Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Alexander, Adjunct Reseach Fellow (Supply Chains), Curtin University

“This is the one thing we didn’t want to happen.”

That line – from the satirical British current affairs television program BrassEye – could easily be reverberating through federal government offices this week.

Yesterday the news dropped that Christine Holgate, the Australia Post chief executive pushed so roughly from her job by the Morrison government, has a new job with a rival delivery company.

Holgate resigned last November, after Prime Mnister Scott Morrison told parliament she been told to stand aside over the “optics” of rewarding four senior managers with luxury watches, worth about $20,000 – and “if she doesn’t wish to do that, she can go”.

Now Holgate has gone to a new role as chief executive of parcel-delivery competitor Global Express.

Her appointment, just a week after the expiry of her non-compete clause with Australia Post, is a gift for the new owners of Global Express, a former division of well-known Australian transport company Toll Holdings that has been struggling to find profitability.

If anyone can help turn around Global Express’s fortunes in Australia’s parcel-delivery market, Holgate can. Doing so will cost Australia Post, and Australian taxpayers.

A direct competitor

Until last month Global Express was one of three divisions of Toll Group, the Australian transport company that began in Newcastle in 1888. Its business has involved express parcel, freight delivery and domestic forwarding services in Australia, and transport and contract logistics services in New Zealand.

Toll Group was taken over in 2015 by Japan Post Holdings, the publicly traded company that runs Japan’s postal service. The acquisition was part of Japan Post’s strategy to diversify into global parcel deliveries. It proved less successful than the owner hoped, however, and in April the sale of Global Express to Australian private equity company Allegro Funds was announced.

Private equity firms have a reputation for quickly improving company bottom lines by ruthlessly cutting costs and focusing on the most profitable parts of the market.

In the case of Global Express – which has trucks, planes, depots and other infrastructure worth an estimated A$1 billion – this will almost certainly mean identifying the most lucrative parts of the parcel delivery market.

This is a market in which it competes head-on with Australia Post, relying on similar logistics and delivery infrastructures. It is a market Holgate knows very well. Arguably no one in Australia knows it better.

Cherry-picking parcels

Parcel delivery was a key area of concern for Holgate after she became Australia Post’s first female chief executive in 2017. It became even more crucial in 2020, as the COVID pandemic and lockdowns led to massive surges in online shopping and thus parcel deliveries.

Holgate saw the opportunity to pivot more of Australia Post’s massive logistics processes – tied up with delivering dwindling numbers of letters – to the surging parcel delivery game.

Read more: COVID hands Australia Post opportunity to end daily delivery

All seemed on track for Australia Post to grow and prosper with Holgate at its head. Then it came unstuck due to the federal government’s political reaction to the news Holgate in 2018 authorised the luxury watches gifts as a reward to four senior executives who secured a deal worth a reported A$220 million.

The view widely held in the industry is that the bonuses were within the normal operation practices of a commercial enterprise. Indeed, if the executives rewarded the watches had been given a cash bonus instead, it probably would never have become an issue and Holgate would still be Australia Post’s chief executive.

Now Holgate takes everything she knows about parcel delivery market, and her demonstrable ability in growing businesses, to Global Express.

Read more: Vital Signs: Christine Holgate’s ‘principal’ error was applying corporate logic to Australia Post

Bad news for taxpayers

At Global Express, Holgate won’t have have to worry about a public service obligation to deliver mail to every postal address in Australia. She can say “no” to any unprofitable market segment. She can cherry-pick the most desirable business from Australia Post.

Nor will she have to worry about her board chairman taking her to task over luxury watches, or being excoriated in parliament.

It’s “game on” in the parcels business. Which is bad news for Australia Post, and ultimately Australian taxpayers.

– ref. Australia Post’s worst nightmare: Christine Holgate to head delivery rival Global Express – https://theconversation.com/australia-posts-worst-nightmare-christine-holgate-to-head-delivery-rival-global-express-160606

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cassandra Steer, Senior Lecturer, ANU College of Law; Mission Specialist, ANU Institute for Space, Australian National University

Billionaire Jeff Bezos’s space launch company Blue Origin has announced it will sell its first flights into microgravity to the highest bidder.

Blue Origin and its two greatest competitors in the “space tourism” field, SpaceX and Virgin Galactic, claim to be advancing humanity through the “democratisation” of space. But these joyrides aren’t opening up access to space for all.

A changing landscape

At face value, the prospect of a space tourism industry is exciting.

It promises an easier path to space than the one followed by astronauts, who must go through higher education, intense training and extremely competitive selection processes. Astronauts must also have the right nationality, because few countries have access to human spaceflight programs.

In theory, the opening up of a commercial spaceflight industry should make space more accessible and democratic. But this is only partly the case; what was once the domain of only the richest countries is now an industry headed predominantly by commercial entities.

Adding to this, these companies are prepared to take more risks than government programs because they don’t have to justify their spending — or failures — to the public. Blue Origin and SpaceX have seen many explosions in past tests, yet fans watch with excitement rather than dismay.

This has pushed the rapid development of space technologies. Reusable rockets — particularly SpaceX’s Falcon 9, which just made its tenth successful launch — have reduced the cost of launching tenfold.

Besides driving down costs, reusable technology is also working to solve the problem of sustainability.

Considering sustainability

There have been thousands of launches since 1957, when the first human-made object (Sputnik I) was launched by the Soviets. Apart from Falcon 9, however, every single launch vehicle has been used once and disposed of immediately — akin to throwing away an aeroplane after one flight.

Launch numbers are increasing each year, with 114 carried out in 2020 alone. Over the weekend, the uncontrolled reentry of debris from China’s Long March 5B rocket made world news because of its sheer size and the risk of damage. It is just one example of the problems of space debris and traffic management.

Safety is a key issue for human spaceflight. Currently, there are about 3,400 operational satellites in orbit and about 128 million pieces of debris. There are are hundreds of collision risks each day, avoided by expensive and difficult manoeuvres or, if the risk is low enough, operators wait and hope for the best.

If we add more human spaceflight to this traffic, countries will need to adopt stricter requirements to de-orbit satellites at the end of their lives, so they burn up on reentry. Currently, it’s acceptable to de-orbit after 25 years, or to put a satellite into an unused orbit. But this only delays the problem for the future.

Nations will also need to implement the 2019 United Nations guidelines on the Long-term Sustainability of Activities in Outer Space.

Read more: Space can solve our looming resource crisis – but the space industry itself must be sustainable

The environmental impact of launches are another important factor. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 burns as much fuel as an average car would over 200 years, for a single launch.

On the ground there are impacts on terrain and waterways, which we have to keep in mind when building future launch sites in Australia. Launch permits currently require environmental impact statements, but these should include long-term effects and carbon footprints as well.

Keeping billionaires in check

In the coming years, it will be crucial for independent spaceflight companies to be tightly regulated.

Virgin Galactic has long advocated a “shirtsleeve” environment wherein customers can experience the luxury of spaceflight unhindered by awkward spacesuits. But the death of one of its test pilots in 2014 is evidence spaceflight remains dangerous. High altitudes and pressure require more precaution and less concern for comfort.

Although regulators such as the US Federal Aviation Administration have strict safety requirements for space tourism, pressurised spacesuits are not among them — but they should be. Also, space tourism operators can require passengers to sign legal waivers of liability, in case of accident.

And while it’s laudable SpaceX and Blue Origin are making technological leaps, there is little in their business plans that speaks to diversity, inclusivity and global accessibility. The first space tourists were all wealthy entrepreneurs.

In 2001 Dennis Tito paid his way to a seat on a Russian Soyuz rocket to visit the International Space Station (ISS). Since then, there have been eight more space tourists, each paying between US$20 million and US$30 million to fly through the Russian program.

In 2022, the Axiom crew is scheduled to fly on a SpaceX Dragon flight to the ISS. Each of the three wealthy, white, male passengers will have paid US$55 million for the privilege. Meanwhile, Blue Origin’s upcoming auction will last five weeks, the highest bidder winning a seat for a few minutes of microgravity.

Virgin Galactic’s 90-minute joyrides, also scheduled to fly as early as 2022, have already sold for US$250,000. Future tickets are expected to cost more.

A matter of time?

Of course, conventional recreational air travel was also originally for the wealthy. Early cross-continental flights in the United States costed about half the price of a new car. But technological advances and commercial competition meant by 2019 (pre-COVID) there were nearly five million people flying daily.

Perhaps it’s only a matter of time before space tourism becomes similarly accessible. Ideally, this would mean being able to fly from Sydney to London in a matter of hours.

Then again, spaceflight carries much greater risks and much greater costs than airflight, even with reusable rockets. It’s going to be a long time before these costs are driven down enough to allow the “democratisation” of space.

This is a compelling narrative which commercial spaceflight companies are eager to adopt. But there will always be a portion of society that won’t have access to this future. Indeed, as many science-fiction stories predict, human spaceflight or habitation in space may only ever be accessible to the very wealthy.

We know there are benefits to space-based technologies — from tracking climate change, to enabling global communications and health services, to learning from scientific experiments on the ISS. But when it comes to space tourism, the payback for the average person is less clear.

Read more: Yuri Gagarin’s boomerang: the tale of the first person to return from space, and his brief encounter with Aussie culture

– ref. Want to become a space tourist? You finally can — if you have $250,000 and a will to sign your life away – https://theconversation.com/want-to-become-a-space-tourist-you-finally-can-if-you-have-250-000-and-a-will-to-sign-your-life-away-160543

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexandra Baxter, PhD Candidate in Criminology/Law, researching human trafficking and modern slavery in Australia, Flinders University

Millions of kidnapped children are imprisoned in underground tunnels, being sexually abused and tortured by a shadowy global cabal of paedophiles.

That, at least, is some of the misinformation about child sex trafficking being spread on social media. You’ll also see such ideas being promoted at protests from Los Angeles to London, with hashtags such as #saveourchildren and #endchildtrafficking emblazoned on shirts and placards.

The thought of a child being abused, exploited or trafficked for sex elicits a powerful emotional response. These lurid tales have proven to be a potent gateway for mothers (and others) to “go down the rabbithole”.

The tragedy is that misinformation is turning well-intentioned people into “digital soldiers” unwittingly working against genuine efforts to eliminate child sexual abuse and human trafficking.

Let’s try to untangle the misconceptions.

The truth about child sexual abuse

Statistics on child sexual abuse are never exact. Less than 40% of victims report being abused when children. The average time before disclosure, according to Australia’s Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, is about 20 years for women and 25 years for men. Some never disclose.

There are enough robust studies, however, to suggest about one in ten children are sexually abused before age 18 – one in seven girls (14%) and one in 25 boys (4%).

Most typically the abuser is an adult known and trusted by the child and their parents. Then by a non-biological relative or in-law. In fewer than 15% of cases is the perpetrator a stranger.

A 2000 study for the US Bureau of Justice Statistics found 7.5% of all known female victims under the age of 17, and 5% of male victims, were abused by a stranger. More recent data published in 2016 by the Australian Bureau of Statistics found strangers accounted for 11.5% of sexual abuse of girls under the age of 16, and 15% of boys.

The differences between these findings are most likely due to greater awareness reducing opportunities for abuse by “acquaintances” such as clergy, teachers and coaches. In the 2000 data, to illustrate, 69% of molested boys were abused by an acquaintance; in the 2016 data it was about 47%.

Exaggerating stranger dangers

Media coverage tends to distort understanding of child sexual abuse. It focuses on “stranger danger” and amplifies the threat of children being molested at the park or shopping centre.

Even more intense coverage goes to the rarer cases where children are abducted or murdered. Think of the fascination with cases such as the 2007 disappearance of three-year-old Madeleine McCann. But such cases are memorable because they are so rare.

The so-called “Pastel-Q” conspiracy theory, however, asserts millions of children a year are being kidnapped and trafficked for sex.

Read more: How QAnon uses satanic rhetoric to set up a narrative of ‘good vs. evil’

This claim rests on misrepresented numbers from missing persons reports. In the case of the US, for example, the claim is that 800,000 children disappear each year. (A similar rate applied globally would mean about 19 million children disappear every year.)

In fact, the FBI’s data shows the number of people under the age of 17 reported missing in the US in 2020 was about 365,000. In most cases (based on the several decades’ of data) these missing reports involve a child running away from home or being taken by a custodial parent. Almost half are found within three hours, and more than 99% are found alive. Since 2010, in the US fewer than 350 people a year under the age of 21 have been abducted by strangers.

Sex trafficking in reality

So no, there’s no evidence millions of children in wealthy nations are being kidnapped by paedophiles.

This is not to say child sex trafficking isn’t a serious concern. But it is a different problem to the Pastel-Q portrayal.

The United Nations’ Trafficking in Persons Protocol defines human trafficking as:

“the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation”

This means human trafficking doesn’t necessarily require moving a person from one place to another, in the way we think of weapons and drugs being trafficked. It’s not the same as people smuggling. Nor is it exactly the same of modern slavery, although there is broad crossover in definitions.

Read more: How trafficked children are being hidden behind a focus on modern slavery

The crucial point of trafficking is the abuse of power to exploit another human being. It thrives in conditions of poverty, economic and gender inequality, corruption and instability. It requires systemic solutions, which the cartoonish constructions of Pastel-Q distract attention from.

Trafficking and modern slavery

Accurately estimating the true scale of child sex trafficking is, like child sexual abuse, complicated. There is the hidden nature of these crimes, differences in policing and reporting between nations, and little uniformity in how statistics are compiled.

The United Nations’ Global Report on Trafficking in Persons only reports on “detected” cases. There are no more than 25,000 cases each year.

But researchers have good reasons to believe this is just the tip of the iceberg. The most commonly accepted estimates of the true number of trafficking victims in the world is about 21 million. About 16 million have been trafficked for labour; about 3 million of these are aged under 18.

About 5 million are trafficked for sex – most typically by being coerced into sex work. More than 99% of sex-trafficking victims are women. More than 70% are in Asia, followed by Europe and Central Asia (14%), Africa (8%), the Americas (4%), and the Arab States (1%). About a million are aged under 18.

We must be cautious about these total estimates. Nonetheless there is sufficient research to be confident only a very small percentage of cases involve scenarios like that in the movie Taken, where Liam Neeson’s character uses his “very particular set of skills” to rescue his kidnapped 17-year-old American daughter from sex slavery.

More often, traffickers approach families living in poverty or socially and economically vulnerable girls – such as runaways – offering false promises of affection, work and a better life. Instead the girls find themselves being pressured or coerced into sex work.

This was the case with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, whose intermediaries lured girls aged 14 to 18 with cash to perform massages, then nude massages, then sex.

Read more: Jeffrey Epstein’s arrest is the tip of the iceberg: human trafficking is the world’s fastest growing crime

How do we address this?

Child sexual abuse and child sex trafficking are both serious global problems. We should all be concerned about them.

But they can’t be divorced from the broader conditions that allow many more millions of children and adults to be trafficked and exploited as modern slaves.

They require sophisticated, holistic and broad-based legal and policy responses. They will not be tackled by misunderstanding their reality and complexity, and indulging in false narratives that divert attention from the real issues.

Which is why more than 130 anti-trafficking organisations have said anybody who lends credibility to these false claims “actively harms the fight against human trafficking”.

– ref. Want to save the children? How child sexual abuse and human trafficking really work – https://theconversation.com/want-to-save-the-children-how-child-sexual-abuse-and-human-trafficking-really-work-153288

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Juno, Senior research fellow, The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity

Since COVID-19 vaccines began rolling out across the world, many scientists have been hesitant to say they can reduce transmission of the virus.

Their primary purpose is to prevent you from getting really sick with the virus, and it quickly became clear the vaccines are highly efficient at doing this. Efficacy against symptoms of the disease in clinical trials has ranged from 50% (Sinovac) to 95% (Pfizer/BioNTech), and similar effectiveness has been reported in the real world.

However, even the best vaccines we have are not perfect, which means some vaccinated people still end up catching the virus. We call these cases “breakthrough” infections. Indeed, between April 10 and May 1, six people in hotel quarantine in New South Wales tested positive for COVID-19, despite being fully vaccinated.

But how likely are vaccinated people to actually pass the virus on, if they do get infected? Evidence is increasing that, not only do COVID-19 vaccines either stop you getting sick or substantially reduce the severity of your symptoms, they’re also likely to substantially reduce the chance of transmitting the virus to others.

But how does this work, and what does it mean for the pandemic?

Vaccinated people are much less likely to pass on the virus

Early evidence from testing in animals, where researchers can directly study transmission, suggested immunisation with COVID-19 vaccines could prevent animals passing on the virus.

But animals are not people, and the scientific community has been waiting for more conclusive studies in humans.

In April, Public Health England reported the results of a large study of COVID-19 transmission involving more than 365,000 households with a mix of vaccinated and unvaccinated members.

It found immunisation with either the Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccine reduced the chance of onward virus transmission by 40-60%. This means that if someone became infected after being vaccinated, they were only around half as likely to pass their infection on to others compared to infected people who weren’t vaccinated.

One study from Israel, which leads the world in coronavirus vaccinations, gives some clues about what’s behind this reduced transmission. Researchers identified nearly 5,000 cases of breakthrough infection in previously vaccinated people, and determined how much virus was present in their nose swabs. Compared to unvaccinated people, the amount of virus detected was significantly lower in those who got vaccinated.

More virus in the nose has been linked to greater infectiousness and increased risks of onward transmission.

These studies show vaccination is likely to substantially reduce virus transmission by reducing the pool of people who become infected, and reducing virus levels in the nose in people with breakthrough infections.

Why does this matter?

If COVID-19 vaccines reduce the chances of transmitting the virus, then each person who is vaccinated protects not only themselves, but also people around them. Breaking chains of transmission within the community and limiting onward spread is critical to help protect people who may respond poorly to immunisation or may not be able to get vaccinated themselves, such as children, some older people, and some people who are immunocompromised.

This also greatly increases the opportunity to achieve some degree of population (or “herd”) immunity, and a faster easing of social restrictions.

Read more: We may never achieve long-term global herd immunity for COVID. But if we’re all vaccinated, we’ll be safe from the worst

But what about the limits of vaccines?

Reducing the risk of transmitting the coronavirus relies on developing strong immunity against the virus. But immunity, even from the vaccines, fades over time. Scientists are actively monitoring people who’ve had COVID-19 vaccines to understand how long vaccine immunity is likely to last, and if and when booster shots will be required.

Read more: Why do we need booster shots, and could we mix and match different COVID vaccines?

Variants of the coronavirus are also concerning. These are strains of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that carry changes which make them harder to control by immunisation. Such variants present two major challenges: they can evade vaccine immunity and, in some cases, are also more transmissible.

Although variants have spread widely throughout the world, there are several pieces of good news on this front. Countries with advanced vaccine rollouts are maintaining good control over the virus. For example, Israel began its mass vaccination campaign during their third wave, and quickly saw a decline in new cases.

What’s more, companies like Moderna are developing updated vaccines to specifically target these variants, with positive early results.

Vaccines don’t mean we should stop preventative behaviours

Right now, the global pandemic is complex. Many countries are quickly rolling out available vaccines, and there are a wide variety of lockdowns and social measures in place.

Yet, the number of new infections each day across the world is at an all-time high and concerning variants are circulating.

As people are vaccinated, there’s a temptation to stop or reduce some important social behaviours such as mask wearing or physical distancing. But, importantly, less transmission is not no transmission.

While vaccinated individuals most likely have a smaller chance of passing on the virus, it’s still important to keep up responsible behaviours into the immediate future to protect those who have not, will not, or cannot be immunised.

– ref. Mounting evidence suggests COVID vaccines do reduce transmission. How does this work? – https://theconversation.com/mounting-evidence-suggests-covid-vaccines-do-reduce-transmission-how-does-this-work-160437

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wesley Enoch, Inaugural Indigenous Chair – Creative Industries, Queensland University of Technology

Big thinking has been unfashionable for too long. Over the past decade, successive leaders have overseen cuts to universities, the arts and public broadcasting. There has also been a rejection of First Nations attempts to wrestle back dignity and create lasting change for the whole country.

When former arts minister George Brandis cut the Australia Council budget by $100 million in 2015 no one could predict the whopping 65 arts companies and 70% of grants to individual artists that would be lost.

In one fell swoop, the funded arts sector — and the creative imagination of the nation — shrunk.

This money was redirected away from peer assessment into funds for distribution at the discretion of the minister. After a long and consistent outcry, much was returned to the Australia Council’s peer assessment process — but grants and funding to artists from the Australia Council decreased by 19% in real terms between 2013-14 and 2019-20, and increased by $1 million in last year’s budget.

Just as the arts were recovering, COVID hit. The industry was dealt another blow with pandemic restrictions and shutdowns and lack of access to JobKeeper for our mostly freelance workforce.

Read more: The year everything got cancelled: how the arts in Australia suffered (but survived) in 2020

Career paths have been snuffed out. Although government funding belatedly arrived for some, the lack of predictability has hindered long term planning, audience development and risk taking.

Larger arts companies and their boards have become scared of upsetting policy makers, shrinking into compliance out of an instinct just to survive.

I have spent decades in the arts working as a playwright and theatre director. I have been artistic director at Kooemba Jdarra Indigenous Performing Arts, Ilbijerri, the Queensland Theatre Company and the Sydney Festival.

I think the arts are smaller, less effective and more timid because of the 2015 cuts. Australia’s arts funding suddenly felt more fragile, in the face of one individual wielding extraordinary power.

Australia as a culture is the biggest loser from all this.

Ideas in crisis

The arts aren’t the only sector of ideas struggling. The ongoing funding cuts and freezes for public broadcasting have severely hindered the ABC, especially during the dual tragedies of bushfires and COVID-19.

Our country needs the ABC. Information free from hyperbole and ideological selectivity has been a godsend.

Universities have a crucial role in honing the public role of big thinking and innovation. But they have come through the past year battered and bruised. Universities need to be supported as a place for investing in industries, ideas and cultural changes we are yet to imagine.

The successful 2020 renegotiation of the Closing The Gap strategies to give more emphasis on community controlled delivery was a milestone in self-determination and a return to logic. But we still have no recognised Voice to Parliament. And 30 years on from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody we continue to see systemic issues unresolved or neglected.

Read more: We have 16 new Closing the Gap targets. Will governments now do what’s needed to meet them?

The issues facing the arts, public broadcasting, universities and First Nations Australians are not just a matter for funding. But in considering how they could be funded, we can have a greater discussion about who we are as a country.

Imagined futures

It is time to reinvest in the social capital of ideas.

There are jobs in new big ideas. There are economic benefits to leadership and risk taking. There is moral authority in doing the right thing.

I hope we use the cash splash of the COVID-19 recovery budget to place arts and creativity at the centre of education and community building, creating robust centres of debate, imagination, innovation and expression.

If we increased funding to the Australia Council, and to artists, storytelling could give greater voice to neglected corners of our national identity, and more citizens would see themselves reflected in the national narrative.

We should fully fund the Closing the Gap initiatives and plan for a new Constitutional Convention. We should fund domestic students in education — properly subsidising course fees and improving financial support — to build new full-time jobs, rather than piecemeal gig work and underemployment.

We should restore funding to the ABC, to ensure it can better fulfil its charter, fund greater local content and expand its digital offerings.

Deloitte Access Economics forecasts a deficit of about $87 billion for 2021-22. Culture and ideas should be as much a part of any deficit and recovery as health and infrastructure.

Read more: View from The Hill: a budget for a pandemic, with next year’s election in mind

What kind of country could we become if we encouraged — and supported — reasonable and considered thought?

Funding discomfort

Too often we think the thing that makes us uncomfortable is “wrong”.

I fear discomfort is no longer a spur to our curiosity to discover and explore new ideas. Instead, discomfort becomes a justification for the rejection of the new, the different and the other.

The arts, universities, public broadcasting and the relationship with First Nations peoples are at the frontier of the new and the important big ideas we need to embrace — and fund — to build an Australia we can be proud of.

Too often, these issues — alongside questions of equality and sustainability — seem to be on the chopping block.

I want our funding priorities to change. Australians need to play our role, too, by being informed, thoughtful and prepared to listen to evidence. We need a smarter, better informed public debate about important issues — and leaders who talk to us and answer our questions.

We will all see the benefit in a more vibrant cultural conversation.

– ref. Wesley Enoch: the 2021 budget must think big and reinvest in the social capital of ideas – https://theconversation.com/wesley-enoch-the-2021-budget-must-think-big-and-reinvest-in-the-social-capital-of-ideas-160341

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Natasha Yates, Assistant Professor, General Practice, Bond University

Australia is currently in Phase 1a and Phase 1b of the COVID vaccine rollout but as a GP, I have had many questions from patients unsure if they’re in those categories or not.

One way to find out is to use the Australian government’s eligibility checker here, or ask your GP.

Phase 1a includes quarantine and border workers, frontline health care workers, aged care and disability care staff/residents.

Read more: Vaccinating the highest-risk groups first was the plan. But people with disability are being left behind

Phase 1b includes many more categories of people, including

• healthcare workers currently employed and not included in Phase 1a
• household contacts of quarantine and border workers
• critical and high risk workers (including defence, police, fire, emergency services and meat processing)
• people aged 70 years and over
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 50 years and over
• adults with an underlying medical condition or significant disability.

Many people are unsure if their condition qualifies as an underlying medical condition or significant disability. There is a useful factsheet on Phase 1b on the federal health department website here.

Here’s what you need to know.

What if I have asthma?

If you have mild or moderate asthma, you do not qualify under Phase 1b. The rate of severe asthma in Australia is under 4%, so most people who have asthma do not have “severe asthma” and so the vast majority don’t qualify under 1b.

If you take a high dose preventer (inhaled corticosteroid) every day and still need to use your reliever puffer (ventolin/salbutamol) more than twice a week, then that is counted as severe.

It may also be counted as severe if you cannot reduce your preventer dose without having an asthma attack — even if you currently have the right mix of medications to keep your asthma under control.

If you have other chronic lung diseases like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis or interstitial lung disease, then you are eligible for a vaccine under Phase 1b.

What about diabetes?

Yes, diabetes is counted as a severe underlying medical condition under Phase 1b. It doesn’t matter if it is Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes — you are eligible for a jab.

Does obesity count?

Yes. Anyone with a BMI over 40 is eligible. Obesity predisposes you to a range of chronic health problems so it is considered serious enough to qualify.

What about heart disease?

It depends. If you’ve had ischaemic heart disease, valvular heart disease, cardiomyopathies and pulmonary hypertension, then you qualify under Phase 1b. It would need to be, for example, a documented heart attack or enlarged heart or clear damage to the valves. If in doubt, ask your GP.

Does high blood pressure count?

Yes, it does if it is difficult to control; so if you are on two or more medications then you are eligible under Phase 1b.

I have cancer or have had it in the past, can I get the jab yet?

It depends, but the answer may well be yes. For example, if you had breast cancer in the last five years you would be eligible. Check the list here.

What about chronic inflammatory conditions?

Some people with chronic inflammatory conditions requiring medical treatments are eligible, including systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis.

Usually these diseases need treatment with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), immune-suppressive or immunomodulatory therapies.

Osetoarthritis doesn’t count.

This category is generally not inclusive of people living with osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome or similar non-immunocompromising inflammatory conditions.

Is kidney disease included?

Yes, but only if you have kidney impairment with an eGFR of <44ml/min. Ask your GP if you are not sure. Mild to moderate chronic kidney disease doesn’t count.

What about migraines?

Probably not. The chronic neurological conditions category includes stroke, dementia, multiple sclerosis, motor neurone disease, Parkinson’s disease, cerebral palsy. It’s generally not inclusive of migraine or cluster headaches.

What if I am a carer?

You might well qualify. Check the details here but many carers of people with serious medical conditions or disability will qualify. I have had many people bringing in someone they care for to be vaccinated, not realising they are also able to get the a shot under this phase of the rollout.

However, family members of people with disability who are not carers aren’t yet eligible. Carers of adults not eligible under Phases 1a or 1b are also not yet able to get the jab.

What’s next?

Phase 2a of the rollout is coming soon. That includes:

• people aged 50 years and over
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 16-49 years
• other critical and high risk workers

After that comes Phase 2b, which is where people aged 16-49 years can be vaccinated.

Read more: We’re gathering data on COVID vaccine side effects in real time. Here’s what you can expect

– ref. I have asthma, diabetes or another illness — can I get my COVID vaccine yet? – https://theconversation.com/i-have-asthma-diabetes-or-another-illness-can-i-get-my-covid-vaccine-yet-160602

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Plank, Professor in Applied Mathematics, University of Canterbury

New Zealand has resumed quarantine-free travel with New South Wales today, even though the Australian state’s government has extended restrictions in greater Sydney for another week.

From New Zealand’s perspective, the fact no further community cases have been discovered gives us confidence we’re not overlooking a large hidden outbreak after all.

While a few cases might trickle in over the days ahead, provided these are linked to the cluster, they shouldn’t lead to another pause in travel.

The ban on quarantine-free travel was put in place last week in response to two new cases of COVID-19 in Sydney. It was the third time travel has been paused from a specific state, which highlights the challenges in tracking the risk of an outbreak across jurisdictions with different systems in place.

The decision to pause travel with NSW was in line with the plan New Zealand’s government set out when it announced the trans-Tasman bubble.

When a case has no clear link to the border, travel may be paused until we are confident the outbreak has been contained.

Red flags

The first Sydney case had some red flags. Although a genomic link was established with a case in a Sydney quarantine facility, there was no known contact between that person and the community case. This means there is almost certainly a missing link in the chain of transmission.

Additional risk factors include the person’s high viral load, the large number of locations they visited while infectious, and the positive result in sewage testing. Together these opened up the possibility the detected case could have been the tip of a much larger iceberg.

Read more: More than a dozen COVID leaks in 6 months: to protect Australians, it’s time to move quarantine out of city hotels

As New Zealand’s COVID-19 response minister Chris Hipkins said, the decision to hit pause was a line call. But, given the unknowns, it was a good decision to buy time for the results of contact-tracing and testing in Sydney to come in.

The Sydney case had higher risk factors than recent cases in Perth, which had also prompted a pause to quarantine-free travel.

Different states, different approaches

This highlights differences between Australian states’ responses. Western Australia has tended to be more risk-averse, and promptly announced a snap lockdown in response to a recent case with a clear link to the border.

NSW seems to have higher tolerance for risk, possibly because of higher confidence that its contact-tracing system can control outbreaks.

The principle of the trans-Tasman bubble is that New Zealand and each Australian state has to make their own decisions about when to close their borders. Once most of New Zealand’s population is vaccinated, the risk from this type of situation will be much smaller, but until then we need to maintain our strategy to keep COVID-19 out of the community.

One of the challenges of the trans-Tasman bubble is that people will move relatively quickly, which means COVID-19 can spread quickly. This makes contact-tracing all the more important, but doing this across borders is not as easy as it might seem.

Differences in contact tracing

Health authorities on each side have to share information about active cases, their movements and their contacts, all while respecting privacy regulations on both sides. A “data exchange” was trialled in three Australian states last year, but doesn’t appear to have been rolled out more broadly yet.

For Australia and New Zealand, this sharing is a manual exercise because our contact-tracing apps are not compatible with each other due to fundamental design differences. The Bluetooth protocols are different: Australia uses Herald; New Zealand uses the Apple/Google exposure notifications system. And they store data in different places.

Australia’s apps are centralised, with data going to servers controlled by health officials, protected by legislation. New Zealand’s app is decentralised, with data staying on the device until the user tests positive for COVID-19 and voluntarily provides it to contact tracers.

These differences mean we can’t easily automate the sharing of data between Australia and New Zealand, and people can’t get automatic alerts across multiple jurisdictions. But this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, because it means human contact-tracers can verify information and decide what is important enough to share. And they can provide context with the data so appropriate actions can be taken.

Read more: Closed borders, travel bans and halted immigration: 5 ways COVID-19 changed how – and where – people move around the world

This manual approach wouldn’t work as well in countries with high rates of COVID-19 because the sheer number of cases would be impossible to keep up with. But it is effective in countries like New Zealand and Australia, which are committed to stamping out COVID-19.

As we gradually open the borders and more people start to travel internationally, we will need good contact-tracing processes to give us confidence that health officials can quickly contain any outbreaks. While the vaccines are coming, we will all need to remain vigilant for a while longer.

– ref. Flights have resumed between New Zealand and NSW, but the temporary travel pause may not be the last – https://theconversation.com/flights-have-resumed-between-new-zealand-and-nsw-but-the-temporary-travel-pause-may-not-be-the-last-160539

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Georgia Atkin-Smith, Research scientist, La Trobe University

We have all heard of COVID-19, the flu and bacterial infections. But what is actually happening to our cells when we contract these diseases? Many of our body’s cells don’t live to tell the tale. But cell death isn’t necessarily a bad thing — in fact, the death of infected cells can provide a sacrificial mechanism to stop pathogens in their tracks before they can spread through our body.

Over the years, researchers have realised there are many ways for our cells to die. Our genetics contain a comprehensive “licence to die”, with the route to cell death dictated by both the type of the cell and the pathogen. Let’s check some out:

The dancing death

In the time it takes you to read this sentence, ten million cells in your body will have died, through a type of death called apoptosis. This term, coined in 1972 by Australian pathologist John Kerr, comes from the Greek phrase for “leaves falling from a tree”.

Apoptosis is the most common form of cell death, and has also been nicknamed the “dance of death”, because of the extraordinary shape changes exhibited by the cells under a microscope as they sacrifice themselves.

For example, apoptotic cells dying from radiation or infection with influenza A virus (aka, the flu) generate large, bubble-like structures on their surface called blebs, before shooting out long beaded necklace-like protrusions and finally shattering into pieces.

The death of flu-infected cells is suggested to both aid and limit viral spread. Nevertheless, it’s a spectacular event to witness (and an excellent reminder to get your flu shot this winter).

Out with a bang

Vaccinia virus is used worldwide to vaccinate against smallpox. In fact, it was the very first vaccine, developed in 1796 by Edward Jenner.

We now also know that vaccinia virus can make our cells more sensitive to a particular type of cell death, caused by a molecule called TNF. This can help prevent the disease spreading by killing off infected cells before the virus has a chance to replicate.

Many of our cells have a roughly spherical or balloon-like shape, encapsulated by a protective layer called the cell membrane. Just like bursting a balloon with a pin, puncture to the cell membrane marks the point of no return.

This process occurs during necroptosis — an explosive type of cell death in which proteins inside the cell punch holes in the membrane. The cell pops and dies, shutting down the machinery needed for viral replication.

The spider web of death

When they aren’t busy haunting our nightmares, spiders can be found weaving silken masterpieces of extraordinary detail and strength. The web of a golden orb weaving spider, for example, is strong enough to entangle small birds.

On a smaller but equally impressive scale, our immune system contains specialised cells called neutrophils that can weave a deadly web of their own and entrap bacteria. Neutrophils gallantly sacrifice themselves in the process of casting their web, in a type of cell death perhaps fittingly called NETosis.

When infected with bacteria such as Streptococcus pneumoniae, which causes pneumonia and meningitis, neutrophils eject a specialised web made from their own DNA. These webs can entangle nearby bacteria to prevent their escape until other immune cell reinforcements arrive to clear the infection. Sometimes, proteins found in these webs can also kill the bacteria – quite an impressive defence mechanism!

The last meal

Just as our bodies are compartmentalised into organs such as the stomach, liver or heart, our individual cells also have specialised compartments. One of the cell’s “stomachs” (a structure called the “autophagosome”) engulfs and digests cellular contents such as damaged molecules through the process of autophagy.

However, in some circumstances, the machinery that drives this Pac-Man-style action can also facilitate the cell’s demise. Coincidentally, the bacteria Helicobacter pylori can infect cells of the human stomach lining, called epithelial cells, which can cause ulcers and gastritis. The cells can respond with a process called autophagic cell death, in which the induction of autophagy causes the cell to die.

A fiery death

Pyromania, derived from the Greek word pyr, meaning fire, is an obsessive desire to set things ablaze. Some of our immune cells also have the ability to self-immolate and cause inflammation as part of our response to infection.

Since its relatively recent discovery in 2001, this type of cell death, called pyroptosis, has become a hot topic (sorry) among cell biologists, and is often facilitated by a molecular complex called the inflammasome.

Read more: What is autoinflammatory disease, the rare immune condition with waves of fever?

In 2021, understanding pyroptosis is more important than ever, as it has been linked to infection with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the virus that causes COVID-19.

Activation of the factors that cause pyroptosis may help explain the excessive inflammation seen in patients with severe COVID-19. And this could potentially offer a new way to combat the disease.

Overdosing on iron and fat

There’s no doubt the key to a long and healthy life is a balanced diet and exercise. However, sometimes we can’t resist the urge to devour a burger and fries with ice cream for dessert. With enough hard work, we can burn it off again. But for individual cells, overindulging can be fatal.

Too much iron and/or harmful types of fat molecules can cause cells to die by ferroptosis. Cells infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the bacterium that causes TB, can increase their iron content and cause ferrototic cell death! Pass the salad, thanks.

Read more: Tick, tock… how stress speeds up your chromosomes’ ageing clock

The survival of the human body is a fine balancing act between cell growth and cell death. Understanding our cells’ complex “licence to die” could give us new ways to combat disease.

– ref. Taking one for the team: 6 ways our cells can die and help fight infectious disease – https://theconversation.com/taking-one-for-the-team-6-ways-our-cells-can-die-and-help-fight-infectious-disease-160098

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Burridge, Professor of Linguistics, Monash University

There has been much debate recently about the way women who work in our federal parliament are treated. This discussion has highlighted that society continues to place very different values on the way women and men behave.

Language – as a behaviour – holds a mirror up to these values. And changing the way we think about language is an important step toward changing the way we think about gender.

Read more: From ‘arse-ropes’ to ‘flying venom’, a history of how we have come to talk about viruses and medicine

Smoke-and-mirror fixes for folksy sneer winces

Folk wisdom provides a dizzying array of misleading accounts of how women communicate, many of them riddled with sexism. Proverbs tell us “women’s tongues are like lambs’ tails; they are never still”. But research tells us men talk and interrupt more – especially when they’re speaking to women.

It’s hard to stop the proverb and folk juggernaut once it gets started. It’s much easier to tell tales. And these are tales of linguistic problems, particularly for women in the workplace. Descriptions like “shrill”, “hysterical”, “scold”, “emotional” – the list goes on – speak to the wider truth that women’s language is policed more aggressively and condemned more readily than men’s.

British TV producer Gordon Reece reputedly mused “the selling of [former UK prime minister] Margaret Thatcher had been put back two years” with the broadcasting of Question Time, as “she had to be at her shrillest to be heard over the din”.

More recently, Donald Trump said Hillary Clinton’s raised voice made her sound “shrill” and “too much”. And, of course, closer to home, Tony Abbott called Prime Minister Julia Gillard “shrill and aggressive”. Gillard suffered an onslaught of criticism for her accent and non-standard English, whereas Bob Hawke was celebrated for his.

Australian linguist Lauren Gawne also pointed to other features condemned in Gillard’s language, including sentence-final prepositions, passive voice and over-abundant adverbs. These are all features widely used by other politicians, and indeed by English speakers generally.

Sadly, the response to linguistic judgments seems to be a desire to “fix” women’s language. All kinds of advice literature instruct on how to replace these undesirable ways of speaking and writing with better ones.

Thatcher is probably the best-known example of someone who underwent a complete linguistic makeover. She famously altered her accent and her delivery and deepened her voice by nearly half the average difference in pitch between male and female voices.

In 2015, a Gmail plug-in (Just Not Sorry) was developed largely with women in mind. Like a grammar or spell checker, it highlighted for correction such features as hedging expressions like just, I think and sorry. The development of the Just Not Sorry plug-in was well-intentioned — it emerged from a networking event at which women worried words like these made them look like pushovers.

But quick fixes like the Just Not Sorry plug-in don’t engage with the broader issue that society shouldn’t be policing women’s language. Moreover, it doesn’t stop to consider that so-called women’s conversational styles — found in many studies to be more co-operative, polite and collaborative — might lead to better outcomes in the workplace.

Baronet, King Kong and the dame in the creek: what words tell us about society

“Shrill” hints at an English lexicon that does not reflect kindly on women. A lexicon is not an inanimate beast, but rather a social one. The social beast shines through in this Australian schoolyard chant:

Boys are strong,

like King Kong,

Girls are weak,

chuck ’em in the creek.

And the Oxford English Dictionary entry for “sex” highlights the corresponding linguistic imbalance. Here women are referred to as the “weaker”, “fairer”, “gentler” and “softer” sex, while men are the “stronger”, “sterner”, “rougher” and “better sex”. However, we might mention on an optimistic note that the adjectives associated with men are now listed as “rare”.

Synonym dictionaries like thesauruses are also revealing. The entry under “woman” shows an abundance of expressions for a sexually active or available woman. Many are appallingly derogatory.

The comparable set under “man” is considerably smaller and noticeably less negative. Labels like “rake” or “womaniser” have nothing of the same pejorative sense of sexual promiscuity — there’s nothing equivalent to “whore” or “slut”.

What has given rise to this imbalance is the fact that words referring to women are unstable and typically deteriorate with time. Words like “lady” or “dame” show the mildest form of deterioration. These referred to persons in high places but then became generalised — compare the stability of the once comparable “lord” and “baronet”, and others such as “governor”, “master”, “sir” versus “governess”, “mistress”, “madam”.

Even more striking is the way words meaning simply “young woman” take on negative connotations. Some expressions even start off referring to males, but once they narrow to female application they are quick to take on overtones of sexual immorality. This is true not just of old expressions like “whore”, “slut” and “slag” — in the case of Modern English’s “bimbo” and “skank”, the changes were extremely rapid.

Sissy pricks and twatty prats: insults and gender

While we’re on the subject of asymmetries, we might also point out the vast difference in wounding capacity between insults invoking male and female sex organs. The most striking is “cunt”, meaning “nasty, malicious, despicable”, versus “prick” meaning “stupid, contemptible, annoying”.

Moreover, while “cunt” (and its gentler counterparts “twat” and “prat”) freely apply to both males and females, females are rarely, if ever, abused by “prick” and “dick”. Should women be concerned by this, you’re probably wondering? Only in that it’s indicative of a more general story. Terms for women are insulting when used of men (for example, “throws like a girl”, “old woman”, “sissy”), but there’s no real abuse if male-associated words are used of women. In fact, “she’s ballsy” was said of Thatcher in praise of her strength of character.

Language is a mirror and a lens

Our language behaviour — perhaps best illustrated by the lexicon — provides particularly clear windows into speech communities. If you’re not convinced already, consider the staggering 2,000 expressions for “wanton woman” that English has amassed over the years. This says it all really: a linguistic tell-tale of sexual double standards. Even the adjective “wanton” no longer refers to men.

These asymmetries in our language are significant, and we haven’t even started on the maledictions invoking animal terms! Language both reflects and reinforces the thoughts, attitudes and culture of the people who use it, and that’s why language matters when it comes to talking about gender.

– ref. Shrill, bossy, emotional: why language matters in the gender debate – https://theconversation.com/shrill-bossy-emotional-why-language-matters-in-the-gender-debate-158310

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

In a great start towards net zero emissions by 2050, the Victorian Government recently released their Climate Change Strategy, committing to halving greenhouse emissions by 2030.

Victoria’s leadership, alongside commitments from other Australian states and territories, stands in stark contrast to the poor climate performance of our federal government.

But is it enough? Climate scientists are urging Australia to do more to reduce emissions and to do it quicker if we’re going to avert dangerous global warming. In fact, a recent Climate Council report claims achieving net zero emissions by 2050 is at least a decade too late.

We think the Victorian government has the legal mandate to do more. But we also recognise that ambitious climate action at the state level is hindered by a lack of commitment at the federal level.

Using law to drive emissions reductions

Victoria’s new strategy was developed under the Climate Change Act 2017, state legislation requiring the government to set interim emissions reduction targets on the way to net zero by 2050.

It spreads the job of achieving these targets across the economy, with different ministers responsible for pledging emissions reductions actions and reporting on progress over time.

Laws like this are emerging around the world to set targets and hold governments accountable for delivering on them. They’re a key tool to deliver on international commitments under the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to well below 2℃.

Although Australia has set a national target for emissions reduction under the Paris Agreement, it’s widely considered to be inadequate, and there’s currently no framework climate law at the national level. Independent Zali Steggall introduced such a bill in 2020, but the Morrison government hasn’t supported it.

Victoria’s new strategy lacks detail

Victoria’s Climate Change Strategy contains many exciting climate policy announcements, including:

• renewable energy zones and big batteries in the regions

• all government operations including schools and hospitals powered by 100% renewables by 2025

• targets and subsidies for electric vehicle uptake

• commitments to support innovation in hard-to-abate sectors such as agriculture.

It also recognises the need to phase out natural gas and accelerate Victoria’s renewable hydrogen industry.

These policies are designed to reduce emissions while supporting economic growth and job creation. Yet they are scant on detail.

There’s heavy reliance on achieving emissions reductions in the energy sector — arguably, this is the low-hanging fruit. Policies in transport and agriculture are far less developed, with no quantification of targeted emissions reductions to 2030.

This makes it difficult to assess whether the sector pledges will drive enough change to achieve the government’s interim targets (ambitious or otherwise) and support a trajectory to net zero.

It has taken several years to develop the Climate Change Strategy. This makes the lack of detail and the undeveloped nature of some pledges a big concern.

There are also few safeguards in the Climate Change Act to ensure pledges add up to achieving targets, or that ministers across sectors deliver on them. Much depends on the political will of the government of the day.

Why Victoria’s targets aren’t enough

The Victorian Government proposes targets to reduce emissions by 28–33% on 2005 levels by 2025, and by 45–50% on 2005 levels by 2030.

The government claims these targets are ambitious. Compared to current federal government targets, this is true.

Read more: Australia’s states are forging ahead with ambitious emissions reductions. Imagine if they worked together

However, the target ranges are lower than those recommended in 2019 by the Independent Expert Panel, established under the Climate Change Act to advise the government on target setting.

The panel recommended targets of 32–39% by 2025 and 45–60% by 2030 as Victoria’s “fair share” contribution to limiting warming to well below 2℃ in accordance with Paris Agreement goals. And it acknowledged these recommended ranges still wouldn’t be enough to keep warming to 1.5℃, in the context of global efforts.

Ultimately, Victoria’s targets don’t match what scientists are now telling us about the importance of cutting emissions early to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

A pragmatic approach or a missed opportunity?

In setting the targets, the state government has clearly taken a politically pragmatic approach.

The government claims the targets are achievable and suggests they would’ve set more ambitious targets if the federal government made a stronger commitment to climate action.

Yes, the current lack of climate ambition at the federal level in Australia is a very real constraint on progress in some areas such as energy, where a coordinated approach is crucial. But this shouldn’t outweigh aligning to best available science.

State governments have many regulatory, policy and economic levers at their disposal, with opportunities to drive significant change and innovation. And Victoria has already demonstrated strong progress in emissions reduction and renewables in the energy sector, easily meeting and exceeding previous targets.

Under the Climate Change Act, the Victorian Government will need to set new, more ambitious targets in five years.

But waiting five years goes against Victoria’s aim to lead the nation on climate action and contribute fairly to global efforts to mitigate global warming. More ambitious, science-aligned targets now would’ve been a valuable signal for industry and a sign of real climate leadership.

We need stronger laws

Without doubt, the new Climate Change Strategy is a significant step forward on an issue that’s plagued Australian politics for years. Victoria has showed framework climate laws can drive government action on climate change.

Read more: Conservative but green independent MP Zali Steggall could break the government’s climate policy deadlock

But there are also opportunities to bolster the Climate Change Act by aligning targets to science, strengthening legal obligations to drive timely progress, and including an ongoing role for independent experts to advise on target setting and oversee progress.

Finally, it’s important to get on with the job at a federal level.

Zali Steggall’s Climate Change Bill 2020 picks up on best practice climate laws from around the world. It’s also supported by industry groups and investors.

Victoria’s experience suggests it’s surely time for Australia to take this important step.

– ref. A great start, but still not enough: why Victoria’s new climate target isn’t as ambitious as it sounds – https://theconversation.com/a-great-start-but-still-not-enough-why-victorias-new-climate-target-isnt-as-ambitious-as-it-sounds-160364

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Niranjan Casinader, Adjunct Senior Lecturer in Education, Faculty of Education, Monash University

For people who experience racism, the pain sometimes comes as much from words as it does from actions. Indigenous people like Adam Goodes and Latrell Mitchell have spoken of the hurt they feel when they’re subject to racist slurs.

Words and actions used to demean people on the basis of race or colour can be found throughout everyday society and may even be seen as innocuous. Recent government bans on Australian citizens returning from India highlight one way non-white people can be excluded from society.

Read more: It’s not surprising Indian-Australians feel singled out. They have long been subjected to racism

People of Indian or African heritage who were born in Australia or, as in my case, the United Kingdom, often face questions like, “Where are you from?” The answer is regularly met with some disbelief.

To be subject to the continual presumption that skin colour other than white is country-specific and non-Australian is humiliating, no matter how subtle it may be.

Changing how people act in terms of race and colour means changing their attitudes towards difference. Learning about the context in which racial words originated and why they are hurtful is crucial to achieving this.

Why the history of words matters

Education is an important strategy in the campaign against racist behaviour and language. Intercultural understanding is part of the Australian Curriculum and mandated by its “general capabilities” — which must be taught throughout all learning areas where appropriate.

The current curriculum review recommends a reinforcement of this intercultural understanding. The draft changes offer greater emphasis on First Nations perspectives of Australian history and more acknowledgement of Australia’s multicultural society.

Read more: Proposed new curriculum acknowledges First Nations’ view of British ‘invasion’ and a multicultural Australia

But it’s not enough to just passively incorporate such education. Changing children’s attitudes towards race and, in particular, the idea (or irrelevance) of skin colour, can be best done if they learn by experiencing the negative feelings people of different races, and with different skin, colours can feel.

This kind of education is known as “pedagogies of discomfort”. It involves teachers deliberately placing students in situations where they feel uneasy. In this way students can critically engage with difficult topics that are often unacknowledged or silenced in the classroom.

The use of challenging scenarios in education is not new. One example that has been in place for many years is the blue-eyed/brown-eyed experiment. In this scenario, students are told brown-eyed people are superior to blue-eyed people. The brown-eyed children, for a time, experience exclusion.

The roles are then switched so both groups can understand how the “minority” groups feel and how quickly prejudice can form.

More widely, Holocaust education is based on presenting current generations of children with the reality of the Holocaust in images, language and human actions, no matter how graphic.

Read more: It’s not just about the rise in anti-Semitism: why we need real stories for better Holocaust education in Australia

Similarly, understanding the history of words like “nigger” is important to empathise with the way they impact on people of colour.

Children need to learn that the word, which was used by slave owners, is derived from the African region of Niger from where many Africans were transported to the United States as slaves. Rather than calling African people by their names, slave owners used the word to dehumanise them. The word “nigger” is a derogatory term; in effect, it is historically interchangeable with “slave”.

The dilemma for teachers

Teachers find it difficult and troubling to use words like “nigger”, “Abo”, “negro” and “coon” in teaching about racism. Some teachers find it equally difficult to deal with words that might be less confrontational, such as “ape”. Research shows teachers of literature find discussing books with themes of racial or colour prejudice particularly difficult.

Australian research also indicates teachers are likely to only respond to student questions to such sensitive topics, rather than raising the issues themselves. This is partly because of the perceived difficulties about using troubling language.

In my experiences with student teachers, I’ve noticed many are reluctant to even have a discussion about how to employ examples of racist language in teaching about cultural understanding.

If teachers don’t accept the challenge of proactively educating children about racist language, young people may not understand its hurtful impact. And they may take this ignorance through into adulthood.

Teaching sensitively

Confronting topics when teaching about racism must be approached in a controlled environment. There are four main considerations to bear in mind:

1. Timing matters

The learning experience should be planned for a time in the school year when the teacher and students have built up a relationship of mutual trust. A debriefing discussion is essential.

Teaching about sensitive language is nuanced. It is more appropriate for the upper levels of primary school or in secondary school. The teacher knows their students and should be able to judge how these themes should be taught. This includes knowing if there are students in the class who may have been personally affected by the use of racist language or confronting educational scenarios.

2. Prior discussions are necessary

Teachers should discuss their plans with the appropriate school leadership so their learning intentions can be supported publicly, if necessary.

Read more: 9 tips teachers can use when talking about racism

Teachers should also have prior discussions with students who have been affected by racism and their parents. They can inform the students about the nature of the forthcoming lessons and come to an agreement with them as to their participation.

3. Teachers need personal and professional expertise

Research suggests teachers who have learned from personal and professional experiences involving “cultural displacement” are more likely to have developed the kind of expertise required to manage “pedagogies of discomfort” in cultural education. Including cultural pedagogies of discomfort in teacher education can significantly help prepare teachers to engage proactively with racist behaviours as part of their work.

Teaching kids about racism is rarely comfortable, but neither is being exposed to racial abuse. Kids need to face discomfort to truly empathise with how it feels.

– ref. To understand racism, kids must empathise with its impact — and teachers must embrace discomfort – https://theconversation.com/to-understand-racism-kids-must-empathise-with-its-impact-and-teachers-must-embrace-discomfort-144516

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

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg calls this a “pandemic budget” – one to sustain the economy in times that are still uncertain – but it also has a substantial element of an election budget.

That’s not to suggest Prime Minister Scott Morrison will rush to the polls this year. But given the election has to be held by May 21, 2022, this is likely to be the last budget of the cycle. Another could be squeezed in, as in 2019, but it would have to be brought forward from the normal time.

Last year the treasurer said budget repair and debt repayment – otherwise known as the hard and unpleasant decisions – wouldn’t be undertaken before unemployment was “comfortably” below 6%.

Read more: Vital Signs. The RBA wants to cut unemployment, and nothing — not even soaring home prices — will stand in its way

Now unemployment is 5.6% (the March figure) but Frydenberg has shifted the goal posts, so the emphasis remains on recovery, with more difficult reckonings a way off – beyond the election.

Given a grim COVID picture internationally and a long way to go with the vaccine program locally, that is sound – and also politically convenient.

In this budget, the government’s policy approach is firmly aligned with that of the Reserve Bank, with Frydenberg embracing the bank’s objective of pushing unemployment well below pre-pandemic levels, which means to a rate with a 4 in front of it.

Two central spending areas in the budget have been, in effect, imposed on the government.

It had to respond to the damning findings of the aged care royal commission. The fact most Australian COVID deaths occurred in aged care underlined how unfit for purpose the system is. Frydenberg told the ABC there will be more than $10 billion spending on aged care over the forward estimates.

The budget’s “women’s” focus — a sharp contrast to last year — has drivers that go beyond the urgent need to do more to combat violence against women, and other imperatives.

Morrison’s “women problem”, which exploded with the demonstrations following the high-profile allegations of rape, most obviously increased the attention on women in this budget, which will include a women’s statement with initiatives on health, safety, and economic security.

Also, Labor’s decision to make childcare one of its main policy pitches, promising a big spend, reinforced economic considerations pushing the government to produce its own childcare policy (which doesn’t start until July 2022).

Even in the middle of the pandemic last year, few would have thought that by now we’d still have no firm idea when our international borders will re-open.

Morrison is cautious about it, and judges that’s in line with the thinking of the Australians public at the moment. He can read those state electoral results as well as anyone — he knows people put health safety above all else.

“International borders will only open when it is safe to do so”, he said on Facebook at the weekend. “Australians are living like in few countries around the world today.”

On the other hand, the pressure for students to come, migration to resume and people to be allowed to travel must build sooner or later.

The budget’s assumptions will put the reopening in 2022, Frydenberg told the ABC at the weekend.

Read more: Frydenberg promises housing breaks in ‘pandemic budget’

Economist Saul Eslake says while keeping the country closed to the outside world is obviously not sustainable in the long run, it has, in a perverse way, some short run plusses for the government’s economic objectives.

“It’s very easy to get unemployment down when the border is closed. You only need to create 5000 new jobs a month to prevent unemployment rising.

“Previously [with migrants coming] you needed 16,000 new jobs a month. Currently we’re creating 60,000 a month,” Eslake says.

Migrants stimulate growth. But so does having Australians unable to travel overseas, Eslake says. They can only spend domestically – or save – the $55 billion they would normally be spending abroad. They appear to be spending quite a deal of it on things like home equipment, furnishings, renovations, cars, and even clothing.

While fiscal repair is formally delayed, the budget will show it is gradually, to a degree, repairing itself.

The quicker-than-expected bounce back of the labour market, which reduces welfare costs and boosts tax revenue, and the similar rebound in corporate profits, help the bottom line. Frydenberg says that, despite JobKeeper coming to an end, 105,000 people came off income support in April. High iron ore prices are also a godsend to revenue.

Chris Richardson, from Deloitte Access Economics, has forecast a deficit for this financial year of about $167 billion, compared with the December budget update figure of $198 billion. For 2021-22 , the Deloitte forecast is a deficit of about $87 billion compared with the update’s forecast of $108 billion.

Still, a balanced budget will be some years off, Richardson says.

He gives four reasons: substantial structural spending on aged care, mental health, childcare, disability and the like; low wage and price inflation (inflation helps budgets); missing migrants; and interest payments on debt (helped by low interest rates but still significant).

On what we know, the budget will be safe rather than adventurous. And while budgets can always unexpectedly trip over their own feet, and inevitably have plenty of critics, this will be the sort of benign one that doesn’t go out of its way to hurt or offend voters.

– ref. View from The Hill: a budget for a pandemic, with next year’s election in mind – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-a-budget-for-a-pandemic-with-next-years-election-in-mind-160594

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

Josh Frydenberg says he will bring down a “pandemic budget” on Tuesday, warning that despite Australia’s strong recovery, there is “still a great deal of uncertainty out there”.

The Treasurer points to new strains of the coronavirus, the COVID crisis raging in India, and local lockdowns. “We can’t take for granted the strong economic recovery we’ve seen. We’ve got to lock in those gains,” he said on Friday, speaking to The Conversation.

Touted as big spending, the budget will contain, besides a large reform package for aged care, significant outlays on mental health.

In measures on housing, it will increase from $30,000 to $50,000 the maximum amount of voluntary contributions aspiring home buyers can take from the First Home Super Saver Scheme.

This scheme allows people to make voluntary contributions to superannuation to save for their first home.

At present these contributions are capped at $15,000 a year and $30,000 in total.

With the rise in house prices, the current cap on the amount that can be released is a diminishing proportion of the deposit needed.

There will also be another 10,000 places added to the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, which can only be used for new housing. This means-tested measure allows first home buyers to build a new home or buy a newly-built one with a deposit of as little as 5%.

The budget will have an “improved bottom line, particularly in 2021”, compared with the earlier forecasts, Frydenberg confirmed.

This will be thanks in large part to a stronger-than-expected labour market as well as high iron ore prices.

The aim of pushing unemployment down below 5% will be a central feature of the budget.

“There’s a historic opportunity to drive the unemployment rate back to where it was pre pandemic and even lower,” Frydenberg said.

“And that’s why in this budget, you’ll see significant investments in energy, infrastructure, skills, the digital economy and lower taxes. Strengthening our economy will lead to a stronger budget position.”

Frydenberg said the dire predictions about what would happen with the end of JobKeeper in late March had not been fulfilled. In fact fewer people had been on income support after JobKeeper ended.

“And what you’ll see is that the budget improves as a result of the labour market strength, even more so than it does as a result of the higher iron ore price, because you get lower welfare payments and you get more tax revenue coming in from people at work.”

The budget will push out the assumptions about when Australia will reopen its international border. Last October’s budget assumed the border closure easing by the latter part of this year.

– ref. Frydenberg promises housing breaks in ‘pandemic budget’ – https://theconversation.com/frydenberg-promises-housing-breaks-in-pandemic-budget-160561

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

Josh Frydenberg says he will bring down a “pandemic budget” on Tuesday, warning that despite Australia’s strong recovery, there is “still a great deal of uncertainty out there”.

The Treasurer points to new strains of the coronavirus, the COVID crisis raging in India, and local lockdowns. “We can’t take for granted the strong economic recovery we’ve seen. We’ve got to lock in those gains,” he said on Friday, speaking to The Conversation.

Touted as big spending, the budget will contain, besides a large reform package for aged care, significant outlays on mental health.

In measures on housing, it will increase from $30,000 to $50,000 the maximum amount of voluntary contributions aspiring home buyers can take from the First Home Super Saver Scheme.

This scheme allows people to make voluntary contributions to superannuation to save for their first home.

At present these contributions are capped at $15,000 a year and $30,000 in total.

With the rise in house prices, the current cap on the amount that can be released is a diminishing proportion of the deposit needed.

There will also be another 10,000 places added to the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, which can only be used for new housing. This means-tested measure allows first home buyers to build a new home or buy a newly-built one with a deposit of as little as 5%.

The budget will have an “improved bottom line, particularly in 2021”, compared with the earlier forecasts, Frydenberg confirmed.

This will be thanks in large part to a stronger-than-expected labour market as well as high iron ore prices.

The aim of pushing unemployment down below 5% will be a central feature of the budget.

“There’s a historic opportunity to drive the unemployment rate back to where it was pre pandemic and even lower,” Frydenberg said.

“And that’s why in this budget, you’ll see significant investments in energy, infrastructure, skills, the digital economy and lower taxes. Strengthening our economy will lead to a stronger budget position.”

Frydenberg said the dire predictions about what would happen with the end of JobKeeper in late March had not been fulfilled. In fact fewer people had been on income support after JobKeeper ended.

“And what you’ll see is that the budget improves as a result of the labour market strength, even more so than it does as a result of the higher iron ore price, because you get lower welfare payments and you get more tax revenue coming in from people at work.”

The budget will push out the assumptions about when Australia will reopen its international border. Last October’s budget assumed the border closure easing by the latter part of this year.

– ref. Frydenberg says this will be a ‘pandemic budget’ to secure the recovery’ – https://theconversation.com/frydenberg-says-this-will-be-a-pandemic-budget-to-secure-the-recovery-160561

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

Ahead of the definitive official read of the economy from the treasury in the budget on Tuesday, the Reserve Bank has given us two special insights into its own thinking in the space of 14 hours.

They suggest that (first) the economy is improving, and (second) the bank is not going to let up on driving that improvement, not for anything — including concern about climbing home prices — until it has pushed unemployment down and wage growth back up to where it believes it should be.

The first insight was in Deputy Governor Guy Debelle’s Shann Memorial Lecture on Thursday night. The second was in Friday’s Statement on Monetary Policy

Growth without inflation

The statement emphasised that the although the bank expects economic growth to bounce back fairly strongly, getting inflation back within the bank’s 2-3% target band and getting wages growth up will take much longer

As the statement put it:

despite the stronger outlook for output and the labour market, inflation and wages growth are expected to remain low, picking up only gradually.

On one measure just 1.1%, the lowest on record, underlying inflation is to climb to 1.5% over the course of 2021 before gradually climbing to close to 2% by mid 2023.

It’s well short of the bank’s target of 2-3% which is only likely to be achieved with much higher wages growth driven by much deeper inroads into unemployment.

Read more: Josh Frydenberg has the opportunity to transform Australia, permanently lowering unemployment

Those inroads will be easier to achieve if COVID is firmly under control.

The bank explicitly linked its forecasts of an improving economy to an assumption that Australia’s vaccine rollout accelerates in the second half of the year. It could have added to that (but didn’t) the importance of getting purpose-built quarantine facilities up and running.

Its baseline forecast has economic growth of 4% in the year to June 2022 and 3% in the year to June 2023.

But there is a fairly wide range around its downside and upside scenarios.

Economic growth might be as low as 2.5% or as high as 5% in 2022 and as low as 2% and as high as 3% in 2023.

Similarly, the unemployment forecast is somewhere between 4.25% and 5.25% by June 2022 and in a very wide range of 3.75% and 5.5% by June 2023.

These forecasts produce below-target inflation forecasts of between 1.5% and 2% in June 2022 and 1.5% to 2.25% in June 2023.

What the bank will do to help drive the upside scenario, and what else will need to happen, was laid out by Debelle in Thursday night’s Shann Memorial Lecture.

The Debelle Doctrine

Adjectives like “seminal” are bandied about liberally these days, but for me, Debelle’s speech on Monetary Policy During COVID was a masterpiece.

He began by outlining the suite of measures the bank introduced from the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020. They involved

• cutting the cash rate to a record low of 0.25% and then cutting it again to 0.1%

• undertaking to not increase the cash rate target until the bank is confident that inflation will be sustainably within the 2–3% target band

• cutting the rate paid on private banks’ exchange settlement balances with the bank to 0.1% and then to 0.0%

• buying enough three-year government bonds to target a yield of 0.25%, later 0.1%

• guaranteeing to buy $5 billion of five-year and ten-year state and Commonwealth week-in week-out whatever the economic circumstances

• buying bonds as needed to address the “dysfunction” in the bond market

• offering banks cheap lending finance through a new term funding facility

• ensuring that the financial system has sufficient liquidity

Debelle methodically described how each of these measures are likely to flow through into economic activity.

Read more: Exclusive. Top economists back budget push for an unemployment rate beginning with ‘4’

That is, he articulated what economists call the “transmission mechanism” — how the measures work.

As an example, the following chart he provided summarises the transmission mechanism for bond purchases.

And then he delivered the setup for the punchline.

The tools the bank is using might affect all sorts of things, including house prices. But the bank plans to focus on just one thing — getting unemployment down until it gets inflation back up to its target band.

Then the punchline itself: the bank will do this even if it leads to higher house prices

there are a number of tools that can be used to address the issue. But I do not think that monetary policy is one of the tools. Monetary policy is focussed on supporting the economic recovery and achieving its goals in terms of employment and inflation

It was important to remember that while housing prices may not rise as fast without low interest rates, unemployment would definitely be materially higher without low interest rates.

Unemployment has serious consequences.

What it all means

The Debelle Doctrine is that the bank will focus on a narrow range of objectives, and will not be timid about using the tools in its arsenal to achieve them.

This may not be a seismic shift, but it is significant.

It gives the bank a much clearer focus; it gives others a much better way to judge how it is performing; and it makes clear that if the government is concerned about rising house prices, it’ll have to do something itself (perhaps by tightening the tax rules governing capital gains and negative gearing).

Debelle produced a clear, precise, and authoritative statement of what the Reserve Bank can, should, and will do.

In a word, it was gubernatorial.

– ref. Vital Signs. The RBA wants to cut unemployment, and nothing — not even soaring home prices — will stand in its way – https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-the-rba-wants-to-cut-unemployment-and-nothing-not-even-soaring-home-prices-will-stand-in-its-way-160171

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liza-Mare Syron, Indigenous Scientia Senior Lecturer, UNSW

Review: Dogged, directed by Declan Greene. Griffin Theatre Company in association with Force Majeure.

Dingo (Sandy Greenwood, a Gumbaynggirr, Dunghutti and Bundjalung actor) stands facing the audience, dressed in a muddied tracksuit with a dingo-like mask. Her opening speech signals concern; a longing for her lost pups.

We then meet Woman (Blazey Best). Woman is of good Scottish heritage, the daughter of homesteaders and sheep graziers. She is out hunting for wild dogs. Woman is preparing a kill, ripping out a souvenir from a bloodied carcass. Her companion is Dog (Anthony Yangoyan), eager for his own reward, a taste of the kill.

In the search for her lost pups, Dingo’s path eventually intersects with Woman and Dog. Why doesn’t Woman kill Dingo? Because she is overcome by the beauty of this ancient creature and invites the Dingo to share in their spoils. Together the three characters form an unusual trio. But around them lurks a malevolent presence: a pack of men on the hunt with their own dogs.

Dogged is unruly, both in its form and content. A feminist Wake in Fright, the play is a tale of two women: one dingo and one human.

Both share a love of country.

But beware: this is not a love story.

Histories in plain sight

Dogged is co-written by Catherine Ryan and Yorta Yorta/Gunaikurnai playwright Andrea James. James describes it as “a collaboration between First Nations and Settler artists”.

The play seeks to tell both sides of the Australian story, with ideas of territory, guilt and culpability.

Set designers Renée Mulder and mural artist Peter Waples-Crowe have created an imagined isolated bush environment from an assemblage of black synthetic materials highlighted with orange brushed flames.

The ceiling is coated in low hanging plastic bags, setting a gloomy tone. The grotto-like stage establishes the opening scene of a dingo’s lair.

The trio settle in and Woman falls asleep. But Dingo can’t stay. Not while her pups are out there somewhere alone. She runs off in search of them, Dog follows. Woman wakes to their absence, and chases screaming after them. Out there in the wild, they eventually all fall foul of the evil snares set by the surrounding male hunting expedition.

It does not end well.

Now just two, hiding in the bush, Woman and Dingo look for comfort. One searches for home: to her family, the farm, and her childhood memories. Dingo, on the other hand, only sees the Brabralung people who once lived where the Woman’s farm now sits.

Dingo tells Woman the tale of the violent history of the area and the injustices perpetrated by the her ancestors against the Brabralung people. Woman can hear her. She doesn’t know why, or how, but she listens. It is a story Woman doesn’t want to believe, or can’t.

In presenting two views of the one world, Dogged asks: will settler Australians ever see the world in the same way as the original inhabitants of the country do? Will our histories remain in the dark, hidden in a cave of ignorance, existing in the shadows? Like Dingo, we see only glimpses of her truth as she sneaks by, and we ask, was that real?

The Australian wilds

The Griffin production was developed in association with Force Majeure, one of Australia’s foremost dance theatre companies, which offers the animal performances a compelling physical presence. Kirk Page’s movement direction added depth to the corporal vocabularies of these dogs. In particular, some of the stronger canine postures reminded me of the Minimba Dingo dance.

Greenwood’s performance as Dingo is consistent and engaging throughout the performance, never wavering from of her hunger or wildness. Yangoyan gives us a polished embodied depiction of Woman’s faithful and loving companion Dog, and also plays a very frightening wild hunting dog in service of the male hunting pack.

As Woman, Best seemed a bit erratic on opening night compared to the anchored performances of her canine counterparts who are given a voice in the play. Perhaps the equal weight given to the canine and human characters creates an uneasy role for Best to play.

Dogged reminds us when you venture outside of the comforts of the home, there you will encounter the beauty and truth of this land, its people and nature. Outside the confines of modernity lurk the terrors of the past.

From a distance you may see farms and swimming holes, but we see these sites differently.

Step into the wild if you dare.

Dogged is at Griffin Theatre Company until June 5.

– ref. Australia’s settler and First Nations histories meet in the wild of the bush in Dogged – https://theconversation.com/australias-settler-and-first-nations-histories-meet-in-the-wild-of-the-bush-in-dogged-160522

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

Yesterday, the US Biden administration declared its support for waiving intellectual property rights, including patents, for COVID-19 vaccines.

This decision represents a huge breakthrough in discussions at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) that have been deadlocked for more than six months.

Shortly afterwards, New Zealand’s trade minister Damien O’Connor announced his country’s support on Twitter, quickly followed by Canada’s expression of support for the proposal.

Other nations that have so far resisted pressure to support the waiver are likely to fall like dominoes in the wake of the US in coming days.

Today, Australia’s trade minister Dan Tehan said the waiver “will be an important part of trying to get a resolution in the World Trade Organisation”, but it remains unclear whether Australia has unequivocally thrown its support behind the proposal.

Waiving intellectual property rights is a necessary first step to scaling up the global supply of COVID-19 vaccines and correcting worsening inequities in access to these desperately needed products.

A decision by Australia to support the waiver would indicate we value human lives more than pharmaceutical industry profits, and are committed to bringing the pandemic to an end globally.

Read more: Over 700 health experts are calling for urgent action to expand global production of COVID vaccines

Why do we need to waive intellectual property rights?

The exclusive rights to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines are currently held by a small number of companies that control the global supply. This is despite the huge amounts of public funding funnelled into their development.

Some of these companies have entered into licensing arrangements with other manufacturers to increase production, such as AstraZeneca’s contracts allowing CSL in Australia and the Serum Institute of India to make its vaccine.

But most have not. And no pharmaceutical company has taken steps to share its intellectual property, know-how, and technology through the COVID-19 Technology Access Pool, a platform set up by the World Health Organisation (WHO) for this purpose almost a year ago.

The exclusive rights held by these companies are governed by the WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, commonly known as “TRIPS”. WTO members are required by TRIPS to provide patent terms of at least 20 years, along with other types of intellectual property protection, such as protection of trade secrets.

Suspending patents and other intellectual property rights relevant to pharmaceuticals will remove legal barriers, allowing vaccine developers to enter the market more quickly without worrying about the prospect of litigation over potential infringements of intellectual property rights.

It will also mean vaccines manufactured in one country can be exported to others without having to navigate a legal maze.

What’s been happening at the WTO?

India and South Africa first put a proposal to the WTO in October 2020 for a waiver of certain intellectual property provisions in TRIPS for COVID-19 medical products for the duration of the pandemic. As envisaged by its sponsors, the waiver would apply to vaccines along with other medical products to fight the pandemic such as treatments, diagnostic tests and medical equipment.

Over the ensuing six months, more than 100 of the WTO’s 164 members moved to support the TRIPS waiver proposal.

But several countries have prevented negotiations from moving forward, including the US, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Japan, Brazil, Norway and Australia. If Australia now adds its wholehearted support to the US proposal for a waiver for vaccines, this could help shift the dynamics at the WTO further towards a resolution.

Meanwhile, the pandemic has been accelerating and inequities in vaccine access have been worsening. The director-general of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, noted in April that one in four people in rich countries had been given a vaccine dose, but only one in around 500 in low-income countries had received a dose.

It has become increasingly clear that unless governments take urgent action, the global supply of vaccines won’t be adequate to meet demand for a long time to come. COVAX, the global program for equitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, has so far been able to deliver only 54 million of the two billion vaccine doses it planned to distribute by the end of 2021.

Read more: The best hope for fairly distributing COVID-19 vaccines globally is at risk of failing. Here’s how to save it

Why is the US about-face so significant?

Historically, the US has been the world’s staunchest advocate for intellectual property rights. It has demanded its trading partners provide high levels of protection for IP in exchange for access to US markets, and has named and shamed countries it sees as providing insufficient IP protection, singling them out for trade sanctions.

The change in the US position signals how clearly the success of every country in fighting the pandemic depends on vaccinating the whole world. The risk of variants emerging in areas of uncontrolled transmission means no country can gain control of the situation just by vaccinating its own population.

The US move will give confidence to other countries to support the waiver and will isolate any countries that continue to oppose it.

Does the US support for the waiver go far enough?

The US has agreed to support a waiver only for vaccines. This is short-sighted. COVID-19 treatments could become a more important part of the medical toolkit for fighting the pandemic further down the track — as treatments called “antiretrovirals” have proved crucial to reigning in the spread of HIV. And many countries are lacking sufficient diagnostic tests, which are critical for getting outbreaks under control.

The waiver also isn’t enough on its own: it’s necessary but not sufficient. Governments will need to incentivise pharmaceutical companies — or if they continue to drag their feet, force them — to share their knowledge of manufacturing processes and their technology through initiatives like the WHO Technology Access Pool.

And governments will need to invest in building production capacity in low- and middle-income countries and find solutions to problems like shortages of raw ingredients, rather than relying on the market to solve these structural problems.

What needs to happen next?

Given the consensus-based decision-making process at the WTO, the TRIPS waiver will still need to win the support of the remaining countries standing in the way.

Gaining the EU’s support will probably be the most difficult battle. The EU, where a large proportion of the world’s pharmaceutical companies are headquartered, has so far emphasised donations of vaccines as the way out of the pandemic. But European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has at least signalled the EU’s willingness to discuss the US proposal.

Once consensus is reached, it will be important for the negotiations to be transparent, with draft texts shared publicly, as the benefits that flow from the waiver will rely on the detail of its wording.

Negotiations will also need to progress at speed. There have been millions of deaths from COVID-19 since the proposal was first tabled six months ago. The world can’t afford another long wait.

– ref. US support for waiving COVID vaccine intellectual property is a huge step. Australia must follow – https://theconversation.com/us-support-for-waiving-covid-vaccine-intellectual-property-is-a-huge-step-australia-must-follow-160443

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

Michelle Grattan discusses the week in politics with University of Canberra Associate Professor Caroline Fisher.

This week the pair discuss India’s second coronavirus wave – and the Australian citizens stranded there. Also discussed is the defence review into the 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin by Chinese company Landbridge, and how it will be viewed in light of the Foreign Relations Act, recently used to tear up the “Belt and Road” agreement between the Victoria and Chinese governments. Lastly, Michelle provides insight into what we can expect from next week’s budget.

– ref. VIDEO: Michelle Grattan on the Port of Darwin, India’s second wave, and next week’s budget – https://theconversation.com/video-michelle-grattan-on-the-port-of-darwin-indias-second-wave-and-next-weeks-budget-160533

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Oliver Griffith, Lecturer, Macquarie University

With Mother’s Day around the corner, it’s a good opportunity to ask what being a mother looks like across the animal kingdom. Most of us have a solid concept of human motherhood, but in nature maternal care comes in many forms.

Let’s take a closer look at the diversity of ways animals provide care, to give young the best chance of success.

The power of the placenta

For many species, life begins in the womb. One of the most significant ways mothers support their young before birth is via a placenta, the temporary organ that grows inside the uterus to support a fetus. Placentas not only act as the interface between mother and baby, but can provide all fetal nutrition, allow for exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide with the mother, and even remove the fetus’s waste.

Read more: Using the placenta to understand how complex organs evolve

While our close relatives (eutherian or placental mammals) are known for having a placenta, we are not unique in having one. In fact, the placenta has evolved more than 100 times independently in the animal kingdom!

Other placental species include some reptiles such as the blue-tongued lizard, and many sharks including the Australian sharpnose. Even marsupials have a placenta, although it typically only supports young for a few days.

Marsupial mothers

Outside the womb, the queens of maternal care are marsupials such as kangaroos, koalas and Tasmanian devils. Marsupial mothers provide food and protection from predators through a prolonged period of lactation inside the pouch.

In marsupials, pregnancy is relatively short but young spend a long time in the pouch afterwards. For example, tammar wallabies’ pregnancy can be as short as four weeks, but mothers can provide milk to their young in the pouch for almost a year. During this time the babies increase in weight 2,000-fold. In comparison, human infants increase in weight threefold during their first year of life.

Egg-layers

In contrast to animals that develop a placenta, egg-laying animals typically lay nutrient-rich eggs to support development. Parents of some species consider their job done after the eggs are laid, but others continue to care for their young by protecting the eggs and providing food once the babies hatch.

Some egg-laying sharks continue to provide care after birth. Port Jackson sharks carry their eggs in their mouths until they find a protected rock crevice to hide them in.

In birds, mothers provide warmth and protection while incubating their eggs. In some bird species such as hummingbirds, only the mother provides care after birth. However, in other cases, such as penguins, it’s a team effort with mothers and fathers providing food and protection to their offspring.

For some, it takes a village

For some animals, motherhood extends beyond looking after your own children. Like humans, orcas (killer whales) forgo the potential to reproduce later in life by going through menopause.

Menopause may prevent them from raising any more children, but it allows them to divert their efforts to raising the next generation by looking after their grandchildren.

Many animals need even more support, so some species form societies where the whole community will care for the young, rather than just the parents. Meerkats live in groups of up to 30 individuals where parental duties are shared.

Younger females will “babysit” the pups while the rest of the mob forage for food, sometimes having to put their own lives in danger to protect the younger members of the group.

Within elephant herds, the mothers provide milk for their babies but other members of the herd (known as doulas, they can be either male or female) provide encouragement and physical support to both the mother and the growing calves. This same behaviour is seen in dolphins, as well as in several primates including chimpanzees and gorillas.

In a few species, it is the father that provides the most care for offspring. For example, seahorses exhibit male pregnancy, providing nutrition and protection from predators while inside his pouch. For a seahorse mother, her care responsibilities end once she has deposited her eggs into the male’s pouch.

If we can learn anything from the animal kingdom, it’s that motherhood comes in many forms.

– ref. From baby blue-tongues to elephant doulas: motherhood across the animal kingdom – https://theconversation.com/from-baby-blue-tongues-to-elephant-doulas-motherhood-across-the-animal-kingdom-160258

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Taylor, Early Career Research Leader, Emerging Viruses, Inflammation and Therapeutics Group, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University

A COVID-19 vaccine from French company Valneva has yet to complete clinical trials. But it has caught the eye of governments in the UK, Europe and Australia.

One of the vaccine’s main selling points is its apparent ability to mount a more general immune response against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, rather than rely on the spike protein to do this.

This means the vaccine is more likely to be effective against the type of virus variants we’ve already seen emerging, and may emerge in the future. Some reports describe it as “variant proof”.

The hope is vaccines using this technology would be able to provide protection for longer, rather than keep being reformulated to get ahead of these new variants.

How does it work?

Valneva’s vaccine, called VLA2001, is based on tried and tested vaccine technology. It’s the technology used in the vaccine against poliovirus and in some types of flu vaccines. And the company already has a commercially available Japanese encephalitis vaccine based on the same technology.

VLA2001 uses an inactivated version of the whole virus, which cannot replicate or cause disease.

The virus is inactivated using a chemical called beta-propiolactone or BPL. This is widely used to inactivate other viruses for vaccines. It was even used to make experimental versions of vaccines against SARS-CoV, the virus that caused SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome).

This type of inactivation is expected to preserve the structure of the viral proteins, as they would occur in nature. This means the immune system will be presented with something similar to what occurs naturally, and mount a strong immune response.

Read more: From adenoviruses to RNA: the pros and cons of different COVID vaccine technologies

After being inactivated, the vaccine would be highly purified. Then, an adjuvant (an immune stimulant) is added to induce a strong immune response.

VLA2001 isn’t the first inactivated vaccine against COVID-19. Leading COVID-19 inactivated vaccines, such as those developed by Sinopharm and Bharat Biotech, have been approved for use in China and received emergency approval in other countries, including India.

However, VLA2001 is the only COVID-19 vaccine candidate using whole inactivated virus in clinical trials in the UK and in mainland Europe.

What are the benefits we know so far?

This approach to vaccine development presents the immune system with all of the structural components of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, not just the spike protein, as many other COVID-19 vaccines do.

So Valneva’s vaccine is thought to produce a more broadly protective immune response. That is, antibodies and cells of the immune system are able to recognise and neutralise more pieces of the virus than just the spike protein.

As a result, Valneva’s vaccine could be more effective at tackling emerging COVID-19 virus variants and, if approved, play a useful role as a booster vaccine.

Valneva’s vaccine can be stored at standard cold-chain conditions (2-8℃) and is expected to be given as two shots.

Read more: UK, South African, Brazilian: a virologist explains each COVID variant and what they mean for the pandemic

How about results from clinical trials?

According to the company, no safety concerns or serious adverse events were associated with VLA2001 in early-stage clinical trials.

VLA2001 was given as a low, medium or high dose in these trials with all participants in the high-dose group generating antibodies to the virus spike protein.

One measure of immune response in the high-dose group after completing the two doses indicated antibody levels were, after two weeks, at least as high as those seen in patients naturally infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Interestingly, VLA2001 induced immune responses against a number of virus proteins (including the spike protein) across all participants, an encouraging sign the vaccine can provide broad protection against COVID-19.

The vaccine has since advanced to phase 3 clinical trials in the UK. The trial, which started in April 2021, will compare its safety and efficacy with the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The phase 3 trial is expected to be completed by the northern hemisphere’s autumn this year. And if successful, would be submitted for regulatory approval after that.

Read more: A single vaccine to beat all coronaviruses sounds impossible. But scientists are already working on one

Who’s interested?

Despite phase 3 clinical trials only just starting, the UK government has pre-ordered more than 100 million doses of the vaccine from Valneva, with the option of buying more down the track. If trials prove successful and pass regulatory approval, this means the vaccine could be used as a booster in time for this year’s northern hemisphere’s winter.

Australia has confirmed it’s also in talks with Valeneva about importing the vaccine. Some countries in Europe are also reportedly keen to strike a deal.

As new cases of COVID-19 increase globally, we’ll continue to see new viral variants emerge that threaten to escape the protection existing vaccines offer.

Already, we are seeing vaccines from companies such as Moderna and Novavax begin to reformulate their spike protein-based vaccines to get ahead of emerging variants.

So Valneva’s vaccine, with the potential to elicit a more broadly protective immune response, may prove to be a useful tool to combat the rise of the virus and its mutations. However, whether the vaccine is really “variant proof” or merely less affected by emerging variants remains to be seen.

– ref. What’s the Valneva COVID-19 vaccine, the French shot that’s supposed to be ‘variant proof’? – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-valneva-covid-19-vaccine-the-french-shot-thats-supposed-to-be-variant-proof-160345

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Laurenceson, Director and Professor, Australia-China Relations Institute (ACRI), University of Technology Sydney

After Australia’s foreign minister Marise Payne cancelled the Victorian state government’s memorandum of understanding to participate in China’s “Belt and Road” global infrastructure initiative a fortnight ago, she said she didn’t expect retaliation from Beijing.

That was always a hopeful message for a domestic audience.

Yesterday the Chinese government “indefinitely suspended all activities” with Australia under a framework called the China-Australia Strategic Economic Dialogue. China’s foreign ministry also warned Australia “not to walk further on the wrong path”.

The Chinese embassy had warned Payne’s “unreasonable and provocative” decision was “bound to bring further damage to bilateral relations”. It was right.

Why would China let Australia off the hook? It hasn’t shied away from retaliating against actions by the United States. Nor from punishing Australia by restricting imports of barley, beef, lobsters, wine and wood (though not iron ore).

If this is the full extent of the retaliation, though, the feeling in Canberra will be one of relief. The annual dialogue has been on ice since 2017. So this suspension doesn’t change that much.

It is, however, an important symbolic action. It will further weaken important connections between bureaucrats. It sends a strong diplomatic signal that China is prepared to escalate.

Origins of the strategic economic dialogue

The first China-Australia Strategic Economic Dialogue was in June 2014. It involved talks between Australia’s treasurer and trade minister and the chairman of China’s peak economic development and planning agency, the National Development and Reform Commission.

Holding these annual talks was part of a package of closer relations the Gillard government secured with the Chinese government in 2013. That package also included an annual meeting between the two nations’ respective prime ministers – something China formally had only with Britain, Germany, Russia and the European Union.

Read more: An all-out trade war with China would cost Australia 6% of GDP

By the time of the first dialogue (in Beijing) Tony Abbott was prime minister. Still, the talks were successful enough for Australia and China to agree in November 2014 to call their relationship a “Comprehensive Strategic Partnership”.

In June 2015 the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA) was finally signed after more than a decade of negotiations. In December 2015 Australia became a founding member of the China-led Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, committing US$738 million in capital to be the sixth-largest shareholder.

But by mid-2016 the bilateral political relationship was going downhill. The last strategic economic dialogue was in September 2017.

This is why China’s announcement yesterday has been described an “act of pure symbolism”, and even a sign China has “run out of ammunition” after its barrage of trade disruptions over the past year.

But it would also be a mistake to discount the importance of the symbolism.

Symbolism matters

In formally suspending the dialogue, Beijing has signalled its preparedness to suspend talks not just between politicians but also the bureaucrats who do the vast bulk of the work that makes bilateral relationships meaningful. This is why China’s state media has emphasised that suspension includes all activities between the National Development and Reform Commission and “relevant Australian ministries”.

To be clear, Australia’s diplomatic officials aren’t being prevented from seeing their Chinese counterparts, and bureacratic links have been strained since 2017. But the Treasury representative housed at the Australian embassy may now find meetings even harder to secure, if not impossible.

As Deakin University’s Chengxin Pan notes, “symbolism about something negative matters greatly in international relations”.

Symbolism, after all, was what motivated the Australian government to tear up Victoria’s Belt and Road Initiative agreement with China.

The deal was not legally binding and didn’t commit the Victorian government to anything. But the federal government wanted to send a message: it would do this and not be deterred by the threat of Chinese retaliation. It was a signal to Beijing that Canberra was not for turning.

Read more: Why scrap Victoria’s ‘meaningless’ Belt and Road deal? Because it sends a powerful message to Beijing

Beijing has now sent a message in return: Canberra shouldn’t expect to get off scot-free.

China might not suspend its demand for Australian iron ore and natural gas. But it could further disrupt imports such as dairy products, or flows of students and tourists as borders reopen – a threat made by ambassador Cheng Jingye a year ago. Such messages from government officials also send strong cues influencing Chinese companies and consumers.

Nor is the “nuclear option” – killing ChAFTA – off the table.

Another symbolic move – for example, a joint leaders’ statement reaffirming the importance of the comprehensive partnership – may be the the best way to turn things around.

But with both sides having spent the past year doubling down and hardening positions, that prospect seems remote.

– ref. China retaliates: suspending its Strategic Economic Dialogue with Australia is symbolic, but still a big deal – https://theconversation.com/china-retaliates-suspending-its-strategic-economic-dialogue-with-australia-is-symbolic-but-still-a-big-deal-160452

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martien Lubberink, Associate Professor of Economics, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Set against the backdrop of an economy healing from 2020’s annus horribilis, this week’s Financial Stability Report (FSR) from the Reserve Bank (RBNZ) was cautiously reassuring: the country’s financial system is sound, though vulnerabilities remain.

Banks have managed to increase their capital buffers, allowing them to better withstand losses on loans and mortgages, which has protected the financial system from the pandemic’s economic fallout. With profits stabilising, the outlook for New Zealand’s banks is bound to improve further.

On the other hand, the report expresses concern about increasing house prices and the strong growth of mortgage lending. Specifically, the RBNZ worries about lending to financially vulnerable first-time buyers and highly indebted borrowers.

RBNZ Deputy Governor Geoff Bascand said “risks are building up” and didn’t rule out a sharp correction in the housing market. Seemingly setting the stage for more initiatives to tame a hot housing market, he said “further resilience is needed”.

So, the FSR is a little two-faced. By comparing the present to the immediate past, it creates the impression all is well because important indicators of bank health have improved.

But the report is much less certain about the future. With the words “vulnerability” and “vulnerabilities” mentioned about 20 times in its 60 pages, the reader can be forgiven for thinking New Zealand’s financial system maybe isn’t that sound at all.

Speculation and confusion

The financial press reflects these concerns. One commentator recently warned about the dangers of extended credit growth in the hot housing market and called for lending restrictions.

Another feared the “amount of money being pumped purely into property, not any other assets, comes with huge financial stability risks”.

The trouble is, without proper empirical evidence, these worries are speculative at best, and certainly confusing. Unsupported claims about vulnerability in the banking system also enable officials to experiment with policies that haven’t proved their effectiveness.

A case in point is the proposed introduction of a debt-to-income tool (DTI), which would complement the current loan-to-value restrictions. According to the RBNZ, this would be the best option for supporting financial stability and sustainable house prices over the medium term.

Unfortunately, at the FSR press conference the RBNZ couldn’t clearly explain details of the DTI, nor could it define the concept of sustainable house prices over the medium term.

Politicians may respond to the confusion by promoting seemingly popular policies, but which might not be in the long-term public interest. For instance, the Green Party has called for rent controls, despite ample evidence from economists they’re not necessarily effective.

Let’s see the stress test results

Which brings us to the importance of stress-testing banks — more importantly, publishing individual bank stress test results, rather than the aggregated and anonymised data the RBNZ traditionally presents.

Such data are not helpful for investors and depositors because this approach hides weak banks that, if they were to fail, could put the financial system as a whole at risk.

Before the Global Financial Crisis, it was standard practice to keep stress test results confidential. However, the US Federal Reserve in 2009 took the then highly unusual step of publicly reporting its stress test findings.

It did this because it believed the disclosure would restore confidence in US banks at a time of great uncertainty. And it worked. Not long after the results were published, banks sprang into action and increased their capital buffers without the need for the government to step in.

Without doubt, the 2009 US stress test contributed to the recovery of the American financial system.

Read more: Without the right financial strategies, NZ’s climate change efforts will remain unfinished business

The European Banking Authority (EBA) learned about stress testing the hard way. It too started testing banks from 2009 on, but initially published only anonymised results.

Unfortunately, shortly after the publication of the results, two Irish banks failed, despite being given a clean bill of health. In 2011, Belgian bank Dexia failed after a good test result.

The EBA responded vigorously, going all out to improve stress test transparency. Since 2011 it has published all relevant data on stress testing: scenarios, time lines and individual bank results. This was as much to restore confidence in the EBA itself as to inform investors and depositors about the resilience of the European banking system.

Transparency is good for everyone

Two important lessons can be learned from the US and European experiences.

First, the publication of individual stress test results allows investors and depositors to see for themselves how resilient the banking system is. It nips unfounded speculation in the bud. This is important because, at the moment, the RBNZ and financial press feed speculative narratives about vulnerabilities in the New Zealand financial system.

Read more: Hostage to fortune: why Westpac could struggle to find the right buyer for its NZ subsidiary

Second, it contributes to the credibility of the RBNZ as a banking supervisor, as well as as to the quality of the stress test. Interested parties will comment on what is published, and this will help improve the stress test, which benefits us all.

As a bank supervisor that relies very much on market discipline and transparency, the RBNZ should consider expediting the publication of updated individual bank stress test results. It is clearly in the public interest, and it would end unfounded speculation about the vulnerability of New Zealand’s banking system.

– ref. Why now would be a good time for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand to publish stress test results for individual banks – https://theconversation.com/why-now-would-be-a-good-time-for-the-reserve-bank-of-new-zealand-to-publish-stress-test-results-for-individual-banks-160249

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martien Lubberink, Associate Professor of Economics, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Set against the backdrop of an economy healing from 2020’s annus horribilis, this week’s Financial Stability Report (FSR) from the Reserve Bank (RBNZ) was cautiously reassuring: the country’s financial system is sound, though vulnerabilities remain.

Banks have managed to increase their capital buffers, allowing them to better withstand losses on loans and mortgages, which has protected the financial system from the pandemic’s economic fallout. With profits stabilising, the outlook for New Zealand’s banks is bound to improve further.

On the other hand, the report expresses concern about increasing house prices and the strong growth of mortgage lending. Specifically, the RBNZ worries about lending to financially vulnerable first-time buyers and highly indebted borrowers.

RBNZ Deputy Governor Geoff Bascand said “risks are building up” and didn’t rule out a sharp correction in the housing market. Seemingly setting the stage for more initiatives to tame a hot housing market, he said “further resilience is needed”.

So, the FSR is a little two-faced. By comparing the present to the immediate past, it creates the impression all is well because important indicators of bank health have improved.

But the report is much less certain about the future. With the words “vulnerability” and “vulnerabilities” mentioned about 20 times in its 60 pages, the reader can be forgiven for thinking New Zealand’s financial system maybe isn’t that sound at all.

Speculation and confusion

The financial press reflects these concerns. One commentator recently warned about the dangers of extended credit growth in the hot housing market and called for lending restrictions.

Another feared the “amount of money being pumped purely into property, not any other assets, comes with huge financial stability risks”.

The trouble is, without proper empirical evidence, these worries are speculative at best, and certainly confusing. Unsupported claims about vulnerability in the banking system also enable officials to experiment with policies that haven’t proved their effectiveness.

A case in point is the proposed introduction of a debt-to-income tool (DTI), which would complement the current loan-to-value restrictions. According to the RBNZ, this would be the best option for supporting financial stability and sustainable house prices over the medium term.

Unfortunately, at the FSR press conference the RBNZ couldn’t clearly explain details of the DTI, nor could it define the concept of sustainable house prices over the medium term.

Politicians may respond to the confusion by promoting seemingly popular policies, but which might not be in the long-term public interest. For instance, the Green Party has called for rent controls, despite ample evidence from economists they’re not necessarily effective.

Let’s see the stress test results

Which brings us to the importance of stress-testing banks — more importantly, publishing individual bank stress test results, rather than the aggregated and anonymised data the RBNZ traditionally presents.

Such data are not helpful for investors and depositors because this approach hides weak banks that, if they were to fail, could put the financial system as a whole at risk.

Before the Global Financial Crisis, it was standard practice to keep stress test results confidential. However, the US Federal Reserve in 2009 took the then highly unusual step of publicly reporting its stress test findings.

It did this because it believed the disclosure would restore confidence in US banks at a time of great uncertainty. And it worked. Not long after the results were published, banks sprang into action and increased their capital buffers without the need for the government to step in.

Without doubt, the 2009 US stress test contributed to the recovery of the American financial system.

Read more: Without the right financial strategies, NZ’s climate change efforts will remain unfinished business

The European Banking Authority (EBA) learned about stress testing the hard way. It too started testing banks from 2009 on, but initially published only anonymised results.

Unfortunately, shortly after the publication of the results, two Irish banks failed, despite being given a clean bill of health. In 2011, Belgian bank Dexia failed after a good test result.

The EBA responded vigorously, going all out to improve stress test transparency. Since 2011 it has published all relevant data on stress testing: scenarios, time lines and individual bank results. This was as much to restore confidence in the EBA itself as to inform investors and depositors about the resilience of the European banking system.

Transparency is good for everyone

Two important lessons can be learned from the US and European experiences.

First, the publication of individual stress test results allows investors and depositors to see for themselves how resilient the banking system is. It nips unfounded speculation in the bud. This is important because, at the moment, the RBNZ and financial press feed speculative narratives about vulnerabilities in the New Zealand financial system.

Read more: Hostage to fortune: why Westpac could struggle to find the right buyer for its NZ subsidiary

Second, it contributes to the credibility of the RBNZ as a banking supervisor, as well as as to the quality of the stress test. Interested parties will comment on what is published, and this will help improve the stress test, which benefits us all.

As a bank supervisor that relies very much on market discipline and transparency, the RBNZ should consider expediting the publication of updated individual bank stress test results. It is clearly in the public interest, and it would end unfounded speculation about the vulnerability of New Zealand’s banking system.

– ref. Why now would be a good time for the Reserve Bank to publish stress test results for individual banks – https://theconversation.com/why-now-would-be-a-good-time-for-the-reserve-bank-to-publish-stress-test-results-for-individual-banks-160249

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Hocking, Curator of Vertebrate Zoology and Palaeontology, Monash University

Few fish can outswim a seal. Seals fly through the waves, predators in their natural element. But, unlike fish, seals are air-breathing mammals whose ancestors only returned to the water from a life on land some 30 million years ago.

On entering the water, seals had to adapt both their bodies and behaviour to become efficient underwater swimmers. Like penguins and sea turtles, they use streamlined limbs to propel themselves through the water.

Yet, there is a mystery here. Even though all seals and sea lions are descended from a common ancestor, they use two radically different modes of propulsion: true seals (phocids) swim with their feet; fur seals and sea lions (otariids) rely on their wing-like forelimbs.

How did these two related groups come up with such different swimming styles? Did they start from a common base, but then adapt to different circumstances? Or do we have it all wrong, and phocids and otariids have different ancestors after all?

To find out, we partnered with a team of engineers to combine cutting-edge computer simulations with anatomical and live animal observations. This multi-angled study, published today in Current Biology, allowed us to determine how, and how effectively, seals use their forelimbs during swimming.

Engineering a seal

Evolutionary biology and engineering might seem like strange bedfellows. Yet, ever since Leonardo Da Vinci, humans have sought to understand and adapt nature’s “designs”, giving rise to a field of engineering known today as biomimetics.

Engineering allows biologists to look beyond the mere shape of an animal, and instead ask how that shape is adapted to function within the physical limits set by its environment.

Applying this approach our question, we initially created 3D computer models of forelimb flippers representing each of the main seal families: from the bear-like paws of phocids (such as grey seals) to the wing-like flippers of fur seals and sea lions.

Next, we used computer-simulated fluid dynamics to model how water flows around the different flipper shapes. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we found the wing-like flippers of fur seals and sea lions produce little drag and considerable lift. The opposite is true of the clawed paws of true seals, which consequently make fairly poor tools for swimming.

Repeated evolution of forelimb flippers

So far, our results seem to confirm the fundamental difference between phocids and otariids. But there’s a twist to the story: streamlined fore-flippers are not unique to otariids.

Our results show that some rear-propelled Antarctic true seals independently evolved streamlined fore-flippers as well. This is taken to the extreme in leopard seals, whose flippers are almost indistinguishable from those of otariids. Out at sea, their massive forelimbs likely give them the speed and agility needed to pursue evasive prey such as penguins.

Read more: Scientists thought these seals evolved in the north. 3-million-year-old fossils from New Zealand suggest otherwise

The independent appearance of flippers within southern true seals provides a clue to how forelimb swimming may have evolved in the first place.

Early seals probably swam with their feet and, like their terrestrial ancestors and northern true seals today, used their clawed forepaws to catch and eat large prey.

Over time, otariids and southern true seals independently began to chase faster, more agile prey. This would have required their forelimbs to assume a more active role during swimming, which manifested itself in greater streamlining, reduced claws and — in otariids — a complete switch from foot to flipper-based propulsion.

Read more: Sharp claws helped ancient seals conquer the oceans

So there you have it: perhaps seals use different swimming styles not because of separate evolutionary origins, but because they adapted to different environments. And it seems they did so more than once!

This theory makes a lot of sense in light of how seals behave and look today. Its litmus test likely lies elsewhere, however: buried beneath rocks, rather than frolicking beneath the waves. Only fossils can tell us what early seals were really like and, if our idea is correct, we should ultimately find some that match it. Only time will tell.

– ref. Swim like a sea lion, splash like a seal: how evolution engineered nature’s underwater acrobats – https://theconversation.com/swim-like-a-sea-lion-splash-like-a-seal-how-evolution-engineered-natures-underwater-acrobats-160090

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carla Pascoe Leahy, Australian Research Council DECRA Fellow, The University of Melbourne

Mothers have often been associated with conservatism: linked to cloyingly sentimental cultural ideals or depicted as victims of patriarchal oppression.

In the 19th century, the middle-class mother was idealised as the “angel in the house”, while during the boom years after the second world war she was depicted as a devoted homemaker in her suburban castle.

During the 1970s, second-wave feminists thoroughly critiqued the relegation of women to childrearing. This left some with a lingering sense that becoming a mother was an old-fashioned or politically regressive choice.

But in fact there is a long tradition of maternal radicalism in Australia. Mothers have been out on the streets, fighting for change, as frequently as they have kept the home fires burning. This tradition still thrives in the present day – as we saw recently when thousands of women joined the March4Justice to protest against gendered violence, often accompanied by their daughters and sons.

Mothers of the “first wave” of feminism in Australia were staunch advocates for social change.

The “woman movement” emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, led by feminists such as Louisa Lawson and Rose Scott. Activists drew on their status as mothers as the basis for their progressive political demands to grant married women rights over property, custody and inheritance, as well as voting rights.

Lawson argued:

If we are responsible for our children, give us the power and sacredness of the ballot, and we will lift ourselves and our brothers to a higher civilisation.

The effectiveness of these maternal activists was proven in 1894 when South Australia became the first electorate in the world to give women the vote.

Further evidence of the political power of first-wave feminists came in 1912, when the Commonwealth government approved the Maternity Allowance. This was radical in using government funds to provide state support to mothers as citizens, undercutting the authority of their husbands.

Read more: Mothers explain how they navigated work and childcare, from the 1970s to today

In the 1960s and 1970s, while women’s liberation movement activists such as Merle Thornton, Marcia Langton and Zelda D’Aprano were demanding equal rights for women, middle-class mothers around Australia were quietly rebelling against the medicalisation of pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding.

The Nursing Mothers Association of Australia (later the Australian Breastfeeding Association) adopted guerrilla-like tactics, spreading through local cells in suburban kitchens around the country. Led by women like Mary Paton, the NMAA formed volunteer-based groups in local areas where veteran mums would offer cake, comfort and counsel to new mothers. Almost single-handedly, the NMAA reversed declining breastfeeding rates.

Meanwhile, the so-called natural childbirth movement sought to counteract the medicalisation of birth. Through groups like the Childbirth Education Association, reformers fought to grant women more information and choice about childbirth. They also worked to make the experience less frightening by creating more welcoming birthing spaces and allowing support people to attend labour. These are all changes we now take for granted.

Their legacy continues today through groups like Birth for Humankind, which provides childbirth support for disadvantaged women and supports Birthing on Country for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women.

Maternal protest continues in the 21st century. Amid the swelling ranks of environmental groups like Extinction Rebellion (XR) and Australian Parents for Climate Action (AP4CA), mothers and grandmothers (as well as fathers and grandfathers) are particularly prominent. Like the maternal activists who came before them, these women base their political claims in their care relationships with children.

One XR member and grandmother explains,

I don’t have a choice. If you see your loved ones coming to harm you protect them.

AP4CA member Corinne pleaded:

For this year’s Mother’s Day […] my wish is for the Australian government to take genuine action on climate change so that we, Mothers across Australia, can continue to raise our children, knowing that they will have a future worth living for.

Knitting Nannas Against Gas was founded in the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales and has since spread around the world. Their “Nannafesto” explains that they base their opposition to the exploration and mining of coal seam gas and other non-renewable energy sources in their position as grandmothers, and their desire to “save the land, air and water for the kiddies”.

Mothers have a long history of political activism not just in Australia, but around the world. The caring for children that mothers perform is of course of the utmost significance. But to assume that mothers are essentially apathetic, passive or uninterested in issues beyond the home is to drastically underestimate their potential.

Read more: Brazen Hussies: a new film captures the heady, turbulent power of Australia’s women’s liberation movement

Not only are mothers politically active, but their causes are diverse, from economic and political rights, to childbearing and reproductive reforms, to environmental concerns.

Perhaps it’s time we viewed mothers as naturally politically inclined, as philosopher Sara Ruddick argues, and inherently future-oriented.

After all, anything that threatens the present and future worlds their children will inhabit matters deeply to them.

– ref. Looking for the perfect Mother’s Day gift? Why not smash the patriarchy – https://theconversation.com/looking-for-the-perfect-mothers-day-gift-why-not-smash-the-patriarchy-159335

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kristy Hess, Associate Professor (Communication), Deakin University

Newspaper readers in rural and regional Australia are five times more likely to go directly to their local newspaper website than Google or Facebook for local information, and almost 10 times as likely to go to their local news website over a council website for news and information.

Nearly two-thirds of local newspaper readers also indicate policies affecting the future of rural and regional media would influence the way they vote at the next federal election.

These are some of the key findings of a national survey of almost 4,200 Australian country newspaper readers we recently conducted as part of a project to drive greater innovation in the rural and regional media landscape.

Many small newspapers in Australia faced closure after their advertising budgets shrunk during the global pandemic, while others moved to digital-only editions to cut costs.

In our survey — the largest conducted of country press audiences in Australia — we found local newspapers still play a vital role in providing information to residents in these communities, even with the proliferation of news available on Facebook and Google.

This is a significant finding, given how much focus has been placed on the role of the tech giants as a central point for digital news and information.

The federal government recently implemented a mandatory news media bargaining code that forces tech companies like Facebook and Google to pay news producers for content that appears on their platforms.

Last week, the ACCC granted interim approval for Country Press Australia to negotiate with the tech giants on behalf of its 160 newspapers.

This funding is desperately needed to help support publishers of credible, reliable local news who are losing the advertising dollar to social media platforms — but for some, it still may not be enough.

Read more: As Facebook ups the ante on news, regional and elderly Australians will be hardest hit

Resistance to local papers going online only

Our survey also reveals just how passionate people are about local newspapers in rural and regional Australia — that is, the print version. In fact, the majority of country press audiences (71%) prefer to read their local paper in print than online.

Many respondents expressed resistance to their newspaper being made available in digital format only. They offered comments such as:

There is always room for improvement, but if this newspaper went digital, I would not be interested.

And this from another:

The day it goes digital only will be the day I stop reading it.

Our survey also found that respondents overwhelmingly (86%) view a printed copy of their newspaper as an essential service for their community.

This accords with our previous research that has advocated for the federal government to recognise the vital importance of the printed paper to regional communities.

While the average age of our survey respondents was 60-61, this demographic will continue to represent a large portion of local news readership for many years.

This means local news organisations need strategies to aid the transition for all audiences into digital formats and/or advocate for the survival of the printed product in the interests of social connection and democracy.

Locals want a say in the future of their papers

Our survey also found 94% of respondents want a much bigger say about government policies and decisions affecting the future of local newspapers. This finding sends a message to policymakers to rethink their strategies for engaging the public in ideas to support the future of local media.

When it comes to solutions for struggling rural and regional media outlets, our survey found:

• audiences believe local newspapers should be collaboratively funded by a range of relevant stakeholders (media companies, advertisers, subscribers, social media, government and philanthropic organisations) to ensure their future

• while some media lobbyists and academics — both in Australia and overseas — have called for newspaper subscriptions to be made tax deductible, 71% of respondents are not in favour of such initiatives

• respondents also overwhelmingly said any additional government funding for local news should be used to employ more local journalists (71%) over increasing digital connectivity (13%) and digital innovation products (17%).

Read more: Local news sources are closing across Australia. We are tracking the devastation (and some reasons for hope)

The voices of loyal readers must be heard

Our findings also reaffirm that local newspaper audiences are loyal and develop life-long connections with newspapers wherever they live and work. As an 88-year-old man from Victoria said,

I have always looked forward to the local paper, and whilst the format is now different, it is still a ‘must’ to catch up on whatever is happening in my town.

While there have been Senate inquiries into the future of public interest journalism, media diversity and the role of the ABC in regional and rural areas, the public submissions to these important policy discussions are lacking the voices of local newspaper readers like our respondents.

Read more: Local newspapers are an ‘essential service’. They deserve a government rescue package, too

This is not because people in the bush don’t care, but because such formal mechanisms are arguably not the best way to engage with and listen to media audiences beyond the major cities.

What is clear from our research is local independent newspapers really matter to their audiences, and many loyal readers are ready to defend them at the ballot box.

– ref. Print isn’t dead: major survey reveals local newspapers vastly preferred over Google among country news consumers – https://theconversation.com/print-isnt-dead-major-survey-reveals-local-newspapers-vastly-preferred-over-google-among-country-news-consumers-160353

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachael Murrihy, Director, The Kidman Centre, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney

Two female Australian comedians recently revealed they’ve been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

In an interview before her shows at the Melbourne International Comedy Festival, Fiona O’Loughlin alluded to lifelong challenges including disorganisation and inability to sustain attention.

O’Loughlin, 57, described her diagnosis as a “seismic shift” in her life, and said medication has helped her immensely. But her struggle with focus will be a story familiar to many girls with ADHD.

And in an article published this week, Em Rusciano also revealed she’s been diagnosed with ADHD. For Rusciano, too, treatment has been transformative. The 42-year-old wrote on Facebook:

I don’t feel the world coming at me at 100 all the time anymore. The constant sensory overload has stopped. I don’t feel overwhelmed by life quite as much.

While some of us might perceive ADHD as a condition that affects males (particularly boys), it affects girls and women too. And it’s important to understand that the way it presents in girls can be quite different to the way it manifests itself in boys.

What is ADHD?

Best understood as a persistent, and sometimes lifelong, neurodevelopmental disorder, ADHD includes problems with sustaining attention, resisting distraction, and moderating activity levels to suit the environment (for example, sitting in a classroom).

Young people with ADHD vary considerably in their behaviours. A child might exhibit symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity (for example, fidgeting and squirming, or frequently leaving their seat in class), or inattention (careless mistakes, trouble focusing in class, difficulty keeping their belongings in order), or more commonly, both. Hyperfocus (an intense fixation on one activity) can also be a symptom.

Of course, these behaviours are common in childhood to varying degrees. Diagnosis is based on whether symptoms are excessive for the child’s age, developmental level, and cultural background (parents across different cultures may differ in whether they see a child’s behaviour as hyperactive or normal).

A diagnosis is only made if there’s clear evidence that the symptoms impair functioning across several life domains such as at school, at home and with friends.

Read more: It’s not a crime to have ADHD

Does ADHD look different in girls?

Researchers have only recently started to unravel the expression of ADHD in girls.

The way ADHD presents in girls and boys is in many ways similar, but there are a few noteworthy differences. Most importantly, while symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity are present across genders (with some studies showing more hyperactivity in boys), symptoms of inattention, which can be easier to overlook, are seen more frequently in girls.

Further, the onset of ADHD symptoms can differ across gender. Symptoms of hyperactivity tend to present early in school life. Inattentiveness, by contrast, has a slightly later onset. So girls with ADHD can often go undetected until academic and organisational demands increase in late primary and high school.

Girls with ADHD are also at higher risk of developing depression and anxiety than boys. If depression and anxiety occur at the same time as ADHD, it can be more difficult to diagnose ADHD.

A range of possible mechanisms have been implicated in the difference in ADHD expression between genders, from hormonal changes, to cognitive differences, to social factors. But we need more research to truly understand the reasons behind the disparity.

Boys versus girls

ADHD is the most common psychological disorder among Australian youth. The second Australian Child and Adolescent Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing, published in 2015, reported 7.4% of 4-17-year-olds had ADHD over the previous 12 months.

Interestingly, more than twice as many boys have ADHD than girls. The disparity in prevalence may be a result of ADHD being historically viewed as a male disorder.

This gender difference in prevalence has prompted controversy about diagnostic criteria and brought the female expression of ADHD into sharper focus.

There’s some suggestion the current diagnostic framework, developed on male-dominated samples, is inadequate for girls and sees more boys than girls get a diagnosis. Some researchers have suggested symptom thresholds for diagnosis in girls should be modified.

Are there female expressions of hyperactivity-impulsivity (for example, internal feelings of restlessness) that could be added to the diagnostic criteria? Should there be gender-specific cut-offs for current criteria (for example, a lower threshold for hyperactivity for girls)?

Until further research is conducted, the jury is out on any changes to the current system.

Read more: Imaging study confirms differences in ADHD brains

Importantly, many parents and teachers have long-held stereotypes of an ADHD child as a disruptive and hyperactive boy with difficulties staying still and keeping on-task. This perceptual bias influences who they recognise as potentially having ADHD and refer to treatment.

Research shows even when students display equivalent levels of impairment, teachers still refer more boys than girls for ADHD treatment.

Some signs of ADHD in girls

Does your child do the following more than other children of her age?

• make careless mistakes
• daydream or appear spaced out
• fail to pay close attention to details
• have difficulty remaining focused in class, reading, homework, conversations
• doesn’t seem to listen (appears distracted)
• have difficulty organising tasks and materials
• is reluctant to engage in tasks that require mental effort (schoolwork, homework)
• often loses everyday things
• is forgetful in daily activities.

Keep an eye out for an increase in symptoms in late primary or early high school, as workload increases.

A good rule of thumb for when it’s time to seek help is when a child is starting to fail, fall behind or perform significantly below their ability either in schoolwork, friendships or family relationships.

There’s no cure for ADHD, but treatment aims to manage symptoms. Across genders, the first line of treatment for children is stimulant medication (such as Ritalin, Adderall or Concerta) and behaviour management (parent training and classroom management).

As more research on female ADHD emerges, we can consider treatment modifications specific to gender.

For many girls, ADHD is a serious and debilitating illness. Ensuring girls are identified early and accurately and that they receive evidence-based treatment is crucial.

Read more: 3 out of 4 kids with mental health disorders aren’t accessing care

– ref. ADHD affects girls too, and it can present differently to the way it does in boys. Here’s what to look out for – https://theconversation.com/adhd-affects-girls-too-and-it-can-present-differently-to-the-way-it-does-in-boys-heres-what-to-look-out-for-158635

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zoe Doubleday, ARC Future Fellow and marine biologist, University of South Australia

This article is part of the “Who would win?” series, where wildlife experts dream up hypothetical battles between predators (all in the name of science).

If you’re anything like us, you may have wondered if an octopus and a seabird would ever end up in a fight. Well they do, and it’s a YouTube wormhole that can prove quite addictive.

I mean, how do these elusive aliens of the sea — more closely related to snails than fish, birds or humans — bring down our familiar feathered friends? Let’s take a closer look.

Why would they end up in tussle?

Contrary to popular belief, octopus don’t actually seek out birds to kill them, but there are some that may be in a bad mood and the bird is in the wrong place at the wrong time.

All octopus are carnivores and like to eat things such as shellfish, crabs and fish (and, yes, even each other), but never birds. The vast majority of the time, a fight between an octopus and a bird may break out because the bird is trying to get some dinner and the octopus and is just trying to live for another day.

We know seabirds eat octopus, but they aren’t a huge part of their diet — more like a snack.

Ocean-going seabirds such as shags, petrels, penguins and albatross eat octopus more often than birds such as seagulls. But in general, seabirds prefer fish or other cephalopods like squid.

Octopus are just too tricky to eat. Most live on the seafloor, rather than float in the water. They have no bones, just a tiny vestigial shell, which enables them to hide in the tiniest crevices and cracks (unlike squid which have a backbone-like structure called a pen).

Even though octopuses are good at hiding and camouflaging, sometimes the seabirds find them and then things get interesting.

Meet the opponents

Let’s get ready to rumble! In the red corner we have the octopus with eight muscular, hyper-flexible arms. But these aren’t any normal arms, they’re each equipped with their own “brains” and hundreds of grasping suckers that can independently sense light and taste by touch.

Read more: Curious Kids: could octopuses evolve until they take over the world and travel to space?

In the blue corner we have the bird with killer vision and two sharp claws that can catch prey with incredible speed and precision. You may be noting that the bird has a sharp beak to add to its armoury — but so does the octopus.

You wouldn’t want to be bitten by the octopus, though, because it has venom. The venom probably wouldn’t be enough to kill you (unless it’s a blue ringed octopus) but man, that would hurt. One big detail is that octopus can only breath underwater and cannot leap into the air — gravity makes life hard when you have no bones.

While it’s true seabirds can only breathe air, they are masters of both land and sea. Penguins are fast and agile swimmers, and wing-propelled diving birds can plunge deep beneath the surface of the water (five metres in the case of albatrosses and 10-20m in the case of petrels). They can also hold their breath for minutes at a time. But not forever.

How might a fight play out?

The bird sees the octopus from the surface and thinks it can snag it for a snack. It dives down and, as soon as it hits the water, the octopus comes out swinging, arms whipping and pulling the bird closer with every recoil.

Hundreds of suckers grasp and hold with dexterity and strength (did you know one sucker of a giant Pacific octopus can hold up to 16 kilograms? And there’s 250 of them per arm!).

The bird is pecking and clawing at the arms, but there’s too many of them. And if an octopus loses an arm or two in a battle, they don’t mind too much, they can always regenerate them.

The bird is trying to fly or swim away and the octopus is trying to keep it under…

So, who would win?

Depending of the size of both animals the fight could go either way. A bird could encounter anything from the giant Pacific octopus (weighing in at over 100 kg) to the featherweight pygmy octopus (weighing in at less than one gram).

If the octopus is small, then the bird gets a quick and easy snack. But when the octopus is larger or the same size of the bird, that’s when fights ensue (often on YouTube).

The remains of small octopus are not uncommon in the stomach of seabirds, but larger octopus remains have also been found.

At the smaller end, paper nautilus (an unusual type of octopus with an external shell) have been found in the stomachs of little penguins. At the larger end, the Maori octopus — which grows up to a hefty 12 kg and claims the weight record for the Southern Hemisphere — has been found in the stomachs of the southern royal albatross.

So at the end of the day, the outcome depends on the size, stamina and species of both animals.

A lot of the time, the bird wins as it is designed to dive and hunt marine animals, but as YouTube shows, sometimes the octopus gets away with it.

Read more: I’ve always wondered: who would win in a fight between the Black Mamba and the Inland Taipan?

– ref. Who would win in a fight between an octopus and a seabird? Two marine biologists place their bets – https://theconversation.com/who-would-win-in-a-fight-between-an-octopus-and-a-seabird-two-marine-biologists-place-their-bets-158520

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Duffy, Lecturer, School of Business, Western Sydney University

Issues that matter to families on a daily basis, such as childcare, parental leave and flexible working arrangements, are often referred to as “women’s issues”. This focuses policy interventions solely on mothers, limiting the solutions that are possible and concealing how these issues affect dads.

As part of an ongoing research project we analysed the parental leave policies of 36 Australian public universities. We have found a number of contradictions in the way parental leave is allocated to mothers and fathers. By requiring them to nominate themselves as primary and secondary carers, the effect of this system is to perpetuate the gap between genders.

The provisions for mothers aren’t perfect, but they do offer a meaningful amount of well-paid leave for women to bond with and care for their children. Although many universities avoid using the term maternity leave, we found it has simply been replaced with “primary carer”. The terms “primary and secondary carers” appear less gendered but are effectively proxy categorisations for the traditional mother as caregiver and father as breadwinner.

These terms create a divide between mothers and fathers, ranking them in an unhelpful way. It starts families on an unequal course that pigeonholes both parents. We suggest the terms should be dropped in favour of equal parental leave policies in name and in action.

Read more: Reforming ‘dad leave’ is a baby step towards greater gender equality

Parental inequality feeds into the gender gap

In March, the Australia Institute reported the gender pay gap is a staggering 31.2%. This gap between the average earnings of men and women is higher than the often reported 13.4%, because it includes part-time employees in the calculation. Excluding part-time working women is a glaring omission, which conceals the full story of the gap between what men and women earn.

The rates of women employed part-time are high in Australia compared to the OECD average. Australian mothers bear the brunt of domestic tasks and often work part-time so they have time for pick-ups, drop-offs and extracurricular activities. This penalises women financially, leaving them with lower earnings, less superannuation and limited career progression.

We know parenthood is a substantial contributor to the gender pay gap — it’s known as the motherhood penalty.

Read more: How parenthood continues to cost women more than men

With a gender pay gap of over 30%, it makes sense that most families opt to keep the higher-paid dad in full-time employment. At present, ABS statistics show women take 93.5% of primary parental leave and men take 96.1% of secondary parental leave. But that means dads lose out on time with their kids.

If we are going to do something about gender inequality, we need to do something about parental inequality.

Read more: Gender equality at home takes a hit when children arrive

We undervalue caring

Caring is undervalued in Australia. Our government parental leave scheme is one of the least generous among OECD countries. The policy also perpetuates parental inequality.

The Australian government offers 18 weeks of paid leave to the primary caregiver and two weeks to the secondary caregiver paid at the minimum wage. The 18 weeks for Australian primary carers is equivalent to 7.7 weeks average earnings. The two weeks for secondary carers – overwhelmingly dads – is equivalent to half a week of average earnings.

One month of parental leave reserved for Australian dads paid at a meaningful rate can help to establish a more equal share of family tasks from the beginning. Best practice is 80% of earnings, with a cap. The result will be happier families overall.

Read more: Father’s days: increasing the ‘daddy quota’ in parental leave makes everyone happier

There is a fatherhood penalty too

Our research indicates universities’ default assumption is that women are the primary caregiver and dads are not active parents. For dads, they typically have to prove they are the primary caregiver by offering verification that the mum is employed full-time. No such proof is required of mums.

At some universities, even with proof, dads are entitled to less leave as primary carers than mums, or no paid leave at all. Worse still, even when the dad’s partner works for another organisation, some universities deduct the leave the partner has taken from the dad’s entitlement. This doesn’t apply to mums with a partner who works for another organisation.

We often talk about the motherhood penalty, but maybe it is time to tackle the fatherhood penalty?

Read more: Paid parental leave plan ignores economics of well-functioning families

Ticking the parental leave policy box

Some universities have been publicly acknowledged for their progressive, generous, flexible and inclusive parental leave policies for new dads. To qualify among Australia’s top 20 parental leave employers, these universities must provide at least 12 weeks’ paid leave for primary carers and two weeks for secondary carers. They must also offer flexible work practices and primary carer’s leave for at least a year after the child’s birth.

However, the devil is in the detail, which sets a low bar. It allows universities to tick the “generous parental leave policy” box, without offering families real choices about how parents spend their time.

If universities fail to offer meaningful, easy-to-access parental leave to dads, they will fail to take it up. This indirectly strengthens the academic career model that values an employee with an unbroken commitment to work.

If we want to close the gender pay gap, we need to take steps towards parental equality and eradicate the terms primary and secondary caregivers. Some businesses in the private sector have done this, making parental leave policies gender-neutral, more flexible and easier for dads to access.

Our findings suggest universities are not the progressive institutions many of us expect them to be. Instead, they reinforce traditional, conservative values that block parental equality. Universities, other employers and the Australian government need to value both mums and dads and offer equitable parental leave policies in the true sense of the term.

– ref. The fatherhood penalty: how parental leave policies perpetuate the gender gap (even in our ‘progressive’ universities) – https://theconversation.com/the-fatherhood-penalty-how-parental-leave-policies-perpetuate-the-gender-gap-even-in-our-progressive-universities-160102