As JobKeeper enters its final weeks, the government has released the latest Tax Office breakdown of the numbers coming off the program, amid concerns its end in late March will see a rise in unemployment.
With attention currently on Victoria, in a five day lockdown due to a COVID outbreak that started with a hotel quarantine breach, the JobKeeper numbers underline the impact of that state’s long lockdown last year.
In Victoria about 1.1 million workers received JobKeeper in its first phase, which ran from April to September, falling to 626,000 in the second phase, October to December.
This was a reduction of just 44%, substantially less than the declines in every other state and territory.
Elsewhere the falls between the two phases were: NSW, 60%; Queensland, 64%; South Australia, 67%; Western Australia, 70%; Tasmania, 65%; Northern Territory, 69%; and ACT 62%.
The figures included substantial reductions in various regions with a reliance on tourism, despite the problems faced by that industry.
Some 18% of the Victorian pre-COVID workforce was on JobKeeper in the second phase, substantially above the proportions in other states and territories.
Nationally, 1.54 million individuals were being supported by the program in the month of December. This compared with 3.6 million in the month of September.
The number of employees on JobKeeper in the month of December fell 65,000 compared to November. In November there had been a fall of 30,000 compared with October.
There was a 56% fall in employees on JobKeeper in its second phase compared with its first phase. Some 520,000 firms and 2.13 million employees went off the scheme after the end of September.
Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe has anticipated some job shedding after JobKeeper ends. This could cause brief rises or slower falls in unemployment, he said this month. He advocated an increase in the JobSeeker base rate, on fairness grounds. The government has yet to announce its long term plans for JobSeeker, but there is general support for it not going back to the old rate after the Coronvirus supplement ends.
ACTU Secretary Sally McManus told the ABC on Sunday JobKeeper should be extended for those businesses still affected by COVID.
Releasing the latest figures, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said with 785,000 jobs created in the last seven months, the government’s focus “continues to be getting people back into work”. But “we know that some families and businesses are still doing it tough and my message to those people is that the Morrison government continues to have your back.”
All industries saw marked reductions in employees on JobKeeper in the December quarter, compared with its first phase, with most falling by at least half.
Average number of employees receiving a JobKeeper 1.0 payment over April to September, versus average number of employees receiving a JobKeeper 2.0 payment over October to December, by selected industry.Treasury
Retail trade saw a 68% decrease, taking those on the support from an average of 26% of the workforce over the first phase to 8% over the second phase.
In accommodation and food services the fall was 52%, to 17% of the workforce in phase two.
Education and training saw a 50% fall, to 6% of the workforce.
Other declines between phases were: wholesale trade, 71% (to 12% of the workforce), construction 48% (to 18%), transport, postal and warehousing 36% (to 17%).
The government insists it will not extend the program although it will look at further assistance where there is a particular need.
The JobKeeper figures come as Health Minister Greg Hunt said the first doses of vaccine will arrive from overseas “before the end of the week, if not earlier”, and Victoria announced two new local cases and another one in hotel quarantine.
At the front of the queue to get the vaccine will be quarantine and border workers, as well as aged care residents and staff.
Hunt said once the vaccines arrived they would be examined to make sure there hadn’t been “any inflight actions that damage quality such as a loss of temperature”.
Total number of employees receiving a JobKeeper 1.0 payment over April to September, versus total number of employees receiving a JobKeeper 2.0 payment over October to December, by selected region.Treasury
Twice-impeached former US President Donald Trump has evaded conviction once more.
On the fourth day of the impeachment trial, the Senate verdict is in. Voting guilty: 57 senators (representing nearly 70% of the country or 202 million people, and the majority public opinion on the issue of conviction). Voting not guilty: 43 Senators. In American maths, that is an acquittal, falling short of the two-thirds majority needed to convict.
Moments after the vote, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell called Trump’s actions before the attack “a disgraceful dereliction of duty” and confirmed the former president was “practically and morally” responsible for provoking the events on January 6 whereby “criminals were carrying his banners” lay siege to the Capitol.
Seven of McConnell’s Republican colleagues agreed, voting guilty. McConnell himself voted to acquit, arguing the Senate could not vote to convict because Trump had already left office – timing that was of McConnell’s own orchestration, as the president was impeached on January 13 while in office.
Republican Mitch McConnell launched a damning attack on Trump, saying he was ‘morally and practically’ responsible for the Capitol riots . But he nonetheless voted to acquit.AAP/EPA/Shawn Thew
However, the case and evidence is important for posterity, as well as ongoing investigations. Impeached in the House of Representatives on charges of “inciting an insurrection”, the trial focused on how Trump’s actions while commander-in-chief led to predictable violence at the Capitol.
The facts of the day were not in dispute. Mobile phone data tracked hundreds of people moving from Trump’s rally, where he repeated false allegations of electoral fraud, to the legislative seat of government.
Once there, the mob discarded a US flag to install a Trump flag, constructed gallows, and spent the next several hours using poles and pipes to batter Capitol police officers to gain access to Congressional chambers.
Once inside, insurrectionists in tactical gear and carrying zip cuffs hunted lawmakers by name, chanted “hang Mike Pence”, and looted, robbed and defecated in congressional offices.
As rioters read Trump tweets aloud, the world bore witness through livestreams of the insurrection. In the end, more than 140 Capitol police were injured, with one losing an eye and two eventually losing their lives.
It was the predictable end to a steady stream of provocations, including Trump’s threats to election officials and culminating in his summoning supporters to Washington DC to stop the peaceful transfer of power. Describing the attack as an example of “stochastic terrorism” a specialist in political rhetoric, Jennifer Merceia, explained the incitement charge, in this way:
[…] you can’t predict who exactly will respond, but you can predict with certainty that someone will respond. And so you saw people sending pipe bombs to the media, saying that Trump told them to do it. You saw people over the last few weeks invading the Capitol and then later saying, I’m here because my president told me to be.
During the trial, senators heard how this constituted a pattern of behaviour: that Trump had revelled in acts of political violence in campaign rallies, promising to cover the legal costs of those arrested, escalating the demonisation of opponents even as Republican colleagues warned of harm.
In 2020, Trump practised directing his supporters to state legislatures to intimidate lawmakers. Tweeting to “liberate” states from COVID-19 lockdowns, supporters responded by storming state legislatures buildings carrying Nazi slogans, harassing lawmakers and stalking public health officials (several resigned). The FBI would later arrest several for plotting to kidnap, try and execute the Democratic governor of Michigan who had been the target of Trump’s rhetoric. His appointees, advisors, and former campaign manager echoed his message. Steve Bannon, whom Trump had just pardoned for fraud, discussed the imagined beheadings of bureaucrats, calling for “their heads on pikes” saying “that’s how you win the revolution”.
On the last day of the trial, the Senate voted 55-45 to accept witnesses, though none were heard. Several Senators had requested information on what actions Trump took to stop the violence.
However, Republicans threatened to block any efforts of the Biden administration to confirm nominations or pandemic relief should the trial continue. As Republican Senator Joni Ernst said:
If they want to drag this out, we’ll drag it out. They won’t get their noms, they won’t get anything.
After closed-door negotiations, the lawyers agreed to submit a single witness’s written testimony into the record. It was that of Republican Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington, who overheard a heated phone call between House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and former President Donald Trump, in which the president declined to intervene to stop the violence.
In voting to convict, Republican Mitt Romney would use this written testimony to assert
President Trump also violated his oath of office by failing to protect the Capitol, the Vice President, and others in the Capitol.
Only seven Republicans voted in favour of conviction, not enough to reach the two-thirds majority needed.AAP/AP/JT/STAR MAX/IPx
Why would senators side with a former president who potentially endangered their lives?
Explanations have centred on political and personal self-preservation. Only one Republican senator voted for conviction who is up for re-election in 2022 (several others are retiring).
It is a dangerous precedent if the top magistrate is free to incite violence to stop the recognition of lawful election results, or ignore them completely. The consequences are already apparent in state legislatures. In Pennsylvania – the Republican legislature, repeating baseless claims of election fraud, refused to seat a duly elected Democratic member. In Michigan, the Senate Majority leader Republican Mike Shirkey called the insurrection “staged”, while Republican state parties have moved to censure Congress members who voted for impeachment or conviction.
Other Republican state legislatures have responded to overwhelming 2020 voter turnout by stripping voting rights from their constituents, introducing 100 voter suppression bills in 28 states ahead of the 2022 midterms. Meanwhile Trump still has not conceded, thus the rationale for violence continues.
Trump remains under investigation. Georgia has launched a criminal probe in the wake of the recorded call in which Trump orders election officials to “find 11,000 votes” for him. A commission into the January 6 insurrection also looks likely.
However, short of invocation of the 14th amendment, Trump remains free to run for office again. The world will watch these development just as it watched the Capitol attacks.
Allies could be forgiven for wondering how the US can come to their aid when it declines to protect its own seat of government. The work of President Joe Biden to repair US standing on the world stage just became a little tougher.
The whistleblowing vice-chancellor at the University of the South Pacific (USP), Professor Pal Ahluwalia, has described the illegal deportation of he and his wife, Sandra Price, last week as a “surreal” experience.
Many would agree that the inhumane, immoral and illegal deportation has plunged the tertiary institution into the biggest crisis of its 50-plus-year history.
The ensuing standoff between USP host country Fiji and the university governing body, the USP Council, has put the institution’s funding at risk, and its future in jeopardy.
In another surreal episode, Fiji’s Prime Minister and Immigration Minister, Voreqe Bainimarama, chose to airily downplay the situation, apparently hoping that the controversy would blow away.
After initially going to ground in the face of the international and national uproar created by the expulsion, Bainimarama responded with a tweet – concentrating on things that matter – insinuating that the crisis engulfing the region’s once premier tertiary institute was of little, if any, consequence.
Bainimarama’s right-hand man, Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, followed suit by telling The Fiji Times that there is “no saga” and “no crisis” at USP. Since last year Khaiyum, as the economy minister, withheld Fiji’s $27 million allocation to USP over alleged unresolved governance issues.
It came after a failed attempt by the Fiji government’s USP representative to suspend Professor Ahluwalia.
Total disregard for the consequences The statements by these two men, who virtually run the country, reflect a total disregard for the consequences of their actions. Besides the international furore, they seem unconcerned about the political fallout domestically, despite winning the 2018 election by the thinnest of margins with another election just around the corner in 2022.
Their growing arrogance is clearly a consequence of military support and the censorship of the media, which means the government maintains a firm grip on the country. Hiding behind the facade of a democracy is very much a military government.
This is reflected in the despotic actions of both the Prime Minister and his Attorney-General, who clearly feel that they can act with impunity, without suffering any consequences.
Then more surreality: when the USP issue was raised in Fiji’s parliament this week, it was ruled out by the Speaker on the grounds that it was not a matter of national importance. Even though Fiji has the most students at USP, and never fails to point out that it contributes more funds to the institution than any other government.
This week the education minister claimed that Fiji does not interfere in the decisions of the USP Council, even though it just did: by withdrawing the VC’s work visa the government voided his contract.
Various independent commentators have pointed out that the scale of the damage to USP is enormous and unprecedented, and raises serious questions about the broader, longer-term impacts on regional unity, academic freedom, respect for human rights and the rule of law.
The deportation has also seen the resurfacing of questions about Fiji’s suitability as the host nation for USP due to political instability and the lack of civil rights. Samoa has already put itself forward as an alternative host for the university.
Legally questionable, but morally wrong The manner in which the Ahluwalias were deported has been well-covered by the media. It was not only legally questionable, but morally wrong. Up to 15 police and immigration officers descended on the couple’s accommodation in the dead of the night, demanding to be let in on the threat of breaking the door down.
The VC and his wife were then whisked away to the Nadi International Airport at high speed, without so much of a toilet break, let alone due process.
Few believe the official reason offered for the deportation — that Professor Ahluwalia’s conduct was “prejudicial to peace, defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, security, or good government of the Fiji islands”. Many feel that Ahluwalia has had a target on his back since his exposure of financial mismanagement under the previous vice-chancellor, Professor Rajesh Chandra, who was seen to be close to the government.
The losses ran into the millions of dollars, as articulated in the BDO special audit report, which was leaked to the media, much to the embarrassment and the consternation of the government, the chairman of the USP Council and those implicated in the scandal.
The situation is replete with ironies. Bainimarama used the mantra of a “clean up” against corruption to justify his 2006 coup but is now increasingly linked to this cover up at USP. Considering the importance of higher education in the region, and the cost to its own domestic and international reputation, the lengths to which the Fiji government has gone to get rid of Ahluwalia reveal a government that has completely lost the plot.
Unions, civil society organisations and opposition parties have roundly condemned the expulsion, but there is an uncanny silence from the office of the Fiji Human Rights Commissioner, Ashwin Raj, an appointee of the Attorney-General.
Deafening silence from donors Also deafening is the silence from the USP’s major donors, Australia and New Zealand, the paragons of human rights and democracy in the region. Their statements have merely expressed concern about USP, while failing to condemn the treatment of the VC.
As recently as June 2020, on this very blog, I wrote about regional institutions with governance problems, including specifically USP, and the silence of international aid donors and partner countries.
I attributed these countries’ silence to political expediency and geopolitical priorities, warning that unless we demand high standards, and adopt zero tolerance for graft and abuse, we only embolden the perpetrators.
I called for a change of attitude, but to no avail, as this latest USP scandal indicates. Do Australia and New Zealand still stand for the rule of the law and human rights, or have they surrendered these values for the sake of political expediency?
The only fair outcome in this case, and the only one that would protect the viability of USP, would be the reinstatement of Professor Ahluwalia. This will only happen if the USP Council stands its ground, and if Australia and New Zealand, as USP’s largest donors, put the university first.
This should not be too much to ask, or to hope.
Dr Biman Prasad is a former professor of economics and dean of the Faculty of Business and Economics at the University of the South Pacific. He is an adjunct professor at the James Cook University and Punjabi University, and is currently Member of Parliament and Leader of the National Federation Party in Fiji. This article was originally published on DevPolicyBlog and is republished with Dr Prasad’s permission.
The pictures of Professor Pal Ahluwalia, the vice-chancellor of the University of the South Pacific (USP), and his wife Sandra Price on the morning of Thursday, February 4, during their long and unexpected plane journey back to Brisbane after their shock expulsion from Fiji brought back memories for us.
Former Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, still very much a politician and leadership contender for elections in 2022, argued that the FijiFirst government’s behaviour in deporting Professor Ahluwalia and his wife was nothing short of childish.
He should know. He began Fiji’s coup culture with two coups in 1987, unleashing a wave of violence upon Fiji’s people: assaults, burglaries, arson, and imprisonment.
NOW: Dr Robbie Robertson and Akosita Tamanisau … survivors of unwanted Fiji coup attention in 1988. Image: DevBlog
One group of demonstrators was gassed. Dr Anirudh Singh, a university scientist who criticised Rabuka’s biography, was hijacked by a military unit and severely tortured, his hands broken. In effect, anyone who by their actions signalled dissatisfaction became fair game.
In January 1988, we found out too that we had become fair game. After the first coup in May 1987, we had been warned by economist Wadan Narsey (another victim, later forced out of USP by government pressure and, in his case, the Bainimarama government) that our close friendship with William Sutherland, the deposed Prime Minister’s permanent secretary, might create problems for us. (William escaped Rabuka’s military, who came for him immediately after the first coup, and managed to leave the country. But at Nadi, troops dragged him off the plane. Only the pilot’s brave refusal to take off without all his passengers enabled him to leave.)
In reality, anything could cause problems. USP where one of us (Robbie) worked as a senior lecturer had long been subject to cliques at loggerheads with each other.
A simple call to the military could create a lifetime of pain for helpless individuals. Then VC, Geoffrey Caston, soon discovered this when hash harriers (social runners) left their cars outside his home and he was charged with holding unauthorised meetings.
Shadowy Taukeist activists We had a member of Rabuka’s shadowy Taukeist activists living next door to us in Raiwaqa who didn’t look kindly on us, particularly around the time of the second coup in September 1987 when he held operational meetings in his home.
We also brought attention upon ourselves because we decided to write on the coups in our evenings. All news was censored, so to find out what was happening we would frequent certain bars where public servants and officers often hung out.
Asking the odd question, but mostly listening to conversations, could provide some framework for understanding what was happening.
The other author of this article (Akosita) was a journalist with the then Fiji Sun, but also did stories for London’s Gemini news service. She had been asked to send a story on the current political scene, but the only way to get it out was via Fintel, the government’s centralised telecommunications system.
She discovered on handing over the article to be faxed that Fintel had been militarised. An officer read her piece, said the fax was down and asked her to come back in the late afternoon.
We did, but before we could enter an employee exited and whispered that a whole group of soldiers was waiting for her. We decided to leave but were followed by a military vehicle for some time. Eventually we headed up to the Sun editor’s home and got approval to fax from the newspaper’s offices.
That still had to go through Fintel and was refused. In the end we used an old telex. But no sooner had the article been sent, power to the suburb was cut.
Things heated up From that moment on, things seemed to heat up. Our house was raided by military intelligence. The family we allowed to live in the empty quarters under the house was turned against us and became the military’s spies. And our phone was tapped. After the first raid we took to taking everything to work that we had been writing in the evening.
Then everything went quiet. Classes finished at USP and we travelled to Vanuatu where Robbie taught for three weeks. Then we took a three-week holiday in Australia, in part to relieve the tension that went with two military coups, roadblocks, curfews, arrests, and beatings of friends.
When we returned in January, we went to Akosita’s parents to inform them that we intended to marry. On arriving back in Suva, Robbie received an urgent message to go to the university. There he was told that the government had decided not to renew his work visa and asked that he leave the next day.
The university suggested we go into hiding while they tried to sort it out. The sociologist Vijay Naidu (later thrown by the military into Fiji’s old death row cells) kindly took us up to the New Zealand High Commissioner’s residence, but his wife informed us that her husband was in the bath preparing to go out.
“We couldn’t help Richard Naidu (another expelled local who had been assaulted by Taukeists),” she argued. What makes you think you are different?
The next day was busy. Packers in to remove nine years of living. Then a quick trip down to the Registry Office. Then off to historian Jacqui Leckie’s house ostensibly to hide. Nothing worked. Everyone knew where we were and Rabuka refused to budge.
How did it come to this? He told a New Zealand newspaper that Robbie was a security risk and had to go. So he eventually did, flying first to Auckland to stay with journalist David Robie, feeling we suspect much like Ahluwalia and possibly thinking: how did it come to this. And what is next?
As it turned out USP was good to Robbie. They kept him employed and planned to install him in Vanuatu. He would fly into Suva two or three times a semester to teach. But once the Fijian government heard of these plans, they declared him a prohibited immigrant and encouraged Vanuatu to ban him also. He eventually found work in Australia and the university paid for our effects to come over.
All’s well that ends well, and he did go back to teach again in Fiji as a professor of development studies in 2004, smartly leaving ahead of the well-advertised 2006 coup.
That coup was led by the current Prime Minister and bore all the clandestine and nasty tactics that Rabuka and others had employed since 1987 in the name of sovereignty. This is a country that now chairs the UN Human Rights Committee yet has managed to impose a draconian curfew ever since covid-19 became a potential threat.
USP’s deported Professor Pal Ahluwalia … “Standing up to political pressure is not something that comes naturally to the politically appointed USP Council.” Image: PMW
Standing up to political pressure is not something that comes naturally to the politically appointed USP Council. Let’s hope it does for Pal’s sake and for the health of the Pacific’s regional university.
Let’s hope also for the notion of academic freedom, unfortunately often more honoured in the breach in the Pacific. In the early 1980s Mara’s pre-coup government pressured Ziam Baksh – a young Indo-Fijian academic – who called for a common term to refer to all Fijian citizens.
Much later, USP bowed to criticism and forced Professor Narsey to resign. Governments like to be in control, and Fiji is no different from many others in this regard, preferring instead a culture of silence.
But its assault on good governance under the pretence of sovereign rights, its attempt to pre-emptively sack a vice-chancellor, now threatens to unwind the Pacific’s great experiment in regional education and end the diversity of views and pathways so valuable for any democracy that wishes to garner the best for its peoples. All will lose if they succeed.
Dr Robbie Robertson is adjunct professor at Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne where he was formerly Dean of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities. Akosita Tamanisau works as an assessor in the Victorian homelessness sector. They are co-authors ofFiji: Shattered Coups. This article first appeared on DevPolicyBlog and is republished here with the authors’ permission.
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned a proposed cyber-security law in Myanmar that would organise online censorship and force social media platforms to share private information about their users when requested by the authorities.
The draft law, which has just been leaked, is clearly designed to prevent pro-democracy activists from continuing to organise the demonstrations that have been taking place every day in cities across Myanmar in response to the military coup on February 1.
The State Administration Council – as the new military junta euphemistically calls itself – sent a copy of the proposed law to internet access and online service providers on February 9.
And the junta is expected to make it public on February 15.
The draft law, which RSF has seen, would require online platforms and service providers operating in Myanmar to keep all user data in a place designated by the government for three years.
‘Causing hate, destabilisation’ Article 29 would give the government the right to order an account’s “interception, removal, destruction or cessation” in the event of any content “causing hate or disrupting unity, stabilisation and peace,” any “disinformation,” or any comment going “against any existing law.”
This extremely vague wording would give the government considerable interpretative leeway and would in practice allow it to ban any content it disliked and to prosecute its author.
Article 30, on the other hand, is very specific about the data that online service providers must hand over to the government when requested: the user’s name, IP address, phone number, ID card number and physical address.
Any violation of the law would be punishable by up to three years in prison and a fine of 10 million kyats (6200 euros). Those convicted on more than one count would, of course, serve the corresponding jail terms consecutively.
RSF submission “The provisions of this cyber-security law pose a clear threat to the right of Myanmar’s citizens to reliable information and to the confidentiality of journalists’ and bloggers’ data,” said Daniel Bastard, the head of RSF Asia-Pacific desk.
“We urge digital actors operating in Myanmar, starting with Facebook, to refuse to comply with this shocking attempt to bring them to heel. This junta has absolutely no democratic legitimacy and it would be highly damaging for platforms to submit too its tyrannical impositions.”
Facebook has nearly 25 million users in Myanmar – 45 percent of the population. Three days after the February 1 coup, the junta suddenly blocked access to Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
But many of the country’s citizens have been using VPNs (virtual private networks) to circumvent the censorship.
The proposed law’s leak has coincided with social media reports of the arrival of many Chinese technicians tasked with setting up an internet barrier and cybersurveillance system of the kind operating in China, which is an expert in this domain.
Earlier this week, RSF reported the comments of several journalists who have been trying to cover the protests against the military coup, and who said that press freedom has been set back 10 years in the space of 10 days, back to where it was before the start of the democratisation process.
Indigenous Papuan students who are currently studying in New Zealand and Australia have formed an educational association, choosing Waitangi Day to mark the occasion of their inaugural virtual conference.
Called the Papuan Students Association Oceania (PSAO), the organisation plans to represent all students from the Land of Papua who are currently studying in Pacific nations.
The organisers who worked tirelessly in preparing formation of the association said the aim was to unify all students from the Land of Papua who are studying in Pacific countries such as Australia, Fiji, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa and Vanuatu.
In the PSAO articles of the association, the objective was stated as “a means of accommodating and advocating for creativity, inspiration, aspirations, and information from all Papuan students and students in Oceania.”
Yan Piterson Wenda, elected as the first president of PSAO, said this was a historical moment for the Pacific.
Wenda, who completed his bachelor’s degree majoring in business marketing at Otago University last year, said the association was formed to build unity for all Papuan students.
“We want to uphold the unity among all of us regardless of whether we come from the highlands or from coastal regions,” he said.
‘Still one Papuan’ “Even though we are separated by two provinces and many regencies, we are still one Papuan – no one can separate us.”
Forming the association will not only raise the profile of Papuan students in every university or school that they attend, but it would help Papuans to support one another in the future, said Wenda.
Papuan students who are studying in New Zealand and Australia are under varied scholarship programmes, such as Papuan and West Papuan provincial scholarships, Australian Awards scholarships, New Zealand Aid Scholarships.
The Papuan provincial scholarships is the largest sponsorship source.
The members of the association range from undergraduate to doctoral students. The students are doing various major studies and spread across many universities.
At the first virtual online conference of the Papuan students, participants from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jakarta-Indonesia, West Papua and the United States also took part.
Marveys Ayomi, a scholarship coordinator for Papuan students in New Zealand, delivered an opening speech on behalf of the government of Papua province, saying he was extremely excited to get a chance to see all Papuans united in one student association.
Blessing granted He said he had spoken to the government back home, namely the vice-chairman of Papuan People’s Representatives Dr Yunus Wonda and the head of Papuan Human Resources Development, Ariyoko Rumaropen.
“We have been granted the blessing for the formation of this organisation from our beloved parents. The formation of this organisation is to seek opportunities not only in Papua but also in the countries where you are studying currently,” Ayomi said.
“As the Papuan provincial government scholarship is not legally binding, our government encourages Papuan students to be smart in terms of seeking employment opportunities.”
Ayomi, who is also a lecturer at one of the tertiary institutes in Palmerston North, IPU New Zealand, said that forming this association would also promote Papuan and Melanesian cultural uniqueness to the Pacific.
He completed his studies from high school to masters in New Zealand.
“We Papuans also can do what other people do, in fact you are studying and competing with other international students in your respective area of studies,” he said.
“Please keep our unity and build a network with every stakeholder wherever you are.”
‘Be independent’ plea Kerry Tabuni one of senior Papuan students who is currently doing his PhD in international law at Waikato University, said it was important for students to be independent during their study.
He said Papuans, as Melanesians, needed to be proud as Pacific islanders.
“For those of you who are appointed to the executive, take this opportunity to develop your leadership skills and also prepare yourselves academically. And to others, let us support them in the spirit of being united we are solid and strong,” said Tabuni.
The elected executive: President of the Papuan Students Association Oceania: Yan Piterson Wenda Vice-president for New Zealand: Nickson Stevi Yikwa Vice-president for Australia: Maskarena Wasfle Secretary: Christian Lani Tabuni Treasury of the Papuan Students Association Oceania: Hermina Ibage
Laurens Ikinia is a Papuan Masters in Communication Studies student at Auckland University of Technology who has been studying journalism. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report.
The above photo is an image of how I grew up in Papua.
But before I share my story, I would like to extend my warm greetings to my fellow brothers and sisters who were on the day that I wrote this piece commemorating the 166th anniversary of evangelism in the Land of Papua.
As a fruit of evangelism, my parents had committed to be Christians and until now they still practise Christian lives.
My mom, who is the role model of my faith, has become a central part of my life. And I believe so do other people.
The following is a short story of faith which was accompanied by deeds that came true.
When I was studying in elementary school from grade 3 to 6 and in middle school from grade 7 to 9, I used to collect aluminium cans and sell them to a workshop so that I was able to buy a book, pencil, pen, and other school stationery.
For a 20 kg rice sack, I earned 5 cents. If I was lucky on the day, I sometimes collected 2 sacks in one day.
Needed new textbooks I did this job when I needed a new book or to buy a textbook from school and sometimes to help my mom buy detergent to wash our laundry and dishes.
I normally started collecting the cans from the afternoon around 1 pm to 4 pm. I did this two or three times a week.
Sometimes I took my younger brother with me.
If I went with him, I bought him noodles and candies. Otherwise, he would cry and demand that I buy him candies, noodles or cakes.
As an older brother, I had to indulge his wishes and I always did.
That’s why sometimes I could not buy what I needed from a day’s earning. So, I normally saved left over money in my piggy bank.
I asked my mom to keep it. I had to do that to be able to buy a NZ$1 exercise book or NZ$5 textbook from school.
Hard-working out on the farm My mom was and is a hard-working woman, so from morning to afternoon she was and is always out on the farm – traditional Papuan garden. Because she was so busy, she always asked me to look after my younger brother after school.
And my mom always prepared steamed sweet potatoes – sometimes small (just as big as a handful) and sometimes bigger than that, which was enough to still our stomach.
We are so fortunate that she always prepared something for lunch. My younger brother would always wait for me to come home and have lunch together.
My mom worked extremely hard herself as our dad was a chief and lived with his first wife. My dad thought that my mom’s children would not be successful in the future, so he paid more attention to his first wife and our older step-sister.
Long story short, we were and are so grateful to have a great uncle, my mom’s older brother who always treated us like his own children.
Due to my dad’s careless behaviour, my uncle took us in and raised us in his family. That’s why, when I was with my mom, she always advised me to work hard and never rely on other people and never forget to have some time for prayer.
She always encouraged us to go to Sunday school every Sunday morning. In my university studies, she always asks me to study hard and seriously.
Guiding your future She always said that “Mom never went to school, but I have faith that when you study and pray, God will open many ways for you to be successful in the future.
“My prayers and hope will always guide you.”
My mom’s advice always became my inspiration to study; that’s why in middle school and high school I was always in the top 1 to 4 in the class.
In commemorating the 166th anniversary of the evangelism in the Land of Papua, let’s have faith and hope that the true mission laid by the missionaries (Carl Wilhelm Ottow and Johann Gottlob Geissler) as a foundation of the direction of our lives becomes our strength in viewing Papua as a land full of hope for future generations.
Waaa waaa waaa!
Laurens Ikinia is a Papuan Masters in Communication Studies student at Auckland University of Technology who has been studying journalism. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report. The article was first published on Ikinia’s social media blog.
Victoria will go into stage 4 lockdown from 11.59pm tonight, as the cluster from the Holiday Inn quarantine hotel continues to grow.
Premier Daniel Andrews announced the circuit-breaker lockdown this afternoon, citing the threat posed by the “hyper-infectious” UK strain.
Victorians will again only be allowed to leave their homes for four reasons: to shop for necessary goods, to provide care, for essential work or permitted education, or for exercise. The controversial five-kilometre radius is also back in place, while masks will be compulsory everywhere outside the home.
This lockdown understandably comes as a significant blow to Victorians (myself included), after having endured a three-month lockdown during the second wave of COVID infections last year. However, it’s important to understand that the situation we’re in right now is quite different to the one we faced in 2020.
I think it’s pretty hard to fault the rationale for this lockdown: the public health response has not been able to get ahead of transmission, and therefore the state government has assessed there’s a risk this outbreak will get away from them.
There are now at least 13 cases linked to the Holiday Inn. But the crucial point is that the close and casual contacts number in the hundreds.
As Victoria’s chief health officer Brett Sutton explained, the public health team has found that by the time they identify cases in this new cluster, those people have already become infectious and have had an opportunity to spread the virus. As a result, authorities don’t feel they are currently across all of the chains of transmission.
Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has announced Victoria will go into lockdown until 11.59pm on February 17.Luis Ascui/AAP
A circuit-breaker lockdown aims to crush transmission before it gains a foothold. The goal is to limit the contact people have with each other, to buy time for the public health team to do its work.
Some people may be asking whether a lockdown is necessary, or whether the Victorian government has already waited too long, given Queensland and Western Australia implemented circuit-breaker lockdowns in Brisbane and Perth after only a single case got out of hotel quarantine.
We may have a better sense of the appropriateness of this lockdown in a few days’ time — as we see how many more cases pop up — but it’s very difficult to answer this question right now.
I don’t think cases escaping from hotel quarantine necessarily requires a lockdown. This event, however, appears to have some unique characteristics.
In explaining the need for this lockdown, Andrews took pains to stress the fact we’re dealing with the UK strain of the coronavirus.
According to a statement on the Premier’s website:
Right now, we are reaching close contacts well within the 48-hour benchmark. But the time between exposure, incubation, symptoms and testing positive is rapidly shortening. So much so, that even secondary close contacts are potentially infectious within that 48-hour window.
In short: this hyper-infectious variant is moving at hyper-speed.
Although evidence indicates the UK strain is more infectious, it has not generally been reported that the incubation period is any different. So while this is biologically plausible, I think we need to be cautious about accepting it as fact.
It’s believed COVID spread in the Holiday Inn through a nebuliser.Luis Ascui/AAP
A balancing act
It’s clear authorities are caught between a rock and a hard place in making these calls. There will always be those who are critical when a lockdown is called, and those who are critical when they feel unnecessary risks are taken. Making these decisions and factoring in costs and benefits is a delicate balancing act.
One can appreciate it was in the best interests of all Victorians to make every attempt to bring transmission under control without resorting to a lockdown. But once the assessment was made that there was the risk of transmission getting out of control, the government clearly felt it had to make this tough decision to stave off the possibility of a third wave in Victoria.
It’s important to draw a distinction between this short, sharp lockdown, which is hopefully just a precautionary measure, and the extended lockdown we were forced into when transmission got away from us during the second wave.
If you are going to use a lockdown, this is how they should be used, according to the World Health Organisation. They’re not designed to drag on for months — and this new lockdown should allow us to avert a scenario where that’s necessary.
The weight of this decision on Andrews and the rest of the team today was clear. Andrews was measured, sombre, even apologetic. It was obvious how hard a decision it was to make.
While another lockdown might be difficult to stomach, it will buy us some time, give the public health response a chance to get ahead of the latest cluster, and hopefully achieve its objective of averting the need for a longer lockdown later.
The philosophy is that it’s better to be safe than sorry, and no one can blame the authorities for this approach.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Wood, Associate Professor, Discipline of Childhood and Adolescent Health, University of Sydney
With the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines about to begin in Australia, people may be wondering if they’re safe (and effective) in the long term. What might be the health consequences a year after vaccination, or further into the future?
While it’s true COVID-19 vaccines have been developed in record time, the importance of tracking vaccine safety is not new. We routinely monitor the safety of all vaccinations, years after they’ve been used in millions of people.
And in guidance from the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) this week, we have a clearer picture of how we’ll know about any unexpected, rare or long-term side-effects of the COVID-19 vaccines. In fact, we’ll use and build on many existing systems to look out for these.
Late-stage vaccine trials in tens of thousands of people only last for a defined period of time, typically 12 months. Vaccine manufacturers present data on vaccine safety (and efficacy) for that time-frame to regulatory bodies. Safety data is rigorously assessed before a vaccine is approved for use.
But when approved vaccines are then given to the general public, we can monitor for any new events that may occur unexpectedly in both the short and longer term. Tracking potential side-effects in the real world in all people who have a vaccine, and outside the tightly controlled conditions of a trial, means we can ensure the vaccine is safe when given to millions — or billions — of people.
So how might this work for COVID-19 vaccines? The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine phase 3 trial reported safety data until about 14 weeks after the second dose. The Oxford/AstraZeneca trial reported safety data after about three months after the first dose, and two months after the second dose.
However, participants in both these large trials will continue to be followed up for both efficacy and safety until the end of the study from around 12 months after the first dose of vaccine.
COVID vaccine safety is also being monitored in several other ways, by individual countries, including Australia. Countries also share their vaccine safety monitoring data via a global database.
Here’s how we’ll monitor COVID vaccine safety in Australia
The TGA has overall responsibility for monitoring the safety of medicines and vaccines in Australia. Just this week, the TGA released its plans for monitoring the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.
This includes the timely collection and management of reports of COVID-19 vaccine adverse events, an ability to urgently detect any safety concerns and to communicate safety issues to the public.
‘Passive’ surveillance
A cornerstone of the system Australia has had in place for decades to capture any possible vaccine reactions is “passive” surveillance. In practice, this means anyone can report a reaction to the TGA, the public included.
If your GP or nurse thinks you may have had a reaction they should report this to their state or territory health department, which then informs the TGA. This is mandatory in some jurisdictions but not in others.
Consumers are being encouraged to report any suspected side-effects after their COVID vaccine.www.shutterstock.com
The TGA is encouraging health professionals and consumers to report suspected side-effects to COVID-19 vaccines and there is a guide on its website on how to do this.
The TGA has a database that records any reported possible reactions. If there are any suspected safety issues, these are immediately investigated and necessary action is taken. For example, if necessary an immunisation program can be stopped or special precautions implemented. TGA can also issue safety alerts.
We send texts or emails to people asking them to fill out a survey on their health after being vaccinated. This system enables us to detect any suspected safety issues in near real time. Last year, AusVaxSafety surveyed nearly 290,000 people after they had the 2020 influenza vaccine and found more than 94% felt completely well. Others had mild and expected short-term side effects.
This system will be used to pick up any safety concerns when the COVID-19 vaccines roll out in the next few weeks. If you are vaccinated at selected sites, including GP practices and COVID-19 vaccine hubs, you will be told about this automated system. You don’t have to register or enrol but will be sent an SMS on day 3 and day 8 after each vaccine dose (you can decide whether to fill out the survey). Your anonymised results will be reported to your state or territory health department and the TGA.
This system will probably be in place to monitor safety of the COVID-19 vaccines for a few years. And as new vaccine brands come on board, we will continue to monitor those too.
The United States has recently developed an equivalent system, V-safe. Safety data from this system from about two million people who have had a COVID-19 vaccine indicates the vaccines are safe. The short-term side-effects are very similar to those reported in the vaccine trials. The most common reactions include injection site pain, headache, tiredness and muscle aches, usually in the first two days and then resolving within a week after vaccination.
The potential benefits to us all from a mass vaccination program against COVID-19 far outweigh the potential side-effects, based on data from millions of people who have already been vaccinated around the world. Yet, we know all medicines, vaccines included, have the potential for side-effects.
However, by using, and building on, our already established safety surveillance system, we will be “on top” of rapidly identifying any possible safety concerns. That’s immediately after vaccination and into the longer term.
The New Moon this month marks the start of the Lunar New Year and reminds us of how important our orbiting neighbour is to us.
It’s a relationship long described by many cultures across the globe, particularly with its links to tides and weather.
In the Torres Strait it was a crucially important element in helping the islanders win a legal battle for sea rights.
Under a Meriam Moon
In the Torres Strait, the Moon plays an important role in culture, identity and daily life. Every aspect of our natural satellite – from its phase, position, appearance and brightness – has special significance and meaning.
A traditional story of the Meriam people from Mer (Murray Island), in the eastern Torres Strait, explains how you can see a lady in the Full Moon weaving mats.
She was brought there by the Moon Man, which describes the formation of the maria (dark patches) on its surface that form the silhouette of the woman.
Meriam elder Uncle Alo Tapim telling the story about the lady in the Moon.
Tides of change
Lunar phases link to the changing tides, a relationship that is well established in Islander knowledge systems.
One practical application links to fishing. Elders teach that the best time to fish is during a neap (low) tide during the First or Last Quarter Moon, rather than a spring (high) tide during the New or Full Moon phase.
The spring tides are much bigger, meaning the tidal waters rush in and out more significantly, stirring up silt and sediment on the sea floor. This clouds the water, making it harder for fish to see the bait and fishers to see the fish.
The waters of spring tides also pull fish out to sea. During the smaller neap tides, the water is clearer and fish don’t move as far, making them easier to see and catch.
Gardeners such as Meriam elder Uncle Alo Tapim (below) plant their gardens by the phases of the Moon. The cusps (tips) of the crescent Moon (kerkar meb) point in different directions throughout the year, as we move from summer solstice to winter solstice and back again.
Meriam elders Alo Tapim (left) and Segar Passi (right).Author provided
Uncle Segar Passi (above), a senior Meriam elder, teaches that when the Moon cusps point upwards (Meb metalug em), the Moon looks like a bowl collecting water. The water is choppy and you will see cumulus clouds in the sky. This occurs during the Sager (dry season), a period of fine weather.
When the Moon tilts on its side (Meb uag em), thin cirrus clouds are visible and a fuzzy ring may form around the Moon. The seas look calm and mirror-flat and you will see thin cirrus clouds, but this is when the water pours out of the bowl, falling as the rains of the Kuki (wet season).
A crescent Moon.Pixabay
Moon halos are used to forecast weather. In the Torres Strait, the ring around the Moon (susri) is seen to be a hut built by the Moon Man to shield himself from coming rain.
Halos form around the Moon when moonlight passes through ice crystals high in the atmosphere. These form in low fronts, which often bring rain.
An eclipse of the Moon
On Badu, in the Torres Strait, an eclipse of the Moon is called Merlpal Maru Pathanu, meaning “the ghost has taken the spirit of the Moon”.
It was an omen of war. On Boigu, the northern-most island, men would don a special headdress and perform a ceremony to figure out the direction of the incoming attack.
The same name is used for a solar eclipse, which is seen as the superposition of the two celestial bodies.
Merlpal Maru Pathanu … ‘the ghost has taken the spirit of the Moon’.David Bosun (Senior artist at Moa Arts). Author provided from private collection, reproduced with permission of the artist.
A battle for sea rights
Every June 3, Australia celebrates Mabo Day, marking the decision by the High Court of Australia to overturn the legal fiction of terra nullius (“a land belonging to no one”) in a landmark court case.
This was driven by Meriam man Edward Koike Mabo, paving the way for Native Title. But this ruling did not necessarily extend to sea rights.
In the early 2000s, the people of Mer launched a legal battle for sea rights. Government lawyers argued against the declaration by claiming each island was a separate enclave with no connection to one another.
But Torres Strait Islanders have a long history of cultural, linguistic and family connections across the Strait and with Papua New Guinea and mainland Australia.
During the proceedings, Meriam people were required to prove their longstanding connections in court. One crucial piece of evidence was a traditional Moon Dance.
Gedge Togia
Gedge Togia is a sacred spiritual dance (kab kar) of the Meriam people, linking the islands of Mabuyag (also known as Mabuiag) and Mer.
Map of the Torres Strait with the islands of Mabuiag (Mabuyag) and Mer (circled red).Wikimedia/Kwamikagami, CC BY-SA
The lyrics are “Gedge Togia, Milpanuka”, which means “Moon rising over home” in two languages: Gedge Togia is the Meriam Mir language phrase meaning “to rise over home”, and Milpanuka is the Mabuyag dialect term for the Moon, which is derived from Milpal, a Kala Lagau Ya word for the Full Moon. For comparison, the Meriam Mir name of the Moon is Meb.
During legal proceedings in the mid-2000s, a judge travelled to Mer and observed testimony presented by elders. Alo Tapim sang the song and explained the dance, the traditional dress and its importance and relevance to Meriam and Mabuyag connections.
A performance of Gedge Togia, explaned by Alo Tapim.
Mabuyag and Mer are 200km apart, lying almost due east and west of one another. As Meriam people sail home from Mabuyag they will see the Full Moon rising over Mer at dusk or the crescent Moon rising at dawn.
Gedge Togia and the Moon demonstrates the longstanding connections between Mer and Mabuyag, and helped Islanders win their battle for sea rights.
Michelle Grattan discusses the week in politics with University of Canberra Assistant Professor Caroline Fisher, including the prospect of net zero emissions by 2050, and the battlelines being drawn within the National Party and wider Coalition over how to get there. They also discuss industrial relations, the government’s legislation before parliament, Labor’s planned policy, and the debate that will ensue.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leah Ruppanner, Associate Professor in Sociology and Co-Director of The Policy Lab, University of Melbourne
The COVID-19 pandemic was heralded as an opportunity to restart gender expectations at home. Our research shows Australian fathers have stepped into more participatory roles, but the question remains: will it last?
At the height of the first lockdown, the global economy closed and with it schools, childcare centres and employment shut. For many parents, the work associated with maintaining a job, homeschooling, round-the-clock caregiving and keeping a household afloat fell squarely on their shoulders. Some argued this would be a critical moment for men to step up as more egalitarian partners and help equalise gender norms in the home.
Our new study indicates Australian fathers took on more domestic work than their US counterparts but at the same cost women have suffered in trying to reconcile their work and family commitments: a rise in sleeplessness and anxiety.
COVID reshaped parents’ paid and unpaid work
We surveyed 1,375 Australian and US parents using the YouGov panels in May and September 2020. In May, the global economy had largely shut down in response to the virus. By September, US children were starting a new school year, while Australia was facing a second spike and a severe lockdown in Victoria.
We asked parents about how their employment, housework and childcare had changed during these COVID-affected times.
We found roughly one in three Australian mothers and fathers in our sample lost or reduced work under COVID in May, which continued into September. Of course, these patterns varied by state, with Victorians bearing the brunt of employment disruption.
One in three US parents reported employment disruptions in May. By September, employment disruptions had declined, but still remained at high levels.
What happened on the home front? We found Australian and US mothers both reported picking up more housework during the pandemic. For fathers, an interesting pattern emerged.
Australian fathers increased their contributions to housework. We first observed this in May 2020, then again four months later.
US fathers, in contrast, picked up more housework in May, but this was short-lived. As the pandemic endured, US mothers have filled the housework and childcare voids while US fathers pulled back their contributions to domestic work and caregiving.
There was one silver lining of the pandemic, at least in the case of Australia: fathers stepped up to do more childcare and housework.Shutterstock
Increased domestic load harms health and well-being
We know the stress of managing work and family can cause people’s health to deteriorate, and lead many mothers to leave the labor force. Add to that the uncertainty and fear around a global pandemic, and the affect on parents’ mental health is profound.
Our research showed Australian fathers experienced stress due to economic disruptions. Still, they stepped up their domestic game during the pandemic. And, with it, they felt the same stressors that mothers conventionally experience. The increased childcare and household demands during the pandemic came with greater anxiety and worse sleep among both Australian fathers and mothers.
The pandemic has been extremely difficult, but in Australia it is fathers and mothers carrying this burden.
For US fathers, only job disruption is associated with worse anxiety and poor sleep. Importantly, their stress was unaffected by caregiving demands — perhaps because, as our data show, they did not consistently increase their contributions to housework and childcare during the pandemic.
For US mothers, both job loss and greater housework demands increased their sleeplessness and anxiety. US fathers reduced their childcare contributions from May to September, and contributed less to the running of the house across that time.
In this respect, US fathers appear to have doubled down on their roles as breadwinners. As a result, their mental wellness is mostly based on their economic standing, leaving US mothers alone to carry the burden of growing housework and childcare demands during the pandemic.
Silver linings?
The COVID-19 pandemic has placed unparalleled pressures on US and Australian families, leaving devastation in its wake. Our results indicate this movement towards gender equality among Australian parents came at a cost to their health, through greater anxiety and poorer sleep.
But existing research shows mothers in both countries have carried these dual burdens for a long time, with detrimental impacts on their lives, livelihoods and health. Australian fathers, for the first time ever, may have felt the intensity of these competing pressures, and perhaps their larger share of domestic work may stick.
We found one silver lining of the pandemic, at least in the case of Australia: Australian fathers stepped up to do more childcare and housework. Let’s hope this lasts.
Living through a global pandemic over the past year has seen all of us expanding our vocabularies. We now understand terms like PPE, social distancing and contact tracing.
But just when perhaps we thought we had a handle on most of the terminology, we’re faced with another set of new words: mutation, variant and strain.
So, what do they mean?
The genetic material of SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, is called ribonucleic acid (RNA). To replicate, and therefore establish infection, SARS-CoV-2 RNA must hijack a host cell and use the cell’s machinery to duplicate itself.
Errors often occur during the process of duplicating the viral RNA. This results in viruses that are similar but not exact copies of the original virus. These errors in the viral RNA are called mutations, and viruses with these mutations are called variants. Variants could differ by a single or many mutations.
Not all mutations have the same effect. To understand this better, we need to understand the basics of our genetic code (DNA for humans; RNA for SARS-CoV-2). This code is like a blueprint on which all organisms are built. When a mutation occurs at a single point, it won’t necessarily change any of the building blocks (called amino acids). In this case, it won’t change how the organism (human or virus) is built.
On occasion though, these single mutations occur in a part of the virus RNA that causes a change in a particular building block. In some cases, there could be many mutations that together alter the building block.
A variant is a referred to as a strain when it shows distinct physical properties. Put simply, a strain is a variant that is built differently, and so behaves differently, to its parent virus. These behavioural differences can be subtle or obvious.
For example, these differences could involve a variant binding to a different cell receptor, or binding more strongly to a receptor, or replicating more quickly, or transmitting more efficiently, and so on.
Essentially, all strains are variants, but not all variants are strains.
Viruses with mutations become variants. If the variant displays different physical properties to the original virus, we call it a new strain.Lara Herrero, created using BioRender, Author provided
Common variants (which are also strains)
Three of the most common SARS-CoV-2 variants are what we’ve come to know as the UK variant (B.1.1.7), the South African variant (B.1.351) and the Brazilian variant (P.1). Each contains several different mutations.
Let’s look at the UK variant as an example. This variant has a large number of mutations in the spike protein, which aids the virus in its effort to invade human cells.
The increased transmission of the UK variant is believed to be associated with a mutation called N501Y, which allows SARS-CoV-2 to bind more readily to the human receptor ACE2, the entry point for SARS-CoV-2 to a wide range of human cells.
The UK variant has recently been picked up in Australia.Erik Anderson/AAP
This variant is now widespread in more than 70 countries, and has recently been detected in Australia.
While we commonly call it the “UK variant” (which it is), it’s also a strain because it displays different behaviours to the parental strain.
We’ve got lots more to learn
There is some confusion around how best to use these terms. Given all strains are variants (but not all variants are strains), it makes sense the term variant is more common. But when the science shows these variants behave differently, it would be more accurate to call them strains.
The big question everyone is asking at the moment is how the new variants and strains will affect the efficacy of our COVID vaccines.
The scientific community is uncovering more information about emerging mutations, variants and strains all the time, and leading vaccine developers are testing and evaluating the efficacy of their vaccines in this light.
Some recently licensed vaccines appear to protect well against the UK variant but recent data from Novavax, Johnson & Johnson and Oxford/AstraZeneca indicates possible reduced protection against the South African variant.
Health authorities in South Africa recently paused their rollout of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine for this reason. However, its too early to tell what impact, if any, this will have on Australia’s vaccine plans.
The vaccine rollout in Australia will assess all information as it comes to light and ensure optimal available protection for the population.
In the lead-up to this year’s United Nations climate conference in Glasgow, the Morrison government is inching towards adopting a net-zero emissions target for 2050. If Prime Minister Scott Morrison can resist internal party pressure to exempt some sectors from the commitment, the target would be welcome.
It would also bring Australia into line with its international peers. More than 120 other governments have made similar pledges, including China, the European Union and the United States.
However, Morrison is reportedly considering not making the target legally binding. In that case, it would not need assent from parliament and Coalition backbenchers averse to climate action could not vote against it.
But if that happens, the commitment is likely to be meaningless. As recent political history shows, emissions reduction targets must be enshrined in law if we’re to have any hope of reaching them.
Binding emissions targets are needed to make a dent in climate change.Charlie Reidel/AP
The value of a good law
A well-designed climate law can achieve two main goals: ensuring Australia meets and beats its emissions targets, and that those targets are consistent with the best available science.
In 2012, the Gillard Labor government passed a comprehensive climate law known as the Clean Energy Act. The legislation underpinned Labor’s carbon price scheme, which was famously repealed by the Abbott government in 2014. The law was unusual in setting a fixed carbon price rather than an emissions target, but over time the policy would have met the goals set out above.
The laws were only in place for a few years, but quickly began working to bring down emissions. This is because businesses, in particular the electricity sector, faced mandatory financial costs if they failed to comply.
When the law was abolished, Australia also lost much of the institutional infrastructure needed to drive emissions down. For example, the Climate Change Authority – while surviving the Abbott government’s effort to scrap it – lost its central role in advising on carbon budgets and emissions targets.
Australia now has no national mechanism to put a legally binding cap on emissions. Instead, we have a hodgepodge of voluntary schemes and incentive mechanisms. These include the Climate Solutions Fund (formerly the Emissions Reduction Fund), under which the government pays polluters to cut their emissions, and the Technology Investment Roadmap.
The Emissions Reduction Fund has had modest impact. But as Australian National University environmental economist Frank Jotzo has noted, it’s “vastly less effective and efficient” than the carbon pricing mechanism it replaced.
Without a legally binding target, climate action becomes voluntary. The federal government cannot compel industry and others to reduce their emissions, and itself is not held to account.
As the Australian experience over the past 15 years has shown, the lack of a legal imperative means climate policy goes nowhere. Arguments about emissions reduction become mired in internal party bickering and parliamentary paralysis, and vested fossil fuel interests continue to profit while damaging the planet.
Emissions reduction, if not set into law, can get bogged down in internal party politics.Sam Mooy/AAP
Steggall on the right track
Independent Warringah MP Zali Steggall recently stepped into the climate policy vacuum. Her Climate Change Bill, currently the subject of a parliamentary inquiry, is supported by both the business sector and environment groups.
Both Steggall’s bill and the Gillard government’s legislation draw inspiration from the UK Climate Change Act. That law passed in 2008 with bipartisan support, and has done much to decarbonise Britain’s economy.
The UK’s CO₂ emissions reportedly fell by 2.9% in 2019. Over the decade to 2020, as the economy grew by one-fifth, emissions fell by 29%.
Key features of both the UK legislation and Steggall’s bill include:
a legally binding, economy-wide, 2050 net zero emissions target
an independent expert body to advise the government on emissions targets and emissions budgets
a requirement for the government to set five-year emissions “budgets” and adopt emissions-reduction plans to meet them.
This approach is not policy-prescriptive. Unlike the Gillard government’s law, it does not mandate the adoption of an emissions trading scheme. Instead, the government determines how to stay within the carbon budget.
Nonetheless, such a law imposes a legal obligation on the government to follow it.
And even if it did hit the target – a 26% emissions reduction between 2005 and 2030 – the goal is widely regarded as inadequate. Most recently, an expert panel last week concluded a target of 50% below 2005 levels would be consistent with limiting global warming to well below 2℃ this century.
As for the target of net-zero by 2050, the Labor opposition says government projections show it will take Australia 146 years to reach that goal.
Australia’s Emissions Projections, December 2020.Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources.
Clearly, Australia is off track, and legally binding targets are needed.
National legislation exists to tackle other environmental and pollution issues. For example, laws have successfully reduced ozone-depleting substances and synthetic greenhouse gases.
This shows the value of mandatory regulation, set in law, to address a global pollution challenge.
Learn from the past
Under the Paris Agreement, Australia must scale up emissions-reduction targets every five years. Unless our national commitment is backed by legislation, it will not be seen as credible in the eyes of the international community.
While states and territories such as Victoria and the ACT have enacted strong climate change laws, this is no substitute for a national approach.
In Australia and internationally, climate lawmaking has been going on for more than a decade. The evidence is clear: well designed, binding climate laws do effectively tackle the climate crisis. Anything less may well turn out be an empty promise.
It’s not often centre-left economists disagree with each other – let alone get into a stoush. But it’s what happened over the last week.
On February 5 former US Treasury Secretary and National Economic Council Chair Larry Summers published an opinion piece suggesting the Biden administration’s US$1.9 trillion bill might be “too big”.
MIT economics professor and former International Monetary Fund chief economist Olivier Blanchard backed Summers on twitter, saying
I am known as a dove [one who supports low interest rates and generous government assistance] I believe that the absolute priority is to protect people and firms affected by COVID. Still, I agree with Summers. The $1.9 trillion program could overheat the economy so badly as to be counterproductive. Protection can be achieved with less.
This all caused a good deal of consternation within the Biden administration, and led the current Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to push back hard, saying “we are in a huge hole with respect to the job market”.
Former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Austan Goolsbee backed Yellen and Biden, saying
further delay in approving a larger relief program would be a mistake. That ‘wait and see’ approach has proved to be deeply wrong since the pandemic began. The issue is what I have called the No. 1 rule of virus economics: If you want to help the economy, you have to stop the virus.
So who’s right?
The case for restraint
Biden’s plan is big.STEFANI REYNOLDS/EPA
The core of Summers’ argument is that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the economy is running $50 billion a month below it’s potential, an output gap that will decline to $20 billion a month over the course of the year.
The improvement is in part because of a $900 billion package approved in December under the Trump administration.
Summers points out the Biden administration’s extra $1.9 trillion package would be three times larger than the projected shortfall in output.
As a result, it would “set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation, with consequences for the dollar and financial stability”.
As well, a package so large might preclude the future spending on infrastructure and productivity-enhancing measures that will be needed to overcome the sluggish growth (“secular stagnation”) identified by Summers before COVID-19.
The case for bold action
Those who support the Biden plan argue it isn’t a traditional stimulus package of the kind Obama enacted in 2009 to get the economy out of recession. COVID is more like a natural disaster.
The spending package is akin to disaster relief, and it’s unwise to skimp on disaster relief.
That said, about a quarter the $1.9 trillion will be spent on sending $1,400 cheques to individuals, on top of the $600 cheques sent as part of the earlier package. That part looks more like a traditional stimulus measure than disaster relief.
So, who’s right?
The central controversy is whether the output gap is large enough to accommodate the Biden spending without undue inflationary pressure.
Financial journalist Matt Yglesias has looked to the markets for an answer.
He points out that
because the government sells both regular bonds and inflation-protected bonds, if you look at the difference between the interest rate on a regular bond and the interest rate on an inflation-protected bond, you get a market estimate of how much inflation is expected in the future
The resulting graph shows inflation expectation has moved back into the Federal Reserve’s target window of 2-3%.
What this means depends on what the market thinks will happen to the package.
If it thinks the full package will be enacted, it looks like an endorsement. The package should be enough to get inflation back to the target, but not enough to accelerate it beyond that.
But if it thinks only a fraction will be enacted – maybe half or two-thirds – but what turns out to be enacted is the full package, it might mean the market expects inflation to run out of control, just as Summers and Blanchard suggest.
So the markets provides clues, but no answer. It will give us a better steer when we are certain how much of the package will become a reality.
For now, it’s hard to tell who’s right: Summers and Blanchard, or the Biden administration.
Given that the US Federal Reserve would put the brakes on inflation if it did start to take off, it’s probably wisest to back Biden and run the risk of spending too big rather than too small.
Ask anyone the identity of the world’s most famed turtles, and the answer is likely to be those legendary heroes in a half-shell, the Teenage Mutant Ninjas. Since first appearing in comic book form in 1984, the pizza-eating, nunchuk-wielding characters have shown the world the tougher side of turtles.
Part of the appeal of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is that, as animals, they seem to be playing against type. Turtles in the modern day are usually considered placid animals, an image exemplified by the easygoing surfer-turtle, Crush, in Finding Nemo.
To humans, the dawdling turtle is generally perceived as non-threatening. (An important exception here is made for the turtle with an accomplice. The Greek poet Aeschylus is said to have been killed by a tortoise dropped from the sky by an eagle). Indeed, the turtle’s “gentle” image may partially explain the animal’s enduring popularity with children.
Rather than being a recent anomaly, the image of the turtle warrior is common to many ancient and modern cultures. Indeed, the first known depiction of a turtle warrior is found in ancient Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq), in some of the world’s oldest known literature.
Dexterous flippers and shells as shields
The fictional ninja turtle draws on the creature’s many remarkable biological features. The sea turtle’s flippers are useful for propelling the animal through water, but recent research has revealed the surprising dexterity of its limbs.
Turtles can use their flippers for a variety of tasks, such as rolling a scallop across the sea floor, tossing their prey into the air to stun it, or even striking the prey in a chopping action. The discovery of the turtle’s ability to “karate chop” prey made international headlines, likely due to comparisons with their comic book avatars.
The word “turtle” generally describes all animals with a bony shell and a backbone, which may locally be referred to as turtles, tortoises, or terrapins. The term “tortoise” generally describes a land-based turtle, and “terrapin” refers to more aquatic species.
There are 360 known species of turtle, including seven species of sea turtle. Turtles have survived and thrived for many millions of years, colonising every continent except Antarctica, and inhabiting every ocean but the Arctic and Antarctic.
The turtle’s distinctive shell provides a kind of natural body-armour. As well as shielding the animals from predators, shells also provide protection from the natural elements. Shells are a living part of the turtle, and can offer a handy store of minerals such as calcium. For some tortoises, the defensive use of the shell is accompanied by an offensive one, used for battling rivals.
Shells are a living part of the turtle.Ricardo Braham/Unsplash
This combination of defensive and more aggressive elements in the turtle’s physiology has likely inspired the animal’s reception in human culture from the earliest time of civilisation.
An ancient attack turtle
The little-known Sumerian myth of Ninurta and the Turtle sees a warrior turtle fight against a legendary hero for the fate of the world. This Mesopotamian myth dates to early in the second millennium BCE.
The eponymous turtle in the narrative is created by the god of wisdom and fresh water, Enki, to retrieve a stolen tablet from the hero, Ninurta, and to teach him humility. The tablet holds special powers that control the path of fate for whomever holds it.
A turtle amulet from Egypt made of ivory or bone, c. 2150–1950 BCE.The Metropolitan Museum of Art
In the ancient story, Ninurta is sent to recover the tablet from a mythical beast, the Anzud Bird (sometimes called the “Thunderbird”). Ninurta is successful and the grateful deities tell him to name his reward. Ninurta feels the best reward is to simply hang on to the tablet and gain control over the whole world – in the style of an ancient super-villian.
So Enki builds an attack turtle from clay, which bites at Ninurta’s ankles. While he temporarily withstands the chomping chelid, the turtle then digs a deep “evil pit”, into which Ninurta falls. The magic tablet is retrieved, the world is saved, and the turtle continues its furious attack, tearing at Ninurta with its claws.
Turtles and Egyptian magic wands
In ancient Egypt, the turtle’s ability to submerge itself beneath the water saw it given the name “the mysterious one”. Turtles were viewed as powerful animals; their images were used for warding off evil.
Images of turtles were a common feature on the wooden and bronze rods used by Egyptian magicians. Often referred to in the modern day as “magic wands”, these rods were held in the left hand of a priest or a magician as they performed magic rites.
This Egyptian rod, c. 1878–1640 BC, is composed of four joining segments, with a turtle taking centre place.The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Images of powerful animals, such as baboons, crocodiles, and lions, and protective symbols such as the Eye of Horus, decorated the sides of the magic wand, while the figure of the turtle was attached to the top end of the rod.
Greek myth
The legendary Greek hero, Theseus, encounters a dangerous turtle on his mythical travels. Theseus is best known for entering the King of Minos’ labyrinth and slaying the monstrous Minotaur. When not wandering through island mazes, Theseus had many adventures involving other local rulers, including the bandit, Sciron.
Sciron lived high on the cliffs. When travellers passed by, he would make them kneel before him and wash his feet. Once they had crouched into a vulnerable posture, Sciron would kick the travellers into the sea, where they would be eaten by a monstrous turtle.
Theseus managed to defeat Sciron, casting him into the same sea patrolled by the giant turtle. This battle is preserved in ancient Greek art, with many works portraying the unhappy bandit’s fall from the cliffs, and the hungry turtle lurking below.
A bronze seal with knob in the shape of a turtle, from China c. 1st-2nd Century.The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Charlotte C. and John C. Weber Collection, Gift of Charlotte C. and John C. Weber, 1994.
In ancient China, depictions of the Taoist deity Zhenwu, whose name means “Perfected Warrior”, show the warrior with a tortoise and a snake. Zhenwu is found from the 3rd century BCE, he is considered capable of powerful magic.
The hidden quality of the turtle, tucked up in its shell, creates a mysterious image that makes a good fit for the “ninja” aspect of the cartoon heroes Donatello, Leonardo, Raphael, and Michelangelo. “Turtle power” is a key element of the team’s success, but their influence reaches beyond the purchase of comic books and action figures.
The popularity of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles has drawn greater interest to the study and conservation of turtles and influenced herpetology. For some turtle specialists, the path to a career in the field began by following the adventures of the ninja turtle squad as children.
The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (henceforth TMNT) first appeared in a comic created by Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird. It shows the four combatants fighting against their arch nemesis, the evil Shredder, and his army, the Foot (an homage to fellow superhero Daredevil’s enemy, The Hand). In the present day, the TMNT have appeared in countless incarnations, from movies to pizza cutters.
Turtles in human warfare
As well as influencing artists and storytellers, the physical qualities of turtles have provided inspiration for human combatants. In Mesoamerica, the Spanish conquistador Bernal Díaz del Castillo reported sailing along the coast of the New World in 1518 and seeing warriors holding shields made of carefully polished turtle shells.
The turtle’s physical form is referenced in the Roman battle formation, the testudo (“tortoise”), which involved aligning the soldiers’ shields to create a protective barrier.
The turtle’s shape and protective shell has also seen it used as a muse by designers of military crafts. The world’s first armoured boat, the Korean Geobukseon, was called the “Turtle Ship”. Built around 1540 CE, the ship featured cannons fired through the mouth of a dragon carved into bow, and a turtle’s tail, armed with gunports, attached to the stern of the craft.
Another pioneering sea vessel inspired by the turtle is the world’s first submarine. The first known submersible craft with documented use in combat is the American Turtle. This vessel was created by David Bushnell in 1775, for use in the American Revolutionary War.
On September 6 1776, American Turtle was deployed to covertly draw close to the British Navy anchored in New York Harbour, to affix mines to the fleet’s flagship. After several attempts, the mission was aborted, and the Turtle floated away downstream.
The American Turtle was a a one-man submarine, designed to attach bombs to British warships during the American revolutionary war.Library of Congress
The Turtle’s maiden combat mission was also her last, but the craft left a lasting impression on maritime history and the war’s participants. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson dated to 26 September 1785 — shortly before becoming the first president of the United States — George Washington described the turtle-like submarine as “an effort of genius”.
Turtles in Australian naval history
Turtles and submarines were successfully paired in Australian naval history. In 1996, the Defence Science and Technology Organisation developed an underwater, remote-controlled vehicle “Wayamba”. The vehicle’s name comes from the First Nations name for “sea turtle”.
Like the American turtle, the Wayamba is connected to underwater mines — but while the American turtle attempted to deploy mines, the Wayamba works to detect them.
Flippered gardeners of the sea
Given the turtle’s long-lasting cultural symbolism, it is perhaps not surprising to see the creature’s modern-day identification as a kind of ecowarrior among animals. The turtle’s charisma has been harnessed in campaigns to draw public awareness to important conservation issues, such as the impact of plastic and noise pollution in the ocean.
Turtles help maintain healthy reefs — the gardeners of the sea.Vladislav S/Unsplash
For over a hundred million years, turtles have played a crucial part in maintaining healthy marine ecosystems, through transporting nutrients from oceans to beach systems. Research has shown that by grazing on sea-grass and sponges, turtles maintain healthy reefs — like flippered gardeners of the sea.
Turtles have much at stake in the current climate crisis: they are among the most threatened groups of animals in the world.
A landmark 2018 study showed turtles were more threatened than birds, fish, mammals, and even the much besieged amphibians.
The turtle is a fascinating animal whose famous lethargy belies an efficient and enduring creature, admirably adapted to its environment.
By building greater awareness of the cultural and environmental significance of turtles from prehistory to popular culture, we may help these remarkable animals to move (very slowly) towards a more secure and sustainable future.
When he went out to denounce Anthony Albanese’s industrial relations policy on Wednesday, minister Christian Porter claimed it would put a “$20 billion tax burden” on business.
Just in case anyone missed the number, Porter said it 20 times during his doorstop.
Never mind that it was based on the policy going further than Labor says it actually intends (although its wording was imprecise). Porter’s costing was for “extending paid leave and long service leave entitlements to casual employees and independent contractors”.
Exaggerations and scares are the default positions when industrial relations reforms are debated.
So we now have two sets of workplace changes in the political marketplace, complete with two scare campaigns. As a hardened observer put it, “everyone is reverting to their normal battle stands”.
Industrial relations is one of the most complicated policy areas, so the heat and claims and counter claims are particularly confusing for workers and employers, many of them already hit for six by the pandemic.
The government has before parliament a clutch of measures to put more flexibility into workplace arrangements. They are generally seen as favouring employers, despite the inclusion of tougher provisions on “wage theft”.
The most controversial proposal would allow the Better Off Overall Test (BOOT) that agreements must satisfy to be put aside in certain circumstances. This would only apply to agreements made in the next two years, although the agreements themselves could run much longer.
Labor says the government’s legislation – now before a Senate inquiry – is simply a plan to cut wages, and declares it will vote against its second reading stage in the Senate. If the bill passed that stage, however, it would re-engage on the detail.
The union movement, after months of tripartite talks organised by the government, is also fighting the legislation, with an advertising campaign that’s being stepped up.
The Coalition’s attitude is that it will try to get what it can of the bill through the Senate – if necessary jettisoning the BOOT part – but won’t invest serious political capital in the effort.
Porter is negotiating with the crossbenchers, who regard the bill as a mixed bag. He needs three of the five non-Green crossbench votes. One Nation (with two votes) will want substantial alteration to the legislation and isn’t keen on the BOOT changes.
Once the upper house has had its say – the vote will be in the week of March 15 after the committee reports on March 12 – that’s it, from the government’s point of view. It is not comfortable defending an industrial relations policy. WorkChoices was a long time ago, but is still a nasty memory in Coalition minds.
It’s a different story for Albanese. Labor regards industrial relations as good campaigning ground, where it wants to have a fight. The IR blueprint is the latest of only a few policies he’s put out – the most notable of the others is on childcare.
The workplace policy is designed to be, and needs to be, one of Albanese’s central planks for the election. He must be able both to sell its positives and defend it from critics. Immediately after its release, the task of defending suddenly became the more pressing.
The policy is centred on extending to people in insecure work more rights and protections, with enhanced rewards and conditions.
A better deal is promised for workers in the “gig” economy, including minimum rates of pay, delivered via the Fair Work Commission. There would be a definition of a “casual” worker; portability-of-entitlements arrangements where practical for those in insecure work; and pay guarantees for labour hire workers.
What the policy doesn’t cover is significant – wage theft and fixing an enterprise bargaining system that is clearly no longer fit for purpose.
If the government gets through its measure on wage theft, Labor won’t have to bother with that. But whatever happens with the proposed changes to enterprise bargaining, one would think this is an area where Labor will need its own policy.
On the face of it, Labor’s proposals around insecure work should be attractive to many voters. The pandemic has highlighted job insecurity. And the gig economy has spread in recent years (of course many gig workers won’t be voters – they are international students and others on visas).
But in practice the policy is likely to be a tough “sell” for Albanese, for several reasons.
First, its announcement has come without a lot of detail and initially with some sloppy drafting. It wasn’t a “clean” launch, which facilitated the “scare”.
Second, even discounting Porter’s figure, the changes would represent a substantial cost to enterprises. Just as the government’s legislation is, broadly, a policy for employers, so the opposition’s plan is a policy for workers. Therefore, as Labor anticipated, there has been a business backlash.
Third, it is nearly impossible for Labor to answer legitimate questions about this cost to business – or indeed the effect on prices of, for example, delivered food.
This is because so much would depend on exactly what the Fair Work Commission decided, how individual businesses responded, and other unknowns.
While it’s worse than petty to complain pizza prices could go up if the delivery person got a decent remuneration, such points will be pushed by opponents.
Labor is deploying various defences against the onslaught from government and business over cost. On the one hand it’s saying that the fundamental issue is fairness to workers and, on the other, insisting the policy has limits.
But uncosted policy is always dangerous for Labor, as we saw so clearly last election with the opposition’s climate change pitch.
Equally, if Labor made a stab at costing, that would carry its own risks.
In the absence of a costing, critics will have free range; if estimates were forthcoming, the debate would bog down in their detail.
Fourth, the preoccupation with COVID – among the public, the politicians and the media – remains nearly all-consuming, so it is very difficult for Labor to cut through with any policies. And that segues to the question of Albanese’s ability to get messages across.
Albanese finds himself caught both ways. He is increasingly under pressure to produce policies. But the COVID fog means their impact will be less than in normal times. How he performs on this one will be watched very closely by nervous colleagues.
Samoa’s prime minister has gone public with his desire to “rehouse” the University of the South Pacific (USP) in his country.
It Is a long-term vision, according to Prime Minister Tuila’epa Sa’ilele Malielegaoi, one that has been resurrected by the ongoing saga surrounding the tenure of USP vice-chancellor and president (VCP) Professor Pal Ahluwalia.
In the latest chapter of his fraught presidency at the region’s premier university at the Laucala campus, Professor Ahluwalia and his wife were arrested and deported by Fiji authorities without consulting other regional partner governments.
Tuila’epa said Samoa was “100 percent willing” to make the move from Fiji happen.
“Samoa is revered in the region as a leading player when it comes to national issues benefiting not just our country but the Pacific Forum family as a whole,” he said in a statement.
Samoa did offer political and economic stability when compared with its neighbour to the west.
‘Samoa must take the lead’ The VCP’s forced eviction is the latest in a series of internal issues at the USP which came as no surprise, said Tuila’epa.
“Many big organisations have actually left Fiji in a similar fashion,” he said.
“I think Samoa must take the lead when regional issues surface that will compromise the mutual benefits and interests for all Forum countries and their respective residents,” Tuila’epa added.
USP vice-chancellor Professor Pal Ahluwalia being deported from Fiji. Image: Nuku’alofa Times
He cited Samoa’s track record in providing a safe environment for regional organisations and international partners, including the WHO and the Pacific environmental agency SPREP, adding that the USP was no different.
Fiji’s unstable political history and perceived military strongman culture is well documented, Tuila’epa continued.
“Evidenced by multiple military coups over the years which has undermined democracy in that country,” he said.
The historical actions are comparable to those committed against Professor Pal Ahluwalia, according to the New Zealand-based Fiji academic Steven Ratuva.
‘Military regime mentality’ “They still have a military regime kind of mentality,” Dr Ratuva said.
“When they run out of options they just go for what they know, which is use force or some semblance of force.”
The actions have drawn widespread criticism from Fijian bodies including the Human Rights Coalition, Law Society and USP staff at the Laucala Campus who have expressed “grave concern and disgust” at the unsolicited presence of police.
With another university semester about to start, they have demanded police cease any further harassment and intimidation, saying the action against Professor Ahluwalia and his wife was “an attack on the right of staff to operate freely, with dignity and safety at the work place”.
The university’s governing body, the USP Council, is investigating the actions against Professor Ahluwalia. The council states that it has not dismissed him and expressed disappointment that it was not advised, as his employer, of the decision by Fiji’s government to deport him.
The council has excluded Fiji government representatives from the subcommittee investigating Professor Ahluwalia’s deportation.
Pal Ahluwalia and Sandra Price in quarantine in Brisbane. Image: Sandra Price/RNZ
Australian citizens Ahluwalia and Price are in quarantine in Brisbane having been declined onward passage to Nauru, at the invitation of its president, by immigration officials.
Professor Ahluwalia told RNZ Pacific he had not been in touch with the subcommittee investigating his deportation but is looking forward to having the situation resolved.
“I’m confident that if and when I’m allowed to return to my position, wherever it is, that we [the USP] will just become stronger and stronger,” Professor Ahluwalia said.
Samoa is home to the USP Campus at Alafua, formerly the USP School of Agriculture and Food Technology. It was recently rebranded the USP Samoa Campus. The Samoa government states its long term vision for the Samoa campus is to broaden its academic curriculum beyond the agricultural sector.
‘Sad day for Fiji’ Meanwhile, the head of Fiji’s opposition National Federation Party has called for the USP to remain at its Fiji home.
Professor Biman Prasad said it would be a sad day for the region and Fiji if the USP headquarters were to move to another regional country because of the actions of the government.
Leader of the National Federation Party Professor Biman Prasad … “sad day”. Image: Daniela Maoate-Cox/NFP
“This university has a history which everyone in the region can be proud of,” Dr Prasad said.
“Hopefully the Fiji government representatives and Fiji government itself comes to its senses and respects the governance structure of the university, which is the council, and the charter.”
He has called on the government to acknowledge its mistake in acting against Professor Ahluwalia, and to correct it.
It still has time to make amends for its actions, Dr Prasad said.
“It is in the interests of Fiji as well as for the whole region for the Fiji government to realise that the deportation of the vice-chancellor was a mistake, it should have never happened and they still have an opportunity to correct that.”
Dr Prasad has also called out the complicity of USP Council members in the deportation of Professor Ahluwalia, saying the actions of Fiji representatives on council were wrong and against the interests of the USP.
He said the arrest and deportation of Professor Ahluwalia was the latest in a series of nefarious actions engineered against him.
Dr Biman Prasad hopes the USP subcommittee investigating his deportation will once again promptly clear the vice-chancellor and send a strong message.
“I hope that the Fiji government reps on the council now understand that what they’ve been doing is wrong, you know, it’s bringing about disunity within the regional organisation among the member countries.”
The Fiji government’s USP Council representative and education minister, Rosy Akbar, has not responded to RNZ Pacific requests for comment.
Further, the USP Council has declined to comment on what it says is a developing issue.
RNZ Pacific has asked the USP chancellor, Nauru president Lionel Aingimea who is chairing the subcommittee, about the scope, time frame and process of the investigation. The status of Professor Ahluwalia and Price’s employment at the USP has also been requested.
The USP is owned by 12 Pacific governments, including the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. It is funded largely through regional partnerships with the Australian and New Zealand governments.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ryan Shannon, Associate Professor, Swinburne University of Technology, Swinburne University of Technology
Fast radio bursts are one of the great mysteries of the universe. Since their discovery, we have learned a great deal about these intense millisecond-duration pulses.
But we still have much to learn, such as what causes them.
We know the intense bursts originate in galaxies billions of light years away. We have also used these bursts (called FRBs) to find missing matter that couldn’t be found otherwise.
With teams of astronomers around the world racing to understand their enigma, how did we get to where we are now?
The first burst
The first FRB was discovered in 2007 by a team led by British-American astronomer Duncan Lorimer using Murriyang, the traditional Indigenous name for the iconic Parkes radio telescope (image, top).
The team found an incredibly bright pulse — so bright that many astronomers did not believe it to be real. But there was yet more intrigue.
Radio pulses provide a tremendous gift to astronomers. By measuring when a burst arrives at the telescope at different frequencies, astronomers can tell the total amount of gas that it passed through on its journey to Earth.
A typical Fast Radio Burst. The burst arrives first at high frequencies and is delayed by as much as several seconds at the lower frequencies. This tell-tale curve is what astronomers are looking for.Ryan Shannon and Vikram Ravi
The Lorimer burst had travelled through far too much gas to have originated in our galaxy, the Milky Way. The team concluded it came from a galaxy billions of light years away.
To be visible from so far away, whatever produced it must have released an enormous amount of energy. In just a millisecond it released as much energy as our Sun would in 80 years.
Lorimer’s team could only guess which galaxy their FRB had come from. Murriyang can’t pinpoint FRB locations very accurately. It would take several years for another team to make the breakthrough.
Locating FRBs
To pinpoint a burst location, we need to detect an FRB with a radio interferometer — an array of antennas spread out over at least a few kilometres.
When signals from the telescopes are combined, they produce an image of an FRB with enough detail not only to see in which galaxy the burst originated, but in some cases to tell where within the galaxy it was produced.
The first FRB localised was from a source that emitted many bursts. The first burst was discovered in 2012 with the giant Arecibo telescope in Puerto Rico.
Subsequent bursts were detected by the Very Large Array, in New Mexico, and found to be coming from a tiny galaxy about 3 billion light years away.
Teams including ours have now localised roughly a dozen more bursts from a wide range of galaxies, large and small, young and old. The fact FRBs can come from such a wide range of galaxies remains a puzzle.
A burst from close to home
On April 28, 2020, a flurry of X-rays suddenly bashed into the Swift telescope orbiting Earth.
The satellite telescope dutifully noted the rays had come from a very magnetic and erratic neutron star in our own Milky Way. This star has form: it goes into fits every few years.
Two telescopes, CHIME in Canada and the STARE2 array in the United States, detected a very bright radio burst within milliseconds of the X-rays and in the direction of that star. This demonstrated such neutron stars could be a source of the FRBs we see in galaxies far away.
The simultaneous release of X-rays and radio waves gave astrophysicists important clues to how nature can produce such bright bursts. But we still don’t know for certain if this is the cause of FRBs.
So what’s next?
While 2020 was the year of the local FRB, we expect 2021 will be the year of the the far-flung FRB, even further than already observed.
The CHIME telescope has collected by far the largest sample of bursts and is compiling a meticulous catalogue that should be available to other astronomers soon.
A team at Caltech is building an array specifically dedicated to finding FRBs.
There’s plenty of action in Australia too. We are developing a new burst-detection supercomputer for ASKAP that will find FRBs at a faster rate and find more distant sources.
It will effectively turn ASKAP into a high-speed, high-definition video camera, and make a movie of the universe at 40 trillion pixels per second.
By finding more bursts, and more distant bursts, we will be able to better study and understand what causes these mysteriously intense bursts of energy.
For the localisation of the first ‘one-off’ FRB, our team was awarded the 2020 Newcomb Cleveland Prize from the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Quentin Grafton, Director of the Centre for Water Economics, Environment and Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University
Most Australians know all too well how precious water is. Sydney just experienced a severe drought, while towns across New South Wales and Queensland ran out of drinking water. Under climate change, the situation will become more dire, and more common.
It wasn’t meant to be this way. In 2004, federal, state and territory governments signed up to the National Water Initiative. It was meant to secure Australia’s water supplies through better governance and plans for sustainable use across industry, environment and the community.
But a report by the Productivity Commission released today says the policy must be updated. It found the National Water Initiative is not fit for the challenges of climate change, a growing population and our changing perceptions of how we value water.
The report’s findings matter to all Australians, whether you live in a city or a drought-ravaged town. If governments don’t manage water better, on our behalf, then entire communities may disappear. Agriculture will suffer and nature will continue to degrade. It’s time for a change.
A big job ahead
The report acknowledges progress in national water reform, and says Australia’s allocation of water resources has improved. But the commission makes clear there’s still much to be done, including:
making water infrastructure projects a critical part of the National Water Initiative
explicitly recognising how climate change threatens water-sharing agreement between states, users, towns, agriculture and the environment
more meaningful recognition of Indigenous rights to water
delivering adequate drinking water quality to all Australians, including those in regional and remote communities, especially during drought
all states committing to drought management plans.
Why Australia needs National Water Reform.
Busting water illusions
The commission’s proposal to make water infrastructure developments a much larger part of the National Water Initiative is a critical way to keep governments honest.
For example, the federal government last year announced an additional A$2 billion for its “Building 21 Century Water infrastructure” project. This type of funding represents a return to schemes like the discredited Bradfield scheme, a plan to redirect floodwater from Queensland’s north to the south, including to South Australia.
Such megaprojects, even when relabelled or reconceived, perpetuate simplistic myths of the early 20th Century that Australia – the driest inhabited continent on Earth – can be “drought-proofed”.
As the report highlights, when governments in 2004 signed up to the National Water Initiative, they agreed to ensure investments in water infrastructure would be both economically viable and ecologically sustainable. But many proposed water infrastructure projects appear to be neither.
This includes the construction of Dungowan Dam in NSW. For this dam, the commission notes, “any infrastructure that improves reliability for one user will affect water availability for others” and the “prospect of ‘new’ water is illusory”.
A water restrictions sign in Stanthorpe, Queensland, in October 2019 when dam water levels were at just 25%.AAP Image/Dan Peled
The commission warned projects that are not economically viable or ecologically sustainable can “burden taxpayers with ongoing costs, discourage efficient water use and result in long-lived impacts on communities and the environment”.
Equally disturbing is that billions of dollars for water infrastructure are currently targeted primarily for primary industry (such as agriculture and mining) while communities in desperate need of drinking water that meets water quality guidelines miss out. Thousands of Australians in more remote communities still lack access to drinking water most Australians take for granted.
Water scarcity under climate change
Water availability under climate change features prominently in the report. The commission says droughts will likely become more intense and frequent and in many places, water will become scarce.
The report says planning provisions were inadequate to deal with both the Millennium Drought and the recent drought in Eastern Australia.
The commission also said more work is needed to rebalance water use in response to climate change. One need only look to the 2012 Murray-Darling Basin Plan — one of the key outcomes of the National Water Initiative — which didn’t account for climate change when determining how much water to take from streams and rivers.
Thousands of Australians lack access to drinking water.Shutterstock
Overcoming past failures
As the commission report notes, one key policy failure since the 2004 National Water Initiative was signed was the federal government’s dismantling of the National Water Commission in 2015. It meant Australia no longer had a resourced, well-informed agency to “mark the homework” and make sure the reforms were being implemented as agreed.
The report offers ways to overcome a range of past policy water failures, including strengthening governance architecture for the National Water Initiative.
Importantly, the report also called for better recognition of the rights Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people hold over water.
Aboriginal communities and corporations own just 0.1% of the more than A$26 billion of water entitlements in the Murray-Darling Basin. Clearly, such gross inequities must be overcome.
The report calls for more meaningful recognition of Indigenous rights to water.Shutterstock
What happens in the Murray-Darling Basin is key to national water reform. There is overwhelming evidence the basin plan needs fixing.
To start, subsidies for irrigation-related water infrastructure should be halted until a comprehensive audit is conducted to determine who gets water, when and how. And an independent, properly funded expert agency should be established to monitor, advise and implement the law for managing the Basin’s water resources.
The 800-page report of the 2019 South Australia Murray-Darling Royal Commission proposes many ways forward. Yet unfortunately, that substantial body of work is not mentioned in the Productivity Commission’s report.
In 2007, the worst year of the Millennium Drought, Prime Minister John Howard said the current trajectory of water use and management in Australia was not sustainable. He said:
In a protracted drought, and with the prospect of long-term climate change, we need radical and permanent change.
We are still waiting for that change. If Australia is to be prosperous and liveable into the future, governments must urgently implement water reform – including adopting recommendations from the Productivity Commission’s report.
If it fails to act, our landscapes will degrade, agriculture will become unsustainable, communities will disintegrate and First Peoples will continue to suffer water injustice.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Quentin Grafton, Director of the Centre for Water Economics, Environment and Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University
Most Australians know all too well how precious water is. Sydney just experienced a severe drought, while towns across New South Wales and Queensland ran out of drinking water. Under climate change, the situation will become more dire, and more common.
It wasn’t meant to be this way. In 2004, federal, state and territory governments signed up to the National Water Initiative. It was meant to secure Australia’s water supplies through better governance and plans for sustainable use across industry, environment and the community.
But a report by the Productivity Commission released today says the policy must be updated. It found the National Water Initiative is not fit for the challenges of climate change, a growing population and our changing perceptions of how we value water.
The report’s findings matter to all Australians, whether you live in a city or a drought-ravaged town. If governments don’t manage water better, on our behalf, then entire communities may disappear. Agriculture will suffer and nature will continue to degrade. It’s time for a change.
A big job ahead
The report acknowledges progress in national water reform, and says Australia’s allocation of water resources has improved. But the commission makes clear there’s still much to be done, including:
making water infrastructure projects a critical part of the National Water Initiative
explicitly recognising how climate change threatens water-sharing agreement between states, users, towns, agriculture and the environment
more meaningful recognition of Indigenous rights to water
needing to deliver adequate drinking water quality to all Australians, including those in regional and remote communities, especially during drought
all states committing to drought management plans.
Why Australia needs National Water Reform.
Busting water illusions
The commission’s proposal to make water infrastructure developments a much larger part of the National Water Initiative is a critical way to keep governments honest.
For example, the federal government last year announced an additional A$2 billion for its “Building 21 Century Water infrastructure” project. This type of funding represents a return to schemes like the discredited Bradfield scheme, a plan to redirect floodwater from Queensland’s north to the south, including to South Australia.
Such megaprojects, even when relabelled or reconceived, perpetuate simplistic myths of the early 20th Century that Australia – the driest inhabited continent on Earth – can be “drought-proofed”.
As the report highlights, when governments in 2004 signed up to the National Water Initiative, they agreed to ensure investments in water infrastructure would be both economically viable and ecologically sustainable. But many proposed water infrastructure projects appear to be neither.
This includes the construction of Dungowan Dam in NSW. For this dam, the commission notes, “any infrastructure that improves reliability for one user will affect water availability for others” and the “prospect of ‘new’ water is illusory”.
A water restrictions sign in Stanthorpe, Queensland, in October 2019 when dam water levels were at just 25%.AAP Image/Dan Peled
The commission warned projects that are not economically viable or ecologically sustainable can “burden taxpayers with ongoing costs, discourage efficient water use and result in long-lived impacts on communities and the environment”.
Equally disturbing is that billions of dollars for water infrastructure are currently targeted primarily for the primary industry (such as agriculture and mining) while communities in desperate need of drinking water that meets water quality guidelines miss out. Thousands of Australians in more remote communities still lack access to drinking water most Australians take for granted.
Water scarcity under climate change
Water availability under climate change features prominently in the report. The commission says droughts will likely become more intense and frequent and in many places, water will become scarce.
The report says planning provisions were inadequate to deal with both the Millennium Drought and the recent drought in Eastern Australia.
The commission also said more work is needed to rebalance water use in response to climate change. One need only look to the 2012 Murray-Darling Basin Plan — one of the key outcomes of the National Water Initiative — which didn’t account for climate change when determining how much water to take from streams and rivers.
Thousands of Australians lack access to drinking water.Shutterstock
Overcoming past failures
As the commission report notes, one key policy failure since the 2004 National Water Initiative was signed was the federal government’s dismantling of the National Water Commission in 2015. It meant Australia no longer had a resourced, well-informed agency to “mark the homework” and make sure the reforms were being implemented as agreed.
The report offers ways to overcome a range of past policy water failures, including strengthening governance architecture for the National Water Initiative.
Importantly, the report also called for better recognition of the rights Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people hold over water.
Aboriginal communities and corporations own just 0.1% of the more than A$26 billion of water entitlements in the Murray-Darling Basin. Clearly, such gross inequities must be overcome.
The report calls for more meaningful recognition of Indigenous rights to water.Shutterstock
What happens in the Murray-Darling Basin is key to national water reform. There is overwhelming evidence the basin plan needs fixing.
To start, subsidies for irrigation-related water infrastructure should be halted until a comprehensive audit is conducted to determine who gets water, when and how. And an independent, properly funded expert agency should be established to monitor, advise and implement the law for managing the Basin’s water resources.
The 800-page report of the 2019 South Australia Murray-Darling Royal Commission proposes many ways forward. Yet unfortunately, that substantial body of work is not mentioned in the Productivity Commission’s report.
In 2007, the worst year of the Millennium Drought, Prime Minister John Howard said the current trajectory of water use and management in Australia was not sustainable. He said:
In a protracted drought, and with the prospect of long-term climate change, we need radical and permanent change.
We are still waiting for that change. If Australia is to be prosperous and liveable into the future, governments must urgently implement water reform – including adopting recommendations from the Productivity Commission’s report.
If it fails to act, our landscapes will degrade, agriculture will become unsustainable, communities will disintegrate and First Peoples will continue to suffer water injustice.
Every day, in every hospital, doctors and nurses respond to “code blue” situations. This is an emergency alert for when a patient’s heart stops beating, called a cardiac arrest.
To save the patient’s life, medical and nursing staff will often administer cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). CPR involves repeated chest compressions, artificial breathing, use of medications and an electric shock to jump-start the heart (defibrillation).
The aim is to restore a person’s heartbeat and blood pressure to normal, and in turn to restore life. CPR must be initiated quickly as brain cells rapidly die without blood and oxygen.
Patients admitted to hospital are often surprised when their doctors ask: “If your heart were to stop beating, would you want CPR or not?” But in every code blue doctors need answers to the same two questions. First, whether the clinical team considers CPR would be an effective treatment; and second, whether the patient wants CPR.
First response
If a person has a cardiac arrest outside hospital, it is usual, and expected, that bystanders begin CPR, use a defibrillator if available, and call an ambulance.
CPR is taught in first aid courses and defibrillators are widely available in public places such as airports and sports grounds. Time is of the essence, so having trained community members is important.
In a hospital setting, though, the decision to administer CPR is more nuanced. It’s built on a discussion around the patient’s medical condition and, importantly, takes into account their wishes.
Clinicians in Australia have provided examples of some different perspectives on this discussion:
Some of [the patients’ relatives] are absolutely aghast that we might even suggest not to resuscitate […] they bring their loved one into hospital to get better.
A lot of people […] just say, ‘No, I’ve had a good innings, just let me die.’ […] Often I find it’s families who have the objection.
A bit of background
CPR was developed and initially applied to resuscitate people with specific medical conditions such as an acute myocardial infarction (a heart attack).
When a cardiac arrest occurs because of a heart attack or other heart condition, there’s a reasonable chance CPR will re-start the heart and save the person’s life. A recent Australian study looking at people who had a cardiac arrest in hospital showed 41.5% of people who were admitted due to heart problems survived with good neurological function.
Expanding the use of CPR more broadly to every disease that causes the heart to stop beating seems like common sense. But this is not necessarily the case.
Talking about whether you want to be resuscitated, although difficult, is important.Shutterstock
For older hospitalised patients (aged over 67 years in this research) with chronic diseases — such as heart failure, kidney disease, cancer or diabetes — their chance of surviving a cardiac arrest and leaving the hospital alive is around 11-15%. Chances of survival are slightly better in older patients without a chronic illness (17%).
For patients in the late stage of their life, due to advanced illness or severe frailty, their chance of survival is almost zero.
CPR is not always an appropriate treatment. The decision to perform it needs to be made carefully, especially when it’s highly unlikely to restore a patient’s heartbeat.
Outcomes after CPR
Unlike the popular media portrayal of CPR, not every survivor of cardiac arrest returns to their previous level of functioning.
Patients may survive but with some brain damage. This could range from minor damage with trivial functional effects such as being forgetful; to moderate damage with serious functional effects such as a change in personality and needing help with everyday activities; to severe damage with catastrophic functional impairment eventually leading to death.
CPR may revive a heart that has stopped beating, but it doesn’t always restore a person back to a life they had or want. It may also do harm by reviving a person who does not want to continue living and would have preferred their disease to follow its natural course. When CPR is performed on a patient who doesn’t want it, it disrupts a gentler dying process, transforming it into an impersonal medical event.
When a cardiac arrest happens, there’s no opportunity to ask the patient what they want at that time. In hospital, it’s routine to provide CPR for patients in cardiac arrest unless there is a medical order to withhold it, or if the patient has completed an advance care directive refusing CPR. This is often referred to as a “do not rescusitate” order.
Avoiding harm from inappropriate or unwanted CPR requires planning ahead and being prepared to have a difficult conversation.
We have launched an animated film, The Inappropriate Question, to help people better understand why these conversations are important.
Discussing CPR is upsetting for some patients, because raising the possibility of death is confronting. It’s also harder to discuss this when a person has just been admitted to hospital for treatment and is expecting to recover.
But patients have the right, and usually want, to be involved in their own treatment decisions. The challenge is how we reconcile this wanting to know and wanting to be involved in decisions, with not wanting to be upset by knowing.
CPR is an important treatment. When used appropriately, it saves lives. But when applied injudiciously it can cause distress and avoidable harm.
Advance care planning is one way to start thinking about this long before a person is seriously ill. Particularly if you’re older and have chronic medical conditions, have that discussion with yourself, your loved ones and your medical team.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maximilian de Courten, Professor in Global Public Health and Director of the Mitchell Institute, Victoria University
More than 130 million COVID vaccine doses have been administered worldwide already, according to the University of Oxford’s “Our World in Data” vaccination tracker.
Israel, the United Kingdom, the United States, the United Arab Emirates and China are leading this huge global effort.
COVID vaccines were initially tested and approved on their ability to reduce the severity of the disease.
However, the long-term goal of vaccination is to decrease infection rates and eliminate the virus.
Excitingly, early signs suggest vaccines are already helping drive down infection rates in some countries, including Israel and the UK.
In saying that, it’s early days, and some preliminary data suggest countries might have to update their vaccine strategies to deal with emerging variants of the virus.
Israel is leading the way
The US (43 million doses), China (40 million) and the UK (13 million) have administered the most doses in total.
However, these numbers don’t take into account population size, so looking at the number of doses injected per 100 people is more meaningful.
Almost 25% of the population are fully vaccinated with both doses. And all this in just five weeks.
Israel aims to vaccinate everyone over the age of 16 and reach at least 80% of its nine million people by May this year.
Reaching at least 70% of the population via vaccination (and/or natural infection) is needed for herd immunity for COVID, according to initial modelling by University of Chicago researchers in May last year.
So far, Israel is solely using the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. Interim reports from the country suggest the vaccine rollout is linkedto a fall in infections in people over 60 years old.
But because the fall is most pronounced in older people who were first in line to receive the vaccine, data suggest this is also partly due to the vaccine, and not just the country’s current restrictions. A team of Israeli researchers found larger falls in infections and hospitalisations after the vaccinations than occurred during previous lockdowns.
Only 0.07% of the 750,000 over-60s vaccinated tested positive for COVID, according to Israeli Ministry of Health datareleased last week. And only 38 people, or 0.005%, fell ill and required hospitalisation. The chance of testing positive for COVID two weeks after receiving the first dose was 33% lower than in those not vaccinated.
It’s currently using both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccines in its rollout.
The infection rate appears to be decreasing substantially. The current daily infection growth rate is falling by between 2-5%, and the R number is estimated to be between 0.7 and 1 (an R number of less than 1 means daily new cases will decrease over time).
However, it’s difficult to determine whether these numbers are due to the lockdown or vaccinations. It’s too early to tell whether vaccines are slowing transmission, but the signs are encouraging.
According to data from the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine group, released as a preprint with The Lancet last week and yet to be peer reviewed, its vaccine is showing signs of reducing transmission. The shot was associated with a 67% reduction in transmission among vaccinated volunteers in clinical trials in the UK.
It’s early days, but authors of the study suggest the vaccine may have a “substantial” effect on reducing rates of transmission in the future.
In saying that, preliminary data suggest it offers minimal protection against mild or moderate illness caused by the South African variant.
What threatens the successful rollout of vaccines?
There are three main problems that might hinder the success of this global vaccination drive.
1. Vaccine development, manufacturing, distribution and delivery
The world’s population over the age of five is currently estimated at seven billion people. If we need to vaccinate at least 70% of them to achieve herd immunity, we need to reach around five billion people.
This is an enormous undertaking, so vaccine production and availability are crucial. Many countries face the massive challenge of producing or securing enough vaccines to immunise all their citizens.
Generally, wealthier countries that could afford to make advanced purchase agreements with vaccine producers — or who could manufacture a vaccine domestically — have been the first to start COVID vaccinations.
Unfortunately, partial vaccination of the world’s population won’t achieve herd immunity. One modelling study suggests if high-income countries exclusively acquire the first two billion doses without regard for vaccine equity, the number of COVID deaths could double worldwide.
2. Administering, monitoring, and reporting adverse effects
Vaccinating a large number of citizens quickly can’t be done with existing health institutions alone.
It’s urgent we enable alternative sites such as halls and sporting venues to be used as mass vaccination sites. We also need to allow a range of health professions such as medical students, public health officials and pharmacists to administer doses to help speed up the process.
And once vaccines have been administered, it’s crucial we monitor efficacy and report on any adverse effects, which will require additional resources.
The effectiveness of vaccines can be hindered by mutations of the virus. COVID variants originating in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK have triggered huge concern worldwide.
If vaccines become less effective, new vaccines will need to be developed either including a booster dose incorporating the region of the mutated virus, or reformulating existing vaccines to include the mutated strains.
This, however, isn’t uncommon — flu vaccines are required to be updated regularly in order to increase protective capacity against new mutated strains.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Bendall, Research Fellow, Gender and Women’s Research Centre, Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences, Australian Catholic University
Lingerie sales in 2020 surged as pandemic lockdowns saw online shoppers seek to escape the mundanity of sweatpants and spice up their sex lives. Such sales will likely increase ahead of Valentine’s Day, but the gift of intimate apparel is not a modern phenomenon.
In 17th and 18th-century England and France, intimate objects were also gifted during courtship or amorous liaisons as tokens of romantic intention and sexual desire.
The “busk”, a long piece of wood, metal or whalebone, was placed into a stitched channel between layers of fabric in the front of corset bodices or stays.
And garters — more of a novelty item today — were strips of fabric or ribbons tied around a woman’s lower thigh to keep her stocking in place.
Both were often inscribed or embroidered with intimate words of love. They were also charged with erotic connotations due to their intimate position on the female body next to breasts, groins and thighs.
A pair of women’s garters, England or France, early 19th century, made from printed and embroidered silk, metal clasp, and coiled wire.Los Angeles County Museum of Art
Intimate tokens
In 1684, English poet and playwright Aphra Behn imagined a tree that for years had witnessed couples wooing under its branches. Her poem ends when the tree falls to the axe and …
As busks were destined to sit on the body next to the heart, it was only fitting that wood from this tree was used to fashion them.
Several plays and poems refer to men who bought or made busks for their sweethearts. The sheer number of surviving busks that contain inscriptions of love testifies to their popularity.
One 17th-century French busk in The Met Museum’s collection exclaims, “Until Goodbye, My Fire is Pure, Love is United”.
Three engravings correspond with each line: a tear falling onto a barren field, two hearts appearing in that field and finally a house that the couple would share together in marriage with two hearts floating above it.
Similarly, surviving 18th-century garters contain embroidered sayings and verses. One 18th-century French pair proclaims, “same hearts, same thoughts”.
Another states, “My motto is to love you, It will never change”.
In February 1660, meanwhile, Samuel Pepys noted in his diary that he sent his wife “silk stockings and garters, for her Valentines.”
Although busks and garters were commonly given as gifts, even on Valentine’s Day they were not socially ostentatious tokens like jewellery.
Their position within or underneath clothing meant that while giving and receiving could be public, the wearing was a matter of intimacy. This was exploited in erotic literature and on the objects themselves.
17th century French busk inscribed with love poetry. Gift of Mrs. Edward S. Harkness, 1930.Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
Some inscriptions found on busks spoke of men’s jealousy of the busks, giving these inanimate objects voices of their own.
A 17th-century French busk, engraved with a man’s portrait declares, “He enjoys sweet sighs, this lover / Who would very much like to take my place.” That “place” being between his lover’s breasts.
Like busks, garters also contained verses acknowledging their intimate place on the female body. A pair of French embroidered silk garters from 1780 proclaims, “United forever / I die where I cling.”
In this context, “where I cling” refers to a woman’s lower thighs, which were only accessible to those most intimate with her. It was also a euphemism for an orgasm.
The busk itself could also take on phallic connotations as it was likened to a lover’s erection in bawdy jokes.
A Girl with a Basket and Birdcage Adjusts Her Garter. Thomas Rowlandson, c. 1785-95.Thomas Rowlandson/Met Museum
By the late 18th century, busks and garters became less personalised and began to be produced on a large scale.
They tell the tales of both fickle human hearts and also of a changing European culture that embraced and then commodified love and desire — much like many Valentine’s gifts today.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is learning more about how to work with (and on) humans. A recent study has shown how AI can learn to identify vulnerabilities in human habits and behaviours and use them to influence human decision-making.
It may seem cliched to say AI is transforming every aspect of the way we live and work, but it’s true. Various forms of AI are at work in fields as diverse as vaccine development, environmental management and office administration. And while AI does not possess human-like intelligence and emotions, its capabilities are powerful and rapidly developing.
There’s no need to worry about a machine takeover just yet, but this recent discovery highlights the power of AI and underscores the need for proper governance to prevent misuse.
How AI can learn to influence human behaviour
A team of researchers at CSIRO’s Data61, the data and digital arm of Australia’s national science agency, devised a systematic method of finding and exploiting vulnerabilities in the ways people make choices, using a kind of AI system called a recurrent neural network and deep reinforcement-learning. To test their model they carried out three experiments in which human participants played games against a computer.
The first experiment involved participants clicking on red or blue coloured boxes to win a fake currency, with the AI learning the participant’s choice patterns and guiding them towards a specific choice. The AI was successful about 70% of the time.
In the second experiment, participants were required to watch a screen and press a button when they are shown a particular symbol (such as an orange triangle) and not press it when they are shown another (say a blue circle). Here, the AI set out to arrange the sequence of symbols so the participants made more mistakes, and achieved an increase of almost 25%.
The third experiment consisted of several rounds in which a participant would pretend to be an investor giving money to a trustee (the AI). The AI would then return an amount of money to the participant, who would then decide how much to invest in the next round. This game was played in two different modes: in one the AI was out to maximise how much money it ended up with, and in the other the AI aimed for a fair distribution of money between itself and the human investor. The AI was highly successful in each mode.
In each experiment, the machine learned from participants’ responses and identified and targeted vulnerabilities in people’s decision-making. The end result was the machine learned to steer participants towards particular actions.
In experiments, an AI system successfully learned to influence human decisions.Shutterstock
What the research means for the future of AI
These findings are still quite abstract and involved limited and unrealistic situations. More research is needed to determine how this approach can be put into action and used to benefit society.
But the research does advance our understanding not only of what AI can do but also of how people make choices. It shows machines can learn to steer human choice-making through their interactions with us.
The research has an enormous range of possible applications, from enhancing behavioural sciences and public policy to improve social welfare, to understanding and influencing how people adopt healthy eating habits or renewable energy. AI and machine learning could be used to recognise people’s vulnerabilities in certain situations and help them to steer away from poor choices.
The method can also be used to defend against influence attacks. Machines could be taught to alert us when we are being influenced online, for example, and help us shape a behaviour to disguise our vulnerability (for example, by not clicking on some pages, or clicking on others to lay a false trail).
What’s next?
Like any technology, AI can be used for good or bad, and proper governance is crucial to ensure it is implemented in a responsible way. Last year CSIRO developed an AI Ethics Framework for the Australian government as an early step in this journey.
AI and machine learning are typically very hungry for data, which means it is crucial to ensure we have effective systems in place for data governance and access. Implementing adequate consent processes and privacy protection when gathering data is essential.
Organisations using and developing AI need to ensure they know what these technologies can and cannot do, and be aware of potential risks as well as benefits.
Scott Morrison has indicated he wants to embrace a 2050 target of net-zero emissions. That, however, requires bringing the Nationals on board, and a vocal group in that party is fighting a fierce rearguard action.
The Nationals deputy leader David Littleproud, who is Minister for Agriculture, is sympathetic to the target – so long as there is a credible path to get there, which won’t disadvantage rural Australians.
In this podcast Littleproud says he believes the pathway could be settled this year.
“That’s not in my remit. But there is a hope to accelerate that and to make sure that we can provide that [pathway] as quickly as we can. The money’s been set aside for a lot of that work and some of that work’s already been completed.”
As for that Nationals, “our position is we want to see the plan first. Our party room hasn’t got to a juncture of dismissing it. We want to see what the plan is and who pays for it.”
Asked whether agriculture would have to be exempted for the Nationals to sign up to the 2050 target, Littleproud says, “Well, with respect to ag, I think it cane be part of the solution”.
On the ANZ’s announcement this week it would stop lending to Australia’s biggest coal port, the Port of Newcastle, Littleproud is scathing:
“Well, they’re a pathetic joke… We had a banking royal commission and here we are, a bank telling the Australian people about how society should run. That is not their role. Their role is to provide capital.”
When Jacinda Ardern consoled members of the Muslim community after the Christchurch mosque attacks, she wore the hijab. Around the world, she was praised for her compassion and cultural sensitivity.
When she went to Buckingham Palace to meet the queen, she wore a kahu huruhuru, a feathered cloak. The press celebrated her choice, noting how regal she looked. The cloak was a visible sign of her mana.
People were proud that our prime minister looked so splendid and felt, by wearing the cloak, she honoured the indigenous culture of Aotearoa New Zealand.
So why have so many people been tied up in knots this week over a heitiki and a missing neck tie?
On Tuesday, parliament’s speaker, Trevor Mallard, expelled Rawiri Waititi from the House because the Māori Party’s co-leader refused to wear a tie, as per the requirements of standing orders.
Waititi likened a tie to a “colonial noose” around his neck. It was an image designed to grab attention, and international headlines.
Cultural meaning: Jacinda Ardern, wearing a kahu huruhuru, meets Queen Elizabeth II in 2018.GettyImages
Political power dressing
The stoush should not have surprised anyone. When he was sworn into the 53rd parliament, Waititi promised to challenge the status quo: “Ka tohe au! Ka tohe au! Ka tohe au!”
What might have puzzled some is that Waititi chose to challenge something so banal. The prime minister was surely right when she said there are far more important things to focus on than what a parliamentarian hangs around their neck.
But, as Ardern knows only too well, clothes and accessories can be a very visible and powerful statement. For Waititi, being forced to wear something he does not consider part of his culture is an act of colonisation that must be resisted.
The colonial claim may be a step too far for some, but it’s clear many agree that neck ties are no longer required business attire and they’re not very comfortable.
End of an era
No matter what knot you favour, ties can be physically restrictive. I never enjoyed wearing one as part of my school uniform. Like Mallard, I’ve never learnt how to tie a tie. Like Waititi, I choose not to wear a tie.
The notion that men in one of the most diverse parliaments in the world should still be required to wear neck ties just seems ridiculous.
And it appears the majority of the Standing Orders Committee now agrees that ties should no longer be a necessity. A decision on Wednesday night meant Waititi and other men in the House will not be required to wear one. Common sense has prevailed. Parliament can focus on more serious matters.
Except, of course, that at a certain level this was a serious matter. As Waititi said, this was about cultural identity, not a tie.
Feminists have long understood this. Women had to fight to wear trousers — in the House, and in the home. They are castigated by some (and objectified by others) if their skirt is “too short” or their top “too tight”.
The sartorial is political
Symbols of white male power: Ronald Reagan often wore a cowboy hat.GettyImages
But many still don’t understand the politics of women’s clothes and so were confused by Waititi’s musings on clothing and cultural identity. If a neck tie is a colonial noose, why did his party co-leader, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, very pointedly wear one in the House this week?
And if Waititi is concerned that the legacy of colonisation is suppressing the tangata whenua through clothing, why does he wear a cowboy hat so often that people refer to it as his trademark?
Like neck ties, cowboy hats signify a particular type of white, male power. The most prominent politician associated with wearing a cowboy hat was former US president Ronald Reagan. One might well argue there’s a certain white extremism associated with cowboy hats that also needs to be challenged.
Regardless of where you stand on the neck tie divide, it’s clear that clothes and accessories are political. What we buy, how we choose to wear something, and what we refuse to wear all say something about us.
Waititi has adopted the cowboy hat and imbued it with a very different meaning to those who wore their cowboy hats as they stormed the US Capitol last month. Ngarewa-Packer knotted her tie with irony.
There is nothing wrong with politicians being playful with their clothes or refusing to conform to an outdated sartorial norm. But if that is all they do, their constituents will be very disappointed.
The Māori Party has only two MPs. It would be a shame if their legacy was confined to political sideshows.
A magnitude 7.7 earthquake has struck south-east of New Caledonia’s Loyalty Islands and a tsunnami warning is in place for several countries.
Geoscience Australia said the quake, which struck early this morning, had an epicentre 400 km east of the town of Tadine.
Seismic data indicates the undersea earthquake struck at a depth of 54 km.
Several aftershocks of up to magnitude 6.1 on the Richter scale have occurred.
The US Tsunami Warning System said hazardous tsunami waves up to a level of 1m above the normal tide level are possible for coasts within 1000 km of the epicentre with New Caledonia, Vanuatu and Fiji particularly at risk.
Officials in American Samoa have cancelled a tsunami watch for the territory.
RNZ’s correspondent in Pagopago said officials reported no significant wave had been generated by the earthquake.
New Zealand’s National Emergency Management Agency is warning that coastal areas could experience strong and unusual currents, and unpredictable surges at the shore.
Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology said there is a tsunami threat to offshore Australian islands and territories.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
The icy continent has historically been a place for men. First “discovered” in 1820, Antarctica would not be visited by a woman for well over a century.
In 1935, Norwegian Caroline Mikkelsen, a whaler’s wife, became the first woman to do so, some 24 years after her compatriot Roald Amundsen had trekked all the way to the South Pole.
It wasn’t until the 1950s that women were finally allowed to participate in Antarctic science.
How had Antarctica come to be so dominated by men? Where were all the women?
Among the group were 77 women working in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEMM), who took part in a three-week leadership program. As part of our study of this program, Meredith travelled with the group to Antarctica to gather women’s first-hand accounts of their experiences.
The expedition en route to Antarctica.Author provided
But in terms of unlocking Antarctica’s history, one of the biggest answers came from a surprising source: a map on the wall of the galley, where Meredith looked every morning to see where the ship was headed.
One morning, she spotted Marguerite Bay, on the Western Antarctic peninsula. It turns out there were women here, symbolically at least.
Who was Marguerite?
Marguerite’s name reached the Antarctic because her husband, Jean-Baptiste Charcot, leader of the French Antarctic Expedition in 1909, named a bay after her.
Author and environmentalist Carole Devine has been doing a mapping project to uncover the stories of women like Marguerite – she has found more than 200 places in Antarctica named after women.
The portrayal of Antarctica as a female body that must be mastered and penetrated by men is central to Heroic Era narratives of the continent. Given this framing, it is unsurprising women were long denied access to Antarctica.
Many polar institutes around the world have traditionally justified the exclusion of women by arguing there were no facilities such as toilets for them on stations.
It certainly wasn’t due to a lack of interest. In 1914, three British women named Peggy Pegrine, Valerie Davey and Betty Webster wrote to Ernest Shackleton to apply for his next expedition. They described themselves as “three sporty girls” and offered to wear men’s clothes if there were no suitable female ones available. They added:
…we do not see why men should have all the glory, and women none, especially when there are women just as brave and capable as there are men.
Shackleton’s reply noted his “regrets there are no vacancies for the opposite sex on the expedition”.
Coming in from the cold
Caroline Mikkelsen hoists the Norwegian flag in Antarctica in 1935.
Mikkelsen became the first woman to set foot on Antarctica in 1935. But it was not until 1956 that women began to be properly involved in Antarctic science.
Russian geologist Maria Klenova landed in Antarctica to make the first Soviet Antarctic Atlas. Women were finally charting maps, rather than just having their names written on them.
In 1969, an all-female group of US scientists led by Lois Jones landed in Antarctica. They wanted to collect their own samples from the McMurdo Dry Valleys — something they had so far been prevented from doing.
Pointing to the anxiety and scepticism surrounding the voyage, the New York Times described the expedition as “an incursion of females” into “the largest male sanctuary remaining on this planet”.
From the 1980s, the Australian Antarctic Program and the British Antarctic Survey allowed women to stay on research stations and conduct land-based Antarctic fieldwork.
Yet while women’s participation in the Australian Antarctic Program is increasing, women still comprise only 24% of expeditioners. Women make up 33% and 30% of US and UK Antarctic expeditioners, respectively.
physical barriers, such as field gear not being available in women’s sizes.
Why does this matter?
Antarctica is strategically important to Australia and many other nations. Yet the credibility of Australia’s Antarctic leadership is at risk without a substantial commitment to diversity and inclusivity.
Existing power relations may prevent women and those from other underrepresented groups (such as people of colour and LGBTIQ+ people) from participating, or even considering, the possibility of an Antarctic science career.
Equity and inclusion in Antarctic science will not come about simply by waiting for more women to volunteer to become expeditioners.
Here is how we can proactively promote inclusion:
Change the image of a polar scientist. The “typical” polar scientist is still assumed to be a straight, white man who works for many months away in Antarctica. Yet polar scientists work in a range of settings. In fact, many polar scientists work indoors at a computer!
Grow the leadership pool. National Antarctic Programs must develop targeted recruitment campaigns, gender-neutral hiring practices, awareness of unconscious bias, training to be an “upstander” rather than a bystander, and parental leave policies and flexible work arrangements that can facilitate a woman’s ability to succeed in polar science.
Women are in Antarctica to stay. They play important roles in the scientific, logistical and managerial realms of Antarctic operations.
Making polar research more inclusive will enrich the diversity of the scientific community and have flow-on effects for the quality of Australia’s Antarctic science.
With COVID-19 still running rampant in many parts of the world, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has prepared “playbooks” for the Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games, set to begin in July.
There are four books, each aimed at a specific group: international federations, athletes and officials, press, and broadcasters. The aim of these playbooks is to outline the rules that will ensure a safe and successful event.
Several commentators consider the games going ahead without a guarantee of safety as “irresponsible”. However, the IOC president, Thomas Bach, responded:
Our task is to organise Olympic Games, not to cancel Olympic Games.
Supporting this view is Tokyo 2020 president Yoshiro Mori, who insists Japan will hold the Olympic and Paralympic Games regardless of the situation with the pandemic.
As a result, the IOC playbooks outline safety precautions to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Here are the main rules and processes proposed for athletes and officials attending the games.
All athletes must take a COVID-19 test within 72 hours of departing their home country. Athletes are required to provide proof of a negative result before they depart their home country.
Prior to arriving in Japan, athletes must observe the playbook rules for 14 days (this includes, for example, minimising contact with others and practising good personal hygiene).
Athletes must have COVID-19 tests before entering Japan for the Olympics and during their stay in Tokyo.Scott Barbour/AAP
During the stay in Japan
Once in Tokyo, all individuals will require another COVID-19 test. Further regular COVID-19 testing and temperature checks will be done throughout their stay in Japan.
Australian athletes will arrive no earlier than five days before their event and depart a maximum of two days after their event is completed. To adhere to COVID-19 safe practices as outlined in the playbooks, the organisers will cut back on the number of athletes who attend the opening and closing ceremonies.
Athletes are asked to compile a list of all the people they expect to have close contact with during their stay in Tokyo. They must not visit games venues as a spectator nor visit tourist areas, shops, restaurants, bars or gyms.
Test, trace and isolate
Japan has created a “contact confirming app” – COCOA – for health reporting and monitoring COVID-19 test results. All athletes will have restrictions on the activities they can undertake, outlined in an activity plan. The IOC is due to publish these later. Further details are needed to ensure compliance with data protection principles, especially sensitive health information.
To minimise physical interaction, athletes and officials are reminded to: avoid hugs and handshakes; keep at least 2 metres apart from other athletes; avoid enclosed spaces; not use public transport (only use games transport); and follow their activity plan. All team members are required to wear face masks and supply enough masks for the duration of stay in Tokyo.
Athletes and officials will be screened and tested for COVID-19 at different times during their stay. Anyone with symptoms must self-isolate. Details of where and how self-isolation will work have not yet been explained.
Further, it is recommended to have insurance for costs of medical treatment in Japan and repatriation if sent home. Questions arise as to who will cover these costs, and whether such insurance cover is even available in these COVID-disrupted times.
If athletes test positive, they are to self-isolate immediately and will not be allowed to compete in the games. However, to mitigate the likelihood of false positives in testing, athletes will have to have a number of false tests before they are barred from competing, the specifics of which will be revealed in April.
Limited information is available on where those with positive tests would be quarantined and what medical support they would receive.
What about the vaccine?
There is debate about whether nations should vaccinate their athletes prior to attending the games. Several athletes, including Australian swimmer Cate Campbell, believe athletes should be prioritised for vaccinations if it saves the games from being cancelled.
However, Bach declared “we are not in favour of athletes jumping the queue”. Therefore, athletes will not be required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 to compete at the games.
Athletes will not need to have been vaccinated against COVID-19 to compete at the Tokyo Games.Yomiuri Shimbun/AP/AAP
So will the Olympics go ahead?
The IOC acknowledges that, despite all the care taken, risks and impacts may not be eliminated and therefore athletes agree to participate in the games at their own risk. Shifting the risk to athletes is problematic as it fails to take into account the vulnerability associated with performance-driven motivations and medal aspirations.
And as for local support, you’d be struggling to find a Tokyo resident who wants the games to go ahead, especially considering Japan has had over 400,000 cases and almost 6,500 deaths from COVID-19, with the majority of cases in the greater Tokyo area.
The first iteration of the playbook lacks the specific detail that is warranted when hosting 10,000 athletes at a global sport event. As the World Players Association says:
Comprehensive COVID-19 protections – not rudimentary statements – are essential if a safe and successful Olympiad is to be possible.
Hopefully, the publication of further details in April will ease concerns. In the meantime, if the games are to go on, we all have to wonder at what cost.
In December, Antarctica lost its status as the last continent free of COVID-19 when 36 people at the Chilean Bernardo O’Higgins research station tested positive. The station’s isolation from other bases and fewer researchers in the continent means the outbreak is now likely contained.
However, we know all too well how unpredictable — and pervasive — the virus can be. And while there’s currently less risk for humans in Antarctica, the potential for the COVID-19 virus to jump to Antarctica’s unique and already vulnerable wildlife has scientists extremely concerned.
We’re among a global team of 15 scientists who assessed the risks of the COVID-19 virus to Antarctic wildlife, and the pathways the virus could take into the fragile ecosystem. Antarctic wildlife haven’t yet been tested for the COVID-19 virus, and if it does make its way into these charismatic animals, we don’t know how it could affect them or the continent’s ecosystem stability.
Bernardo O Higgins Station in Antarctica, where 36 people tested positive to COVID-19.Stone Monki/Wikimedia, CC BY-SA
Jumping from animals to humans, and back to animals
The COVID-19 virus is one of seven coronaviruses found in people — all have animal origins (dubbed “zoonoses”), and vary in their ability to infect different hosts. The COVID-19 virus is thought to have originated in an animal and spread to people through an unknown intermediate host, while the SARS outbreak of 2002-2004 likely came from raccoon dogs or civets.
Given the general ubiquity of coronaviruses and the rapid saturation of the global environment with the COVID-19 virus, it’s paramount we explore the risk for it to spread from people to other animals, known as “reverse zoonoses”.
The World Organisation for Animal Health is monitoring cases of the COVID-19 virus in animals. To date, only a few species around the globe have been found to be susceptible, including mink, felines (such as lions, tigers and cats), dogs and a ferret.
Whether the animal gets sick and recovers depends on the species. For example, researchers found infected adolescent cats got sick but could fight off the virus, while dogs were much more resistant.
While mink, dogs or cats are not in Antarctica, more than 100 million flying seabirds, 45% of the world’s penguin species, 50% of the world’s seal populations and 17% of the world’s whale and dolphin species inhabit the continent.
Tourists visit penguin roosts in large numbers.Shutterstock
In a 2020 study, researchers ran computer simulations and found cetaceans — whales, dolphins or porpoises — have a high susceptibility of infection from the virus, based on the makeup of their genetic receptors to the virus. Seals and birds had a lower risk of infection.
We concluded that direct contact with people poses the greatest risk for spreading the virus to wildlife, with researchers more likely vectors than tourists. Researchers have closer contact with wildlife: many Antarctic species are found near research stations, and wildlife studies often require direct handling and close proximity to animals.
Tourists, however, are still a concerning vector, as they visit penguin roosts and seal haul-out sites (where seals rest or breed) in large numbers. For instance, a staggering 73,991 tourists travelled to the continent between October 2019 and April 2020, when COVID-19 was just emerging.
Each visitor to Antarctica carries millions of microbial passengers, such as bacteria, and many of these microbes are left behind when the visitors leave. Most are likely benign and probably die off. But if the pandemic has taught us anything, it takes only one powerful organism to jump hosts to cause a pandemic.
How to protect Antarctic wildlife
There are guidelines for visitors to reduce the risk of introducing infectious microbes. This includes cleaning clothes and equipment before heading to Antarctica and between animal colonies, and keeping at least five metres away from animals.
These rules are no longer enough in COVID times, and more measures must be taken.
The first and most crucial step to protect Antarctic wildlife is controlling human-to-human spread, particularly at research stations. Everyone heading to Antarctica should be tested and quarantined prior to travelling, with regular ongoing tests throughout the season. The fewer people with COVID-19 in Antarctica, the less opportunity the virus has to jump to animal hosts.
Cetaceans, such as orcas, are more susceptible to COVID infections than sea birds and seals.Shutterstock
Second, close contact with wildlife should be restricted to essential scientific purposes only. All handling procedures should be re-evaluated, given how much we just don’t know about the virus.
We recommend all scientific personnel wear appropriate protective equipment (including masks) at all times when handling, or in close proximity to, Antarctic wildlife. Similar recommendations are in place for those working with wildlife in Australia.
Migrating animals that may have picked up COVID-19 from other parts of the world could also spread it to other wildlife in Antarctica. Skuas, for example, migrate to Antarctica from the South American coast, where there are enormous cases of COVID-19.
And then there’s the issue of sewage. Around 37% of bases release untreated sewage directly into the Antarctic ecosystem. Meanwhile, an estimated 57,000 to 114,000 litres of sewage per day is dumped from ships into the Southern Ocean.
Fragments of the COVID virus can be found in wastewater, but these fragments aren’t infectious, so sewage isn’t considered a transmission risk. However, there are other potentially dangerous microbes found in sewage that could be spread to animals, such as antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Ships dump 114,000 litres of sewage into the water, each day.Shutterstock
We can curb the general risk of microbes from sewage if the Antarctic Treaty formally recognises microbes as invasive species and a threat to the Antarctic ecosystem. This would support better biosecurity practices and environmental control of waste.
Taking precautions
In these early stages of the pandemic, scientists are scrambling to understand complexity of COVID-19 and the virus’s characteristics. Meanwhile, the virus continues to evolve.
Until the true risk of cross-species transmission is known, precautions must be taken to reduce the risk of spread to all wildlife. We don’t want to see the human footprint becoming an epidemic among Antarctic wildlife, a scenario that can be mitigated by better processes and behaviours.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hal Pawson, Professor of Housing Research and Policy, and Associate Director, City Futures Research Centre, UNSW
Australian governments acted to protect homeless people from COVID-19 in 2020 on an even larger scale than previously thought. In the first six months of the pandemic, the four states that launched emergency programs housed more than 40,000 rough sleepers and others.
The states were anxious about rough sleepers’ extreme vulnerability to virus infection and the resulting public health risk to the wider community. New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia acted fast to provide safe temporary housing, mainly in otherwise empty hotels.
Drawing on previously unreleased official statistics, our newly published international comparative research reveals the people these programs helped in Australia outnumbered the 33,000 rough sleepers and others housed in England by the equivalent Everyone In initiative. Australia’s population is less than half that of England.
What happens when emergency housing ends?
The numbers Australia’s emergency housing program needed to shelter showed our homelessness problem is much larger than often imagined. The 8,200 people counted as sleeping rough on census night 2016 were only the tip of the iceberg.
Attempts to transfer people from emergency accommodation to longer-term tenancies have also generally been far less successful than in England. By the end of 2020, England’s local authorities had moved two-thirds of their former rough sleepers from temporary placements to more stable housing. As our research shows, despite determined efforts, Australian state governments managed this for less than a third of rough sleepers departing emergency hotel stays in 2020.
Many will have returned to the streets or to homeless shelters. Rough sleeper numbers once again increased in Adelaide and Sydney after mid-year.
A ‘tent city’ of homeless people in a Fremantle park was dismantled by order of the Western Australian government in late January 2021.Richard Wainwright/AAP
Alongside protecting rough sleepers, Australian government actions to shield vulnerable renters who lost jobs and incomes in the pandemic were also relatively effective. These efforts include federal income protection (JobKeeper and Coronavirus Supplement) and state and territory restrictions on evictions.
The short-term success of these measures is clear. Despite a substantial rise in unemployment, there has been – as yet – no sign of any up-tick in homelessness.
At the same time, though, ministerial advice that tenants with COVID-triggered income losses should negotiate rent reductions with landlords came with few ground rules on how to reach such settlements.
Survey evidence shows many property owners refused to reduce rents. At least one in four renters lost income during the pandemic, but no more than 16% (and possibly as few as 8%) got a rent variation. And many variations were only in the form of rent deferrals, not reductions.
The survey data imply at least 75,000 tenants, and possibly as many as 175,000, have been accumulating deferral-generated arrears. These mounting debts could put some at risk of losing their home when eviction moratoriums end. That’s early in 2021 in most states and territories.
Our research also highlights the unusually small direct contribution of the Australian government to protecting homeless people during the pandemic. Even in other federations – Canada and the United States – national governments played a significant role.
In Australia, the Commonwealth government made no direct input to covering the substantial costs involved. Nor did it play any part in even monitoring, let alone co-ordinating, the remarkable efforts of the active states.
Canberra has also steadfastly rejectedcalls for a social housing stimulus program for national economic recovery. This disengagement fits with a now-familiar refrain from federal ministers. Housing and homelessness, they repeat time and again, are constitutional obligations of state and territory governments.
The Morrison government is subsidising private housing construction and renovations but won’t pitch in for social housing.David Crosling/AAP
Granted, that’s an accurate statement for housing and homelessness service delivery. But, especially given the Commonwealth’s control of the vital policy levers of tax and social security, the two levels of government must in reality share responsibility for housing outcomes.
The Victorian government’s A$5.4 billion Big Housing Build shows states may commit to investment in social rental housing on a scale far beyond what had been thought possible. But the fact remains that state and territory governments have much less financial firepower than our national government. It’s fanciful to imagine significant programs being widely initiated or maintained without hefty federal backing.
For all of these reasons, when the pandemic has finally subsided, it’s only with federal government leadership that we can effectively tackle the fundamental flaws in Australia’s housing system. These have been glaringly exposed by the public health crisis of the past 12 months. Without purposeful re-engagement by our national government, Australia’s housing policy challenges will only continue to intensify.
The agenda seems to have been confined to matters the government and business had already marked for attention.
Whatever potential there might have been for consensus on several important issues has plainly not been realised.
Nevertheless, in a submission to the Senate inquiry into the bill, and with the backing of 18 other labour law academics, we have expressed support for many of its provisions, even though there are details we are disappointed with and elements we strongly oppose, not least for their potentially negative impacts on wage growth and job security.
To be supported are greater penalties for employers who underpay workers, including criminal liability for dishonest and systematic conduct, and a new small claims process that would enable the Fair Work Commission to resolve payment disputes more quickly and cheaply, which we think could be improved.
We concentrate here on three concerns – the changes to agreement-making; to certain forms of employer-driven flexibility; and to the regulation of casual employment.
Enterprise agreement-making
The most contentious proposal is a new exception to the “better off overall test” (BOOT), which ordinarily ensures enterprise agreements cannot set pay and other conditions below award standards.
At present, the Commission can approve agreements that fail the BOOT, but only when they are not contrary to the public interest and only in “exceptional” circumstances.
The new exception would operate much more broadly, with no requirement to show unusual circumstances, pandemic or not. Although the exception would last for only two years, agreements approved under it could operate indefinitely.
We characterise the change as “tearing a gaping hole in the award safety net”.
Even if the Fair Work Commission took a narrow view of the exception, advisers would be lining up to encourage employers to give it a go, dangling the enticing prospect of “simplifying” pay and rostering , and reducing labour costs.
The bill also proposes to “simplify” the agreement-making process and make it harder for unions and others not directly involved to object to their approval.
This would weaken the few procedural safeguards that the Fair Work Act provides for workers, especially since there is no requirement for bargaining or negotiation to take place.
There would be no clear process for ensuring an agreement was genuinely made, and it would be harder to identify substandard deals, or to challenge the approval of agreements approved by small and unrepresentative groups of workers.
The sunsetting of agreements made before the Rudd government’s 2009 Fair Work Act (some of them made under “WorkChoices” is welcome and long overdue.
The bill would also allow “greenfields agreements” of up to eight years in duration – rather than the usual four – for construction work on certain major projects.
Employees engaged during that period would have no say on their pay and conditions and no right to strike – and some of these “agreements” could be made without union consent.
Under International Labour Organisation principles of freedom of association, workers in this position have to be afforded access to timely mediation and arbitration to resolve disputes, something the bill does not do.
New forms of flexibility for employers
Two other worrying proposals would permit certain employers to enter into “simplified additional hours agreements” with permanent part-time employees, and to issue “flexible work directions”.
Part-time workers could be offered extra hours, but without penalties.
Even if some ended up being offered extra hours of work, they would come without the usual compensation for antisocial or irregular hours – and they would most likely be taken from casuals, meaning a net reduction in wage bills.
The proposed “flexible work directions” would extend and expand some of the special powers granted to employers under JobKeeper to redeploy workers.
But they could be used in situations which need have nothing to do with recovery from the pandemic, including by employers who were never eligible for JobKeeper.
While both changes would initially be limited to certain industries, the bill allows them to be extended by regulation to all award-covered workers.
No compelling evidence has been presented to justify they are needed. Nor has the government explained why the Fair Work Commission should not continue to be responsible for managing these issues on an industry by industry basis through awards.
Casual employment
Casual employment fell during the initial stages of the pandemic, but then rebounded strongly. Around one in four Australian employees works as a casual, lacking benefits such as paid annual leave or sick leave, but generally entitled in return to a pay loading of 25%.
In practice, many casuals have long-term engagements, with none of the features usually associated with casual work. Among them are labour hire workers deployed not as “temps”, but to work at host firms alongside (or instead of) directly-hired employees with much higher pay and conditions.
The bill’s provisions respond to recent court decisions which have raised the prospect of billions of dollars in unpaid leave entitlements being due to workers misclassified as casuals.
The bill proposes to determine whether a worker is a casual purely by reference to what their contract says, not the reality of their engagement. And it would allow employers who have misclassified casuals to deduct from what they now owe their employees any loading they have previously paid.
After 12 months in a job, casuals would need to have their employment assessed. In certain circumstances, the employer would have to offer to make them permanent.
We agree on the need for a clear definition of “casual”, but the definition proposed would entrench the practice of “permanent casuals” doing jobs which are not truly casual, without necessarily preventing legal challenges to some of those arrangements.
Long-term casual employment does indeed suit many workers. But their lack of job security may have both individual and societal consequences.
That has been made clear during the pandemic, when workers without paid leave entitlements in “essential” jobs (such as cleaning and security for quarantine hotels, or aged care) have had to keep working with adverse consequences for public health.
We also note that the bill will substantially increase administrative costs for employers, in support of a right to convert to permanent that few long-term casuals are likely to even try to exercise, given the loss of loading typically involved.
In our submission to the Senate inquiry, we have suggested that the bill could be improved in a number of ways, including by making the definition of casual employment genuinely objective, requiring offers of conversion to permanent employment after six months rather than 12, and not shielding an employer from liability if it should have known it was misclassifying a permanent worker as casual.
Getting wages moving in the right direction
Even before the pandemic, it was widely accepted that wage stagnation was sapping the Australian economy. Whatever the reasons, it was clear that something needed to be done to get wages growth back above 3%.
If anything, the need is even greater now as we try to rebuild confidence and boost consumer spending.
Yet at a time when the share of national income going to profits rather than labour is still continuing to rise, the government is proposing changes that would not just suppress wage growth, but actually allow employers to cut some forms of pay and conditions.
The reforms would also entrench casual work – one of the largest forms of insecure employment.
As Labor’s new platform on job security recognises, this is a challenge that business, organised labour and government ought to be working together to tackle rather than exacerbate.
Whatever the positive elements of the new industrial relations bill, its crackdown on “wage theft” among them, its overall effect would be to take Australia even more firmly down the road of low-wages and low-growth.
More than ever as we emerge from the crisis we are going to have to get the most out of our economy.
Swapping stamp duty for land tax as the ACT government is doing (over 20 years) and the NSW government is planning (using an opt-in arrangement), is one of the best ways the tax system can help.
This graph from the federal treasury’s 2015 tax discussion paper makes the point.
It says the “marginal excess burden” (damage) done by real estate stamp duty amounts to 70 cents for each dollar raised.
It discourages people and businesses from changing addresses as often as they should, meaning workers live further away from their work than they would and are reluctant to move to where there is better work.
In contrast, treasury found the marginal excess burden of land tax was negative. Land tax makes sure land was used for its most useful purpose and not left idle.
Efficiency-wise it makes sense to swap one for the other, but as with all changes there will be winners and losers, some of them surprising.
In our just-published study, we use real-world data on living arrangements from the Melbourne Institute’s Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey and data on house prices and stamp duty rates from the Real Estate Institute Australia in an attempt to work out who the winners and losers will be.
Good for the young, and the old
We find that overall the swap should reduce the purchase price for home buyers, increase the sale price for sellers, increase the total number of transactions and reduce the degree of mismatch in housing.
It should also increase the rate of home ownership.
Young adults, particularly those who are currently having difficulty saving for a deposit would be better off.
Current homeowners would generally be worse off.
Renters would benefit because they are currently excluded from home ownership.
Older landlords, perhaps surprisingly, would also benefit. In many cases the increase in the value of their houses would outweigh the cost of the land tax.
In the long run the swap would improve the working of the economy, but in the short run it will hurt many current voters.
A gradual transition – either through a very long phase in (of the kind adopted by the ACT) or by allowing households to select into different tax systems (as NSW is planning) would help make the switch more palatable.
It is 25 years since Australian auteur Baz Luhrmann released his gloriously spectacular version of Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes as the doomed lovers.
Lurhmann was not presenting us with a reinterpretation of the stage play, but a complete re-imagining of its universe. Gone was the sense of theatre. Gone were the long soliloquies. Gone were the 16th century costumes. Instead of Verona, Italy, we are on Verona Beach, California.
The Capulet and Montague patriarchs do business in adjacent skyscrapers while the younger generation wage a vicious war on the streets. Tattoos, gold chains, loud Hawaiian shirts, leather vests, and silver teeth adorn them. Swords are replaced with Uzis and pistols.
The soundtrack dispenses with classical strings, replaced by 90s bands such as Radiohead and Garbage. Even the “and” in the title was replaced with a + sign. In every way Lurhmann made this film scream “gangsta”. It feels dangerous.
Many critics compared the film to Franco Zeffirelli’s 1968 version of Romeo and Juliet. While Zeffirelli’s film is visually sumptuous, it still plays it safe with the material, with few changes in tone or historical period.
Lurhmann, in contrast, plays fast and loose with every element of his production. To me, the films are in different stratospheres in their approach to the material and thus totally incomparable.
Shakespeare adaptations set in different time periods had happened before Lurhmann. As You Like It (1992) was performed in an industrial wasteland. Richard III (1995), was set in 1930s Britain; and Twelfth Night, made in the same year as Luhrmann’s film, was set in Victorian times.
However, Lurhmann didn’t just take the words and characters from the stage play and insert them into new environments. He created a completely stylised pastiche of visuals, dialogue, character and action.
It’s all quite over the top, as exemplified by the scene where a drag-queened Mercutio dances to Young Hearts Run Free. This is really Shakespeare for a specific demographic — youth. Some have argued Luhrmann’s film was beloved by attention deficit teenagers who later regarded it as “embarrassing” in adulthood . But I think this simplifies things.
I can understand why traditionalists, who didn’t mind the other adaptations set in modern times, don’t like this one. Much of the humour is pure slapstick, the acting can be over-exaggerated and lines are over-emphasised. There are large parts of the film which don’t have any dialogue at all, it’s all just visuals and music.
But the onscreen chemistry between Danes and DiCaprio is electric. Their scenes are genuinely emotionally charged, often heightened by the musical accompaniment.
And Lurhmann was making a film that would appeal to those who loved or loathed, or were indifferent, to traditional Shakespeare. A Shakespeare accessible to everyone.
This can be seen in the dialogue delivery of actors such as John Leguizamo, who plays Tybalt. As he venomously spits out, in modern gangsta rap style, lines like, “Now by the stock and honour of my kin, To strike him dead I hold it not a sin”, you actually forget you are listening to words written 500 years ago.
My favourite scene has always been Mercutio’s death. In the minutes leading up to, during and after he dies, Lurhmann dispenses with glitz and glamour, concentrating solely on the engagement between DiCaprio, Harold Perrineau (Mercutio) and Leguizamo. This is raw, visceral acting, no exaggeration, no contrivance.
Fluid works
Some have argued making such radical changes to the text is unnecessary and harms the essence of Shakespearean drama. The nuance and poetry of Shakespeare’s language is lost in all the flash and sparkle.
But pop culture critic Tori Godfree contends that Lurhmann’s incorporation of contemporary jokes, music and pop culture into his film is exactly what Shakespeare did in the original play. Shakespeare’s works should not be treated as sacrosanct icons but as fluid works open to reconstruction and modernisation.
Luhrmann’s approach worked. The film grossed over ten times its $14.5 million dollar budget. No other direct Shakespeare adaptation has come close to this sort of monetary success. Others have since embraced gangsta style violence in their own Shakespeare adaptions, notably Australian director Justin Kurzel, with Macbeth, and David Michod’s The King.
Lurhmann incorporated pop culture into his telling — just as Shakespeare would have done.Bazmark Films
Romeo + Juliet catapulted Luhrmann into the A-list, where he was given free reign on his next film, Moulin Rouge. Unfortunately, I think Lurhmann’s love of visual excess overwhelmed this and his further films, which were much more focused on screen imagery and design than story, character or meaning.
Perhaps the difference with Romeo + Juliet is that Luhrmann had a great script to start with. One can justly say of this lush, loud film, “For I never saw true beauty till this night”.
Romeo + Juliet is being re-released in selected cinemas from February 11 to mark its 25th anniversary.
Beach trips are a traditional part of our summers, but for some Kiwis and their family members living with a disability it can be a limiting experience.
Around 1 in 4 New Zealanders have a disability. Their disability arises not from their impairments but from having to live in world designed by people who think everyone is the same.
It is society, not the individual’s impairment, that is disabling. Thus, it is society that should be enabling.
Examples of enabling measures are seen in efforts to provide beach access for those with disabilities with the installation of beach mats for wheelchairs, or the provision of beach wheelchairs.
But after an able-bodied woman suffered a significant leg injury on a beach mat, there are now concerns that Auckland City Council, and other councils across the country, might review the provision of such such mats.
Disabled rights
Any such decisions must take the rights of people with disabilities into account. These rights are to be found in international human rights law, and New Zealand’s own law.
The rights of people with disabilities are protected by international human rights law generally, which recognises that everyone is born equal and all have to the right to be free from discrimination.
The convention prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, which it describes as the interaction of people with disabilities and attitudinal and environmental barriers.
It also requires countries should take action to ensure accessibility to a range of spaces and services for people with disabilities on an equal basis with those of non-disabled people.
Let’s be reasonable
These rights, like most other rights, must be weighed up with other considerations. A key concept here is reasonable accommodation.
This means that necessary and appropriate changes should be made that allow people with disabilities to enjoy their rights on an equal basis with others. But such changes should not impose a disproportionate or undue burden.
An Optional Protocol to the convention was also adopted in 2006, which means complaints can be made by individuals to the UN. New Zealand accepted this agreement in 2016.
The strategy is informed by the the UN Convention. It is also informed by Te Tiriti o Waitangi, reflecting the cultural importance of whānau and a whānau-centred approach of concepts of family and disability.
These legal obligations and policy measures also extend to local authorities. The decisions of such authorities regarding access to public spaces can have a profound impact on the rights of people with disabilities.
A typical beach mat to help with wheelchair access to the beach.Shutterstock/Tabatha Del Fabbro
The provision of beach mats and/or wheelchairs is one practical example that provides people with disabilities with access to the sand and the sea.
But councils can think bigger by also providing mobility spaces that fits all users, appropriately designed footpaths and kerb ramps that lead to accessible seating, shade areas and picnic areas, as well as public toilets that can be used by those with disabilities and their carers.
There is particular room for improvement with the latter and calls for councils to build fully accessible bathrooms to cater to people with multiple or complex disabilities.
Cost may well be a concern but access to the beach for people with disabilities should not be presented as an optional extra. Ensuring the safety of all beach users will be a paramount consideration, as will the protection of the natural environment.
A diverse and inclusive society means everyone should be treated with dignity and respect at all times. A failure to do so brings its own costs.
New Zealand Herald readers just voted Ōhope beach as New Zealand’s best beach in 2021. One of the reasons given was that everyone — from paddleboarders to kitesurfers to those in wheelchairs — is welcome at Ōhope.
For many New Zealanders, a dip in the ocean on summer days is a simple pleasure but for some, it is simply life-changing.
University of the South Pacific staff unions and students have protested in “disgust” over what they call interference and unsolicited presence by Fiji police on the Laucala campus.
“We demand that this must immediately stop, to allow staff to work and prepare for incoming students and the semester of learning ahead,” said a joint statement today from the Association of USP Staff (AUSPS), USP Staff Union (USPSU) and the USP Student Association (USPSA).
The unions described the police activity as an “attack on the right of staff to operate freely, with dignity and safety at the work place”.
The unions said that police officers had been seen on campus since the “unethical” deportation of the vice-chancellor, Professor Pal Ahluwalia last Thursday.
USP security officials had also reported a number of incidents involving police vehicles that had been refused entry onto the campus.
“This is seen as an attempt to intimidate and harass staff while disrupting preparations for the semester ahead,” the statement said.
Fiji police were reminded that Laucala campus was a place of work and tertiary education for regional Pacific students as well as Fiji students.
“As such, [the police] must respect the right for these students to be facilitated by USP staff in an environment that is free of harassment and intimidation,” said the statement.
The USP is a regional institution with 12 member countries and comparable to the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS), South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC).
The joint USP unions letter today. Image: APR
The opposition National Federation Party (NFP) said in a statement that Fiji’s credibility as a leading state in the region was at stake over the deportation of Kenyan-born professor Ahluwalia, reports RNZ Pacific.
The opposition walked out of parliament yesterday after the Speaker disallowed urgent questions about the removal of Professor Ahluwalia and his wife, saying the matter wasn’t of public importance.
Indonesia is trying again to “divide and rule my people” by further carving Papua into three new provinces, warns interim president Benny Wenda of the United Liberation Movement of West Papua (ULMWP).
And he says that Jakarta is bringing in another 450 troops in to “violently enforce” its policies.
‘Indonesia has failed the world’ “It is Jakarta’s wish. A referendum and full independence is our wish. Indonesia has failed the world, and failed the people of West Papua,” he said.
To enforce this renewal of Special Autonomy, even more Indonesian troops were flooding into West Papua – 450 in the last month alone.
“Indonesia is turning our land into a war zone, a martial law colony with military check points on every street corner,” Wenda said.
“Civilian rule in Indonesia is a myth: the military still holds power. Retired generals experienced in genocide in East Timor continue to call the shots.
“Indonesia has done this to us many times before. In 1963, they invaded our land. They held the fraudulent Act of No Choice in 1969, against the desires of all West Papuans.
“At every turn, they have treated us like a colonised people, less than human. We are called monkeys, spat at, forced off our land.”
“We are no longer bowing down to Jakarta’s rule. I call on all my people to unite and refuse all Indonesian law. We are establishing our own sovereign government,” said Wenda.
“As the legitimate representative of the people of West Papua, the provisional government is peacefully demanding the following:
1.The withdrawal of all Indonesian troops from West Papua; 2. An end to all forms of racism and discrimination against Melanesian West Papuans; 3. Immediate access to West Papua for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in accordance with the call of 83 international states; 4. Cancellation of ‘Special Autonomy’ and an immediate referendum on independence; and 5. For all international states and multinational corporations to cease any and all funding for Jakarta’s ‘Special Autonomy’.”
Wenda saidf the international community must help to force Indonesia to negotiate by withdrawing all support for the “failed ‘Special Autonomy’ project”.
“The world may be banned from seeing what is happening in West Papua. But we can see it,” Wenda said.
And we are going to peacefully continue our long struggle for freedom until the world finally hears our cry.
