-20 in Victoria, there were 354 allegations of misconduct through use of force, accounting for 11% of total complaints. In the previous year, use-of-force allegations accounted for 18% of complaints.

In Queensland, Crime and Corruption Commission data show the number of use-of-force allegations declined from 892 in 2016 to 493 in 2020. In New South Wales the converse occurred, with the number of allegations increasing from 395 in 2015-16 to 864 in 2019-20.

These data would suggest there is no uniform increase in use-of-force complaints.

Where to now?

We should be concerned about such a drastic increase in fatal police shootings. As COVID continues to affect all aspects of life, police are playing a more pivotal role in enforcing new health and social regulations while ensuring society continues to function in a civil manner.

The welfare of the community should always take precedence. However, we need to ensure police do not move to an enforcement-only mentality to achieve this. We want our police to be safe and enforce the law, but we also want them to keep us safe.

Terry Goldsworthy 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. Australia had a record number of police shootings in the past year. Should we be concerned? – https://theconversation.com/australia-had-a-record-number-of-police-shootings-in-the-past-year-should-we-be-concerned-169354

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Raquel Peel, Lecturer, University of Southern Queensland

“The ick”, much discussed on TikTok and Instagram lately, is where attraction to a current or potential partner is suddenly flipped to a feeling of disgust.

It’s often triggered in an instant, social media users say, by witnessing some kind of turn-off – a bad dance move, a grating laugh, or an off-putting eating style.

So what might be behind “the ick”?

Read more:
Love lockdown: the pandemic has put pressure on many relationships, but here’s how to tell if yours will survive

Are you letting ‘the ick’ undermine your chances in love?

One possibility is this is a self-defensive mechanism or strategy to protect against relationship failure, fear of commitment, fear of intimacy, or rejection sensitivity.

Models of relationship counselling practice explain attraction is a “flip flop” phenomenon, where the thing that attracts you to someone today can be the same thing that repulses you tomorrow.

While the “flip” are the positives and the “flop” are the negatives, they often are side by side characteristics that cannot exist without the other. For example, if what you love about a person is their crazy sense of humour, you might need to accept their loud, weird laugh is part of the same package.

Different meanings can be assigned to these characteristics as the relationship progresses and depending on life circumstances. For instance, someone you initially found to be “carefree” can turn out to be “irresponsible” in important situations. Someone you originally found to be “decisive” might seem “controlling” later on.

Most of us want to feel safe with a partner, to trust them, have open communication, and share interests. But if an unexpected behaviour is suddenly turning you off, ask yourself what might be happening for you; their behaviour might have triggered a long-term unresolved issue for you or it might reflect a difficulty you’re having coping with life stressors. Reactions that may seem “out of the blue” often have an explanation that runs deeper.

Humans are innately driven to seek proximity and security. But if we feel threatened or confronted, we might look for ways to distance ourselves out of a drive for self-protection.

But if you suddenly get “the ick”, don’t act too rashly. Ask yourself if this is part of a pattern of holding back in relationships (knowingly or unknowingly) and in turn undermining your chances in love.

A trigger to move on

In my research, I have seen people move quickly from one relationship to the next looking for something specific (and, most of the time, unrealistic). A “trigger” to move on can be anything such as a bad fashion sense, bad taste in music, or a “childish nickname”.

One participant in my research would go on Tinder dates, and while at the date, be actively looking for other options around her, in case there was something better. Dating apps such as Tinder offer us such an astonishing number of possibilities, some may be asking themselves: “Why should I settle? Why can’t I aim for that perfect someone?”

Research has found fixed beliefs in “destiny” – in other words, a belief that relationships are either “meant to be” or they are not – can see people fail in the search for love.

Instead, we should be adopting a more flexible view of growth – that is, see a relationship as something that can grow and change, and problems as something that can be overcome together.

Adopting a growth belief can help us get to know the people we are dating and develop a synergy that will guide the relationship beyond the initial attraction, or “honeymoon stage”.

Examining ‘the ick’ in the moment

If you get hit with “the ick”, stop and think about what’s happening.

Are we protecting ourselves because we’ve just witnessed a red flag suggesting they are just not the right partner for us? “The ick” isn’t always triggered by tiny things; it could be red flag behaviours like being rude to waitstaff, or constantly talking over you.

Or are we getting “the ick” because we’re engaging in self-sabotage and, in turn, undermining our chances of a successful intimate engagement?

This process does take insight, but it is worth the exploration.

Read more:
The safest sex you’ll never have: how coronavirus is changing online dating

Raquel Peel 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. What is ‘the ick’? A psychological scientist explains this TikTok trend – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-ick-a-psychological-scientist-explains-this-tiktok-trend-169546

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liz Sonenberg, Professor, Computing and Information Systems, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research Systems), and Pro Vice-Chancellor (Digital & Data), The University of Melbourne

A major new report on the state of artificial intelligence (AI) has just been released. Think of it as the AI equivalent of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, in that it identifies where AI is at today, and the promise and perils in view.

From language generation and molecular medicine to disinformation and algorithmic bias, AI has begun to permeate every aspect of our lives.

The report argues that we are at an inflection point where researchers and governments must think and act carefully to contain the risks AI presents and make the most of its benefits.

A century-long study of AI

The report comes out of the AI100 project, which aims to study and anticipate the effects of AI rippling out through our lives over the course of the next 100 years.

AI100 produces a new report every five years: the first was published in 2016, and this is the second. As two points define a line, this second report lets us see the direction AI is taking us in.

One of us (Liz Sonenberg) is a member of the standing committee overseeing the AI100 project, and the other (Toby Walsh) was on the study panel that wrote this particular report. Members of the panel came from across the world, with backgrounds in computer science, engineering, law, political science, policy, sociology and economics.

The promises and perils of AI are becoming real

The report highlights the remarkable progress made in AI over the past five years. AI is leaving the laboratory and has entered our lives, having a “real-world impact on people, institutions, and culture”. Read the news on any given day and you’re likely to find multiple stories about some new advance in AI or some new use of AI.

For example, in natural language processing (NLP), computers can now analyse and even generate realistic human language. To demonstrate, we asked Open AI’s GPT-3 system, one of the largest neural networks ever built, to summarise the AI100 report for you. It did a pretty good job, even if the summary confronts our sense of self by being written in the first person:

In the coming decade, I expect that AI will play an increasingly prominent role in the lives of people everywhere. AI-infused services will become more common, and AI will become increasingly embedded in the daily lives of people across the world.

I believe that this will bring with it great economic and societal benefits, but that it will also require us to address the many challenges to ensure that the benefits are broadly shared and that people are not marginalised by these new technologies.

A key insight of AI research is that it is easier to build things than to understand why they work. However, defining what success looks like for an AI application is not straightforward.

For example, the AI systems that are used in healthcare to analyse symptoms, recommend diagnoses, or choose treatments are often far better than anything that could be built by a human, but their success is hard to quantify.

Read more:
GPT-3: new AI can write like a human but don’t mistake that for thinking – neuroscientist

As a second example of the recent and remarkable progress in AI, consider the latest breakthrough from Google’s DeepMind. AlphaFold is an AI program that provides a huge step forward in our ability to predict how proteins fold.

This will likely lead to major advances in life sciences and medicine, accelerating efforts to understand the building blocks of life and enabling quicker and more sophisticated drug discovery. Most of the planet now knows to their cost how the unique shape of the spike proteins in the SARS-CoV-2 virus are key to its ability to invade our cells, and also to the vaccines developed to combat its deadly progress.

The AI100 report argues that worries about super-intelligent machines and wide-scale job loss from automation are still premature, requiring AI that is far more capable than available today. The main concern the report raises is not malevolent machines of superior intelligence to humans, but incompetent machines of inferior intelligence.

Once again, it’s easy to find in the news real-life stories of risks and threats to our democratic discourse and mental health posed by AI-powered tools. For instance, Facebook uses machine learning to sort its news feed and give each of its 2 billion users an unique but often inflammatory view of the world.

The time to act is now

It’s clear we’re at an inflection point: we need to think seriously and urgently about the downsides and risks the increasing application of AI is revealing. The ever-improving capabilities of AI are a double-edged sword. Harms may be intentional, like deepfake videos, or unintended, like algorithms that reinforce racial and other biases.

AI research has traditionally been undertaken by computer and cognitive scientists. But the challenges being raised by AI today are not just technical. All areas of human inquiry, and especially the social sciences, need to be included in a broad conversation about the future of the field. Minimising negative impacts on society and enhancing the positives requires consideration from across academia and with societal input.

Governments also have a crucial role to play in shaping the development and application of AI. Indeed, governments around the world have begun to consider and address the opportunities and challenges posed by AI. But they remain behind the curve.

A greater investment of time and resources is needed to meet the challenges posed by the rapidly evolving technologies of AI and associated fields. In addition to regulation, governments also need to educate. In an AI-enabled world, our citizens, from the youngest to the oldest, need to be literate in these new digital technologies.

At the end of the day, the success of AI research will be measured by how it has empowered all people, helping tackle the many wicked problems facing the planet, from the climate emergency to increasing inequality within and between countries.

AI will have failed if it harms or devalues the very people we are trying to help.

Liz Sonenberg has received funding from the Australian Research Council for several projects in the AI domain. She is a member of the AI100 Standing Committee (https://ai100.stanford.edu/people-0) that commissioned the report discussed in this article.

Toby Walsh receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a project in Trustworthy AI. He was one of the 17 members of the AI100 Study Panel that produced the report described in this article.

– ref. Artificial intelligence is now part of our everyday lives – and its growing power is a double-edged sword – https://theconversation.com/artificial-intelligence-is-now-part-of-our-everyday-lives-and-its-growing-power-is-a-double-edged-sword-169449

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Kemish, Former Ambassador and Adjunct Professor, School of Historical and Philosophical Inquiry, The University of Queensland

Things were looking very bad three months ago for both Papua New Guinea and Fiji. The two Pacific countries were each looking very vulnerable to the COVID Delta variant, albeit in different ways.

On July 10, PNG recorded its first official Delta case, and the nation’s health professionals were soon warning the combination of very low testing rates, high percentage of positive tests and an extremely slow vaccine rollout provided a “recipe for a major spread”.

Fiji was already in the thick of it at the time. After the deadly Delta strain entered the country via a quarantine breach in April, per capita infection rates became the highest in the world in the middle of the year.

Daily infections reached more than 1,800 in mid-July – a huge number for a country of only 900,000 people. The crisis caused 647 deaths.

Fast forward several months and PNG and Fiji are heading in opposite directions. More than 95% of eligible Fijians over the age of 18 have now received their first jab, and 80% are now fully vaccinated.

By contrast, PNG is in the grips of a major wave, with less than 1% of the total population fully vaccinated. PNG is trailing much of the world.

Why have two Pacific countries, which share Melanesian cultural connections, handled their vaccine rollouts so differently?

Not a matter of geography or vaccine supply

Fiji’s daily infection rate today is 4% of what it was at the peak, and it’s falling. Less than 50 new cases are currently being reported on average each day.

In PNG, the official infection rate is now averaging just under 300 new cases per day, but this drastically understates the reality of what is happening in the country.

Extremely low testing rates simply cannot be relied upon. The country’s own health data reportedly shows 2.6 million cases of flu- and pneumonia-like symptoms over the last year, and Port Moresby General Hospital is now reporting positive COVID testing rates of 60%. Like other hospitals across the country, it risks being overwhelmed by the virus.

Read more:
The Pacific went a year without COVID. Now, it’s all under threat

It’s not simply a vaccine supply issue. At this stage of the global crisis, PNG, like Fiji, has received substantial vaccine deliveries – principally from Australia, New Zealand and the COVAX vaccine delivery initiative.

In fact, thousands of PNG’s early deliveries went to waste because the health authorities were unable to use them. The PNG government has recently made the best of a bad situation by re-gifting 30,000 vials donated by New Zealand to Vietnam.

We can also set aside any suggestion Australia, as the major regional donor, is somehow favouring one country over the other.

The Australian government has put a high priority on providing vaccines to both countries in recent months. Its assistance has also extended to education and logistical efforts, along with targeted medical emergency teams and support for those with expertise and capacity on the ground.

Nor is it really a matter of distribution.

PNG’s geography does present some challenging physical barriers to distributing vaccines – its legendary mountainous terrain and the remoteness of many of its inhabitants are well known.

Read more:
Australia wants to send 1 million vaccine doses to PNG – but without reliable electricity, how will they be kept cold?

But companies from Digicel to South Pacific Brewery manage to penetrate the most inaccessible areas with their products despite these difficulties. And the authorities manage to deliver the vote across the nation every five years in what is one of the world’s most extraordinary democratic exercises.

With its own rugged terrain and dispersed populations across multiple islands, Fiji has also faced major physical impediments to its vaccine rollout.

The major difference: leadership and belief

We get closer to the problem when we think in terms of trust, understanding and belief.

Fijians have embraced the vaccination rollout almost as one, following the guidance of their medical authorities and falling in line with the firm “no jabs, no job” policy of its prime minister, former military commander Frank Bainimarama.

In PNG, the term “vaccine hesitancy” understates the problem. One survey earlier this year showed worrying low willingness to take the vaccine, and another survey of university students showed a mere 6% wanted it.

Vaccine patrols have received death threats in some areas, and any politician who speaks out in favour of vaccination risks a political backlash. Strong efforts are now being made to overcome this problem, with the health authorities preparing a fresh approach and iconic figures such as rugby star Mal Meninga supporting the publicity effort.

These dramatically contrasting pictures cannot be explained fully through differences in education standards, or the quality of medical advice and attention.
To be sure, Fiji leads PNG in these respects – Fiji has 99% literacy compared to just over 63% in PNG, according to the latest available figures. And while Fiji’s medical system has its challenges, the decline in PNG’s health services due to chronic lack of investment puts it in a very different category.

Read more:
Pacific nations grapple with COVID’s terrible toll and the desperate need for vaccines

In PNG, trust in leadership has flagged following decades of frustration with growing wealth inequality and concerns over governance and transparency.

Rather than trust official sources, people often look to Facebook and other social media for their information, and are thus vulnerable to the dangerous nonsense peddled by the anti-vaccination movement in the west.

I know how quickly Papua New Guineans tap into what’s happening in neighbouring Australia, too. They will have seen how the public debate here has dented confidence in the AstraZeneca brand – the mainstay of their own vaccine supply.

But perhaps most troubling of all is the sense that many Papua New Guineans have developed a fatalistic belief that COVID is just another health challenge to add to the litany of other serious problems facing the country, among them maternal mortality, malaria and tuberculosis.

It’s almost as if they believe this is all somehow PNG’s lot. But it doesn’t need to be.

Ian Kemish is a former Australian diplomat, serving as high commissioner to PNG from 2010 to 2013. He currently chairs the Kokoda Track Foundation, which receives some funding from the Australian Government for its work to combat Covid-19 in PNG, and is Pacific representative for the World Bank’s Global Partnership for Education. He is a nonresident fellow with the Lowy Institute’s Pacific program.

– ref. PNG and Fiji were both facing COVID catastrophes. Why has one vaccine rollout surged and the other stalled? – https://theconversation.com/png-and-fiji-were-both-facing-covid-catastrophes-why-has-one-vaccine-rollout-surged-and-the-other-stalled-169356

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kristin Naragon-Gainey, Associate Professor, School of Psychological Science, and Director, Emotional Wellbeing Lab, The University of Western Australia

As lockdown eases today in New South Wales, and will do so in Victoria later this month, many people will begin readjusting to “normal” life.

Exiting lockdown after several months can lead to a range of feelings, from excitement and relief to stress and worry.

While it may seem counter-intuitive to feel anxious about returning to past freedoms and ways of life, it’s natural for such a major change to be stressful.

So why might it be anxiety-inducing, and how can you cope?

Mixed emotions

Humans are creatures of habit, and the lockdowns have persisted long enough for people to become comfortable with and accustomed to their lockdown daily routines – even those parts they don’t like. Reinventing a new daily routine takes effort, as it requires overriding our current habits and inertia.

Furthermore, some people may experience certain aspects of lockdown as beneficial, such as not commuting to work, spending more time with immediate family or roommates, and greater flexibility in work hours. People may miss these positive aspects after lockdown ends.

Home may also have become associated with safety and control during lockdown, so resuming life in public can seem daunting.

What’s more, while lockdown may come to an end, there’s uncertainty regarding the pandemic’s future impact on our lives, creating a new backdrop of anxiety.

For all these reasons, many people may have mixed emotions – including anxiety and fear – about leaving lockdown.

Everyone has experienced lockdown differently

While everyone responds differently, returning from lockdown may be especially difficult for some groups of people.

In particular, people with psychological conditions associated with anxiety when outside the home or interacting with people may have experienced less social stress than usual during lockdown, if they weren’t faced with as many anxiety-provoking situations. These include some people with, for example, social anxiety, agoraphobia, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or people on the autism spectrum.

At the same time, many of these people also felt greater loneliness and other anxieties during lockdown, similar to the general population.

Read more:
Most of us will recover our mental health after lockdown. But some will find it harder to bounce back

Other people may be experiencing strong anxiety or depression for the first time, or may feel overwhelming worry about contracting COVID or the impact of the pandemic.

A wealth of research has shown that when people avoid situations that make them feel anxious, they may feel less stress immediately, but over time avoidance makes them feel as anxious or even more anxious in those situations in the future.

In contrast, engaging in these situations repeatedly helps reduce anxiety over time, as demonstrated by treatments like exposure therapy.

This process seems to manifest in lockdown. One study found that although college students’ social anxiety tended to decrease over the course of the academic year in recent years, anxiety remained high during this same period in lockdown, perhaps due to decreased social interactions.

While reduced interaction with the public during lockdown may have eased social stress for some people, it may also make it more challenging to re-engage in these interactions now.

4 ideas to help you cope

There are numerous strategies you can use to help you successfully cope with anxiety and worry as you leave lockdown behind.

1. Expect a readjustment phase

It can be helpful simply to remind yourself a period of readjustment is normal, given the unusual and stressful situation the world is facing, and any distress is generally temporary.

Keeping this in mind can lead to more realistic expectations for yourself and others who might be struggling, as well as greater compassion for yourself and others. Allowing some downtime and leeway for bad days will facilitate a quicker and smoother readjustment.

2. Talk to supportive friends

Seeking support from others you feel comfortable with and talking about how you’re feeling is also important for many people, particularly as others may be struggling with the same feelings and challenges.

3. Re-engage with fun

You can also make an effort to do activities you generally find enjoyable and/or meaningful — particularly those you haven’t been able to do during lockdown and were looking forward to, even if you have mixed feelings now about doing them.

4. Stay in the moment

Deep breathing or mindfulness practice can help people get through difficult emotions or situations following lockdown.

Although many things about the pandemic are out of our control, taking concrete steps to decrease your stress level — even in small ways — can help you feel better and more in control.

Read more:
Languishing, burnout and stigma are all among the possible psychological impacts as Delta lingers in the community

When should you see a professional?

For most people, anxiety and stress post-lockdown will be mild and will fade quickly as people settle back into their pre-lockdown routines.

However, there are some signs that indicate you may benefit from seeking professional help. These include experiencing distress or anxiety that persists for weeks and is impacting your ability to function well at work or at home.

Others may find they’re still managing to get through their day, but have strong worries about COVID or leaving the house that don’t go away and make it difficult to focus or be present. Lots of people may have bad days or occasional feelings like this, but help may be needed if these experiences are severe and/or persistent. If you are feeling hopeless and thinking of harming yourself, please seek help immediately.

While some people may require longer to readjust post-lockdown than others, there’s support available to help people return to their pre-lockdown lives and enjoy the freedoms that go along with it.

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

Kristin Naragon-Gainey receives funding from the National Institutes of Health (United States). The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

– ref. Why you might feel anxious returning to ‘normal’ after lockdown — and how to cope – https://theconversation.com/why-you-might-feel-anxious-returning-to-normal-after-lockdown-and-how-to-cope-169089

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison Reeve, Deputy Program Director, Energy and Climate Change, Grattan Institute

Carbon offsetting has been in the news lately after a report raised concerns about the integrity of the federal government’s offsetting scheme, the emissions reduction fund.

Offsetting refers to reducing emissions or removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in one place to make up for emissions in another. Done well, it lowers the costs of reducing emissions. Done badly, it increases costs and gives us false confidence about our progress towards net zero emissions.

It’s a difficult part of the climate change conversation worldwide and, because of past problems, there’s understandable cynicism about its potential.

The Grattan Institute has just released a new report on the role of offsetting in achieving net zero targets. In it, we show even with strong policies to reduce emissions wherever possible, Australia is going to need offsetting — potentially lots of it — to reach a target of net zero emissions.

What is offsetting?

Offsetting is often done through a system of credits or offsets — units that represent one tonne of emissions reductions achieved, or one tonne of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere.

For example, a mining company with a net-zero target might be able to partially reduce its emissions through adjusting its operations, but could find it still has emissions that are too expensive or technically impossible to reduce.

In this case, it might buy an “offset” to cover these emissions. The offset could come from another company with plenty of options to reduce emissions (such as a landfill owner), or it might come from an activity like tree-planting.

Why carbon offsetting is a touchy subject

Offsetting raises strong views. Some see it as an excuse for polluting companies to delay reducing emissions. Others say it destroys the fabric of rural communities because it encourages farmers to turn farming land into places for tree-planting and other carbon-storage activities.

Some international schemes have been criticised for crediting offsetting activities that aren’t “additional”. This refers to activity that would have happened anyway, such as rewarding a landholder for maintaining vegetation that was never going to be cleared, or rewarding a manufacturer for investing in low-emissions technology when that would have occurred regardless.

Australia’s emissions reduction fund has also been criticised on these grounds.

It has also been criticised for the baselines against which offsets are measured and projects receiving credit for activity that hasn’t yet occurred and may never.

Read more:
Direct Action not giving us bang for our buck on climate change

All public policy that relies on incentives must grapple with the question of whether an activity is “additional”. It is a hard problem, and it may never be fully solved.

But when it comes to offsetting, it matters, because one of the roles of offsetting is to lower the cost of reducing emissions. In other words, if you can reduce your emissions more cheaply than I can using current technology, it makes sense for me to pay you to do so while I wait for technology costs to come down.

As the chart below shows, if there are too many emissions reduction or removal activities that are credited but didn’t actually happen (“hollow” offsets), then we get a false sense of progress towards net zero. Someone ends up overpaying, so the progress we do make costs more.

This limits the market’s effectiveness. If buyers aren’t sure they’re getting what they pay for, they won’t pay as much. This pushes prices down, which limits the number of producers willing to do offsetting, because they won’t be paid as much.

More profoundly, these hollow credits give a dangerous false sense of security that emissions are reducing at a particular rate, when in fact they aren’t.

Still, we will need more carbon offsets

Most offsetting in Australia is done by reducing emissions. But as we get closer to net zero, these offsetting options will disappear. There will literally be fewer emissions to reduce, and those that remain will be more difficult and more expensive to eliminate.

Read more:
5 reasons why the Morrison government needs a net-zero target, not just a flimsy plan

Even with strong policies to reach net-zero emissions in time, Australia will need offsets for hard-to-abate emissions sources, such as aviation, cement and beef cattle. The only option to deal with these emissions will be to offset them by deliberately removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Australia has plenty of land for planting trees to draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but we don’t have plenty of water or productive soil, and we’ll have even less as the climate warms.

Governments should invest in research and development and early-stage technology development, such as direct-air carbon capture and storage. While these technologies are very expensive and might not work at scale, it would be better to find that out now than in 2050.

Most importantly: governments should put in place stronger policies to reduce emissions. The earlier reports in the Grattan Institute’s Towards Net Zero series have recommendations for cutting emissions from transport, industry, and agriculture.

Every tonne of greenhouse gas going into the atmosphere is contributing to global warming and climate change. The tonne we don’t emit is the tonne we don’t have to offset.

Offsetting needs integrity

Clearly, we need offsetting to reduce emissions — but only if it’s done with integrity. In our latest report, we explain how to make this happen.

We recommend the federal government returns to its original commitment made in 2014 to review every method for creating offsetting units in the emissions reduction fund, every four years. It should allocate additional resources to do this, with independent experts.

International rules to underpin integrity and trade in offsetting units should be settled at the next month’s international conference on climate change (COP26) in Glasgow.

Read more:
US scheme used by Australian farmers reveals the dangers of trading soil carbon to tackle climate change

If negotiations drag on, we recommend the federal government put in place rules around the export of Australian offsetting units anyway, to stop potential integrity issues emerging.

Both these actions will show the government is serious about maintaining integrity in its offsetting units. Regular reviews may find problems are minimal – that would be a good outcome.

But if there’s widespread perception that offsetting is some sort of dodgy cheat, then the government will find it even more difficult to use it as a policy tool. So being transparent about problems and moving to fix them quickly is the best solution.

Alison Reeve 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. We can’t stabilise the climate without carbon offsets – so how do we make them work? – https://theconversation.com/we-cant-stabilise-the-climate-without-carbon-offsets-so-how-do-we-make-them-work-169355

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karen Malone, Professor, Environmental Sustainability and Childhood Studies, Swinburne University of Technology

Leaders across the country – particularly in the states with the largest outbreaks, New South Wales and Victoria – have designed road maps towards reopening the states after long lockdowns. Safety in childcare, schools and universities is a core component of reopening plans.

Year 12 students in Melbourne go back to school this week, and there are staggered return plans for the rest of the year levels over the coming weeks. All students are set to return to the classroom full-time by November 5.

Regional Victorian students have a different schedule with all students back in the classroom full-time by October 26.

NSW students will be returning to class in a staggered fashion too. Kindergarten, year 1 and year 12 students are to return on October 18; all other grades will return on October 25.

Managing a safe return includes managing indoor classrooms via ventilation, sanitation and social distancing. But the NSW Education Department has said it will also support schools to use “outdoor learning areas”. And the Victorian strategy includes advice for early childhood centres and services to “move to an indoor/outdoor program (shifting to as much outdoor programming as possible)”.

Read more:
From vaccination to ventilation: 5 ways to keep kids safe from COVID when schools reopen

Moving classrooms outside is not a new idea. It has been done in past disease outbreaks such as tuberculosis and the Spanish flu. We can learn lessons from history and take pointers from international schools that have already made moves to learn outside.

A history of outdoor education

As tuberculosis was spreading and taking a toll on children in the early 1900s, an open-air school movement was launched in Germany. In 1904, the Waldschule (forest school) opened in Berlin. Its success spread, with forest schools opening in Scandinavia and open-air schools in Britain. A nationwide movement for fresh-air schools was launched across the US a few years later.

In 1912 New York, a private school moved classes onto the roof. Another school took up classes in an abandoned ferry and another in Central Park.

Schools around the world are now using outdoor classrooms again as a key strategy to mitigate the risks of COVID while remaining open.

The US National COVID-19 Outdoor Learning Initiative has been pushing for schools to have classrooms outdoors and many have done so.

By last October New York City officials alone approved 1,100 proposals for public school students to spend at least part of their day outdoors.

Some wanted to use their school grounds, closed down streets or take students to local parks for lessons. Essex Street Academy, a public secondary school in Lower Manhattan, was one of these schools. Students have been taking multiple classes on the expansive roof. According to the principal of the school, the roof of the vertical schools was designed as a school yard – so nothing needed to be adjusted.

Read more:
Physical distancing at school is a challenge. Here are 5 ways to keep our children safer

Without any specific directions, many teachers around Australia have also been heading outdoors. A K-1 primary teacher in NSW told me:

Since the pandemic, on the days I’m onsite, I keep the kids outside most of the day. We go into the garden and read stories, complete writing tasks, art and maths games – using the gardens as stimulus.

A university lecturer in Victoria said:

Last semester, to support social distancing and increase fresh air, I took classes outdoors. Our classroom was the campus grounds, a local park, the botanic gardens and the National Gallery.

Here are seven reasons why schools should be moving classes outside as much as possible.

1. Being outdoors supports students’ health and well-being

Being outside lowers the risk of transmission of the virus by making it easier to socially distance and providing better ventilation and fresh air.

It also supports students’ mental well-being. Research shows being outside has many positive health, social, emotional, ecological and learning benefits for students and staff.

2. Setting up an outdoor classroom is relatively inexpensive and easy

Compared to the other options such as opening up walls or windows in classrooms, installing ventilation systems or rotating home/school attendance to ensure smaller class numbers, moving outdoors can be implemented with limited resources.

3. Outdoor classrooms may mean schools stay open

Schools could safely accommodate more students by going outside. Therefore, there is less likelihood of disruption to the lives of students and families. By lowering risks once students return, schools are more reliably able to remain open.

4. What is normally taught indoors can be adapted for outside

For early childhood and primary school everything can be outside. Experiences overseas have shown well-resourced roof spaces or pavilions have overcome issues of special equipment.

The question should be what really can’t be taught outside rather than what can – that is the shorter list.

Read more:
Children learn science in nature play long before they get to school classrooms and labs

5. Schools can use a variety of outdoor options

Permanent outdoor classrooms could be set up. Students could use the outdoors for one-off classes during the day, or schools can stagger class numbers by scheduling small groups inside and out throughout the day.

6. Any space outdoors can be used

Around the world, we’ve seen verandahs or external corridors, decks, courtyards, roof tops, school grounds, gardens, ovals, blocked-off streets on school boundaries, nearby local parks and playgrounds, and a vast array of other local community spaces, such as beaches, forests and village centres, used as outdoor classrooms.

7. Educators from outside the school can be used

Educators from national parks, aquariums, museums, zoos and science centres are already trained in teaching outdoors and many have had limited work due to pandemic closures.

Karen Malone 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. Schools have moved outdoors in past disease outbreaks. Here are 7 reasons to do it again – https://theconversation.com/schools-have-moved-outdoors-in-past-disease-outbreaks-here-are-7-reasons-to-do-it-again-168481

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alex Simpson, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Macquarie University

What’s the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion?

The difference used to matter. Evasion was illegal. It meant not paying tax that was due. Avoidance meant arranging your affairs so tax wasn’t due.

Australian media mogul Kerry Packer used the distinction as a complete defence when he told a parliamentary committee in 1991 he was

not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Of course, I am minimising my tax. Anybody in this country who does not minimise his tax wants his head read.

The Pandora Papers — the biggest-ever leak of records showing how the rich and powerful use the financial system to maximise their wealth — shows the distinction has lost its meaning.

The dump of almost 12 million documents lays bare the ways in which 35 current or former leaders and 300 high-level public officials in more than 90 countries have used offshore companies and accounts to protect their wealth.

Only in some of the cases could their activities be categorically declared illegal.

Tax havens are legal

Here’s how tax havens are used. Trusts and companies are set up in places with low tax rates and secrecy laws such as the Bahamas, Cayman Islands, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, the US state of Delaware and the Republic or Ireland.

If, for example, a wealthy celebrity or a politician wants to buy a new yacht or a luxury villa but doesn’t want to pay tax or stamp duty or expose their wealth to scrutiny they can get their lawyer or accountant to do it through such a trust.

Read more:
The Pandora Papers: why does South Dakota feature so heavily?

For somewhere between US$2,000 and US$20,000 to set up the trust, the name of the real owner or beneficiary can be hidden.

It isn’t illegal for the celebrity or a politician to move their money (so long as it is theirs to begin with). Assets within the trust are subject to local tax laws (sometimes zero tax) and local secrecy laws (sometimes complete secrecy).

Legal, but used by criminals

These legal means of using complex networks of secret entities to move around money are the same as those used by criminals.

Alongside the likes of India’s cricket superstar Sachin Tendulkar, Colombian pop singer Shakira and Elton John in the Panama Papers are Italian crime boss Raffaele Amato, serving a 20-year jail sentence for weapons and drugs trafficking, and the deceased British art dealer Douglas Latchford, suspected of smuggling looted treasures and money laundering.

It’s far from clear these arrangements should be legal

The big question raised by the Pandora Papers is why any hiding of private wealth from tax authorities ought to be legal.

The International Monetary Fund estimated in 2019 that tax haven deprived governments globally of US$500 billion to US$600 billion per year.

To put that into perspective, the estimated cost of vaccinating the world against COVID-19 is US$50-70 billion.

Some of what’s been uncovered in the Pandora Papers is illegal (“evasion”) but much might not be (“avoidance”, aided by anonimity).

The effect is the same. Dollars that ought to have been paid in tax are withheld and used for the benefit of people who aren’t keen to admit to owning them.

Over the weekend the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, now led by Australian Mathias Cormann, brokered a deal under which 136 countries agreed to charge multinational corporations a tax rate of at least 15%, making tax havens harder to find.

Ireland, previously used as tax haven, signed up.

The nations concerned did this because because, even where legal, the use of tax havens costs billions.

We’ll soon have to consider removing a distinction in law that vanished in practice some time ago.

Alex Simpson has received funding from Economic and Social Research Council, UK.

– ref. The Pandora Papers show the line between tax avoidance and tax evasion has become so blurred we need to act against both – https://theconversation.com/the-pandora-papers-show-the-line-between-tax-avoidance-and-tax-evasion-has-become-so-blurred-we-need-to-act-against-both-169353

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

The government’s leadership group is due to consider plans for a revised climate policy this week, as Scott Morrison goes all out to land a deal the Nationals will accept.

The stakes are very high for both Morrison and Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce.

Morrison needs to be able to commit to net zero emissions by 2050 and to improve the government’s medium term ambition, if he is to keep faith with the expectations of Australia’s allies, the United States and Britain.

Joyce has to get a package that is sufficiently acceptable to a majority of the Nationals so that his party room doesn’t feel their restored leader has sold them out.

Morrison and Joyce have been in discussions for some time but with the Glasgow climate conference looming early next month, reaching finality is now becoming urgent.

The leadership group includes, besides the PM and Joyce, treasurer Josh Frydenberg, finance minister Simon Birmingham, attorney-general Michaelia Cash, defence minister Peter Dutton, deputy Nationals leader and agriculture minister David Littleproud, Nationals Senate leader and regionalisation minister Bridget McKenzie, and health minister Greg Hunt.

After the leadership group considers it, the policy will go to the wider cabinet.

Read more:
Grattan on Friday: To go or not to go — Morrison grapples with Glasgow

The Nationals will meet Monday virtually, but will not have a substantive policy to discuss. They have indicated they want to consider the plan in a face-to-face meeting. The first opportunity for that is when parliament meets next week. The policy would also go to the joint parties room.

Morrison will announce the policy before the Glasgow meeting.

Assuming he lands a satisfactory deal, he is still unclear about whether he will go to Glasgow, and has not sounded enthusiastic. He has pointed to onerous quarantine requirements as a disincentive but the new NSW treasurer Matt Kean indicated to Sky NSW would smooth that problem if need be.

There are other disincentives to the PM’s trip, which would also include the G20 meeting. One is his need to concentrate on domestic politics in the final part of the year.

Read more:
Turnbull slams ‘deceitful’ Morrison for giving Australia a reputation as untrustworthy

Another is the prospect of awkward moments on the trip. French president Emmanuel Macron will be at the G20, and it is not certain how an encounter would go, given the tension between the two countries over the cancelled submarines contract. Former PM Malcolm Turnbull will be at Glasgow, which could make for another difficult encounter.

On the other hand, the Glasgow conference is a major international occasion and Morrison would be criticised for not attending.

The Business Council of Australia bought into the climate debate at the weekend, backing net zero for 2050 and a big lift in the 2030 target – to a 46-50% economy-wide range against 2005 levels. The present target is for a reduction of 26-28%.

However the BCA – which represents Australia’s largest companies – immediately came in for some flak.

Some critics homed in on its change of position, because it had derided Labor’s proposal for a 45% reduction target before the last election. The BCA said this would be economy wrecking.

Energy minister Angus Taylor was somewhat dismissive of the BCA report saying it made “a number of recommendations that have concerning impacts for households and businesses”.

Read more:
COP26: what’s the point of this year’s UN climate summit in Glasgow?

For instance, “the BCA’s recommendation to expand the Safeguard Mechanism and bring down baselines would force companies to reduce their emissions, regardless of whether economically viable technologies are available, risking competitiveness and jobs – this is a carbon tax”.

Joyce, speaking to the Western Australian Nationals conference, said: “BCA and those who you represent — you are now on the hook for what you state, the cost is now yours.

“Future governments will say that you asked for this, and if it’s a flop, if it’s a disaster, as the energy crisis now is in the UK, Europe and China, you have to pay to fix it.”

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. Government’s leadership group to consider climate policy this week, with high stakes for Morrison and Joyce – https://theconversation.com/governments-leadership-group-to-consider-climate-policy-this-week-with-high-stakes-for-morrison-and-joyce-169610

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

Former prime minister Tony Abbott has warned China could “lash out disastrously” at Taiwan very soon.

In a speech in Taipei, Abbott condemned China’s growing belligerence towards Taiwan and said Australia should not be indifferent to its fate.
Abbott – who as prime minister concluded the free trade agreement with China – recalled the warmer relations between China and Australia in those days.

“Much has changed in just six years, but it’s not Australia’s goodwill towards the people of China, about a million of whom are now Australians and making a fine contribution to our country,” he said.

Australia had no issue with China, Abbott said. “We welcome trade, investment and visits – just not further hectoring about being the chewing gum on China’s boot.”

He said if the “drums of war” could be heard in the region – as home affairs secretary Mike Pezzullo put it in April – “it’s not Australia that’s beating them.

“The only drums we beat are for justice and freedom – freedom for all people, in China and in Taiwan, to make their own decisions about their lives and their futures,” Abbott said.

“But that’s not how China sees it, as its growing belligerence to Taiwan shows. Sensing that its relative power might have peaked, with its population ageing, its economy slowing, and its finances creaking, it’s quite possible that Beijing could lash out disastrously very soon.”

Abbott said that “our challenge is to try and ensure that the unthinkable remains unlikely and that the possible doesn’t become the probable.”

“That’s why Taiwan’s friends are so important now: to stress that Taiwan’s future should be decided by its own people and to let Beijing know that any attempt at coercion would have incalculable consequences.”

Abbott’s visit comes at a time of high tension between China and Taiwan, with China repeatedly sending large numbers of military aircraft into Taiwan’s air defence zone.

Taiwan’s defence minister claimed this week military tensions between China and Taiwan were at their worst in more than 40 years.

Asked earlier this week about the visit, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said it was a private trip and Abbott was not passing on any government messages.

“Tony is in Taiwan as a private citizen, and I didn’t have any conversation with him before that.”

But Abbott has been given VIP treatment during his visit and accorded high-level government meetings.

Australia has a “one China” policy diplomatically but there are close economic relations between Australia and Taiwan, including trade and investment and, before the pandemic, tourism.

In his speech, Abbott said China had created the new Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (between the United States, Australia, Japan and India), “because it’s been so unreasonable”.

“And the more aggressive it becomes, the more opponents it will have,” Abbott said.

The US State Department had just affirmed America’s commitment to Taiwan was “rock solid”, he said.

“I don’t think America could stand by and watch Taiwan swallowed up. I don’t think Australia should be indifferent to the fate of a fellow democracy of almost 25 million people.”

Abbott observed the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, had put it well when he said America would be competitive with China when it should be, collaborative when it could be, and adversarial when it must be.

“Provided it’s real, collaboration is still possible and trust could yet be rebuilt. But Taiwan will be the test,” Abbott said.

He said Taiwan should be welcomed into the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

But China, which is seeking to join the trade pact, “could never be admitted to the TPP while engaged in a trade war with Australia, and in predatory trade all-round”.

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. Tony Abbott warns China could ‘lash out’ at Taiwan soon – https://theconversation.com/tony-abbott-warns-china-could-lash-out-at-taiwan-soon-169543

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charlotte Phelps, PhD Student, Bond University

Wireless earphone sales are booming, with Apple alone selling an estimated 100 million sets of AirPods in 2020. Being untethered from our phones or devices means we are likely to wear earphones for longer periods.

As a result, you might notice your ears feeling more sticky or waxy. Is this common? And what happens to our ears when we wear earphones?

Although wireless earphones are fairly new to the market, there is a large amount of research investigating the long-term use of hearing aids, which in many cases, have a similar mechanism. From this research, it appears prolonged use of in-ear devices can cause problems with earwax.

Read more:
Are your kids using headphones more during the pandemic? Here’s how to protect their ears

What does earwax do?

The production of earwax (also known as cerumen) is a normal process in humans and many other mammals. There should always be a thin coating of wax near the opening of the ear canal.

This wax is a waterproof and protective secretion. This acts to moisten the skin of the external ear canal and works as a protective mechanism to prevent infection, providing a barrier for insects, bacteria, and water. Wet earwax is brown and sticky, whereas the dry type is more of a white colour.

In fact, earwax is such a great barrier, in the 1800s there were reports of it being used as an effective balm for chapped lips!

Earwax is a naturally occurring substance produced in the external portion of the ear canal. It is created by the secretions of oil glands and sweat glands released by the hair follicles, which then traps dust, bacteria, fungi, hairs and dead skin cells to form the wax.

The external ear canal can be thought of as an escalator system, with the wax always moving towards the outside, preventing the ears from becoming filled with dead skin cells.

This migration of earwax is also aided by natural jaw movements. Once the earwax reaches the end of the ear, it simply falls out.

Read more:
Curious Kids: how do scabs form?

How earphones might affect this system

The ear is self-cleaning and best performs its function without interruption. However, anything that blocks the normal progression of earwax moving outside can cause issues.

Normal use of in-ear devices don’t often cause a problem. But prolonged earphone use, such as if you leave them in all day, could:

• compress the earwax, making it less fluid and harder for the body to naturally expel
• compact the earwax to the extent the body induces inflammation. This results in white blood cells migrating to the area, increasing the number of cells in the blockage
• impact air flow and stop wet earwax drying out. When earwax retains its stickiness for prolonged periods of time, it encourages build-up
• trap sweat and moisture in the ears, making them more prone to bacterial and fungal infections
• create a barrier to the earwax’s natural expulsion, which ends up stimulating the secretory glands and increasing earwax production
• reduce overall ear hygeine, if the pads of the earbuds are not cleaned properly, or contaminated with bacteria or infectious agents
• damage your hearing if the volume is set too high.

If the build-up accumulates, excessive earwax can cause hearing problems, along with other symptoms such as pain, dizziness, tinnitus, itching, and vertigo.

If you need to listen for a prolonged period of time, using over-ear headphones may help a little. These offer a small amount of extra airflow compared to the in-ear earphones and earbuds. However, this is not as good as leaving the ears open to the outside air, and an accumulation of earwax can still occur.

As they sit outside the ear canal, over-ear headphones are also less likely to cause any earwax compaction, or introduce bacteria or pathogens to the ear canal.

Read more:
Health Check: is it bad to regularly sleep wearing earplugs?

Nothing smaller than your elbow

In most cases, the best way to control earwax is to leave it alone. It is not recommended to use cotton buds frequently, as this can force earwax back into the ear canal. The longstanding advice is not to put anything smaller than your elbow in your ear – in other words, don’t put anything in there!

Some traditional methods, such as olive oil drops or ear candles, may also have adverse effects and are not helpful.

If your have ear wax or related hearing concerns, your family doctor will have a range of treatment options to assist, and can also direct you to the correct health service if it requires longer-term management.

Initially, they will look into your ear with a special instrument (otoscope) and see the extent of any blockage or dysfunction.

In the meantime, the ear has a wonderful process of self-cleaning, and we should do our best to let this occur naturally. In most cases earphones are fine, but it might still be helpful to stay aware of how long you spend wearing them. Finally, be sure to always keep the volume at safe levels.

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. Don’t wear earphones all day – your ears need to breathe – https://theconversation.com/dont-wear-earphones-all-day-your-ears-need-to-breathe-168742