Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deborah Gleeson, Associate professor, La Trobe University

Papua New Guinea’s COVID-19 outbreak is a portent of the “catastrophic moral failure” the head of the World Health Organization warned of in January due to poor countries being pushed to the back of the vaccine queue.

Australia has gifted 8,000 doses to PNG, and vowed to help the nation of almost 9 million secure 1 million more. Earlier this month Australia agreed to work with the US, India and Japan to provide 1 billion vaccines to poorer countries in the Asia-Pacific. It is also supporting COVAX, the global program aiming to buy and distribute 2 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses to developing nations by the end of 2021.

But all this could be negated through Australia’s potential spoiling role (with a handful of other countries) against a proposal supported by 118 countries to ramp up vaccine production by relaxing the trade rules governing intellectual property.

Inequities in access to COVID-19 vaccines

The inequities in access to vaccines are stark. By November, wealthy nations accounting for just 14% of the global population had locked in premarket agreements to buy 51% of the first 7.48 billion doses of candidate COVID-19 vaccines.

That number should be enough to vaccinate almost half the global population – 3.76 billion of 7.8 billion people. But Canada, Australia, Britain, Japan, the European Union and the US have all bought up more than their fair share. Canada has reserved about 4.5 courses per person; Australia and the UK close to 2.5.

This means most middle-income countries won’t achieve widespread vaccination coverage until late 2022, according to The Economist’s Intelligence Unit. For poorer economies, including some of Australia’s closest neighbours, it won’t be “before 2023, if at all”.

Suspending intellectual property rules

Addressing vaccine inequities, the director-general of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has said, requires pulling “out all the stops”.

One of those stops is the international agreement protecting intellectual property rights – the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, commonly called the TRIPS agreement. All members of the World Trade Organization are bound by the agreement.

In October 2020, South Africa and India proposed waiving certain provisions of TRIPS that give the owners of the intellectual property exclusive rights over the manufacture and sale of COVID vaccines. The waiver would only apply to COVID-19 medical products and only for the duration of the pandemic. This would allow others to make COVID-19 vaccines without the vaccine developers’ permission.

The TRIPS waiver is supported by 118 of the WTO’s 164 members – more than two-thirds of its membership.

The counter-proposal supported by Australia

Australia, however, has joined with Canada, Chile, Colombia, New Zealand, Norway and Turkey in supporting a counter-proposal that argues provisions already in the TRIPS agreement are good enough.

TRIPS does allow for compulsory licensing, enabling the use of a patent without the consent of the owner, in a public health emergency. But the compulsory licensing process is time-consuming and only applies to patents, not the other types of intellectual property important for making vaccines.

The counter-proposal put its faith in encouraging more talk between vaccine developers and manufacturers, enabling them to make voluntary licensing agreements and identify ways to increase production.

But there’s little reason to think this would achieve more than what is already happening. For example, AstraZeneca has licensed the Serum Institute of India to make its vaccine both for India and other countries.

Read more: Yes, export bans on vaccines are a problem, but why is the supply of vaccines so limited in the first place?

Voluntary licences are problematic because they are ad hoc and confidential. The lack of transparency has seen pricing discrepancies such as Bangladesh and South Africa reportedly paying more for their AstraZeneca doses than European nations.

Voluntary licences can also place tight restrictions on where the resulting products can be sold. For example, when US pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences negotiated licences with makers in India, Pakistan and Egypt to produce a cheaper version of Remdesivir (a candidate for COVID-19 treatment in the early stages of the pandemic) the licence conditions excluded many middle-income countries from buying the cheaper version.

Australia’s support for this counter-proposal is therefore a distraction at best. It can’t bring about the fundamental change the TRIPS waiver could generate. Nor is it likely to lead to the world being vaccinated sooner.

– ref. More talk, no action: Australia’s approach to trade rules restraining vaccine production – https://theconversation.com/more-talk-no-action-australias-approach-to-trade-rules-restraining-vaccine-production-156971

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elisabeth Findlay, Director of Queensland College of Art, Griffith University

Barely a year goes by on the Australian art calendar without the announcement of a major Impressionist exhibition. The latest is the National Gallery of Victoria’s “international exclusive show”, French Impressionism from the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston.

The NGV’s is the next instalment in a series of recent Impressionist exhibitions, including Monet: Impression Sunrise (National Gallery of Australia, 2019) and Colours of Impressionism: Masterpieces from the Musée d’Orsay (Art Gallery of South Australia, 2018).

The global popularity of Impressionism can be traced back to 1886 when the art dealer Paul Durand-Ruel mounted an exhibition of 300 Impressionist works in New York. Attracting widespread acclaim, it was a turning point in public awareness of the art movement.

The NGV announcement includes phrases such as “artistic energy and intellectual dynamism”, “radical practitioners” and a “breathtaking display”. But such cliche and hyperbole belies the more interesting realities of a divided group of artists striving to capture the complexities of the emerging modern world around them.

A romanticised story

At the heart of the popularity of Impressionism is a romanticised story of a group of young artists battling against the conservatism of the dominant French Salon. They are repeatedly presented as a passionate collective who embraced plein air painting, capturing nature with unprecedented freshness.

Impressionist exhibitions almost invariably perpetuate the notion of the male artist as a genius. An aura surrounds artists such as Monet, Renoir and Degas. They are repeatedly viewed as heroic radicals who shunned the establishment, rallying together to champion a new form of art.

For decades, Monet in particular, has been singled out for praise. From his pioneering work at La Grenouillère to his final days at Giverny, Monet is applauded for abandoning the studio and immersing himself in the landscape. His paintings have become the paragon of the Impressionists’ ability to authentically capture the world around them.

This romanticised story of visionary artists working in nature is echoed in the stories of Impressionism beyond France. By the late 19th century local variants of Impressionism had spread to places such as America and Australia. She-Oak and Sunlight: Australian Impressionism will also be held at the NGV this year, presenting the work of leading exponents of Australian Impressionism. Into the 20th century, Impressionist techniques continued to be embraced in countries beyond France, including Japan and China.

Read more: Art Gallery SA goes back to Impressionism’s colourful roots with masterpieces from Musee d’Orsay

Impressionist paintings readily lend themselves to merchandising, with their work reproduced on a vast array of mementos, including postcards, posters, mugs, magnets, scarves, jigsaw puzzles and even umbrellas. For galleries, the large crowds and their willingness to spend on such items are a winning blockbuster formula. Critics such as Meta Knol have lamented our addiction to the blockbuster but such a successful model is difficult to abandon.

Division

However, the version of Impressionism that accompanies most blockbusters is highly sanitised. In truth, the artists were not the united group of popular imagination.

Degas was a particularly divisive figure. He was strident in his view that no-one in the group should exhibit with the conservative Salon, which had rejected and ridiculed them. This was an abiding source of tension.

In 1879 Renoir exhibited Madame Charpentier with her Children at the Salon, which enraged Degas. A further feud broke out when Monet followed Renoir’s example and submitted Seine at Lavacourt to the Salon. While usually portrayed as radicals, clearly Renoir and Monet were happy to court official recognition.

Pissaro and Degas argued that Monet should be thrown out of the group and consequently Monet, Renoir and Sisley did not exhibit in the fifth exhibition in 1880. As the bickering escalated, Durand-Ruel increasingly resorted to solo shows. By the final Impressionist exhibition in 1886 there was considerable acrimony within the group with Monet also rejecting Seurat’s Neo-Impressionism and his scientific application of optical principles.

The familiar blockbuster tropes also mask the reality that many Impressionists painted disturbing observations of human relationships and social division. Art historian T. J. Clarke in The Painting of Modern Life demonstrates that urbanisation and political instability in late 19th century France provides a much richer context to appreciate Impressionism than stories of individual geniuses capturing a fleeting moment.

For the Impressionists, places of leisure were ideal for observing human interaction. Degas, in particular, did not shy away from presenting the undercurrents of urban life. In Women on a Café Terrace in the Evening (1877), for instance, he depicts a group of prostitutes. The woman in the middle is biting her thumb. Often interpreted as a simple sign of her boredom, art historian Hollis Clayson suggests this gesture references particular sexual activities.

In Dance at Bougival, one of the major paintings in the forthcoming NGV French Impressionism exhibition, Renoir depicts a couple dancing in the new open-air cafes.

On one level this is a simple scene of frivolity but a closer look reveals something more menacing at play. The woman is looking away from the boatman with her eyes cast down, while he leans into her with his face obscured by his straw hat. Their flushed cheeks and the way he pulls her towards him invites an uneasy contemplation of their relationship.

The discarded bouquet and the burnt matches add to the sense that something is awry. Renoir would have been very familiar with the use of such items as symbols of fallen virtue.

Tension

Even in a portrait as endearing as Mary Cassatt’s Ellen Mary in a White Coat — also among the paintings coming to Melbourne — there is a tension. Feminist art historians such as Griselda Pollock have argued there are radical undercurrents to such domestic images.

Read more: The National Gallery is erasing women from the history of art

As a single woman, Cassatt did not have the opportunity to paint a scene such as Renoir’s Dance at Bougival. Her gender and class denied her access to the open-air cafes.

Cassatt’s images of domesticity therefore reflect her confinement. The recurring imagery of little girls also reveals her concern for the next generation of women. The serious faced Ellen, who is swamped by her bonnet and coat, holds firmly to the chair as she looks to a point in the distance in this psychologically complex portrait.

Impressionist exhibitions will continue to delight large audiences. However, it is unfortunate that the anodyne story of the movement dominates.

– ref. We can’t seem to get enough of the Impressionists but can we move on from the sanitised version? – https://theconversation.com/we-cant-seem-to-get-enough-of-the-impressionists-but-can-we-move-on-from-the-sanitised-version-156747

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

The government has immediately sacked a staffer after Network Ten reported on Monday that a Coalition whistleblower had provided photographs and videos recorded inside parliament house “of men engaged in blatant sex acts”.

The Coalition staffers filmed themselves and shared the videos, the report said.
Ten aired (distorted) images. It said one showed a man pointing to the desk of a female Liberal MP and then performing a “solo sex act on it”.

“One of the government staffers featured in the videos we have seen says publicly that he works closely with the prime minister’s office and the leader of the house’s office,” the report said. The leader of the house is Christian Porter.

The whistleblower, “Tom,” (not his real name) claimed staffers had procured “rent boys” to come to parliament house for Coalition MPs.

He also said “a lot” of sex occurred in parliament house’s meditation room.

Morrison said in a statement on Monday night the reports aired by Ten “are disgusting and sickening”.

“It’s not good enough, and is totally unacceptable,” he said.

“The actions of these individuals show a staggering disrespect for the people who work in parliament, and for the ideals the parliament is supposed to represent.

“My government has identified the staff member at the centre of these allegations and has terminated his employment immediately.” This is the man who committed the sex act on the MP’s desk.

Morrison said: “I urge anybody with further information to come forward”.

He said he’d have “more to say on this and the cultural issues we confront as a parliament in coming days”.

This is the second federal government staffer in under a week who has been sacked for gross sexist behaviour. Last week Andrew Hudgson, media adviser to the Assistant Treasurer, Michael Sukkar, was dismissed immediately after Tasmanian Greens leader Cassy O’Connor told the state parliament he had called her a “meth-head c***” in 2019 when he worked for the then Tasmanian premier Will Hodgman.

The Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, is currently conducting an inquiry into the parliament house workplace.

Meanwhile a parliamentary security guard on Monday night challenged Morrison’s claim a security breach was committed when Brittany Higgins and the colleague she alleged raped her entered minister Linda Reynolds office in the early hours in March 2019.

Morrison has said the man, who was dismissed within days, had been sacked “because of a security breach. That was the reason for it. As I understand it, it related to the entry into those [office] premises.”

But Nikola Anderson, the security guard who opened the door of the office for the pair, said on the ABC’s 4 Corners, “What was the security breach? Because the night that we were on shift, there was no security breach. Because these two people worked for minister Reynolds, they were allowed access in there, which is why we granted it.”

She was at the security check-in point where they entered the building, before she took them to Reynolds office. Both had active passes although they were not carrying them, so they were given temporary ones (the normal practice in parliament house when a passholder does not have their pass with them).

Asked why Morrison would have said this was a security breach and that was why the man was sacked, Anderson said, “Because he’s been given false information”. She said she was one of the only people who knew what happened and nobody had asked her anything.

Anderson said after the man left the building hastily by himself she went to check on the woman’s welfare.

She opened the door to the minister’s personal office to find Higgins lying on her back on the couch, completely naked. Higgins had opened her eyes, then rolled over onto her side.

“So therefore my take on it was, she’s conscious, she’s breathing, she doesn’t look like she’s in distress.”

Higgins has said she was drunk and fell asleep on the couch, to awake “mid-rape.”

“But given the nature of the situation and the fact that she was completely naked, I think his call on it was just let her sleep it off, leave her there.”

Anderson said she was told to be discreet about the incident. “We were told to keep it under wraps and not to make it common knowledge.”

There is now a police investigation into Higgins’ allegation she was raped, after she recently laid a complaint.

Anderson was contacted by ACT police a week ago.

Asked why she was speaking out publicly, Anderson said it was because “I’m fearful for my job, and I don’t want to be used as DPS’s [Department of Parliamentary Services] scapegoat. And the truth does have to come out. I mean, I’m sick of seeing all of these news reports with inaccurate information because it is wrong.”

– ref. Morrison says Coalition staffer sacked after ‘disgusting’ allegation – https://theconversation.com/morrison-says-coalition-staffer-sacked-after-disgusting-allegation-157629

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deborah Morris, Military analyst, Griffith University

This is an important day for the veteran community. After five years of campaigning for a royal commission, parliament has backed a motion to establish one. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has also signalled he would no longer oppose the move.

For at least two decades, there have been numerous inquiries into veteran suicide, institutional abuse, mental health, the transition from military to civilian life, and combat trauma — with little positive outcome.

More Australian veterans have lost their lives by suicide than have been killed on active duty since ADF personnel were first deployed to Afghanistan in 2001.

In October and November of last year alone, nine veterans took their lives, leading Senator Jacqui Lambie to argue veteran suicides should be treated as “one of Australia’s most pressing problems”.

Thirteen veterans have tragically taken their life so far this year.

A petition calling for a royal commission into veteran suicide — led by the families of those who have lost their lives — has garnered more than 400,000 signatures.

Yet, despite the urgent need and popular support for the idea, a royal commission didn’t have the political support of the Morrison government until this week.

The government’s initial response seen as inadequate

Last year, a report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) said

reducing the rate of serving and ex-serving suicides is a priority of the Australian government.

Despite this recognition, the matter has not been met with a sense of urgency.

In response to calls for a royal commission, the government established a national commission for defence and veteran suicide prevention, which has largely been seen as inadequate.

The reaction from former and serving military personnel was also mixed. Critics said the national commission was inferior to a royal commission in terms of its scope, independence and resources. The timing of the move by the government was also viewed as problematic.

While the role of the national commission is likely necessary to prevent future suicides, we believe a royal commission is still vital to bring attention to the links between veteran suicide and the institutional failures and bureaucratic barriers that are causing harm daily.

Read more: Veterans have poorer mental health than Australians overall. We could be serving them better

Data on defence suicides difficult to compile

There is imprecise and limited research into veteran suicide in Australia. Research commissioned by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and conducted by AIHW found there were 419 known suicides of serving, ex-serving and reserve defence personnel between 2001-17.

That is on average one death by suicide every two weeks.

Veteran Scott Harris has compiled statistics on veteran suicides for The Warrior’s Return Facebook page, and has counted 731 deaths by suicide over the same period.

The Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention (AISRP) has described the lack of information on veteran suicides as a “serious shortcoming in current knowledge”. The organisation said there is

very limited research information focusing specifically on suicide mortality, non-fatal suicidal behaviour or suicidal ideation among individuals who have left the [Australian Defence Force].

Put simply, the sector is flying blind.

We aren’t just lacking data on veteran suicides; there is limited knowledge of veterans in the Australian community more broadly. In fact, questions about veterans will be introduced to the census for the first time this year.

A royal commission will enable us to gather information on the defence and veteran communities to help understand their needs and ensure we craft well-targeted policies.

Five key points to consider for a royal commission

The terms of reference of the royal commission must be designed by the veteran community, as well as policy-makers and other experts. Significantly, to preclude serving and former ADF members from such an investigation would continue to silence the very people it seeks to help.

We have identified five key points to ensure a rigorous and effective commission process.

1) The terms of reference should include suicidality – not just suicide. Suicidality is a term that covers both suicide ideation (serious thoughts about taking one’s life) and actual suicide attempts.

2) It should also focus on the structural and institutional systems that contribute to suicidality. This would include the experiences of defence personnel who have struggled to get the support they need both during and after their military service.

For instance, this means looking at the bureaucratic obstacles that have prevented some veterans from accessing physical, mental and financial support after leaving the ADF, or the institutional practices and structures that encouraged abuse, bullying, harassment and denigration in the ADF.

Read more: We need to talk about suicide in the military

3) The terms of reference should look at the broader practices and processes of the ADF, including but not limited to:

• the military justice system

• institutional abuse

• military transitions, including at enlistment and discharge from the ADF

• the health care of defence personnel, including the reporting of incidents and management of injuries.

4) The royal commission must include protective measures for witnesses, akin to the disability royal commission. Given that both serving ADF members and public service employees are restricted in public comment, potential witnesses are unlikely to come forward and provide evidence without strong protections.

5) The appointment of the commissioners also requires real independence, free from bias. This was a significant sticking point with the establishment of the interim national commissioner for veteran suicide prevention, Bernadette Boss, who previously held various command and staff roles in the ADF.

As such, we argue those appointed to the royal commission should have no association with the ADF – both past and present – and a wider background than just mental health.

Morrison said today a royal commission is not a “silver bullet”, and we tend to agree.

Nobody believes this process will be easy – just that it is necessary. A royal commission, with broad terms of reference, has the capacity to draft a blueprint for the best way forward.

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

– ref. One veteran on average dies by suicide every 2 weeks. This is what a royal commission needs to look at – https://theconversation.com/one-veteran-on-average-dies-by-suicide-every-2-weeks-this-is-what-a-royal-commission-needs-to-look-at-157582

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

On any commonsense interpretation of language, Scott Morrison’s comments in parliament last Thursday deliberately concealed the full truth.

The harsher view is they were downright misleading.

Moreover, the prime minister then resorted to a tactical ploy that flies in the face of any claim the government is dealing with the Brittany Higgins matter with respect.

The cynicism displayed is appalling. Surely when the political workshopping was going on in the Prime Minister’s Office – assuming it happened – someone asked, “Is this a good idea”?

Or have they all lost any compass for what is appropriate parliamentary behaviour? Or any notion the public deserve some frankness?

Consider the sequence of words and actions concerning the inquiry into who knew what when in the Morrison office about the allegation by Higgins she was raped by a colleague in a ministerial office in 2019.

This inquiry was being undertaken by the Secretary of the Prime Minister’s department, Phil Gaetjens.

Asked last Thursday why the report was taking so long, Morrison told the House: “this work is being done by the secretary of my department. It’s being done at arm’s length from me. […]

“He has not provided me with a further update about when I might expect that report, but I have no doubt the opposition will be able to ask questions of him in Senate estimates next week.”

Fast forward to Monday’s Senate estimates.

Gaetjens revealed the work is no longer “being undertaken”. He had in fact “paused” his inquiry nearly a fortnight ago, and had immediately told the Prime Minister.

Gaetjens said that on March 9 the Australian Federal Police Commissioner, Reece Kershaw, had told him “it would be strongly advisable to hold off finalising the records of interviews with staff until the AFP could clarify whether the criminal investigation into Ms Higgins’ sexual assault allegations may traverse any issues covered by the administrative process I was undertaking”.

That same day Gaetjens emailed the Prime Minister’s Office staff “to tell them that I would be not completing the documentation.”

“At that same time, I also told the Prime Minister of that, just in case his staff asked him any questions as to what was going on.”

This was all very cosy.

Morrison did not have the same regard for parliament as Gaetjens had for the PM’s staff. He did not tell the house or the public “what was going on”.

Indeed, he had Gaetjens appear before Senate estimates – which is highly unusual for a secretary of the prime minister’s department – to deliver, in effect, an “up yours” to the senators.

Gaetjens stonewalled about the inquiry – for which there is now no end date – although he did say he had not interviewed Higgins. His explanation – he was respecting her request for privacy – doesn’t wash.

We don’t know how far Gaetjens got with his investigation before he paused it. We do know he had quite a while prior to March 9 to make progress, because the inquiry was announced mid-February.

On any reasonable work speed, it should have been done and dusted by March 9. Why was it taking so long?

Of course Morrison, under fire at question time, denied being misleading.

He then challenged Anthony Albanese to use “other forms of the house” – in other words, try to move a motion.

Albanese did, twice, and was immediately gagged by the government – twice.

By the end of it all, Morrison had trashed his own credibility and left Gaetjens, who is repeatedly depicted by the opposition as being used as Morrison’s political tool – hung out to dry.

– ref. View from The Hill: Scott Morrison becomes tangled in his own spider web – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-scott-morrison-becomes-tangled-in-his-own-spider-web-157596

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chloe Lucas, Research Fellow, Geography, Planning, and Spatial Sciences, University of Tasmania

As thousands of homes remain underwater in what appears to be yet another historic flood event in New South Wales, insurance companies are being inundated with calls from worried customers. The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that Insurance Council of Australia has declared an insurance catastrophe following more than 5,000 claims over the weekend.

Flood is the most expensive natural disaster for insurers, and it’s getting worse. The outcome is bad news all round for people living in flood-prone areas (which is, well, a lot of people).

The concurrence of increasing urban development in floodplains, and more intense rainfall events thanks to climate change are creating a perfect storm for insurance risk.

In response, insurance companies are battening down the hatches – often pricing flood insurance at prohibitively high levels, and in some cases, making it hard for insured customers to receive the cover they were expecting.

While it is too soon to know the insurance outcome of the New South Wales floods, we can learn from the experience of other flood events.

Read more: Underinsurance is entrenching poverty as the vulnerable are hit hardest by disasters

‘Little loopholes’ with big consequences

After an extreme weather event in May 2018 that brought record-breaking rainfall, high winds and flooding to Hobart, I interviewed residents affected by the floods about their experiences of insurance (or of being uninsured).

The stories reveal an insurance system that is not working for far too many people, leading to long term financial and emotional pain.

After a disaster, insurance companies subcontract assessors and tradespeople from across the country to quickly respond to customers who make a claim.

Assessors decide how to categorise the damage. That can involve working out where the water came from, and whether it was contaminated by sewage. This affects their assessment of what should be done with damaged furniture and flooring.

For insurance customers, it can be hard to get to grips with these technicalities.

Yvette, whose house was badly damaged in the flood, told me about her attempts to navigate insurance jargon, worried that using the wrong terms “might give [the insurer] little loopholes”.

She read the policy document “with a fine-toothed comb” to be prepared with the right (insurance) language to negotiate.

This use of jargon is not serving customers well, and many perceive it as existing to protect the insurers.

Too many cooks

People I spoke with described the arrival of multiple assessors sent by insurance companies as “disorienting”.

Often more than ten experts, from hydrologists and hygienists to plumbers and loss adjustors were called into just one property.

In many cases, these experts produced reports that either contradicted householders’ own testimony, or contradicted one another.

As Rowan, an 80-year-old homeowner, told me:

One group would come and say, ‘Yes, your curtains need replacing because of the mould and the smell’. One would say ‘The whole bed base and the mattress all gets replaced’. The next ones would say, ‘No, just the mattress. We don’t replace the base’. So we didn’t really know where we were.

Several interviewees described insurance companies losing their records multiple times.

Beryl, a homeowner in her 40s, told us:

They lost our receipts that we’d sent in three times. [We told them,] ‘We’re carrying this A$2,600 debt and we can’t afford it.’ When I finally contacted them they said they had no record of any of those communications, no record that there’s any internal damage. This hole was in the ceiling, all the doorframes were swollen, [there were] stains on the wall.

While this could be put down to insurers’ systems being overwhelmed by an extraordinary event, it should be noted that these kinds of events are exactly what insurers claim to be prepared for.

Other examples suggest that in times of disaster, failures in the insurance claim process may be the norm.

This does insurers themselves little harm — faced with confusion and uncertainty, customers may be willing to settle for smaller claims, or agree to take a cash payout rather than a managed program of works.

Being ‘good at insurance’ is almost a full-time job

Interviewees described their resilience after the flood as dependent on their ability to manage the insurance process.

This meant being constantly available, flexible, and patient over a process that involved “countless hours” over several months. It also meant being able to push-back when offered a lesser outcome than they felt entitled to. As Yvette, told us:

I feel like it takes a lot of assertiveness and persistence to make sure I got what we deserved and needed.

Keeping their own records was important – one interviewee described having compiled a database of more than 150 interactions with insurers or their representatives over the two months since the event.

This gave them valuable evidence in negotiations with the insurance company.

Clearly, not everyone is in a position to take on such a gargantuan task.

We need fairer insurance

The experience of insurance exacerbates a ‘resilience gap’ between people who have the time, money and capacity to manage the claims process, and those with existing disadvantage who simply do not.

Much of Australia is already underinsured for disasters such as floods and bushfires.

As exposure to flood risk grows, insurers are also stepping back from insuring high risk areas, leaving vulnerable householders to bear the risk alone.

Insurers and governments should consider the importance of transparency and fairness in both insurance pricing and the claims process.

Without improvement to the system, more people will abandon insurance and the public image of insurers will suffer further.

Read more: Insurance is unaffordable for some, but it’s middle Australia that is underinsured

This story is part of a series The Conversation is running on the nexus between disaster, disadvantage and resilience. You can read the rest of the stories here.

– ref. ‘They lost our receipts three times’: how getting an insurance payout can be a full-time job – https://theconversation.com/they-lost-our-receipts-three-times-how-getting-an-insurance-payout-can-be-a-full-time-job-157588

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christine Grové, Senior Lecturer and Educational and Developmental Psychologist, Monash University

The COVID pandemic has shone a light on the ongoing decline in young people’s mental health. Psychologists have warned if we don’t start to address the mental health emergency of young people’s anxiety and depression, it may become a “trans-generational disaster”.

Paediatricians have said they are seeing growing numbers of young people coming to the emergency room because of a lack of other treatment options.

In an effort to address the rising rates of anxiety and depression in children, Victoria trialled mental well-being coordinators in ten schools last year. The initiative is now expanding to 26 primary schools in 2021.

Meanwhile, the royal commission into Victoria’s mental health system has recommended youth mental health hubs, some of which will soon be rolled out in priority areas across the state.

Developing specialist youth mental health hubs is one of several strategies also suggested by the Australian Psychological Society to the federal government in a recent budget submission.

So, what are youth mental health hubs, and will they work to stem the tide of mental health issues young people are experiencing?

Everything in one place

Australia’s National Strategy for Young Australians defines youth as young people between 12-24 years of age. Evidence shows half of mental disorders first emerge by the age of 14, and 75% by the age of 24.

Left untreated, these mental health problems have high rates of recurrence and cause negative outcomes for the individual, including reduced economic productivity, as well as social costs.

Read more: We’ve been tracking young people’s mental health since 2006. COVID has accelerated a worrying decline

Youth mental health hubs provide mental health and social services in one location. This is partly because a range of risk behaviours come with mental health difficulties including tobacco, drug and alcohol use, sexual risk taking, reduced levels of physical activity and poor nutrition. Evidence also suggests young people prefer to have their needs met in one place, rather than across a number of locations and will then be more likely to seek help when they need it.

Youth hubs should therefore have a range of specialists on site, such as trained mental health clinicians, sexual health support counsellors and psychiatrists.

Young people also want and need access to mental health information and resources. So a youth hub should be a safe place for young people to get the information they need.

Youth hubs would be connected physically and/or in partnership with schools, community organisations (such as homelessness services) and with medical specialists.

They are ideally co-designed by experts and youth with lived experience, on equal grounds. Ideally, the hubs are a youth friendly, one-stop-shop for support ranging from referrals, assessment, therapies and intervention.

Don’t we already have youth hubs?

Traditionally, mental health services, including some youth services, have not been accessible to a range of youth needs, instead targeting children or adults. Others are geared towards specific certain types of conditions.

In Australia there are two youth-specific hubs: Orygen and Headspace.

Orygen is co-designed with young people. But it specialises in youth who have had an episode of psychosis, mood disorders, emerging borderline personality disorder, and youth at high risk for a psychotic disorder.

Headspace centres provide early intervention mental health services to 12-25 year olds. The service was created to provide youth with holistic mental health support. But there are shortcomings with the model. It has been described by some experts as not being able to support some youth with complex presentations such as those with personality disorders, schizophrenia and/or substance abuse issues.

Read more: Budget funding for Beyond Blue and Headspace is welcome. But it may not help those who need it most

Many other services restrict youth access to support depending on age, diagnosis or additional illness.

Youth engagement in non-youth focused specific services is low, and transitioning youth between and across services is often unsuccessful.

Young people also prefer services that include young people as staff members, which is not common in traditional mental health support. Youth participation as staff was found in only just over half of the mental health services available in Australia.

So, what is the ideal youth hub?

There are youth hubs available across the world, including in Ireland, New Zealand, UK, Canada, France and Australia. All of these provide different services and care. However none provide a single example of best practice yet.

Key elements of youth mental health hubs identified in the World Health Organisation framework include:

• a co-designed youth-focused approach that is flexible and adapted to youth’s changing mental health needs

• an accessible, central location (close to shops or transport), with extended spread of opening hours as well as opportunity for self-referral and drop-in services

• a place that responds to all young people quickly

• youth working in the hub

• services and support types personalised as needed by the context.

Research also suggests the hubs should be an informal space, as opposed to clinical looking, such as a shop front or café design. They should also:

• provide recreational or arts activities, as well as a hang-out space

• be included and known by the community

• keep ongoing evaluation of the services provided and provide feedback back to young people.

Keeping all services in one location works well, but it doesn’t necessarily mean a coordinated, collaborative approach to care is provided. Some hubs may house a range of services in one spot but continue to work in a separated way. This defeats the purpose of coordinated care.

Read more: Stressed out, dropping out: COVID has taken its toll on uni students

We need better investment to improve current hubs or co-design new ones to enact the WHO guidelines of best practice. This is critical to ensuring more young people access the care they need, for the success of current and future generations.

– ref. Youth anxiety and depression are at record levels. Mental health hubs could be the answer – https://theconversation.com/youth-anxiety-and-depression-are-at-record-levels-mental-health-hubs-could-be-the-answer-154722

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elizabeth Mossop, Dean of Design, Architecture and Building, University of Technology Sydney

As the current New South Wales flooding highlights, it’s not enough to continue to build cities and towns based on business-as-usual planning principles — especially as these disasters tend to disproportionately affect disadvantaged populations, increasing inequality in Australia.

We need to design our urban spaces around the idea that flooding is inevitable. That means not building on flood plains, and thinking creatively about what can be done to create urban “sinks” to hold water when floods strike.

Examples from overseas show what’s possible when the political will is there.

Read more: It’s 2am, you’re sleeping, and a flash flood hits your home. Without a warning system, what do you do?

Keeping people out of harm’s way

It beggars belief this needs to be said, but it is a government responsibility to keep citizens out of harm’s way. The ongoing plans for new housing in flood-prone areas such as the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley directly contravenes that.

Understanding urban flooding requires us to contend with the underlying natural systems over which we have built our cities and towns.

We have learned the hard way we cannot effectively “design out” flooding. Instead, we must find ways to work with the natural systems of drainage and catchments. We must create urban systems to accommodate flood waters. That reduces risk to houses, schools, hospitals, businesses and other key infrastructure.

We have tried channelling rivers with levees and flood walls and it does not work – when these constructions fail (and they usually eventually do), the danger is immense. We need to find ways to safely allow rivers to expand in times of flood, and contract when the rains subside. This cycle of expansion and contraction is normal and natural for rivers — it is us humans who need to change.

The cities of Rotterdam in The Netherlands and New Orleans in the United States are built on river deltas, and are at a very high risk of flooding. The design strategies used by planners in these cities provide effective models for reducing flooding harm in Australia.

Rotterdam: rethinking its relationship with water

Since 2001, Rotterdam has been transitioning to become a resilient delta city by rethinking its relationship with water.

The city has developed a series of sophisticated plans to address flooding, as well as other climate impacts such as drought and extreme heat.

Some plans are enormous in scope, involving city-wide strategies. Others are much more targeted, small-scale projects that can be undertaken by communities and individual households. You need both.

These plans are informed by the idea that it’s not just about applying a technical solution. A cultural change is also needed, so communities understand the urgency of the climate crisis and why the way we build towns and cities has to evolve.

The goal is to make the city a better place for all, and to promote social cohesion (a necessary ingredient in any effort to build climate change resilience).

Water management and climate adaptation should be factored into every urban plan and every project, small or large.

Rotterdam’s plans include a range of different approaches. There are “water squares” that use public open spaces to store flood waters during times of heavy rain. These urban sinks can be used as hangout spaces on dry days, and can hold vast amounts of water in heavy rain, keeping flood water away from properties.

This is very similar to the approach taken in Sydney’s Victoria Park, where parks are all at a lower elevation than surrounding streets. This allows the temporary storage of stormwater.

The Rotterdam program also includes other strategies for alternative water storage, the removal of hard surfaces and creation of more green space, and the proliferation of green roofs and roof landscapes. The goal is to create spaces that can hold and absorb rainwater when it falls.

Rotterdam’s investment in innovation and development in urban water management has led to a new knowledge industry for the city, with businesses and research institutes disseminating their expertise worldwide.

New Orleans: after Katrina, a new way of doing things

Following the devastation of the levee failures after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, New Orleans has gradually moved to a regime of urban development in which every project addresses the need to deal with stormwater and flooding on site.

In the Lakeview neighbourhood, for example, the street system is being re-engineered to use all of its alleyways as green infrastructure. They will have permeable paving and special vegetated channels called bioswales over large gravel storage beds to absorb and store stormwater. This will take the pressure off the street drainage.

The campus of Tulane University in uptown New Orleans has a stormwater masterplan. This has led to the development of a series of “stormwater gardens” that can filter and store large volumes of water, protecting the rest of the site from flooding.

In downtown New Orleans, where there is little natural ground, new buildings have to find architectural solutions for water management.

Underneath the tiny alley that leads into Bar Marilou at the Ace Hotel, massive underground storage tanks manage all of the stormwater for the entire hotel.

On the roof deck of the Standard Apartments, a “blue roof” filters stormwater through carefully selected plants. Water is then stored below the paving and above the parking deck.

At the Paul Habans Charter School on New Orleans Westbank, the entire school grounds have been converted to clean and store water. Students are taught onsite about water management and natural systems.

In the Green Schoolyard, a formerly flooded area has been redesigned to accommodate planted swales and water storage.

In the Habans Stormwater and Nature Centre, a workforce development program for Greencorps youth is building an extensive artificial wetland that will cleanse and store water as well as provide environmental education.

Change is clearly possible. It might not be easy, but as the devastation underway in NSW this week shows, it is better than the alternative.

Read more: It’s 2am, you’re sleeping, and a flash flood hits your home. Without a warning system, what do you do?

This story is part of a series The Conversation is running on the nexus between disaster, disadvantage and resilience. You can read the rest of the stories here.

– ref. Not ‘if’, but ‘when’: city planners need to design for flooding. These examples show the way – https://theconversation.com/not-if-but-when-city-planners-need-to-design-for-flooding-these-examples-show-the-way-157578

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

Phase 1B of Australia’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout has started today, after a few teething troubles.

Last week the federal government prematurely released the national online booking system, which went live before GPs were expecting it. Practices have been swamped with phone calls since, despite many having not yet received any supply of COVID vaccines.

What’s more, extreme weather and flooding is expected to disrupt the rollout in New South Wales.

But from today, about 1,000 GP clinics have received supply and can begin vaccinating eligible Australians.

Just over six million Australians are eligible to be vaccinated in this phase. This includes Aboriginal people over 55 years old, non-Aboriginal people over 70, key workers such as police and firefighters, and health-care workers not vaccinated in phase 1A. You can take the federal government’s online test to find out whether you’re eligible, and if not, when you will be.

Check the ‘booking system’ for eligible GPs

General practices are using only the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine as part of this phase. Pfizer vaccines will continue to be given through workplaces and aged-care facilities, to those in category Category 1A. There is no plan for these to be given through GPs at this stage.

To administer the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, GPs undergo a rigorous application process, and not all practices have opted to do this. Of the roughly 6,600 accredited practices in Australia, only around two-thirds will be administering COVID vaccines. The federal government hopes up to 4,000 clinics will be administering the vaccine by the end of April.

You can find out which GP closest to you is giving these through the national online booking system. However, despite being called a “booking system”, it actually simply gives you contact details for approved GPs in your location. You are then expected to make contact yourself. You can find the “make a booking” button after doing the eligibility quiz.

But before you pick up the phone, please understand…

Each participating GP clinic is currently allocated a limited supply of AstraZeneca vaccines, around 50-400 per week. It will likely take months at this rate to vaccinate communities. Unfortunately, there just isn’t enough supply of the AstraZeneca vaccine in the country right now to do this any faster.

Currently we only have what we’ve imported, which is around 700,000 doses, despite the hope for 3.8 million by now.

However, local manufacturing will soon ramp up. On Sunday the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) approved the domestically produced version of the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is being manufactured by Melbourne-based biotech company CSL.

It’s exactly the same vaccine, but it required TGA approval to make sure the locally produced version exactly matches the European one. Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt said he expected CSL to start delivering the vaccine in the coming days. The aim is for CSL to eventually produce one million doses per week.

One positive aspect to this slow start is that it allows GPs to absorb vaccine administration into their normal workflow. Most general practices are small, privately owned businesses that want to continue providing existing services as well as give the vaccinations. So there’s time to get systems and processes in place.

The overarching message is to see this as a marathon not a sprint. Be patient, and your time will come!

You don’t need any extra GP appointments before you have the vaccine

The good news is you can be given your COVID vaccine by any GP clinic approved to give them, as long as you’re eligible under the rollout plan. Even if the GP giving the COVID vaccine isn’t your usual GP, you don’t need to see them for a separate consultation beforehand.

Before you’re given a COVID vaccine you also need to consent to it, verbally or in writing. A standard consent form lists medical conditions and risks you should consider, and is available in multiple languages. Many practices will email this in advance, have it on their website, and/or have hard copies on-site.

Read more: Can I choose what vaccine I get? What if I have allergies or side-effects? Key COVID vaccine rollout questions answered

If you realise you have questions or concerns while reading the consent form, instead of booking to have the vaccine you should book for an appointment to discuss these with a GP, either your own or the one whose practice will be giving you the vaccine. Note that many vaccines will be given by immunisation nurses, with GPs on-site at all times too. A useful blog to help you get ready for the vaccine, written by GPs, can be found here.

Once you’re eligible, you can book with a GP that has a supply. It would be best to check their website before calling them to see their preferred methods of booking. Please help them by following their suggestions. And please be patient with the receptionists trying to juggle this increased workload!

– ref. The second phase of Australia’s COVID vaccine rollout is underway, despite a rocky start. Here’s what you need to know – https://theconversation.com/the-second-phase-of-australias-covid-vaccine-rollout-is-underway-despite-a-rocky-start-heres-what-you-need-to-know-157426

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katherine Woo, Postdoctoral Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage, James Cook University

The world’s oceans hold their secrets close, including clues about how people lived tens of thousands of years ago.

For a large portion of humanity’s existence, sea levels were significantly lower (up to 130 metres) than they are today, exposing millions of square kilometres of land. And the archaeological record is clear: people in the past lived on these coastal plains before the land slipped beneath the waves.

Archaeology already tells us these drowned landscapes played significant roles in human history. Major events such as human migrations across the globe and the invention of maritime technology took place along these now-drowned shorelines.

But these sites can be hard to find.

In two papers published this week our team reports on a breakthrough in detecting and excavating one particular type of coastal archaeological site — shell middens — on what is now the seabed.

The rich trove of evidence in these middens offer clues on how people adapted during times of sea-level rise and climate change.

It was long thought shell middens would be unlikely to survive the effects of rising sea levels – or if they had, it would be impossible to distinguish them from natural debris on the ocean floor. Our new findings suggest that’s not necessarily the case.

Read more: In a first discovery of its kind, researchers have uncovered an ancient Aboriginal archaeological site preserved on the seabed

A new way to detect and excavate underwater middens

In recent decades, archaeologist have systematically searched the globe for evidence of these submerged cultural landscapes.

However, rough currents and poor visibility can make it difficult to find and record underwater sites.

In two journal articles published this week, our team has announced new ways of detecting and excavating shell middens from what is now the seabed.

Previously, shell middens were hard to differentiate from natural shell deposits.

But our examination of three shell middens between 7,300 and 4,500 years old – from the Gulf of Mexico, the United States and Eastern Jutland in Denmark – demonstrate how submerged middens not only survive, but retain a distinct “signature” which can be used to separate them from naturally accumulated debris on the sea floor.

By using microscopy, geological and geophysical techniques, 3D reconstructions, and biological and ecological studies, we teased out different strands of evidence that offer new insights into how we might find other midden sites in watery depths around the globe.

Challenging what we thought we knew about ancient coastal communities

What we’ve found so far challenges current ideas about coastal use in the Gulf of Mexico and northern Europe.

In the Gulf of Mexico, there is a gap in midden sites from between 5,000 and 4,500 years ago along the coastline of our study area. New results suggest localised sea-level changes, not lack of occupation, explain that gap.

In Denmark, the discovery of these middens (which are rare in the south) hints this type of site was more common than previously thought. That shifts our understandings of how intensive coastal use may have been between 7,300 and 5,000 years ago.

Importantly, both studies imply our histories of past coastal use may need to be rewritten as more such sites are found. Previously, many archaeologists assumed that people only occupied stable coastal zones. However, in both of our study areas, this was not the case.

Furthermore, older examples of similar middens likely lie offshore in multiple regions. Our new methods can make the search for such sites easier and more efficient.

Clues about adapting to a changing environment

Research at these sites is generating critical information that is beginning to fill in missing pieces of the puzzle of the human past.

Shell middens are complex, culturally significant sites. Some are the result of people discarding food refuse, tools, and other remnants of daily life. In other cases middens are purposefully built for cultural reasons, including burials. Often they are a mix of both.

They thus provide fundamental information about past food choices, tool technology, trade practices, and cultural values. These different types of information allow us to infer how people adapted their cultures over time. They also hint at how people interacted with their surrounding environments even as sea levels rose and the climate changed.

Understanding the past can help us contend with the future

These findings are not just important for our understandings of the past. They have direct and significant impacts on modern people, especially the rights of Indigenous and First Nations people across the globe.

These Nations have long impressed on us their deep connections with marine environments and seascapes. However, recognition of these relationships in western environmental and heritage conservation policies has been slow and deeply inadequate.

These new findings support Indigenous and First Nations people to manage the cultural heritage of their ancestral lands and waters by documenting these relationships into the deep past.

The discovery of these underwater sites, and the promise of more to be found, means industry, developers, archaeologists, and government bodies must reassess how we manage and protect ancient Indigenous heritage in these underwater settings. That is especially true as offshore mining and development accelerates.

Peter Moe Astrup, Curator of Maritime Archaeology at Moesgaard Museum, co-authored this article.

Read more: An incredible journey: the first people to arrive in Australia came in large numbers, and on purpose

– ref. Ancient undersea middens offer clues about life before rising seas engulfed the coast. Now we have a better way to study them – https://theconversation.com/ancient-undersea-middens-offer-clues-about-life-before-rising-seas-engulfed-the-coast-now-we-have-a-better-way-to-study-them-157413

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Garry Stevens, Director of Academic Programs, Western Sydney University

New South Wales is currently in the grip of one of largest flood events in decades. The NSW SES is helping thousands of people evacuate and has received more than 2,000 calls for help in the last 24 hours.

Western Sydney is one of the areas hardest hit, with the Nepean River rising to levels higher than that of the great flood of 1961.

Evacuation orders are in place for western Penrith, Jamieson Town and Mulgoa, in what NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian has described as a one-in-100-year event.

Despite the SES warning of dangerous road conditions, some people have driven their cars through floodwaters. Others have defied the extreme weather and used kayaks to move across flood zones.

NSW police and emergency services minister, David Elliott, has urged people to heed SES warnings and never drive, walk, or ride through flood waters. As he put it: “If the road is flooded, forget it.”

Unfortunately, however, this is advice often ignored. Research on psychology and floods reveals clues as to why.

Read more: Floods leave a legacy of mental health problems — and disadvantaged people are often hardest hit

Why we risk it when flood strikes

As a type of emergency or hazard, floods are particularly challenging for emergency service agencies due the familiarity many Australians have with water, which we mostly associate with leisure and recreation.

The all-too-frequent examples of surfers entering storm swells and the use of boats and water equipment in flooded areas highlight this cross-over of recreation into hazardous conditions. Two of the most common causes of fatalities during floods result from play activities in water courses and attempts to drive across flooded rivers and streams.

This tracks with data from our recent research.

Our recent national survey asked participants about their behaviour with flood waters. We found 19% had engaged in activities in flooded rivers, with 77% of these doing so for leisure purposes such as wading, swimming or riding an inflatable.

Over half those surveyed have driven through floodwater, with most of these (68%) having done so more than once.

Men and drivers of larger vehicles are most likely to take these risks. During a single flood event in NSW in 2016, 80 cars became stranded and three drivers died in unrelated incidents linked to driving through flood waters.

While playing in or driving through flood waters are avoidable risks, the latter involve adults who generally know the risks – much to the frustration of emergency authorities. So what convinces people make risky decisions in a flood?

Drivers in our study reported that they saw a majority of people in other vehicles (about 64%) driving through the floodwater, while only 2% were turning around.

Seeing others do something often leaves people with the impression this behaviour is typical and relatively safe, an effect known as “normalcy bias”.

In 15% of cases we studied, passengers also put pressure on drivers to cross.

When things go wrong, they can go very wrong

Another key reason involves prior experience and perceived probability of adverse outcomes. While 9% reported a negative outcome (such damage to their car or having to be rescued), 91% reported proceeding without any incident.

The reasons for these crossings were not sudden or impulsive, but often involved what the person saw as “careful consideration” of everyday needs — such as the need to get to work or buy groceries.

This presents an obvious challenge for emergency authorities. While most people succeed without issues, the cases where something goes wrong can be catastrophic and in some cases fatal.

So, how do we convey the very real risks of floodwater? How do we highlight the need for people to prepare an evacuation plan and avoid entering floodwater?

Crafting local messages for key communities

As events unfold in the Hawkesbury-Nepean area in Western Sydney, it’s clear engaging communities in flood risk is challenging. That’s especially true when recent floods haven’t been too serious and people have encountered flood waters before without issue. Unfortunately, past experience is not a predictor of future outcomes.

As part of the NSW government’s Hawkesbury-Nepean valley flood strategy, considerable effort has been made in recent years to work with local communities and craft area-specific flood risk messaging.

In 2019 and 2020, the NSW SES launched their Floods. The Risk is Real campaign to increase flood awareness in the region.

The campaign personalises the message by using billboards with local landmarks showing flood can occur in that specific area. This campaign also incorporates interactive flood mapping and augmented reality to show people what can happen when flood strikes.

Work led by Infrastructure NSW has also included a focus on specific communities that are perceived to be at higher risk.

One of these groups is large animal owners. The Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain is home to an estimated 10,000 horses. Relocating animals takes time and planning. It can potentially lead to more road congestion and slow down flood evacuation. The government is targeting messaging to these animal owners so they understand how far in advance they need to plan and execute an evacuation when heavy rain arrives.

In 2019 the NSW SES, with support of the NSW Department of Primary Industries, Greater Sydney Local Land Services and local councils launched a website devoted to supporting and educating animal owners across the state.

It’s hard to know now what effect this work is having in the Hawkesbury-Nepean region, but it will hopefully pay dividends in future.

The significant flood event currently underway in NSW highlights the need to reinforce the risk communication messaging already in place and build on it in future.

With the right messaging, lives, property and animals can be saved.

Read more: It’s 2am, you’re sleeping, and a flash flood hits your home. Without a warning system, what do you do?

This story is part of a series The Conversation is running on the nexus between disaster, disadvantage and resilience. You can read the rest of the stories here.

– ref. Why do people try to drive through floodwater or leave it too late to flee? Psychology offers some answers – https://theconversation.com/why-do-people-try-to-drive-through-floodwater-or-leave-it-too-late-to-flee-psychology-offers-some-answers-157577

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sara Dehm, Lecturer, University of Technology Sydney

Over 100 refugees have been abruptly and quietly released from immigration detention in Melbourne, Brisbane and Darwin hotels since early 2021. These releases are welcome and long overdue, following a sustained public campaign for their freedom.

But their newly gained freedom remains conditional and their futures uncertain. What’s more, many other refugees who were also transferred to Australia from offshore detention for medical treatment have yet to be released.

This raises serious concerns for the ongoing welfare of the refugees — those now in the community and those still in detention.

It also raises questions about the arbitrary, non-transparent and even cruel nature of ministerial decision-making when it comes to who is released and who isn’t.

Why release these refugees now?

To date, the Department of Home Affairs has not provided any official rationale for the timing of these releases. Nor have they outlined any criteria or policy explaining the decisions to grant some refugees temporary visas to live in the Australian community and not others.

By our estimation, about 80 people transferred under the now-repealed medevac legislation remain in detention. But it is hard to get precise figures due to lags and gaps in government statistics and its longstanding lack of transparency.

Read more: Hotels are no ‘luxury’ place to detain people seeking asylum in Australia

In January, Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton explained the initial releases as a cost-saving measure, stating it was “cheaper” for people to live in the community than in a hotel.

While this has long been true, it seems a hollow line from a government that continues to maintain a policy of offshore detention in Nauru and Papua New Guinea to the cost of over $1.2 billion per year (that’s roughly $4 million per person this financial year).

Sadly, refugees are all too used to the inconsistent and arbitrary use of power under Australia’s migration laws.

Under federal law, the minister can issue a visa to any non-citizen in immigration detention at any time. This even applies to people who have been transferred from offshore detention for medical reasons and are prohibited from applying for any visa while in Australia.

Yet, even at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic last year, Dutton largely refused to issue temporary visas to people from immigration detention. This was despite the impossibility of social distancing and heightened risk of infection for people detained in prisons, immigration detention and hotels.

Read more: A COVID ‘vaccine passport’ may further disadvantage refugees and asylum seekers

In fact, Dutton fought tooth and nail to stop the courts from ordering the release of refugees from detention. This included forcibly moving an elderly man to a Western Australian detention centre rather than release him to live with his family in Melbourne.

It is highly likely the decision to release people from hotel detention now is in response to political pressure and social mobilisation.

Refugees in hotel detention have persistently drawn attention to their incarceration through social media, community protests and with the support of high-profile advocates like former footballer Craig Foster. Some have filed lawsuits to challenge the legality of their detention.

This mobilisation has seemed to work in their favour, at least in the short term.

Freedom yet abandonment

Release from hotel detention has brought enormous relief and joy for the refugees. It comes after more than eight years of physical confinement and legal limbo in offshore detention, and over one year in detention in Australia without visitors or even access to fresh air.

But their new reality is now complex. Their freedom is neither guaranteed, nor accompanied by the necessary financial and social support. They are living precariously.

The government has reportedly given each person up to six weeks of support, including motel accommodation and income support payments, as well as limited casework support.

When this support runs out, these men will effectively be abandoned to fend for themselves. They must either pay for government-provided accommodation or find their own private accommodation. They must also pay for any non-subsidised medical costs out of their own pockets, a difficult proposition for some people with complex medical needs.

This pattern is not new. Increasingly, some countries are actively withdrawing support for asylum seekers and undocumented migrants to make conditions so miserable they surrender their right to seek asylum.

Read more: Could the Biden administration pressure Australia to adopt more humane refugee policies?

As Kurdish writer Behrouz Boochani, who is now living in New Zealand, has commented, this neglect often leads refugees to a “point of hopelessness”, pushing them to “finally decide to return to their country of origin”.

Since their release this year, the medevac refugees have largely relied on support from private individuals (including crowdfunding) and NGOs. The government’s policy is effectively confining them to precarity, dependency and impoverishment in our community.

In response to detailed questions about the refugee release and support systems in place to assist them, a spokesperson for Home Affairs said,

The Australian Government remains committed to regional processing and third country resettlement for persons under these arrangements. Government policy is steadfast – persons under regional processing arrangements will not settle permanently in Australia.

Transitory persons were brought to Australia temporarily to receive medical treatment. Their temporary stay in Australia is not a pathway to settlement.

Status Resolution Support Services (SRSS) providers have been engaged to provide short-term support including case worker support to link individuals to essential services and accommodation.

An uncertain future

For now, the released refugees have been granted what are known as “final departure Bridging Visa Es”. These are usually granted for a six-month period and there is no guarantee they will be renewed.

This visa usually gives people work rights. But finding a job in the current economic climate, coupled with their lack of employment histories after years of detention, make this a herculean ask.

The temporary visa also formally requires people to make arrangements to depart Australia. Home Affairs has said the released refugees have three options:

• resettlement in the US (a virtually impossible option limited to a select few)

• return to their country of origin

• return to Nauru or PNG.

Yet, none of these are feasible long-term solutions. Most of the people have been officially recognised as refugees, so they cannot safely return to their home states. Countries like Iran also refuse to accept involuntary returns.

Lacking any other options, two refugees chose to return to Nauru last week. But those who take this path remain vulnerable due to a lack of adequate medical care and, in the case of PNG, a spiralling COVID crisis.

Given this, the temporary nature of these visas means the threat of future re-detention or deportation is an ongoing risk. This sense of uncertainty is heightened by the mandate that released refugees sign a pernicious code of behaviour.

And to date, many medevac refugees remain in detention in Australia, causing them even more distress. In the words of Refugee Voices spokesman Ahmad Hakim:

They are just seeking answers why have they been left there and others are out. They feel it is a type of torture by Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton, to break them down more.

The pandemic offered a chance to reset Australia’s cruelty towards refugees and other temporary migrants, including through a large-scale immigration amnesty.

Releasing refugees from detention on temporary visas is a missed opportunity to give them a permanent home and stable future.

– ref. Scores of medevac refugees have been released from detention. Their freedom, though, remains tenuous – https://theconversation.com/scores-of-medevac-refugees-have-been-released-from-detention-their-freedom-though-remains-tenuous-156952

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sara Dehm, Lecturer, University of Technology Sydney

Over 100 refugees have been abruptly and quietly released from immigration detention in Melbourne, Brisbane and Darwin hotels since early 2021. These releases are welcome and long overdue, following a sustained public campaign for their freedom.

But their newly gained freedom remains conditional and their futures uncertain. What’s more, many other refugees who were also transferred to Australia from offshore detention for medical treatment have yet to be released.

This raises serious concerns for the ongoing welfare of the refugees — those now in the community and those still in detention.

It also raises questions about the arbitrary, non-transparent and even cruel nature of ministerial decision-making when it comes to who is released and who isn’t.

Why release these refugees now?

To date, the Department of Home Affairs has not provided any official rationale for the timing of these releases. Nor have they outlined any criteria or policy explaining the decisions to grant some refugees temporary visas to live in the Australian community and not others.

By our estimation, about 80 people transferred under the now-repealed medevac legislation remain in detention. But it is hard to get precise figures due to lags and gaps in government statistics and its longstanding lack of transparency.

Read more: Hotels are no ‘luxury’ place to detain people seeking asylum in Australia

In January, Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton explained the initial releases as a cost-saving measure, stating it was “cheaper” for people to live in the community than in a hotel.

While this has long been true, it seems a hollow line from a government that continues to maintain a policy of offshore detention in Nauru and Papua New Guinea to the cost of over $1.2 billion per year (that’s roughly $4 million per person this financial year).

Sadly, refugees are all too used to the inconsistent and arbitrary use of power under Australia’s migration laws.

Under federal law, the minister can issue a visa to any non-citizen in immigration detention at any time. This even applies to people who have been transferred from offshore detention for medical reasons and are prohibited from applying for any visa while in Australia.

Yet, even at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic last year, Dutton largely refused to issue temporary visas to people from immigration detention. This was despite the impossibility of social distancing and heightened risk of infection for people detained in prisons, immigration detention and hotels.

Read more: A COVID ‘vaccine passport’ may further disadvantage refugees and asylum seekers

In fact, Dutton fought tooth and nail to stop the courts from ordering the release of refugees from detention. This included forcibly moving an elderly man to a Western Australian detention centre rather than release him to live with his family in Melbourne.

It is highly likely the decision to release people from hotel detention now is in response to political pressure and social mobilisation.

Refugees in hotel detention have persistently drawn attention to their incarceration through social media, community protests and with the support of high-profile advocates like former footballer Craig Foster. Some have filed lawsuits to challenge the legality of their detention.

This mobilisation has seemed to work in their favour, at least in the short term.

Freedom yet abandonment

Release from hotel detention has brought enormous relief and joy for the refugees. It comes after more than eight years of physical confinement and legal limbo in offshore detention, and over one year in detention in Australia without visitors or even access to fresh air.

But their new reality is now complex. Their freedom is neither guaranteed, nor accompanied by the necessary financial and social support. They are living precariously.

The government has reportedly given each person up to six weeks of support, including motel accommodation and income support payments, as well as limited casework support.

When this support runs out, these men will effectively be abandoned to fend for themselves. They must either pay for government-provided accommodation or find their own private accommodation. They must also pay for any non-subsidised medical costs out of their own pockets, a difficult proposition for some people with complex medical needs.

This pattern is not new. Increasingly, some countries are actively withdrawing support for asylum seekers and undocumented migrants to make conditions so miserable they surrender their right to seek asylum.

Read more: Could the Biden administration pressure Australia to adopt more humane refugee policies?

As Kurdish writer Behrouz Boochani, who is now living in New Zealand, has commented, this neglect often leads refugees to a “point of hopelessness”, pushing them to “finally decide to return to their country of origin”.

Since their release this year, the medevac refugees have largely relied on support from private individuals (including crowdfunding) and NGOs. The government’s policy is effectively confining them to precarity, dependency and impoverishment in our community.

In response to detailed questions about the refugee release and support systems in place to assist them, a spokesperson for Home Affairs said,

The Australian Government remains committed to regional processing and third country resettlement for persons under these arrangements. Government policy is steadfast – persons under regional processing arrangements will not settle permanently in Australia.

Transitory persons were brought to Australia temporarily to receive medical treatment. Their temporary stay in Australia is not a pathway to settlement.

Status Resolution Support Services (SRSS) providers have been engaged to provide short-term support including case worker support to link individuals to essential services and accommodation.

An uncertain future

For now, the released refugees have been granted what are known as “final departure Bridging Visa Es”. These are usually granted for a six-month period and there is no guarantee they will be renewed.

This visa usually gives people work rights. But finding a job in the current economic climate, coupled with their lack of employment histories after years of detention, make this a herculean ask.

The temporary visa also formally requires people to make arrangements to depart Australia. Home Affairs has said the released refugees have three options:

• resettlement in the US (a virtually impossible option limited to a select few)

• return to their country of origin

• return to Nauru or PNG.

Yet, none of these are feasible long-term solutions. Most of the people have been officially recognised as refugees, so they cannot safely return to their home states. Countries like Iran also refuse to accept involuntary returns.

Lacking any other options, two refugees chose to return to Nauru last week. But those who take this path remain vulnerable due to a lack of adequate medical care and, in the case of PNG, a spiralling COVID crisis.

Given this, the temporary nature of these visas means the threat of future re-detention or deportation is an ongoing risk. This sense of uncertainty is heightened by the mandate that released refugees sign a pernicious code of behaviour.

And to date, many medevac refugees remain in detention in Australia, causing them even more distress. In the words of Refugee Voices spokesman Ahmad Hakim:

They are just seeking answers why have they been left there and others are out. They feel it is a type of torture by Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton, to break them down more.

The pandemic offered a chance to reset Australia’s cruelty towards refugees and other temporary migrants, including through a large-scale immigration amnesty.

Releasing refugees from detention on temporary visas is a missed opportunity to give them a permanent home and stable future.

– ref. Scores of medevac refugees have been released from detention. Their freedom, though, is an illusion – https://theconversation.com/scores-of-medevac-refugees-have-been-released-from-detention-their-freedom-though-is-an-illusion-156952

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Greg Barton, Chair in Global Islamic Politics, Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University

Words matter. And when you are the director-general of ASIO, and one of the few people in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation that can talk to the public about what you do at work without being in breach of the law, then your words really matter. To his credit, Mike Burgess has made it his mission to “to make ASIO more open and transparent”.

His second annual threat assessment, for all its droll, candid delivery, was provocative and revealing in its carefully chosen words. And yet, on one point, it was also unexpectedly perplexing.

Read more: ASIO to avoid ‘left’, ‘right’ and ‘Islamic’ in an overhaul of its descriptions of extremism

When Burgess delivered his first annual threat assessment in February last year, shortly after assuming the leadership of ASIO, he spoke with refreshing frankness about the rising threat posed by right-wing extremism:

Right-wing extremism has been in ASIO’s sights for some time, but obviously this threat came into sharp, terrible focus last year in New Zealand.

In Australia, the extreme right-wing threat is real and it is growing. In suburbs around Australia, small cells regularly meet to salute Nazi flags, inspect weapons, train in combat and share their hateful ideology.

His deputy director, Helen Cook, continued this pattern of plain speaking when she addressed a parliamentary inquiry last September. She pointed out the parallels between the ways in which right-wing extremists were recruiting online and the methods used by Islamic State.

By September 2020, violent right-wing extremism accounted for around one-third of ASIO’s counterterrorism case load, Cook said, tripling since 2016.

Last week, Burgess said that proportion was now 40%. Internet recruitment had spiked during during pandemic lockdowns:

For those intent on violence, more time at home online meant more time in the echo chamber of the internet on the pathway to radicalisation.

Given the recent spate of right-wing extremist incidents, and a spike in anti-Asian racism and Islamaphobia, this was not particularly surprising. As Burgess said,

The online environment is a force multiplier for extremism; fertile ground for sharing ideology and spreading propaganda.

Ideological extremists are now more reactive to world events, such as COVID, the Black Lives Matter movement and the recent American presidential election.

What was unexpected, however, on the second anniversary of the Christchurch terror attack, was a radical pivot in ASIO’s official terminology for terrorist threats.

From today, ASIO will be changing the language we use to talk about the violent threats we counter. We will now refer to two categories: religiously motivated violent extremism, and ideologically motivated violent extremism.

Why are we making a change?

Put simply, it’s because the current labels are no longer fit for purpose; they no longer adequately describe the phenomena we’re seeing.

That “our language needs to evolve” makes sense. There are very clearly some threats that we need to do a much better job of recognising, such as “the violent misogynists who adhere to the involuntary celibate or ‘incel’ ideology”.

Read more: To shut down far-right extremism in Australia, we must confront the ecosystem of hate

And clearly many extremists are, as Burgess said, “motivated by a fear of societal collapse or a specific social or economic grievance or conspiracy”. But the argument that they “don’t fit on the left–right spectrum at all” is much less convincing. What he is describing very much does fit with what is well recognised as far-right extremism. Despite being eclectic and variegated, it nevertheless coheres around a central core of victimhood and conspiratorial fear of replacement by dangerous, unclean outsiders.

Some are concerned this shift in language reflects pressure from political conservatives who have been vocal in their rejection of the term “right-wing extremism”.

Read more: Two years on from the Christchurch terror attack, how much has really changed?

It is also possible Burgess wishes to shine a light on this and subject the issue to greater scrutiny.

Nevertheless, there is a clear and welcome case for taking greater care to avoid burdening the Muslim community with prejudicial language when so many are working so hard to counter extremism. As Burgess said,

Understandably, some Muslim groups — and others — see this term as damaging and misrepresentative of Islam, and consider that it stigmatises them by encouraging stereotyping and stoking division.

It also needs to be recognised that the shift in terminology that Burgess introduced relates to “umbrella terms – and there may be circumstances where we need to call out a specific threat that sits underneath them”.

This willingness to speak about specific threats was very much in evidence when Burgess spoke about the fact that IS had

released a video last year referencing the Australian bushfire crisis to encourage arson attacks in the West.

This specific reference came on the same day that two brothers, just 19 and 20 years old, and a 16-year-old relative, were arrested in connection with an arson incident in bushland north of Melbourne in mid-February, and a violent assault in the Melbourne CBD weeks later.

Police had responded to these incidents as regular crimes but subsequently found evidence of links with IS and engaged the joint counter-terrorism task force. The brothers have since been charged with trying to plan a terrorist act.

It is important that the director-general and others in positions of power and influence continue to speak clearly about the threats they are dealing with every day.

We should welcome the statement that

At ASIO, we’re conscious that the names and labels we use are important.

Informing and educating the public, and building trust and fostering social cohesion, are vitally important aspects of their work.

To be effective, this needs to be done without fear or favour and with respect and sensitivity. Words have a significant effect on how we think about, and respond, to issues.

Read more: Journalists and security agencies don’t need to be friends. But can they at least talk to each other?

– ref. ASIO’s language shift on terrorism is a welcome acknowledgment of the power of words – https://theconversation.com/asios-language-shift-on-terrorism-is-a-welcome-acknowledgment-of-the-power-of-words-157400

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Meera Atkinson, Adjunct Lecturer in Writing, University of Notre Dame Australia

Originating in the medical sciences, where it referred to physical injury, the term “trauma” is now often used in popular and scholarly discussion to refer to psychological injury. While large-scale mental health surveys consistently find sexual assault is a major risk factor for traumatic illness, it’s often assumed pre-existing mental illness is the cause of the allegation itself.

Arguments around the truthfulness of assault claims can hinge on stereotypical portrayals of people living with mental illness as untrustworthy witnesses to their own experience.

The recent sexual assault allegation against Attorney-General Christian Porter, which he has strenuously denied, has been accompanied by speculative commentary relating to memory and the mental health of Porter’s now deceased accuser. Some journalists have pointed to her mental health status in a manner designed to raise questions about her account, and to suggest her allegation was a post-hoc confabulation.

The complainant’s bipolar diagnosis, her seeking mental health care, her fragmented journal entries, and her accessing a book on the neuroscience of trauma have been emphasised as evidence she invented her account or was suffering from so-called “repressed” or “recovered” memories.

This type of argument reflects longstanding myths that prevail within journalism and the community about trauma, memory and mental illness. Below, we tackle three key misunderstandings.

1. Trauma and bipolar disorder aren’t mutually exclusive

Apparent links in media commentary between a bipolar diagnosis and false allegations of sexual assault reflect a misunderstanding of the diagnosis.

People with bipolar disorder experience significant fluctuations in mood, including low depressive states and active “manic” states. A range of studies have found childhood trauma increases the risk of developing bipolar disorders, and contributes to the severity and complexity of symptoms, including earlier age of onset, and increased suicidal ideation and substance abuse. One clinical study of bipolar patients found they were significantly more likely to report sexual assault in childhood or adulthood than patients with a depressive illness. This evidence suggests sexual assault is a risk factor for developing bipolar, and people with a bipolar diagnosis may be more vulnerable to sexual assault.

Bipolar has been somewhat overlooked in research into the relationship between sexual assault and mental illness, and these findings underscore the need for further exploration.

Read more: What is bipolar disorder, the condition Kanye West lives with?

2. “Recovered memory therapy” doesn’t exist

The psychiatrist Bessel van der Kolk authored a bestselling book, The Body Keeps Score. This book was noted in the journal of Porter’s alleged victim. Media commentators have repeatedly reported it as controversial.

Within the field of trauma studies, this book is not considered controversial and is not associated with “repressed” or “recovered” memory theories or practices. Furthermore, “recovered memory therapy” is a fallacy.

“Recovered memory therapy” is a pejorative term invented in the early 1990s to describe trauma therapy. People who use the term claim a significant number of therapists use improper techniques designed to “recover” forgotten or repressed memories of sexual abuse, which creates “false memories” and false allegations. However, there is no therapy called “recovered memory therapy”, and the term has been described by trauma experts as a form of disinformation created by advocates of people accused of sexual offences.

In 2004, the Victorian health regulator initiated an inquiry into “recovered memory therapy” (RMT) at the urging of “false memory” activists. The inquiry concluded “reports of the practice of RMT are often based on speculation” and “there is no reliable evidence for the practice of RMT” in the state. The inquiry demonstrates how inflated claims of RMT have been advanced in Australia despite a lack of evidence.

Since the early 1990s, “best practice” trauma therapy has focused on establishing emotional and physical safety, processing and narrating experiences of trauma, and moving forward from abuse and violence.

Read more: Dissociative identity disorder exists and is the result of childhood trauma

3. Memory error and journalling are not necessarily evidence of false allegations

Some coverage has focused on specific details of the victim’s allegation with the implication that any discrepancy of detail invalidates the claims.

Details matter in establishing the legitimacy of claims. But recent evidence on the neuroscience of memory demands a rethink of public and legal understanding of memory. According to researchers from the United States, memory is commonly perceived as “akin to a video recorder”. But, they argue, memory is fundamentally “imperfect and is susceptible to distortion and loss”. They conclude “there needs to be greater education and awareness of memory processes in judicial settings and in daily life”.

Dori Laub, eminent Israeli-American psychiatrist and Yale University Professor, recalled a woman describing her experience at Auschwitz for the Video Archive for Holocaust Testimonies at Yale in his famous essay on witnessing. The woman said four chimneys exploded and went up in flames during the Auschwitz uprising. When he presented this interview at a cross-disciplinary conference, historians pronounced her recollection incorrect; only one chimney had blown. Her memory was fallible, unreliable, and therefore inadmissible.

Laub, the psychoanalyst who interviewed the woman for the video, disagreed. He said: “The woman was testifying not to the number of the chimneys blown up, but to something else, something more radical, more crucial: the reality of an unimaginable occurrence.” Accuracy regarding the number, he maintained, “mattered less than the occurrence” and therefore, the woman’s testimony stood as “historical truth” despite her factual error.

The private journal entries of Porter’s alleged victim have been exhibited by some journalists as lacking coherence, and a reference to her initially overlooking the assault in the hope of marrying Porter has been foregrounded. Many sexually assaulted people know their abuser. Being bonded to an assailant to any degree can increase the common traumatic shock symptoms of denial and minimisation.

Journalling is often less than coherent. It’s not intended to be read but to help process highly complex personal experiences. Many women relate to these messy journal entries.

Media coverage has been integral to driving social change and highlighting the plight of victims and survivors of sexual violence.

However, the media also harbours entrenched cultures of resistance to developments in trauma science, reflecting personal and professional biases as well as common attitudes and misunderstandings in the community.

Commentary reinforcing existing stigmatisation of traumatic and mental health conditions negatively affects a significant proportion of the Australian population.

Journalists should consult professionals with trauma expertise and people living with mental illness when reporting on sensitive issues such as the impact of trauma on memory, according to best practice guidelines. Trauma and mental health are public health issues, and people with media platforms have a responsibility to get it right.

Read more: Evidence shows mental illness isn’t a reason to doubt women survivors

– ref. 3 trauma takes the media gets wrong – https://theconversation.com/3-trauma-takes-the-media-gets-wrong-157403

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christian Downie, Associate professor, Australian National University

Former Australian finance minister Mathias Cormann was last week elected Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), after campaigning on a platform with climate action as a central plank.

In a statement following his appointment, Cormann pledged to “drive and promote global leadership on ambitious and effective action on climate change to achieve global net-zero emissions by 2050”.

Cormann’s selection came despite concerns his climate track record in federal parliament made him an unsuitable candidate.

It’s said the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. If that proves correct with Cormann, we shouldn’t expect much on climate change. But his new gig does present an opportunity for Cormann to change his stripes.

A poor climate record

From 2013 to 2020, Cormann was finance minister in the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments – an administration with arguably one of the worst records on climate change of any OECD government.

Just last week, Australia ranked last on a list of the world’s 50 largest economies for “green” spending to aid economic recovery after the COVID pandemic, according to a United Nations report.

The litany of the Coalition’s indictments is too long to list in full here. But dubious highlights include:

• abolishing Labor’s carbon price in 2014
• abolishing the Climate Commission
• unsuccessfully seeking to kill off the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

And Cormann has also discouraged the climate action of others. For example, in 2017 he described Westpac’s lending restrictions on coal projects as “very, very disappointing”.

The OECD itself has condemned Australia as “one of the most carbon-intensive OECD countries and one of the few where greenhouse gas emissions (excluding land use change and forestry) have risen in the past decade”.

It is not hard to see why many around the globe lobbied against Cormann’s new appointment, including the British Labour Party.

In stark contrast to his political record, Cormann embraced the need for climate action during his campaign for the OECD job. This included an opinion piece in support of net-zero emissions by 2050 – a target Prime Minister Scott Morrison has yet to commit to.

So if Cormann really has had a genuine change of heart, what can he do on climate action in his new role?

Cormann’s climate opportunity

Cormann may be used to being a cabinet minister, but his new role is more like a departmental secretary, but with new political masters.

The Paris-based OECD consists of 37 member states which run the organisation. Cormann answers to them, and many – including the United States and the United Kingdom – have adopted strong climate targets.

With a budget of around A$600 million and a permanent secretariat of more than 2,500 staff, the OECD has at its disposal significant resources to set international agendas and standards that can shape climate policies around the globe.

It regularly does so in other domains. For example, since the global financial crisis in 2008 the OECD has led the way on taxation reform. It helped forge new rules governing how national tax authorities share information, and how they might address multinational tax avoidance.

Cormann in a tight spot

If Cormann is genuine about his climate action agenda, he may be forced to take positions at odds with the Morrison government.

The first potential pressure point involves carbon prices and carbon tariffs, for which the OECD could be called upon to play a coordinating role.

A carbon price sets a price on carbon pollution at home. Carbon tariffs do so at the border. Crudely speaking, these are taxes on imports that produce considerable carbon pollution, and which originated in countries not pulling their weight on climate change.

The agenda of US President Joe Biden includes a “carbon adjustment fee” for countries failing to meet climate and environmental obligations. The European Union is also pressing ahead with a similar proposal.

Given even the OECD has concluded Australia is a climate action laggard, we look likely to be slugged. Predictably, Energy Minister Angus Taylor has declared his government is “dead against” such tariffs, and there are early signs Cormann will back his former colleagues on the tariff issue.

He last week urged caution, saying the measure entailed “many downside implications for global trade and the world economy”.

Read more: No point complaining about it, Australia will face carbon levies unless it changes course

The second pressure point is fossil fuel subsidies. In 2009, G20 countries agreed to phase out trillions of dollars in government handouts that prop up the oil, gas and coal industries. Since then, the OECD has campaigned against the subsidies, describing them as “environmentally harmful, costly, and distortive”.

OECD countries may come under growing international pressure to eliminate the handouts. This includes Australia which, according to IMF estimates, maintains US$29 billion in fossil fuel subsidies each year.

The third, lesser known point involves the rules governing export financing for fossil fuel infrastructure. In 2015 the US Obama administration pushed for OECD countries to restrict financing for new coal power plants in overseas countries. The bid succeeded, despite opposition from Australia and a handful of other nations.

While not perfect, the rules were a first step in phasing out coal. Many environmental groups are now campaigning for these rules to be tightened and to extend to oil and gas. It is not hard to guess what Australia’s position will be.

A new chapter?

The outgoing head of the OECD, Ángel Gurría, last month said tackling the world’s environmental crises was “the single most important intergenerational responsibility […] We are on a collision course with nature and we have to change course for future generations”.

He urged countries to “put a big fat price on carbon” – a position clearly at odds with the Morrison government.

Unsurprisingly, Cormann’s rhetoric so far has been more restrained. But if he is to match the climate ambition of the OECD’s biggest member states, his future behaviour will have to be very different to that of his past behaviour.

Read more: Six questions about Mathias Cormann, newly appointed Secretary General of the OECD

– ref. Genuine about climate action, Mr Cormann? Here’s how to turn over a new leaf – https://theconversation.com/genuine-about-climate-action-mr-cormann-heres-how-to-turn-over-a-new-leaf-157404

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Louis-Philippe Beland, Assistant Professor of Economics, Carleton University

The effects of mobiles phones and other technology at school is a hotly debated topic in many countries. Some advocate for a complete ban to limit distractions, while others suggest using technology as a teaching tool.

Kids in public South Australian primary schools started the school year without being allowed to bring their mobile phones to class, unless they are needed for class activity. All students in public Western Australian Victorian, and Tasmanian schools have a mobile phone ban in place since for all or some of 2020. New South Wales also banned mobile phones in public primary schools, with secondary schools having the option to opt in, since the start of 2020.

Education departments have introduced the bans for various reasons including to improve academic outcomes and decrease bullying.

Several recent papers point to positive impact of banning mobile phones at school on student performance and other outcomes. Understanding the evidence is crucial for best policy.

Read more: No, Education Minister, we don’t have enough evidence to support banning mobile phones in schools

In a 2015 paper, we used a method — called a difference-in-difference strategy — as well as student data from England to investigate the effect of banning mobile phones on student performance. In this method, we compared schools that have had phones removed to similar schools with no phone bans. This allowed us to isolate the effect of mobiles phones on student performance from other factors that could affect performance.

We found banning mobile phones at school leads to an increase in student performance. Our results suggest that after schools banned mobile phones, test scores of students aged 16 increased by 6.4% of a standard deviation. This is equivalent to adding five days to the school year or an additional hour a week.

The effects were twice as large for low-achieving students, and we found no impact on high achieving students.

Our results suggest low-performing students are more likely to be distracted by the presence of mobile phones, while high performing students can focus with or without mobile phones.

The results of our paper suggest banning mobile phones has considerable benefits including a reduction in the gap between high- and low- achieving students. This is substantial improvement for a low-cost education policy.

Other studies show similar results

Recent studies from Spain and Norway, using a similar empirical strategy to ours, also show compelling evidence on the benefit of banning mobile phones on student performance, with similar effect size.

In Spain, banning mobile phones has been shown to increase students’ scores in maths and science. Researchers also documented a decrease in incidences of bullying.

In Norway, banning phones significantly increased middle school students’ grade point average. It also increased students’ likelihood of attending an academic high school rather than choosing a vocational school. And it decreased incidents of bullying.

Evidence from Belgium suggests banning mobile phones can be beneficial for college student performance. This context might be different, but still informative as students are of similar age to those in high school.

Research from Sweden, however, suggests little effect of banning mobile phones in high school on student performance. It is worth noting, however, the study did not find any detrimental effect of banning mobile phones.

Read more: Don’t blame the teacher: student results are (mostly) out of their hands

A similar conclusion can be drawn from the literature on the effect of computers used at school. Evidence from the US suggests using laptops in class is detrimental to learning, and the effects are large and more damaging for low-performing students.

Potential psychological mechanisms involved

The psychological literature might shed lights on the potential mechanisms as to why mobile phones and other technology in school might affect student performance. This literature finds multitasking is detrimental to learning and task execution.

Many recent experimental papers present evidence mobile phone use while executing another task decreases learning and task completion. Research also shows computers might be a less efficient way to take notes than pen and paper.

It may be that taking notes by hand allows you to remember the material better than typing those notes on a computer. This may be because students are not just typing out every word said, but thinking of how to summarise what they’re hearing.

Read more: What’s the best way to take notes on your laptop or tablet?

These findings do not discount the possibility mobile phones and other technology could be a useful structured teaching tool. However, ignoring or misunderstanding the evidence could be harmful to students and lead to long term negative social consequences.

– ref. Banning mobile phones in schools can improve students’ academic performance. This is how we know – https://theconversation.com/banning-mobile-phones-in-schools-can-improve-students-academic-performance-this-is-how-we-know-153792

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Trivess Moore, Senior Lecturer, School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University

Australia has more than 3,400 buildings with flammable cladding. In Victoria alone, at least 71 of these buildings have been classified as “extreme risk” and another 368 as “high risk”. Despite the tragic evidence of the risks of cladding fires, rectification work had been completed on only 11 of these buildings by February 2021.

The estimated cost of making these buildings safe is in the billions. State governments have provided limited funding to rectify the highest-risk buildings. Occupants of lower-risk buildings have largely been left to fund the work themselves.

Read more: Flammable cladding costs could approach billions for building owners if authorities dither

We know from previous building industry failures like the leaky homes crisis in New Zealand and Canada that the impacts go beyond the repair costs.

In two recently published research papers, we explore the impacts on occupants’ finances and well-being of owning and living in apartments with flammable cladding in Australia. We interviewed 16 owners and investors from Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and ACT.

What costs are owners facing?

The paper published last week looked at the accumulating financial costs beyond the rectification work. Participants revealed these costs include:

• special levies, to cover rectification costs
• higher owners’ corporation fees
• rising insurance premiums
• legal fees
• fixing other fire safety defects, such as sprinklers
• possible loss of property value.

As one occupant said:

“We’ve (owners’ corporation) had to put the levies up and then we’d have rates of special levies for the legal fees and the fire engineer’s report as well […] And we still got the cladding on the building.”

The financial burdens on households have influenced major and minor life decisions. One participant said:

“I really want to retire in two years […] how will I be able to pay for all of this (cladding rectification)? I don’t know […] It might be the case that I then have to actually sell a defective unit.”

Read more: Lacrosse fire ruling sends shudders through building industry consultants and governments

How are owners coping?

Our second paper explores the effects on owners’ well-being. They reported frustration, concern and anger. Some in higher-risk buildings feared for their safety. Some said this range of long-term negative emotions was harming their mental health and well-being.

Read more: Grenfell Tower inquiry: expert explains four main findings – and how emergency services must improve

All owners were very disappointed that building industry-related professions and the government could allow this to happen. This was compounded by the realisation that their building warranty was mostly useless in this situation:

“And then you find out that the warranty is worth very little, and you have to then deal with the builder who’s engaged in dishonest practices essentially […] The kind of builder we had, it’s the kind of builder that would very much just disappear his company, and recreate to avoid any liability.”

Some expressed serious concerns for people’s lives because of the financial stresses the crisis had caused:

“There’s one lady who’s even worse off than me. She’s absolutely beside herself. She doesn’t know what’s she’s going to do […S] he’ll probably go insane or kill herself or something. Seriously […] she is so distraught about this all.”

Read more: Cladding fire risks have been known for years. Lives depend on acting now, with no more delays

Policy change needed to improve support

Our research clearly shows apartment owners are feeling the impacts of much more than just the direct rectification costs. Support to help people cope with these broader impacts is lacking. A similar lack of wider support was identified in the building defect crises in New Zealand and Canada.

Recent developments include a Victorian ban on flammable cladding on all new multi-storey buildings and extra government funding for rectification work in the UK. The Victorian government is contributing A$600 million towards the cost of rectifying some higher-risk apartments. In New South Wales, the government is providing interest-free loans to help owners in an estimated 225 buildings.

NSW has also begun work on building industry reforms to:

• improve regulations, with new powers, processes and audit practices for the regulator
• use a system to rate building risk that links past practice, finance and insurance records so consumers are protected from risky projects and practitioners
• improve procurement methods with major changes to contracting, declared design requirements, and sign-off processes/stages
• improve building skills and capabilities through professional education, development, responsibilities and certification
• develop digital systems to modernise and harmonise the industry.

Read more: New NSW building law could be a game changer for apartment safety

These are clearly good steps forward. But governments and the building industry need to do more to provide broader support and protection for the affected households. As our research shows, they are suffering financially on a number of fronts and all the while the crisis eats away at their well-being.

Government policy on housing defects has focused on the cost of fixing these defects. The other indirect financial costs, such as increased insurance, and effects on well-being, have been neglected. Future policy must reduce the risks of more crises such as combustible cladding and, if there is a crisis, consider all the financial costs owners bear as well as the need to support their well-being.

– ref. Only a small fraction of buildings with flammable cladding have been fixed, and owners are feeling the strain – https://theconversation.com/only-a-small-fraction-of-buildings-with-flammable-cladding-have-been-fixed-and-owners-are-feeling-the-strain-157307

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kris Gledhill, Professor of Law, Auckland University of Technology

The call by New Zealand business leaders for an inquiry into the need for a modern-day slavery law is welcome but long overdue.

As a recent investigation of New Zealand business and political links to the oppression and exploitation of China’s Muslim Uighur population showed, the issue is increasingly urgent.

At the centre of the problem modern slavery law seeks to address is the globalisation of business supply chains. Exploitation by forced labour or slavery can happen at any stage, from mining, fishing and harvesting to manufacturing and packaging.

Proper audits of supply chains would help ensure businesses are not complicit (wittingly or unwittingly) in that exploitation.

Given New Zealand prides itself on being an early proponent of human rights such as women’s suffrage and social security, this should be taken seriously. As the business leaders’ letter put it, “Modern slavery goes against our Kiwi values.”

NZ has fallen behind

International prohibition of forced labour goes back to an International Labour Organisation treaty from 1930, the Forced Labour Convention, which New Zealand agreed to in 1938.

Moreover, all multinational companies operating in New Zealand should be taking steps to support human rights generally and ensuring they guard against forced labour.

This is required under OECD guidelines going back two decades, which New Zealand has agreed to implement.

On modern slavery, however, New Zealand now sits behind the US, the UK and Australia. What’s worse, our parliament rejected previous opportunities to make progress.

Read more: Global supply chains link us all to shame of child and forced labour

Failed attempts at reform

Section 54 of the old Customs and Excise Act 1996 prohibited the import into New Zealand of various items, including those produced “wholly or in part by prison labour”.

In 2009, then-Labour MP Maryan Street introduced a Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill. This proposed that goods produced by slave labour be added to the act’s statutory list.

The bill also defined slave labour as “labour by persons over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised”. Street noted she was following a lead set in 1930 by the USA.

International human rights treaties prohibit slavery, servitude and forced labour. But forced labour is defined in such a way that work required under a prison sentence can be permissible.

So, it seemed reasonable that a country like New Zealand, which already prohibited imports produced by prison labour, should adopt at least as strict a rule for imports linked to slavery or forced labour.

A history of political opposition

The National-led government of the day disagreed, arguing it was simply too difficult to establish which imports might have involved slave labour. The complexity of supply chains meant this would be an overly onerous task for businesses.

The combined votes of the National and ACT parties rejected further discussion at select committee level.

In 2016, then-oppostion Labour MP Peeni Henare attempted to reintroduce the bill, but the government position remained the same. The combined votes of National, ACT and United Future prevented further consideration.

No one from the government benches was able to explain why it was any more difficult to define or audit imports produced by slave labour than those produced by prison labour.

Read more: Five ways to work out if a company is serious about tackling modern slavery

Time to catch up

Things have changed. Last year, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment released a draft plan of action against forced labour, people trafficking and slavery.

It contains many proposals, but perhaps the simplest solution lies within the new Customs and Excise Act 2018. Like its 1996 predecessor, this allows legislative orders in council to be issued that identify categories of prohibited imports. These include goods made by prison labour.

Since orders in council are much easier to pass than conventional legislation, it is now a simple task to add the much-needed ban on the import of goods made by slave labour. This should be extended to cover all forms of forced labour.

If and when this happens, many New Zealand companies will have to audit their supply chains. But companies doing business in Australia (if they have annual revenue over AU$100 million) already have to provide a modern slavery statement.

This requires an audit of the risks in their operations and supply chains, and a statement of what has been done to address those risks.

Read more: How UK asylum system creates perfect conditions for modern slavery and exploitation to thrive

New South Wales is planning a similar requirement for corporations with a turnover of AU$50 million or more. California has equivalent legislation, as does the United Kingdom (with a global turnover threshold of £36 million).

It is a pity the business group speaking up now was not as organised in 2009 and 2016. Had things been different, New Zealand could have built up the auditing skills needed and could even have been exporting that expertise and best practice as an industry in itself.

The political parties that supported change in 2009 and 2016 are now in government. But nothing has changed since those failed attempts to reform the law — other than that New Zealand is falling further behind its competitors.

– ref. Previous governments blocked it, but anti-slavery law should now be an urgent priority for New Zealand – https://theconversation.com/previous-governments-blocked-it-but-anti-slavery-law-should-now-be-an-urgent-priority-for-new-zealand-157497

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Keating, Visiting Fellow, College of Business & Economics, Australian National University

The Reserve Bank is going all out for wage growth “sustainably above 3%” — the kind of wage growth Australia hasn’t seen for the best part of a decade.

It has already committed itself to achieving an “actual” inflation target, sustainably between 2% and 3%, saying it won’t lift its cash rate until that happens.

That’s a substantial hardening of its earlier target, which was to merely see “progress towards” an inflation rate of 2% to 3%.

In board minutes released this week it says that to get inflation to 2-3% it is likely wage growth will have to be “sustainably above 3%” — well above where it has been for the past seven years.

The bank received encouragement on Thursday with news of an extra 88,700 Australians in work and a dive in unemployment rate from 6.3% to 5.8%, but its minutes say that for wages to climb to where it wants them, tightness in the labour market would need to be “sustained”.

Actual wage growth, low for years

It means monetary policy (interest rates) is tied to a recovery in wage growth, something about whose timing we’ve little idea.

Things aren’t as simple as the bank suggests

For decades now macroeconomic policy in Australia (and elsewhere) has been built around the idea of a stable relationship between the level of unemployment and the rate of inflation of both wages and prices – the so-called Phillips curve, named after the economist (and engineer) who first measured it.

The target rate of unemployment, the “non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment” (NAIRU) is then defined as the rate of unemployment consistent with achieving an inflation target, in the case of Australia’s Reserve Bank, low and stable rate inflation of 2-3%.

But (and this what the simple graphs don’t acknowledge and the Reserve Bank has been slow to acknowledge) the relationship changes over time.

Between 2011 and 2019 the bank persistently overestimated annual wage growth by about 1 percentage point as actual wage growth steadily declined from about 4% to around 2%, and now to 1.4%.

Nevertheless, despite its poor forecasting record, bank staff continued to suggest that NAIRU had changed little and was close to 5%.

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

Then in mid 2019, the bank announced that it had been gradually revising down its estimate of NAIRU to 4½%.

There was a “two-thirds chance that the current NAIRU is between 4% and 5%, and a 95% it is between 3½% and 5½%”.

And most recently in a speech last week Governor Philip Lowe said it was “certainly possible that Australia can achieve and sustain an unemployment rate in the low 4s, although only time will tell”.

The relationship might barely exist

To my mind, these changes are based on the definitional assumption that lower wage increases reflect a lowering of NAIRU.

But there are reasons to believe that much of the stagnation in wages growth is due to things other than the degree of slack in the labour market.

Lowe himself acknowledged in his speech “powerful structural factors at work”.

He cited

• increased competition in goods markets, which makes firms very conscious of cost increases

• the trend towards more services being provided internationally

• advances in technology, which have reduced the demand for some types of skills and increased the demand for others

• changes to the global supply of labour and regulation of labour markets

I agree, particularly with the last two points. But what the bank doesn’t seem to have accounted for is the way in which these structural factors have changed the distribution of income and the likely distribution of wage rises.

Low wage rises for low earners hurt us

Macroeconomic measures of the kind being talked about — interest rate and spending and tax adjustments — are indeed likely to accelerate wage growth, but much more for so for the (already higher earning) workers who have skills in demand.

And because high earners generally save more of what they earn than low earners, macroeconomic measures of the kind being talked about are likely to push up aggregate wage growth without boosting economic activity as much as is possible and without fully employing the population.

Read more: From here on the recovery will need redistribution

Eventually, in response to what will be inadequate demand, the private sector investment is likely to sink. This will result in less innovation and therefore lower productivity growth, lowering what the economy is capable of.

It’s the sort of situation Australia (and other advanced economies) were in before the COVID recession. In the United States it was called “secular stagnation”.

We need to actively push up low wages

To avoid it we will have to rely on more than standard measures to boost wages.

The best place to start would be to boost spending on education and training to improve the skills and earning power of people in middle and lower-level jobs, and better suit skills to needs.

This would boost both demand and the productive capacity of the economy, and without adding to inflation.

It would also help if the government stopped its resistance to wage increases, starting with the removal of public service wage freezes.

– ref. It’s great to want wage growth, but the way we’re going about it could stunt the recovery – https://theconversation.com/its-great-to-want-wage-growth-but-the-way-were-going-about-it-could-stunt-the-recovery-157058

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sabrina Pit, Honorary Adjunct Research Fellow, Western Sydney University

Yet again, large swathes of New South Wales are underwater. A week of solid rain has led to floods in the Mid-North Coast, Sydney and the Central Coast, with several areas being evacuated as I write.

As a resident of the NSW Far North Coast, which has had its share of devastating floods, many of the tense scenes on the news are sadly familiar.

Unless you have lived through it, it is hard to understand just how stressful a catastrophic flood can be in the moment of crisis. As research evidence shows, the long term impact on mental health can also be profound. And often it is the most disadvantaged populations that are hardest hit.

Disaster risk and disadvantage

In many places, socio-economic disadvantage and flood risk go hand in hand.

In a study published last year, colleagues and I showed that after Cyclone Debbie in 2017, people living in the Lismore town centre flood footprint experienced significantly higher levels of social vulnerability (when compared to the already highly vulnerable regional population).

Notably, over 80% of people in the 2017 Lismore town centre flood-affected area were living in the lowest socio-economic neighbourhoods. The flood-affected areas of Murwillumbah and Lismore regions included 47% and 60% of residents in the most disadvantaged quintile neighbourhoods.

By examining data from the 45 and Up study, we also showed that participants living in the Lismore town centre flood footprint had significantly higher rates of smoking and alcohol consumption. They were also more likely to have pre-existing mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety, as well as poorer general health.

Research from Germany and the US has shown flood risk is often a significant predictor of lower rental and sale prices.

So even before disaster strikes, residents in flood-prone areas may be more likely to battle with financial and health issues. Our study showed disaster affected people also had the fewest resources to recover effectively. When floods arrive, the impact on mental health, in particular, can be acute.

Read more: Underinsurance is entrenching poverty as the vulnerable are hit hardest by disasters

Floods and mental health

A flood can be extremely stressful in the moment, as one rushes to protect people, property, pets and animals and worries about the damage that may follow. Can you imagine clinging to a rooftop in the rain in the middle of the night and waiting to be rescued?

The damage caused by floods causes enormous financial pain, and can lead to housing vulnerabilities and homelessness, especially for those without insurance — and research reveals a pattern of underinsurance in disadvantaged populations across Australia.

Even if you are lucky enough to have insurance, waiting to have your claim assessed and approved, then dealing with a shortage of tradies can take a real toll on your mental health. The waiting and the uncertainty can be especially hard.

Research by colleagues and I showed business owners whose homes and businesses had flooded were almost 6.5 times more likely to report depressive symptoms. Business owners with insurance disputes were four times more likely to report probable depression.

Flood affected business owners whose income didn’t return to normal within six months were also almost three times more likely to report symptoms of depression.

Lack of income can clearly cause stress for the individual, their family and their larger network. Small businesses play an important role in rural communities and employ a large number of people so the sustainability of local businesses is crucial.

We also found the higher the floodwater was in a person’s business, the more likely the person was to experience depressive symptoms.

People whose business had water above head height in their entire business were four times more likely to report depressive symptoms. Those who had water between knee and head height in their business were almost three times more likely to report probable depression. All this adds up to an increase in mental health issues that often follows a flood.

Six months after the flooding, business owners felt most supported by their local community such as volunteers and neighbours. However, those that felt their needs were not met by the state government and insurance companies were almost three times more likely to report symptoms of depression.

Preparedness and awareness

So, what can be done?

Firstly, we can boost preparedness. Risk and preparedness education may be especially needed for people who have recently moved to flood-prone regions. Many who have moved to regional areas recently may not be aware they live in a flood zone, or understand how fast waters can move and how high they can reach. Education is needed to raise awareness about the dangers. People may need help to prepare a flood plan and know when to leave.

Secondly, supporting people and local businesses after a disaster and assisting the local economy in its recovery could help reduce the mental health burden on people and the business community.

Thirdly, mental health services must be provided. A chaplaincy program was implemented in Lismore by the local government to assist business owners with emotional and psychological support after Cyclone Debbie and ensuing floods. This program was largely well received by business owners for having provided psychological support and raising mental health awareness.

However, the ongoing lack of mental health support remains an issue, especially in rural areas, and is exacerbated by disasters.

Fourthly, insurance disputes and rejection of insurance claims were among the strongest associations with likely depression in our research. We must find ways to improve the insurance process including making it more affordable, improving communication, by making claims easier and faster and boosting people’s understanding of what’s included and excluded from their policy.

No single organisation, government or department can solve these complex problems on their own. Strong partnerships between organisations are crucial and have been shown to work, as is direct and real-time support for flood-affected people.

Read more: You can’t talk about disaster risk reduction without talking about inequality

This story is part of a series The Conversation is running on the nexus between disaster, disadvantage and resilience. You can read the rest of the stories here.

– ref. Floods leave a legacy of mental health problems — and disadvantaged people are often hardest hit – https://theconversation.com/floods-leave-a-legacy-of-mental-health-problems-and-disadvantaged-people-are-often-hardest-hit-157576

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alice Clement, Research Associate in the College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University

Most of us would recognise a human brain, but what about the brain of a frog or fish? Given the vast diversity of life on Earth, there are some weird and wonderful brains out there.

Despite this, the basic plan of most vertebrate (animals with a backbone) brains is similar, consisting of three major regions: the fore-, mid- and hindbrain. But the variation in size and shape between these regions (and others) is what makes studying vertebrates so fascinating.

Research published today by my colleagues and me in Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution indicates some of our earliest ancestors — which were likely still taking their first steps on land — had brains that only filled about half the space in their skulls.

The hurdles of studying ancient brains

Growing and maintaining brain tissue is energetically expensive for animals. The relative size of different regions of the brain is thought to be guided by a concept known as “the principle of proper mass”.

This states the more important a sense or brain region is to an animal, the more likely it is that region will be enlarged compared to others. After all, it’s pointless to spend lots of energy growing a visual processing centre if you’re a blind, cave-dwelling animal.

While studying the brains of living beasts is straightforward, this is much more complicated for extinct animals. When organisms fossilise, their soft tissues (including the muscle and brain) tend to decompose quickly, leaving only the hard parts of the skeleton to be preserved.

This means experts have to study the internal parts of the skull (or the “braincase”) and the void within it, which is called an “endocast”. Palaeoneurology is the study of endocasts and fossil brains. This field was founded about a century ago by palaeontologist Tilly Edinger.

In palaeoneurology’s early days, scientists had to rely on lucky discoveries of skulls cracked in half to reveal the inside, or they had to destroy specimens to create an endocast. These days, researchers can use advanced scanning methods to create endocasts digitally, without damaging the specimen.

Read more: A new brain-warp technique that helps to reconstruct fossil brains

The tremendous tetrapod transition

Today, half of all vertebrate life can be classified as tetrapods — backboned animals with four limbs bearing digits (fingers and toes). This includes humans, frogs, crocodiles, parrots and kangaroos, among many, many others.

The animals responsible for giving rise to this huge array are known as “stem tetrapods”. These brave beasts first ventured out of the water and onto land more than 360 million years ago.

For fish to transition into land-dwelling tetrapods required many changes to their body and brain. Fins made way for limbs, and gills gave way to lungs that could breathe air. What’s more, the terrestrial realm would have presented an entirely new sensory environment to navigate.

How did the brains of stem tetrapods change in response to this major ecological shift?

We have some clues gleaned from skeleton parts, such as enlarged eye sockets that coincide with the transition from fish to tetrapods on land. One study has suggested a change in eye position and size would have led to a million-fold increase in visual acuity in early tetrapods, compared with their fishy relatives.

If so, we would expect such changes to be reflected in the visual processing regions of the brain. But how can we test this?

Interpreting ancient endocasts

One of the trickiest things about interpreting endocasts is that not all brains fill the endocast space fully. While most birds and mammals have brains that closely match the shape of the endocast, other animals such as fish, amphibians and reptiles typically don’t.

In fact, the coelacanth fish is famous for having an extremely tiny brain that takes up just 1% of its endocast.

Read more: We scanned one of our closest cousins, the coelacanth, to learn how its brain grows

I’ve been studying the spatial relationship between the brain and endocast in animals that fall into a category called the stem tetrapod “extant phylogenetic bracket”. These are the closest living relatives of the extinct stem tetrapods in the evolutionary tree.

This category includes the coelacanth fish, lungfishes and amphibians such as frogs, salamanders and caecilians.

Using a scanning method referred to as diceCT, we scanned the heads of these animals and measured the brains within to compare the brain’s size and shape with that of the endocast.

A series of papers published by myself and my colleagues have shown lungfish, unlike the coelacanth, have brains that fill a far greater portion of their endocast (starting from about 40% and possibly up to 80%).

Within amphibians, salamander brains looked quite similar to lungfish brains and filled their endocasts in a similar way.

In our most recent paper, however, we investigated frogs and caecilians and found they have brains that are generally more tightly fitted inside their endocasts.

Reconstructing old brains

This knowledge helps us more accurately estimate the likely brain sizes of extinct stem tetrapods. Also, considering the ecology and habitats of the living relatives helps us further narrow down these values.

For instance, frogs and caecilians are highly specialised amphibians and are therefore unlikely to accurately represent the biology of the first tetrapods. Similarly, the coelacanth is a deep-water marine fish, whereas the earliest tetrapods lived in shallow and marginal environments.

This leaves us with salamanders and lungfish as the best living examples of what the neural biology of the first tetrapods may have looked like. With this in mind, we can reasonably assume the brains of our early ancestors that took those first steps onto land filled about 40-50% of their endocasts — with the rest likely full of fatty tissue or fluid.

Combining this with spectacular 3D-preserved fossils, we can begin to reconstruct the brains of these animals from millions of years ago.

Moreover, understanding how their brains changed during the vital juncture from water to land will help us understand a giant step in our own neural evolutionary history.

Acknowledgement: Research referenced in this article was conducted in collaboration with Prof. John Long and Ms. Corinne Mensforth from Flinders University, Prof. Shaun Collin from La Trobe University, and Dr Tom Challands from The University of Edinburgh (UK).

– ref. When our evolutionary ancestors first crawled onto land, their brains only half-filled their skulls – https://theconversation.com/when-our-evolutionary-ancestors-first-crawled-onto-land-their-brains-only-half-filled-their-skulls-157418

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tony Heynen, Program Coordinator, Sustainable Energy, The University of Queensland

Australia’s nearest neighbour, Papua New Guinea, is battling an unfolding COVID crisis. The Morrison government is urgently deploying 8,000 vaccine doses to the nation’s health workers – but poor electricity access means there are serious questions over PNG’s broader vaccine roll-out.

Vaccine supplies must be stored at cold or ultra-cold temperatures along the supply chain. Importantly, when the vaccines reach hospitals and medical centres in PNG, stable electricity will be needed to power refrigerators to store the doses before they’re administered to patients.

Currently only about 13% of Papua New Guinea’s eight million people have reliable access to electricity. This is not an isolated problem. In 2019, about 770 million people globally lived in “energy poverty”, without access to electricity – and the problem has grown worse due to COVID.

Australia is working to provide one million doses for wider distribution in PNG. But the pandemic only truly ends when the vaccines are rolled out globally. Countries and communities without electricity access present a major barrier to this goal.

Energy poverty matters

Australia enjoys a relatively reliable electricity network, even in remote parts of the country. There are also systems in place to keep vaccines cold in the event of a power outage, such as backup power.

But around the world, even in our Pacific neighbourhood, energy poverty is widespread and persistent. And COVID-19 has created a vicious circle for these nations. The pandemic has forced governments to shift priorities, leading to less funding for electricity infrastructure. In some countries, progress in electricity access has reversed for the first time in many years.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) says this reversal is being worst felt in Sub-Saharan Africa.

There, 580 million people lack access to electricity – three quarters of the world’s total. The IEA estimates this number grew by 6% in 2020.

It cites Uganda, where public subsidies for an electricity access program have been put on hold, and South Africa where funds to expand rural electrification were redirected to health and welfare programs.

PNG wants 70% of the country connected to electricity by 2030. This will require large scale investment in new generation capacity, and transmission and distribution lines to connect people to the grid. But the nation has long suffered economic instability, and the pandemic has only added to this.

Making matters worse, the true extent and trajectory of COVID-19 may be uncertain in nations suffering energy poverty. For example, there is growing evidence of under-testing in Africa and under-reporting of cases and deaths in PNG.

Read more: ‘A dam has been breached’: a COVID crisis on our doorstep shows how little we pay attention to PNG

Vaccine refrigeration is key

As experts have noted, efforts to end the pandemic have largely focused on developing, testing and manufacturing an effective vaccine. Less attention has been paid to distributing it rapidly at scale.

There are exceptions. The Lancet has identified local deployment as one of four key dimensions for an effective global vaccination roll-out.

More than 390 million vaccine doses have already been administered, mostly in high- and middle-income countries with effective financial and planning resources.

But in countries where electricity access is poor, refrigeration of vaccines during transport and storage may prove very difficult. Some countries may not be able to vaccinate large parts of their population.

The Pfizer vaccine must be frozen at around -70℃. The AstraZeneca vaccine must be kept at between 2℃ and 8℃.

Ultra-cold supply chains were established for the deployment of the Ebola vaccine in Africa in 2013–14. However, the scale required for COVID is enormous, and would be prohibitively expensive.

As reported in the Lancet, as of 2018, 74 of 194 member states of the World Health Organisation had no adult vaccination program for any disease. Fewer than 11% of countries in Africa and South Asia reported having such a program. This was thought to be partly due to a lack of systems for storage and delivery.

Alarmingly, a recent study suggested more than 85 less-developed countries will not have widespread access to COVID vaccines until 2023.

Many are relying on the World Health Organisation’s COVAX initiative, which aims to secure six billion doses of vaccine for less developed countries. Similarly, the Quad regional grouping – Australia, the US, Japan, and India – recently pledged to boost vaccine production and distribution for Asian and Pacific island countries.

But without access to reliable electricity, the roll-out of these vaccines will be hampered. This is particularly an issue in countries with remote and dispersed populations. There, keeping the vaccine cold over the “last mile” of distribution and storage may prove impossible.

Read more: How mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna work, why they’re a breakthrough and why they need to be kept so cold

Energy access is key to ending the pandemic

Communities experiencing energy poverty, such as in PNG, face other setbacks when it comes to managing the pandemic. Those populations are more likely to use solid fuels, such as wood, for cooking. This leads to indoor air pollution which can cause severe respiratory illnesses and more severe COVID-19 symptoms.

Without electricity access, such communities are unlikely to provide appropriate COVID-19 health responses, leading to a higher burden of disease.

In PNG, an “Electrification Partnership”, of which Australia is a key partner, appears on track. For instance, at a virtual summit at the height of the pandemic last August, Australia committed to financing a large-scale solar plant in Morobe Province. It would be one of the largest solar plants in the Pacific.

But as immunisation emerges as the world’s primary weapon to combat COVID-19, much more work is needed to improve electricity access to those who desperately need it. Indeed, ending the global pandemic may demand it.

Read more: A catastrophe looms with PNG’s COVID crisis. Australia needs to respond urgently

– ref. Australia wants to send 1 million vaccine doses to PNG – but without reliable electricity, how will they be kept cold? – https://theconversation.com/australia-wants-to-send-1-million-vaccine-doses-to-png-but-without-reliable-electricity-how-will-they-be-kept-cold-156798

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

Australia’s policy performance on COVID-19 in 2020 was world-leading in terms of both public health and economics. Sadly, our vaccine roll-out strategy has been anything but.

I’ve spent plenty of time highlighting this in recent months. But perhaps the most instructive thing to do is compare and contrast Australia’s back-of-the-pack performance with Israel’s – which is truly world-class.

Israel has shown a sense of urgency with its vaccine strategy and roll-out.

The country has gone from having a large infection rate – including from highly contagious variants of COVID-19 – to having herd immunity within its reach. This, in turn, has allowed it to open up the economy with all the benefits that flow from that.

Australia has a lot to learn.

Israel’s roll-out

Just a few months ago, in mid-January, Israel had the highest per capita COVID-19 infection rate in the world.

Now, as the following chart shows, the number of infections is less than a quarter the level recorded on January 17.

This is clearly due to Israel’s vaccination program, which began on December 19, 2020 – just ten days after the first Pfizer doses arrived in the country.

Israel was well ahead of most countries in signing a purchase agreement for Moderna’s high-efficacy mRNA vaccine in June 2020. Later in 2020 it made more deals with Pfizer (which also produces a very high-efficacy vaccine) and AstraZeneca.

About 57% of Israel’s population of 9 million have now received at least one dose of the vaccine. More than 48% are fully vaccinated. Life is getting back to normal. People are going to concerts and congregating in coffee shops.

How are we doing here in Australia?

We’re at 0.72% of the population having received even one dose. Only some senior politicians and perhaps the odd aged-care resident being used for a photo-op have received the two doses.

Factor in Israel’s success

So how did Israel do this?

First, Israel has a well-run universal health-care system. But so does Australia.

Second, Israel is a geographically small country. That helps with transporting and storing vaccines – particularly those requiring being kept a very cold temperatures (between -80ºC and -60ºC for the Pfizer vaccine).

Australia, by contrast, is a geographically huge country. However, we do have a highly concentrated urban population, with the five largest metropolitan cities (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide) accounting for 64% of Australia’s total population (about 16 million of the total population of 25.5 million).

Third, Israel’s approach emphasises being fast rather than sticking strictly to a priority order of who gets the vaccine first. Family members of high-priority people thus have often been able to get vaccinated at the same time. Australia’s approach, by contrast, is less urgent and more concerned with rules.

Finally, Israel has the political will. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made vaccination a top priority. Sure, he’s also facing serious corruption charges, so maybe this is all motivated by trying to stay out of prison. But who cares? He’s getting the job done.

The ‘green passport’

Israel has also introduced a “green passport” – a phone app that certifies the owner has been fully immunised or is presumed immune as a result of having previously had COVID-19.

The “green pass” (as it has become known) permits holders – and only holders – access to gyms, swimming pools, cultural events, weddings and other gatherings.

The Israeli government has been explicit about, and made no apology for the fact it is using both carrots and sticks to return life, and the economy, to normal.

Australia’s path forward

It’s not too late for Australia to repair our vaccine strategy, though we will never make up for the months lost.

It’s time for the federal government to get serious about the roll-out. No senior politician or health bureaucrat should ever again say “this is not a race” or “we’re not in a hurry”. It is a race. We should be in a hurry.

Every day we are sluggish about the roll-out is another day before the economy can open up properly. It is another day where there could be a hotel-quarantine outbreak – now with more contagious and likely deadlier COVID-19 variants –– potentially leading to further lockdowns and undermining people’s ability to travel or socialise normally.

The roll-out is a race. We need to run. Any government that doesn’t get that will pay a serious price at the ballot box.

– ref. Vital Signs: Israel shows how to do vaccinations right. It’s a race, and we’re behind – https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-israel-shows-how-to-do-vaccinations-right-its-a-race-and-were-behind-157242

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin Koh, Honorary Associate, Faculty of Business, School of Management, University of Technology Sydney

It almost reads like a John Grisham novel.

Self-employed woman contracts cancer. Claims under her income-protection insurance policy. Insurer cancels the policy after investigation reveals omission of unrelated health condition (depression) on her original application. She is accused of acting in bad faith and threatened with having to repay the money (A$24,000) already received. Her story comes to national attention. A dramatic court battle ensues. Justice is finally served.

Last week just such a narrative concluded in the Federal Court, when chief justice James Allsop found TAL Life, one of Australia’s biggest life insurers, had breached its duty to act with “utmost good faith” by cancelling a sick woman’s income-protection policy through the questionable practice of “retrospective underwriting”.

The Federal Court case was initiated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in December 2019. This followed evidence from the banking royal commission in 2018 showing the lengths TAL went to in seeking to void insurance policies.

Justice Allsop ruled TAL’s actions – including not informing the claimant she was under investigation, reaching a wrong conclusion, failing to give her a chance to respond, and threatening to pursue her for money – lacked “decency and fairness”.

However, he did not agree with the corporate regulator that TAL’s actions amounted to false or misleading conduct. Guilt on that charge would have meant a fine.

The ruling carries no financial penalty, apart from TAL having to keep its end of the contract. The judgment is nonetheless significant. It puts insurance companies on notice about the use of retrospective underwriting, scrutinising insurance applications only when a claim is made, and covertly trawling through applicants’ medical and financial records to find any excuse to void the policy.

What is underwriting

Let’s briefly recap what insurance underwriting means.

It is the process of assessing an applicant’s risk and pricing a life insurance policy (which includes a policy such as income protection) accordingly.

If you have, for example, a history of hypertension, you have a higher risk of stroke. This is something an underwriter wants to know, to accurately assess your actuarial risk. They may increase the premium you pay, or exclude from the policy claims for strokes, or decline cover altogether.

Insurance application forms typically require you to declare “yes” or “no” to a list of the most common medical conditions or circumstances, with an open-ended question about other “relevant” conditions.

Usually the underwriting process is straightforward. Insurers accept declarations in good faith, and approve applications (and collect the premiums) as quickly as possible.

Retrospective underwriting

But that changes when you make a claim.

Then insurers are unwilling to accept anything in good faith. They typically require you to authorise access to your financial and medical records, including records you may not have seen – such as your doctor’s notes.

A doctor might note observations about a patient seeming depressed. It’s not an explicit diagnosis. But an insurer may retrospectively consider this undisclosed evidence of “depression”.

Finding “relevant” information not declared in the original application gives the insurer an excuse to “retrospectively underwrite” the policy – determining what policy it would have offered (if at all) had that information been known.

Retrospective underwriting usually favours insurers as it is done with the knowledge of an existing claim. The federal Insurance Contracts Act allows insurers, under certain conditions, to cancel policies within three years of inception due to relevant non-disclosures or misrepresentations in applications.

Read more: Very risky business: the pros and cons of insurance companies embracing artificial intelligence

TAL at the royal commission

Appearing before the banking royal commission in September 2018, TAL senior executive Loraine van Eeden agreed the company’s approach had lacked empathy. She acknowledged it was wrong to not tell the claimant she was being investigated, and wrong to not give her a chance to respond to the reason for the retrospective underwriting.

TAL had approved the woman’s income protection insurance in October 2013, asking detailed medical questions, including those of mental health. In mid-December she was diagnosed with cervical cancer. She lodged her policy claim on January 3 2014.

TAL accepted the claim on 7 January and made monthly payments until May. In June it cancelled the policy, on the basis her medical records revealed undisclosed mental health issues it said would have changed the initial underwriting. Perhaps, one suspects, not offer cover. TAL did not suggest she was dishonest.

Practical implications

In our experiences it is not unusual for insurers to use a claims process to retrospectively underwrite. Often claimants only become aware of this when they’re told there is information giving the insurer the right to cancel the policy.

Under the life insurance industry’s voluntary Code of Practice, insurers are meant to explain why they’re requesting information relevant to a claim.

The corporate regulator and consumer advocates have long held concerns the three-year window to cancel policies encourages insurers to go on “fishing expeditions”.

No more spying

Since January 1 the rules giving insurers three years to cancel a policy have been tightened – one of the 27 of 76 recommendations from the banking royal commission the federal government has implemented.

Insurers now may only “avoid a contract of life insurance on the basis of non-disclosure or misrepresentation if it can show that it would not have entered into a contract on any terms”.

Read more: Ideology triumphs over evidence: Morrison government drops the ball on banking reform

The Federal Court ruling puts life insurers on further notice. It clarifies what the “duty of utmost good faith” required by the Insurance Contracts Act means.

They don’t need to behave dishonestly to breach that duty. Not meeting community expectations of decency and fairness is enough. That doesn’t leave much room for lesser signs of excessive suspicion, let alone “deep-dive” operations to dig for dirt. That’s all but been declared illegal.

– ref. Federal Court rules insurance companies have to behave decently. That’s a big deal – https://theconversation.com/federal-court-rules-insurance-companies-have-to-behave-decently-thats-a-big-deal-157057

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ryan Hoy, Respiratory Physician. Senior Research Fellow. Monash Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, Monash University

In 2012 my wife and I renovated our house — a two-storey extension with a brand new kitchen. Inspired by various renovation-themed TV shows and magazines, we chose a sleek stone island bench as the focal point for the kitchen.

I knew the benchtop material was some form of stone. You could choose almost any colour and it cost a lot less than marble. But I didn’t know much else and I didn’t ask any questions. As a respiratory physician who has diagnosed numerous workers with silicosis over the past four years, I regret my ignorance.

Like many Australians who have renovated or built homes since the early 2000s, the material we chose was artificial stone (also known as engineered or reconstituted stone, or quartz).

In 2015, after the first Australian stone benchtop industry worker was reported to have severe silicosis, I was astonished to discover artificial stone contains up to 95% crystalline silica.

Inhalation of crystalline silica dust is one of the best-known causes of lung disease, including silicosis and lung cancer. The adverse health effects of silica exposure were established while there was still debate about the harm of cigarettes and asbestos. But Australians’ affinity for artificial stone benchtops has seen silicosis make a major comeback in recent years.

New research in Victoria shows the extent of silicosis among workers in the stone benchtop industry.

Read more: Explainer: what is silicosis and why is this old lung disease making a comeback?

What is silicosis?

Silicosis is a preventable disease characterised by scarring on the lungs, called pulmonary fibrosis.

Over time, inhalation of tiny silica dust particles triggers an inflammatory response that causes small growths called nodules to build up on the lungs. These nodules can grow and cluster together, causing the lungs to become stiffer and impeding the transfer of oxygen into the blood.

In the early stages of the disease, a person may be well. Symptoms of silicosis can include a cough, breathlessness and tiredness. Generally, the more widespread the disease becomes in the lungs, the more trouble a person will have with breathing.

There’s not currently a cure. In severe cases, a lung transplant may be the only option, and the disease can be fatal.

Brisbane researchers, however, recently demonstrated early but promising results from a trial in which they washed silica out of a small number of silicosis patients’ lungs.

The road to reform

Tradesmen in the stone benchtop industry cut slabs of stone to size and use hand-held power saws and grinders to form holes for sinks and stove tops. This generates crystalline silica dust from the stone which may be released into the air.

Using water in this process can suppress the generation of dust significantly, but until recently dry processing of artificial stone has been ubiquitous in the industry. Almost 70% of workers with silicosis in Victoria indicated they spent more than half their time at work in an environment where dry processing was occurring.

Stone benchtop workers suffering silicosis have called out poor work conditions over recent years, including being made to perform dry cutting with inadequate protections such as effective ventilation and appropriate respirators.

Queensland was the first state to ban dry cutting in 2018. Victoria followed in 2019, and New South Wales in 2020.

It’s too early to assess whether these changes have affected the prevalence of silicosis, but hopefully they will make a difference.

Our research

Around the time the Victorian government introduced the ban, it launched an enforcement blitz in high-risk workplaces, while WorkSafe Victoria implemented a free screening program for the estimated 1,400 workers in the stone benchtop industry across the state.

The Monash Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health recently released a report detailing the findings from the first year of the screening program. Some 18% of initial 324 workers who completed the assessments were diagnosed with silicosis.

We’ve seen similar results in Queensland, where as of February 2021 the government had screened 1,053 stonemasons exposed to crystalline silica dust from artificial stone. Some 223 (or 21%) were diagnosed with silicosis, including 32 with the most severe form, called progressive massive fibrosis.

The Monash report indicates workers in Victoria are diagnosed with silicosis at an average age of just 41. The average time spent working in the stone benchtop industry when diagnosed was 14 years, and the shortest was just three years, reflecting an extremely high level of silica dust exposure.

We published some earlier results of this research project in Occupational and Environmental Medicine late last year. But this latest data hasn’t yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, meaning it hasn’t been subject to the same level of scrutiny as other published research.

A broader problem

Failure to protect workers from silica exposure goes well beyond the stone benchtop industry.

Around 3.7% of Australian workers are estimated to be highly exposed to silica at work, and we see workers in other industries, such as quarry work, with silicosis too.

Some 59% of Earth’s crust is silica, so in certain workplaces such as mines and quarries, eliminating silica is not feasible.

In these circumstances, exposure must be identified and tightly controlled with measures to prevent dust generation, isolation of workers from the dust, and effective ventilation. If silica cannot be eliminated from a workplace, constant vigilance and evaluation of control strategies are essential.

Read more: Engineered stone benchtops are killing our tradies. Here’s why a ban’s the only answer

But when it comes to the choice of material for your kitchen benchtop, it’s hard to argue elimination of high-silica artificial stone isn’t feasible. There are many other materials suitable for benchtops that contain little or no silica, such as wood, laminate, steel or marble.

Compared with other countries, Australian consumers have developed a particular fondness for artificial stone, which accounts for 45% of the benchtop market here, but just 14% in the United States.

Workers’ lung health may seem like a strange thing to contemplate when designing a kitchen. But increased awareness of this issue is crucial to drive change.

– ref. Renovating your kitchen? Help Australia’s tradies avoid silicosis by not choosing artificial stone – https://theconversation.com/renovating-your-kitchen-help-australias-tradies-avoid-silicosis-by-not-choosing-artificial-stone-156208

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Angela McCabe, Lecturer, Management, La Trobe University

Australia has long been seen as failing to fully capitalise on its ground-breaking research. A consultation paper on university research commercialisation is the latest federal government effort to increase the impact of research. Its focus is on creating incentives for industry-university collaboration to translate and commercialise research.

Any government scheme resulting from these consultations might boost the number of such collaborations. Yet our research suggests many of these projects are unlikely to reach their full potential unless academics and their research partners working in industry strengthen their collaborative relationships.

Read more: Who cares about university research? The answer depends on its impacts

Our recently published investigation of the Australian Research Council Linkage scheme found these productive relationships do not occur organically. The academic side must work to ensure industry practitioners fully contribute their expertise.

What did the study find?

In our study, a number of projects were marked by ostensibly healthy relationships. Relations between practitioners and academics were harmonious. Yet practitioners engaged on a very narrow range of aspects only.

Practitioners saw their role as merely facilitating and supporting academics. They were not fully engaged. These projects were denied the full benefits of practitioners’ expertise complementing academic expertise.

Therefore, apparently harmonious collaborations were ultimately compromised.

As one academic explained:

_“[It is] really about saying everyone brings different things […] to the table and to the development of a research project.”

A corresponding practitioner emphatically acknowledged this point.

Effective industry-university partnerships require close collaboration. This means both sides engage fully in an open and contestable forum. Only then can they get the full benefits of partners with complementary perspectives and knowledge bases working together.

Building better relationships must be a priority

To improve collaborations academics need to enable practitioners to be fully engaged.

We identified a number of enabling practices for academics to adopt. Practitioners can then become equal partners in research projects. Decision-making becomes more open, contested and productive.

The consultation paper identifies social, cultural and economic barriers to industry-university partnerships. In announcing the University Research Commercialisation Scheme, federal Education Minister Alan Tudge called for “new ideas on how we can increase collaboration between business and universities and put our research at the heart of our economic recovery”.

Read more: Boosting commercialisation of research poses a big challenge for universities

Our findings suggest a number of solutions.

Where partnerships are more than simple research-translation exercises with fairly straightforward, unilateral transfers of know-how from academia to industry, we need to pay close attention to the relationship between the partners. In particular, academics need to become more adept at working with practitioners to capitalise fully on their distinct yet complementary types of knowledge.

This requires instilling in academics greater awareness of relationship dynamics and their effects on research outcomes. The skills needed to initiate and sustain close collaboration between research partners must be fostered.

Read more: Poor research-industry collaboration: time for blame or economic reality at work?

3 steps to improve partnerships

Universities may want to familiarise academics with the ways they can enable practitioners as co-researchers. The enabling practices our research uncovered are a useful starting point.

1. Develop practitioners’ research capabilities

Beyond imparting particular skills, research training and “on the job” research exposure build practitioners’ awareness of the research process. This helps them to see how they can contribute more to the project.

2. Increase practitioners’ project responsibilities

Project responsibility gives practitioners a greater voice in project decisions and legitimises their role in the research. Joint responsibility signals their involvement in decision-making is valid and legitimate.

3. Embed practitioners in the team to broaden perspectives

Fully socialising and integrating practitioners in the research team enables them to see themselves as equal partners who can engage in and benefit the project.

Several academics underscored the importance of forging close bonds among team members. For instance, to help practitioners appreciate their own value, one academic encouraged conversations among collaborating practitioners.

“The technician might not have the imagination that the artist does and similarly the curators might not know what the town planner requires […] So one of the things we do is to roll them together so that one [practitioner] partner speaks to the next and learns from the other.”

As they got to appreciate one another’s diverse and unique knowledge, practitioners were more prepared to engage fully.

Read more: Ten rules for successful research collaboration

These practices enable projects to harness the value of partners’ different perspectives.

Any future scheme designed for greater research impact ought to combine incentives to establish industry-university collaborations with a focus on strengthening these relationships.

Submissions on the University Research Commercialisation Scheme close on April 9.

– ref. How to get the most out of research when universities and industry team up – https://theconversation.com/how-to-get-the-most-out-of-research-when-universities-and-industry-team-up-156590

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gareth Wearne, Lecturer in Biblical Studies, School of Theology, Australian Catholic University

On Tuesday news broke of the discovery of fresh fragments of a nearly 2,000-year-old scroll in Israel. The fragments were said to come from the evocatively named Cave of Horror, near the western shore of the Dead Sea.

The finds were announced with attention-grabbing headlines that these were new fragments of the famous Dead Sea Scrolls and some of our earliest evidence for the biblical books of Zechariah and Nahum.

But more than just remnants of ancient text, the discovery reflects the troubled history of the Dead Sea Scrolls and tells human stories of revolution, a desperate search for safety and archaeological ingenuity.

Read more: Dead Sea Scrolls: how we accidentally discovered missing text – in Manchester

People of the scroll

Information is still coming out, but unusually for ancient discoveries of this kind, we know something about the people who hid the scroll.

The Cave of Horror is one of a series of eight caves in the canyon of Naḥal Ḥever, which were used as places of refuge during a Jewish revolt against Rome (132–135 CE)in the time of the emperor Hadrian. The revolt was led by Simon bar Kochba (or Simon bar Kosebah, as he is also known in ancient sources), who was thought by his followers to be the Messiah.

The cave has been known to archaeologists since 1953, but it wasn’t until 1961 that it was excavated by a team led by the Israeli archaeologist, Yonahan Aharoni. The new fragments were found as part of a larger project to search for new manuscripts, which is being conducted by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA).

The cave is remote and difficult to access, which is doubtless why it was used as a hiding place. Aharoni describes the entrance as being 80 meters below the edge of the canyon with a drop of hundreds of meters below it. The team who first explored the cave in 1955 had to use a 100-meter-long rope ladder to reach the opening.

The nickname Cave of Horror was given to the cave because of a large number of skeletons, including children’s skeletons, that were found inside. Together with the skeletons were personal documents, a fragmentary copy of a prayer written in Hebrew, and the scroll to which these fragments belong, which was hidden at the back of the cave.

Remains of a Roman camp at the top of the cliff suggests the refugees sheltering there died as a result of a Roman siege. The occupants were determined not to surrender. There were no signs of wounds on the skeletons, suggesting the occupants died as a result of hunger and thirst, or possibly smoke inhalation from a fire in the centre of the cave.

They buried their most prized possessions, including the scroll from which these fragments come, to keep them safe.

Our oldest biblical texts

The photographs and reports released by the IAA indicate the fragments contain our earliest copy of Zechariah 8:16–17 and one of our earliest copies of Nahum 1:5–6. The fragments appear to be missing pieces of a scroll already known to scholars — the Greek Minor Prophets scroll from Naḥal Ḥever, or 8ḤevXIIgr to give it its official designation.

As the name suggests, the scroll is a copy of the Greek translation of the biblical minor prophets, containing portions of the books of Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Zechariah. The “minor prophets” or “the twelve” customarily describes the books spanning from Hosea to Malachi in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament.

Among other things, the minor prophets include the story of Jonah being swallowed by a “great fish”.

Read more: The Dead Sea Scrolls are a priceless link to the Bible’s past

Don’t say His name

The ancient Hebrew scriptures were first translated into Greek for the benefit of Greek-speaking Jews who had begun to lose contact with their Hebrew roots. Ancient sources, such as the letter of Aristeas, indicate the work of translating the scriptures into Greek probably began in Egypt, some time around 200 years before Christ.

A fascinating feature of the Greek Minor Prophets scroll is the fact the name of God is written in Hebrew, not Greek. This practice stems back to the prohibition in Exodus 20:7 against “taking God’s name in vain”.

The Dead Sea Scrolls attest several practices for avoiding accidentally pronouncing the divine name while reading aloud. These include substituting dots in place of the letters and the use of an archaic form of the Hebrew alphabet.

This custom is the basis for the modern practice of writing Lord in capital letters in modern editions of the Bible.

Beating the looters

Shortly after the discovery of the first Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 it became apparent the rare ancient manuscripts had financial value. This led to a race between archaeologists and local Bedouin to discover more scroll fragments.

Consequently, it can be difficult to verify the archaeological provenance of many of the Dead Sea Scrolls remnants.

More recently, fake scrolls have found their way into at least one modern museum collection. A new manuscript discovery with secure archaeological provenance, like the one announced last week, is immensely important.

Perhaps most excitingly, these new fragments leave open the tantalising possibility there are more scrolls out there, waiting to be found.

Read more: Fake scrolls at the Museum of the Bible

– ref. Cave of Horror: fresh fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls echo dramatic human stories – https://theconversation.com/cave-of-horror-fresh-fragments-of-the-dead-sea-scrolls-echo-dramatic-human-stories-157423