Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Kesby, UQ Amplify Researcher, The University of Queensland

To navigate our way through the world, we constantly make choices. While we’ve all made our fair share of regrettable ones, most of us eventually learn from these – and we generally take this ability for granted.

For some people suffering from illnesses such as schizophrenia and substance use disorder – previously referred to as “substance abuse” – making the right choices can be extremely difficult.

In fact, many mental illnesses feature problems with cognition (thinking and comprehension), including depression and bipolar disorder. Decision-making ability varies in healthy people, too, sometimes as a consequence of differences in genetics.

What’s happening in the brains of these people that puts them on unequal footing to the rest of us?

Even simple decisions are complex

It’s important to note in day-to-day situations, there’s often no distinctly “right” or “wrong” choice to be made. However, some choices do result in healthier or more productive outcomes for us and those around us.

Our brains carry out a suite of complex processes when making decisions. And there are four important factors in each decision we make: value, motivation, action and strategy.

When choosing between two options, say A and B, we first need to understand which choice will be more rewarding, or provide more value. Our personal motivation to attain this reward then acts to bias which option we choose, or whether we make a choice at all.

Understanding what action is required to obtain A, or B, is also important. Combining all this information, we try to understand which strategy will maximise our rewards. And this lets us improve our decision-making ability over time.

Interrupted connections

We refer to our personal history and past experiences to guide our future choices. But mental disorders often cause problems in the decision-making process.

Research shows people with schizophrenia can have trouble understanding the relationship between their actions and the outcomes. This means they might keep selecting A, even if they know it’s no longer as valuable as B.

They’re also more willing to adopt strategies based on less information, in other words “jump to conclusions”, about outcomes.

Substance use disorder, particularly with stimulants such as methamphetamine or cocaine, often leads to people getting stuck when certain outcomes change.

For example, if we reversed all the street lights so red meant “go” and green meant “stop” without telling anyone, most people would get an initial shock but would eventually alter their behaviour.

People with stimulant dependence, however, would take longer to learn to stop on the green light – even if they kept getting into car accidents. This is because excessive stimulant use impacts regions in the brain that are crucial to adapting to changing environments.

Read more: How parents and teachers can identify and help young people self-medicating trauma with drugs and alcohol

How the brain decodes each decision

The human brain contains multiple circuits (like pathways) and chemical messengers called “neurotransmitters”. These are responsible for guiding the processes discussed above.

The decision-making circuits commonly associated with schizophrenia and substance use disorder include areas of the “cortex” – the outer part of our brain important for complex thought (especially the frontal lobe) – that “talk” to hub areas such as the “striatum”. The striatum lets us select and then initiate an action to achieve a specific goal.

Different cortical areas are used to compute different processes in the brain. The prefrontal cortex helps us understand when a strategy needed for success changes. So, if we replaced all the traffic lights with sirens, the prefrontal cortex would help us realise this and adjust.

When the anticipated outcome of a choice changes (such as if A was better, but then suddenly B became better), the orbitofrontal cortex helps us identify this. Similarly, the striatum is key for anticipating what an outcome will be and when we will get the reward.

Dopamine helps make your choices a reality

Extensive research efforts have found the brains of people experiencing schizophrenia function differently in multiple areas. It’s believed this could contribute to decision-making problems.

For the psychotic symptoms observed in schizophrenia (such as hallucinations and delusions), alterations in the neurotransmitter dopamine are important. Dopamine is a chemical in the brain that’s key for anticipating rewards, making decisions and controlling the physical actions necessary to act on our choices.

In our research, we’ve argued increases in dopamine in the striatum may cause problems with how the brain integrates information from the cortex, resulting in decision-making difficulties. However, this may only be the case in some individuals.

Stimulants also cause excessive dopamine release. They can alter the balance between goal-directed behaviours, which are flexible and respond to environmental changes – and habits, which are automatic and hard to break.

Usually, when we learn something new our brain keeps adapting and incorporating new information. But this is slow and cognitively demanding. Substance dependence can accelerate a person’s progression to habitual behaviour, wherein a set strategy or response become ingrained.

This then makes it hard to stop seeking drugs, even if the individual no longer finds them enjoyable.

Read more: Why that cigarette, chocolate bar, or new handbag feels so good: how pleasure affects our brain

How we can we help people make better decisions

Unfortunately, problems with cognitive ability are hard to treat. There are no medications for schizophrenia or stimulant dependence shown to reliably improve cognition. This is a consequence of the human brain’s complexity.

That said, there are ways we can all improve our memory and decision-making, which may also help those with mental illnesses causing cognition problems.

For instance, cognitive remediation therapy is a behavioural approach that trains the brain to respond to certain situations better. For people with schizophrenia, it may improve visual memory and perhaps more complex decision-making.

Not being able to navigate decisions day-to-day is one of the most debilitating aspects of disorders that impact cognition. This leads to difficulties in maintaining work, keeping friends and leading a fulfilling life.

We need more research to understand how different brains make different decisions. Hopefully then we can improve the lives of those living with mental illness.

Read more: Five Things You Need To Know About Mental Health

– ref. Why do some people struggle to make ‘healthy’ decisions, day after day? – https://theconversation.com/why-do-some-people-struggle-to-make-healthy-decisions-day-after-day-147666

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Curtin, Professor of Politics and Policy, University of Auckland

I first met Judith Collins in a media green room somewhere in Auckland midway through 2015. She is renowned for her ambition and dogged determination. But meeting her in person, I found her engaging, funny and very direct.

She is also from my own home province, Waikato, which has a long history of producing influential political women (Dorothy Jelicich, Marilyn Waring, Margaret Wilson, Helen Clark and Jacinda Ardern, to name just a few). When she heard I taught a first-year politics class she volunteered immediately to come and give a lecture.

I took her up on that in October the same year, and she proved to be an entertaining guest. She shared with her audience of 300-plus her views on National as a party of pragmatism rather than ideology, and why any media attention is better than none. She was asked about her leadership ambitions — and was diplomatically coy.

By then, Collins had been exonerated by a government inquiry into allegations, based on a leaked email from blogger Cameron Slater, that she had sought to undermine the director of the Serious Fraud Office.

She returned to cabinet, but it was a period of her political life she refers to in her recent memoir as the “whole awful Worst of Times”. After six years as a high-profile minister of police, corrections, veterans affairs, justice, ACC and ethnic affairs, all the while in pursuit of an economic portfolio, Collins had been forced to resign from the front bench three weeks out from the 2014 election.

Until that point she had been touted as one of those most likely to succeed John Key. While it would take six more years before Collins won the leadership of the National Party, she never gave up. The subtitle of her book sums it up: Memoir of a Political Survivor.

Collins has put her name forward for the leadership several times since Key’s resignation, but could never win over enough caucus colleagues. This year was different. Todd Muller’s unexpected resignation as National leader just 53 days after his own coup against Simon Bridges presented Collins with a wide open window of opportunity to finally take charge.

National may have been turned to her in desperation, but several pundits have since argued she should have been made leader much earlier.

Divisive but decisive

Collins was first elected to parliament in 2002, the year of National’s nadir — the party received just 21% of the vote, resulting in a net loss of 12 seats. Its support had fragmented — centre-right voters had shifted to ACT, New Zealand First and United Future. With Helen Clark’s Labour Party at a 41% high, Collins was one of only five new National MPs to enter the 47th parliament.

Two of those five new MPs were Don Brash and John Key, who both went on to become National Party leaders ahead of Collins. Unsurprisingly, both were influential in her career, albeit in opposite ways.

Read more: The rise of ACT in 2020 highlights tensions between the party’s libertarian and populist traditions

Collins recounts Brash’s political style and intellect with warmth and respect. Brash holds a PhD in economics from the Australian National University, has worked for the World Bank, and was New Zealand’s Reserve Bank governor for 14 years from 1988 — overlapping with the ascendancy of neoliberalism in New Zealand.

As leader of the National Party, it was clear Brash supported Collins’s aspirations, giving her portfolios that matched her expertise. He even invited her to a dinner with Milton Friedman, at which she learnt the political leader the famous economist most admired was Margaret Thatcher.

Collins praised Brash’s Orewa speech, in which he had condemned the “dangerous drift towards racial separatism” and the “entrenched Treaty grievance industry”. Divisive in the eyes of many, Collins saw it as an example of the decisive leadership that ultimately led to Brash bringing National voters “home” in 2005.

National didn’t win, but increased its presence in parliament by 21 MPs (48 compared to Labour’s 50), with ACT, NZ First and United Future losing 18 seats between them.

Surviving the Key years

By contrast, the relationship between Collins and Key appears to have been less than rewarding. She argues Key had come into politics with a very clear agenda of being prime minister and nothing would get in his way.

One political reporter had tipped Collins as most likely to be Key’s deputy in advance of the 2008 election, but this did not happen. Nor was she promoted in Key’s first cabinet.

Describing the annus horribilis that was 2014 in her memoir, it is evident she felt let down by Key’s lack of support in quelling the Oravida and “dirty politics” controversies that year.

Read more: Analysis shows how the Greens have changed the language of economic debate in New Zealand

More broadly, Key’s political strategy sat at odds with Collins’s political intuition. In 2008, he was intent on pulling the party more towards the centre, but Collins was sceptical of the argument that winning elections meant winning over median voters.

Citing the success of Thatcher, she believed shoring up the base and delivering to that base mattered more. For Collins, centrism is an excuse to do nothing and stand for nothing.

Winning back the base

It came as no surprise that Collins titled her memoir Pull No Punches. Her style during the 2020 election campaign has reflected the pleasure she gets from flexing her parliamentary debating skills, which she says “requires quick wit […] an ability to think on one’s feet”.

She was rewarded with positive verdicts after the first two televised leaders’ debates, where her retorts and interjections were sometimes fierce, other times flippant. She clearly enjoys being in charge and unrestrained by broader collective responsibility (a point she also made about her time as a newspaper columnist during her sojourn on the backbench).

Read more: With the election looming and New Zealand First struggling in the polls, where have those populist votes gone?

Her formative political years reveal that decisiveness in a leader is a quality she values, even if it offends. She is probably further to the right than some in National might prefer, but in this she has not wavered over time. Her maiden speech and her memoir demonstrate a disdain for what she calls the “lazy gene” and a welfare system that “funded women to have multiple children”.

In a sense, her political ethos is a mix of old-school pragmatic National conservatism and a dose of ideological neoliberalism.

She has never been shy about her desire to be a good electorate MP, to make a difference, to be in power and to climb to the top of the political ladder. The polls suggest Collins will succeed in winning back a chunk of the base that began to desert National with the onset of COVID-19. Attracting centre voters, however, may prove elusive.

That is unlikely to worry Collins. She is rebuilding National’s support and is determined her political career as leader will not end on October 18 2020. There are others, including touted future leader Christopher Luxon, who might disagree — ultimately the decision will not be hers. But it may be too soon to write her off. When Collins calls herself a political survivor, she means it.

– ref. NZ election 2020: as the ultimate political survivor, Judith Collins prepares for her ultimate test – https://theconversation.com/nz-election-2020-as-the-ultimate-political-survivor-judith-collins-prepares-for-her-ultimate-test-144488

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Euzebiusz Jamrozik, Infectious Disease Ethics Fellow, Ethox & Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, Univeristy of Oxford. Adjunct, Monash University

Researchers are considering using “human challenge studies” to accelerate COVID-19 vaccine research and development. This would involve giving an experimental vaccine to healthy volunteers, then deliberately exposing them to the virus to see whether they’re protected from infection.

Challenge studies can also allow scientists to monitor the progress of infectious diseases from the moment they begin, and to study infection and immunity more closely than other types of research.

These studies can answer scientific questions in a short time. They recruit small numbers of participants — up to around 100 volunteers per study — usually young, healthy adults.

However, deliberate infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, involves risks to volunteers.

How do these studies differ from standard, larger studies?

Standard “field” trials for some COVID-19 vaccine candidates have already begun. Each aims to recruit at least 10,000 people. Usually, half or two-thirds receive the experimental vaccine and the rest might receive a placebo or a vaccine against another disease.

Participants then go about their daily lives. Scientists observe whether those who received the COVID-19 vaccine are less frequently infected with the virus than the other group, allowing them to determine how effective the vaccine is.

In large epidemics, field trials can quickly reveal whether a vaccine works. But proof may be delayed when there’s less community transmission, for example due to local public health measures.

If current field trials identify a highly effective vaccine, there might be less need for human challenge trials. However, if the first vaccines fail, or turn out to be only moderately effective, challenge studies could be used to select the next most promising candidates for future field trials.

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

Challenge studies need extra preparation

First, scientists need to prepare a strain of SARS-CoV-2 in the laboratory to administer to volunteers. The strain needs to be similar to the virus circulating in the community.

There’s also a need for special research facilities with health-care support and capacity to isolate participants.

Volunteers may have to remain in these facilities for 2–3 weeks to be closely monitored, and so they are not released into the community while they may be infectious.

Read more: Coronavirus: why I support the world’s first COVID vaccine challenge trial

Past experience and recent developments

While COVID-19 challenge trials are now making news, scientists have previously conducted these kinds of experiments with many different types of microorganisms.

Such studies have been used to develop vaccines against malaria, typhoid and cholera. They have also provided unique insights into immunity to influenza and “common cold” coronaviruses.

One research centre in London has announced a plan to conduct challenge studies with SARS-CoV-2. Another centre in the United States is also preparing a strain of the virus.

Ethical and scientific questions

The World Health Organisation (WHO) convened two advisory groups, in which we were involved, to consider COVID-19 human challenge studies. One focused on ethics, the other on scientific and technical aspects.

The ethics group identified eight criteria proposed challenge studies would need to meet before going ahead.

These included the need for researchers to consult and engage with the general public before, during, and after the trials. There would also need to be careful independent expert review, and demonstration that expected benefits are likely to outweigh risks.

Relevant risks might be especially hard to predict for SARS-CoV-2, partly because it’s a new pathogen.

While young, healthy people generally fare better with COVID-19 than older adults with pre-existing conditions, there are exceptions. For example, a multisystem inflammatory syndrome has been reported in rare cases among previously healthy adults after they contracted COVID-19.

Read more: Infecting healthy people in vaccine research can be ethical and necessary

Members of WHO’s science group agreed on a number of technical requirements for COVID-19 challenge studies to maximise volunteers’ safety and prevent wider spread of infection.

These included recruiting only healthy young adults, conducting the studies under strict biosafety procedures (for example, isolating participants), giving the virus via the nose to mimic natural infection, and carefully increasing the dose of the virus.

However, the experts were split on other issues, such as whether:

• challenge studies would actually accelerate vaccine approval

• results in young healthy adults would demonstrate whether or not a vaccine works for older people

• challenge trials should begin before a proven and highly effective treatment for COVID-19 becomes available.

What next?

To design an ethically acceptable challenge study, it’s important to minimise the risks to study volunteers, research staff, and the wider community.

In the future, there may be additional ways scientists can reduce the risks. They may be able to better identify those at lowest risk of severe infection, develop a weakened strain of the virus, or have a highly effective treatment on hand to use if needed.

In the meantime, scientists could obtain results relevant to COVID-19 by conducting less risky challenge studies with other viruses.

For example, challenge studies with “common cold” coronaviruses, which are being considered in Australia, could teach us about the types of immune responses that protect us against coronavirus diseases.

Read more: Australia’s just signed up for a shot at 9 COVID-19 vaccines. Here’s what to expect

Research eventuating in safe and effective vaccines for COVID-19 could save many lives. However, whether the benefits of challenge studies in the current pandemic outweigh the risks depends on many factors.

We must carefully consider proposals for these studies in light of the current state of science and vaccine development, and update our evaluations as new data emerge.

– ref. Infecting volunteers with coronavirus may be one way to test potential vaccines. But there are risks – https://theconversation.com/infecting-volunteers-with-coronavirus-may-be-one-way-to-test-potential-vaccines-but-there-are-risks-147349

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Lee, Professor at the National Drug Research Institute (Melbourne), Curtin University

During crises and disasters, alcohol and other drug use often changes. But the changes are not straightforward and impacts may be different for different groups of people.

There doesn’t seem to have been significant overall increases or decreases in alcohol or other drug use during the COVID-19 pandemic, but some groups are at increased risk. And access to treatment is more limited for those who need it.

It’s a complex picture

There’s a bit of data around, but the picture is still not quite clear. As researchers from the Centre for Alcohol Policy Research at La Trobe University have argued in an editorial published today, we need more research to understand the influence of the pandemic on use.

There were some early indicators of increases in Australians’ alcohol consumption as the pandemic hit, possibly related to increased stress. But that effect seemed to reduce as we settled into the new normal.

At the beginning of COVID-19 restrictions in March, Commonwealth Bank reported spending had increased on alcohol, but this was then reversed in April.

And in April, a study by the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education found that most people who had stockpiled alcohol reported drinking more. Also around the same time, Australian Bureau of Statistics data showed more people had increased their drinking (14.4%) than had decreased it (9.5%).

By May, the Australian National University found more people had decreased their drinking (27%) than had increased it (20%). The Global Drug Survey between May and June found similar results among the mostly young people who responded.

However, alcohol use seemed to increase among some groups, possibly those who are more vulnerable to harms.

Read more: Worried about your drinking during lockdown? These 8 signs might indicate a problem

In both the ABS and ANU studies, more women had increased their drinking than decreased it, which seemed to be related to higher stress linked to increased responsibilities at home.

In a survey of people who use illicit drugs, more people increased (41%) than decreased (33%) drinking. And among people who inject drugs around 11% reported increased drinking.

There have also been indicators that family violence has increased during this time. Alcohol and other drug use is a risk factor for family violence.

We need more data about heavy drug use

Since the onset of the pandemic, two studies found cannabis use had increased but other drug use had decreased or was stable. The respondents were mostly young, used for recreational purposes and were not dependent nor did they have serious problems.

Reductions in use of drugs like MDMA and cocaine, which are associated with festivals and parties, are not surprising since these large events have been restricted for months.

Most of the research hasn’t involved people who are heavy or dependent users, so we don’t know much about changes in use in these groups.

One study of people who inject drugs (who tend to use more regularly) reported some changes to availability and purity of some drugs, and small changes in use, but again some people increased and some decreased their use.

With physical distancing and lockdowns, it’s likely more people used alone or with fewer people. This means if anything goes wrong, help is further away.

Telehealth for drug treatment?

A survey of treatment services found that among services that reported changes in demand, most had an increase. Most services also reported that mental health problems, family violence and financial stress had all increased among people who use their services. These factors can make treatment more complex.

There is some evidence fewer people accessed medication treatment for opioids during the restrictions, like methadone.

COVID-19 restrictions have changed the way many services offer treatment. Most residential rehabilitation services have reduced the number of places available so they can ensure physical distancing.

Before COVID-19 there were already long waiting lists for residential rehabilitation, so with more than 70% of services reporting reduced capacity, people may have found it harder to access residential treatment.

Non-residential services (like counselling or day programs) haven’t significantly reduced the number of people they see, and most have partially or fully moved to telehealth.

As a result, around 35% of services said fewer people missed appointments. This might be due to the easier access telehealth provides, including the reduced travel time.

However, around 25% of services said more people missed appointments. Anecdotal interviews suggest some of this might be due to difficulty transitioning to online appointments. One person said: “I know they are on Zoom but I don’t know how to use it”.

These adaptations are more complex than they appear. The time and effort required for services to make significant changes takes time away from providing treatment.

The move to telehealth is a significant one, requiring additional hardware and software, training of staff, and help for people who use the service to work out how to use the technology. Things like ensuring confidentiality can be more difficult when someone is receiving counselling at home with family around, for example.

Piecemeal funding for treatment services

The alcohol and other drug sector was already significantly under-resourced and struggling to meet existing demand before COVID-19.

In April, federal health minister Greg Hunt announced A$6 million in funding for alcohol and other drug services. Just over half of this was allocated to three organisations to increase online access to support services. The rest went to information and awareness campaigns. But no funds were set aside for existing treatment services to make COVID-19 related changes to their services.

Various state governments have allocated some funding to support alcohol and other drug services to adjust to COVID-19:

• Tasmania released a total of A$450,000 to help services transition to telehealth

• Western Australia allocated a total of A$350,000 for specialist alcohol and other drug services to maintain services amid the pandemic

• Victoria and South Australia announced additional support to help people access medication treatment.

Further funding is needed to ensure services can continue to provide COVID-safe services.

It’s important for people who use alcohol and other drugs, and for the public, that alcohol and other drug treatment is well-supported to continue to operate during these changes. We know treatment is cost-effective, reduces crime and increases participation in the community. For every dollar invested in drug treatment, $7 is saved to the community.

Getting help

If you’re worried about your own or someone else’s alcohol or other drug use, you can get help by phoning the National Alcohol and Other Drug Hotline on 1800 250 015.

You can also access support online through CounsellingOnline, Hello Sunday Morning and SMART Recovery.

You may also be eligible to access one of the new telehealth services. Talk to your GP to find out more.

– ref. COVID changed the way we use drugs and alcohol — now it’s time to properly invest in treatment – https://theconversation.com/covid-changed-the-way-we-use-drugs-and-alcohol-now-its-time-to-properly-invest-in-treatment-147577

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dominique McCollum Coy, Doctoral Researcher, Behaviour Change Graduate Research Industry Partnership (GRIP), Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University

In the town of Goulburn in southern New South Wales, an energy revolution is brewing. The community has come together to build its own 4,000-panel solar farm – everyday citizens are invited to buy shares in the venture and reap the rewards.

Goulburn is not alone: community-owned energy is an idea whose time has come. About 100 community energy groups operate across Australia – their projects at various levels of development – up from 25 groups in 2015.

The concept is gaining political attention, too. Independent MP for the federal Victorian seat of Indi, Helen Haines, in August moved a motion in parliament, calling on the Morrison government to support community energy, including establishing a new government agency. The bill is backed by fellow independent Zali Steggall.

At its core, community energy rests on the belief that everyday people should have power over how their energy is generated – including its environmental and social impacts. Big corporations should not control our energy systems, nor should they reap all the profits. So let’s take a look at how community energy works.

What is community energy?

Australia’s first community-owned renewable energy project, Hepburn Wind, started generating power in June 2011. Since then, many more communities across Australia have banded together to manage their own solar, wind, micro-grid and efficiency projects.

The Goulburn project will be built in the Hume electorate of federal energy minister Angus Taylor, about 3km from the town centre. Earlier this year it received a A$2.1 million state grant, under the Regional Community Energy Fund.

Investors can reportedly buy A$400 shares, each covering the cost of a solar panel and the infrastructure needed for grid connection.

Community energy groups take various forms.

Read more: Earth may temporarily pass dangerous 1.5℃ warming limit by 2024, major new report says

Hepburn Wind and the Goulburn Solar Farm, for example, involve a community investment model in which local groups develop a project, then seek investors from the community to fund it.

This might involve forming a cooperative, or selling shares in the venture. The community organisation may take responsibility for delivering the project – including design, installation, and management – or may outsource this to an external company.

A second model involves raising money through donations, either via crowd-sourcing platforms or traditional means. The money is usually spent on installing a sustainable energy system at a local premises. For example in north-east Victoria, a First Nations-owned renewable energy project will deliver solar power to the office of a state government agency.

The third type of project involves a group of households coming together to find a renewable energy solution, such as bulk-buying solar energy.

What are the benefits?

Community-owned renewable energy projects are a great way for everyday people to get involved in the transition to a low-carbon future. The benefits include:

• local job creation and economic development

• returns on investment for community shareholders

• increased energy security, helping communities to avoid blackouts

• more affordable energy

• the creation of funds to reinvest in other community projects. For example in Scotland, dividends from renewables developments have been invested in electric public transport and local skills development

• community building, in which towns develop a stronger identity, participate in communal activities and make collective decisions about their future.

Empowering the community

The energy transformation is not just about moving from fossil fuels to renewables. It’s also about changing who is responsible for, and benefits from, our energy system.

Inevitably, those in power, such as existing energy generators and their political supporters, will resist such change.

Read more: ‘The good, the bad and the ugly’: here’s the lowdown on Australia’s low-emissions roadmap

We’ve seen this play out in Australia, which has triggered more than a decade of climate policy inaction. More recently, the Morrison government has pushed ahead with a plan for a “gas-fired” economic recovery, despite the harm this will cause to our emissions reduction efforts. These developments are clearly at odds with community support for action on climate change.

Traditionally, communities are often shut out of decision making on energy projects, including renewables. Communities often become dependent on both local political representation to voice their views, and the capacity of energy network operators to work with them.

Communities must be empowered to take part in planning, and have ownership of projects. Our research, soon to be published, shows such empowerment involves helping communities develop the capacity and power to meet their own energy goals. This means developing new skills, working together and becoming equal decision makers.

Governments are central to this by helping communities deliver projects. The Victorian government’s Community Power Hubs are a good example. At three “hubs” – in Ballarat, Bendigo and the Latrobe Valley – various types of energy projects were implemented. Each sought to build local knowledge of, and participation in, community energy, and ensured the benefits stayed in the region.

Looking ahead

Australia’s growing community energy movement shows us what’s possible, but it needs more government support, especially at the federal level. Helen Haines’ proposal is a very good start.

The energy transformation will require massive investment, and most projects will be built in regional communities.

Empowering community energy is the ideal way to provide some of that investment, build stronger rural economies and ensure the benefits of the energy transformation are shared by all.

– ref. People power: everyday Australians are building their own renewables projects, and you can too – https://theconversation.com/people-power-everyday-australians-are-building-their-own-renewables-projects-and-you-can-too-146885

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Warburton, Pro Vice-Chancellor Academic Innovation (Acting), University of New England

We are increasingly becoming digital bystanders, continually monitoring our different palm-and-TV-sized screens. From dawn to dusk and even in moments of insomnia we turn to digitally communicated news and social media. In the world of education, from primary school to university and beyond, we have realised digital learning is not only an option for learning, but is fast becoming the main option.

Consider this vignette: during the COVID-19 pandemic a family are living in a big city where access to stable digital streams and affordable data bundles is not a problem. Confined to long periods of school learning now moved online, one of the parents asked their daughter about her experience. She says:

It is boring and I learn almost nothing. Teachers give a lot of instructions with little explanation.

She had became a digital bystander. The teacher struggled to engage with all students, and few experienced rich interactions with the teacher.

In the digital world it is not simply about learning the skills (digital self-help manuals and videos are plentiful). Many teachers and professors still argue that a face-to-face experience is more authentic than digitally mediated learning.

The growth of MOOCs (massive online open courses) in recent years has challenged this view. These have gained traction as both free educational offerings and significant business opportunities based on short courses.

Time for a change of mindset

So how do we accommodate this changing digital world? Historically, when railway travel arrived, looking at the world through a window as it sped by was an unnerving experience. So, too, was the fear of being part of or witnessing a railway accident. It took people time to catch up and change their mindsets.

The same is true of digitally driven change in education. We cannot take time out from change. What is required is “reflection in action”, as Donald Schon put it, to work out how to adjust to changes.

When we consider our vignette, how can we win the hearts and minds of students and teachers to ensure they both perceive and experience learning online as meaningful and transformative? Is this a question of challenging the traditional mindset described above?

By exploring the ways in which face-to-face learning is translated into online learning, we can start to identify a series of approaches on a spectrum from simple technological substitution to more radical redefinitions of teaching. In this model of substitution, augmentation, modification and redefinition, we tend to find many educators remain firmly rooted in using technology to replace what they already do in the classroom. As a result, the human essence of the teaching experience is lost when mediated via a digital interface.

An example here might be the distribution of electronic classnotes to replace the course textbook. The result is a learning setting that’s clunky compared to the day-to-day user experience of the internet. The mismatch exemplified here in the transition from the physical classroom to online is often not well managed.

A learner’s experiences of the digital education space can be dramatically different to the seamless and frictionless user experiences of a social internet. Within a paradigm of replacement versus reinvention, we have a natural gap between the experiences of teachers and students.

A need for inclusive design for online

Neither better access to technology nor more training to use digital systems will bridge this gap. This is a design gap. In recognising this, the solution becomes more straightforward – there is an absolute need to “design for online”, as Cathy Stone persuasively argues.

But this design cannot be the sole responsibility of the teacher. We need to bring together multiple perspectives and skills, including those of teachers, students and technologists, to co-design learning experiences.

No longer is the teacher the sole voice of authority. All contribute: the teacher skilled in curriculum, the student understanding what it means to be supported and motivated to learn, and the technologist sharing modes of digital delivery.

There are then no digital bystanders – all have agency as designers. As Herbert A. Simon once said, anyone who is engaged in “changing existing situations into preferred ones” is a designer.

There is no global template for designing for online learning. Each time we come together – the teacher, student, technologist – we form a new community with a shared discourse. This is a reflective and democratic space that allows us to act with consideration and respect for the skills and knowledge of others.

With historical hindsight, we will do well to reconsider what the railway journey offered: the ability to visually reflect upon and design a personal world without leaving the carriage. With the digital production of teaching and learning, we too are now called upon to reflect upon and design a world of learning without leaving our seat in front of a digital screen.

– ref. In a world of digital bystanders the challenge is for all of us to design engaging online education – https://theconversation.com/in-a-world-of-digital-bystanders-the-challenge-is-for-all-of-us-to-design-engaging-online-education-147195

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bruce Mountain, Director, Victoria Energy Policy Centre, Victoria University

The record A$8.5 million fine imposed on iSelect in Australia for false and misleading conduct confirms the appalling state of the commercial price-comparison market.

The company promises to help consumers save money by cutting through the confusing pricing structures in energy, home insurance, credit cards and phone plans, among other markets.

But between November 2016 and December 2018, iSelect has admitted it misled customers shopping for the cheapest electricity deal. It claimed it recommended the most suitable or competitive plan, based on comparing all plans offered by its retail partners. This was not the case.

“In fact, about 38% of people who compared electricity plans with iSelect at that time may have found a cheaper plan if they had shopped around or used the government’s comparison site,” said the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission’s chairman, Rod Sims, last week.

Commercial arrangements with partner retailers restricted the number of plans retailers could upload, so the plans iSelect recommended were not necessarily the most suitable or competitive.

The company has also admitted it failed to adequately disclose cheaper plans were only available via its call centre, not through its online service. As well, it underestimated the price of plans recommended to almost 5,000 consumers (though in error, rather than deliberately).

This is not the first time iSelect has run afoul of the consumer watchdog. In 2007 the ACCC took it to task over misleading representations about the range of health insurance policies it compared.

The penalty it is now paying for false and misleading conduct in the energy-comparison market points to a systemic problem requiring regulation.

How commissions can corrupt

Failures in the price-comparison market have been clear for years.

In January 2019 I compared the offers of Australia’s two biggest energy providers (Origin Energy and Energy Australia) made through the commercial comparison sites, with those available to customers directly from the retailers themselves.

That analysis was made possible by new rules requiring all electricity retailers in New South Wales, southeast Queensland and South Australia to publish every offer available to new customers on the Australian Energy Regulator’s Energy Made Easy price comparison website.

What I found: offers from Origin Energy and Energy Australia through commercial price-comparison sites were 5-12% higher.

Read more: New regulations expose energy price gouging through ‘free’ comparison sites

The problem, as I wrote at the time, is that commercial comparison sites make their money from commissions (or referral fees) for every new customer steered a retailer’s way.

But providing better deals to consumers may bite the hand that feeds: retailers can be expected to be willing to pay higher commissions for customers that pay higher prices. Commercial comparison sites therefore have an incentive to provide the appearance – but not necessarily the reality – of a competitive market.

The consumer watchdog’s investigation and the Federal Court’s decision suggests this speculation was well-founded.

Savings not being realised

In research published in May, my colleague Kelly Burns and I have found more evidence of questionable consumer benefits.

We analysed more than 47,000 electricity bills voluntarily uploaded by Victorians to the state government’s price-comparison website between July and December 2018.

Customers that switched retailers in the previous 12 months reduced their bills, on average, by just 4% compared to customers that didn’t switch. Had they found the cheapeast available deals when they switched, they could have reduced their bills on average by a further 21%.

Though we don’t know what percentage of those switchers consulted a commercial price comparison website, it’s reasonable to assume many would have, with the actual benefits less than promised, and missing many of the best deals in the market.

We also found that consumers, even if correctly advised on the best deal available at the time, may be better off in the long run with a different deal. This is a particular challenge for price comparison.

Nor does the price-comparison market do a good job rating attributes such as consistency, customer service and environmental performance, which switchers may also value as factors alongside price.

Read more: Victorians who switched energy retailers only save $45 a year – leaving hundreds on the table

Mandate a code of practice

Commission-based price comparison need not be problematic. It is the most common form of price comparison in Australia and elsewhere. But we suggest a mandatory code of practice for price comparison would go a long way to fixing the evident problems.

Price comparison websites can play a useful role if consumers can be confident they deliver on what they promise. This means their advice should be accurate, unbiased and comprehensive. Most importantly, they should be clear about how retailers reward them if customers act on their recommendations.

Read more: If you need a PhD to read your power bill, buying wisely is all but impossible

As the consumer watchdog noted last week, it recommended a mandatory code of practice in its review of the electricity industry in 2018. Maybe now governments will act.

In the meantime, take the ACCC’s advice and use the publicly-funded price comparison websites in addition or instead.

– ref. You can’t trust the price-comparison market, as iSelect’s $8.5 million fine shows – https://theconversation.com/you-cant-trust-the-price-comparison-market-as-iselects-8-5-million-fine-shows-147840

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kevin Davis, Professor of Finance, University of Melbourne

The budget plan to scrap Australia’s decade-old responsible lending obligations warrants detailed examination.

It is hard to see how the stated reasons for easing what’s asked of banks and other lenders make much sense, and the timing is strange.

Introduced in 2009, the responsible lending obligations made it illegal to offer credit that was unsuitable for a consumer based on their needs and capacity to make payments.

In the leadup to last week’s budget Treasurer Josh Frydenberg announced plans to dismantle a regime he said had become “overly prescriptive, complex and unnecessarily onerous on consumers”.

“Now more than ever,” he said, it had become important there were “no unnecessary barriers” to the flow of credit to households and business.

But, if well designed, responsible lending obligations ought to be largely irrelevant to responsible lenders. They take account of needs and capacity to repay anyway.

The standards don’t hurt responsible lending

Their merit lies in restraining “bad apples” and preventing the good ones from letting loan standards slip and permitting lax management to allow bad practices.

The Hayne Royal Commission into the financial services industry chastised banks and others for misconduct when it came to lending. The banks say they have listened and implemented better practices.

They probably have, which should mean the minimum standards embodied in responsible lending obligations make little difference to them.

Read more: It’s about to become easier to lend irresponsibly, to help the recovery

Another of Hayne’s recommendations, that would have outlawed conflicted remuneration for mortgage brokers, was rejected by the government in favour of a best interests obligation along the lines of the responsible lending obligations for lenders that it wants to remove.

The timing is odd

The timing of the responsible lending obligations decision is hard to justify.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission spent much of 2019 consulting on a review of its responsible lending guidelines and released a new version in December.

Then in June it lost an appeal in the long-running “Wagyu and Shiraz” case in which it attempted to prosecute Westpac for relying on general borrower expense benchmarks.

If anything, that should have somewhat settled bank concerns that the responsible lending obligations required too much of them.

Banks such as Westpac are no longer required to rely on detailed examination of an applicant’s past expenditure levels when assessing whether payments can be met.

In the words of Justice Perram of the Federal Court, “I may eat Wagyu beef everyday washed down with the finest shiraz but, if I really want my new home, I can make do on much more modest fare”.

Instead banks will be able to focus on whether applicants are willing to forgo discretionary spending (on things such as school fees) in order to obtain the loan size required for buying an otherwise unaffordable house.

The change will put some of the onus of assessing loan suitability back on the borrower, which is what the Treasurer says he wants.

They ought to be becoming less burdensome

It might be that the responsible lending obligations impose excessive assessment costs on the banks. And the extra work for applicants to provide the required information might dissuade them from applying.

But with the recent introduction of open banking allowing banks to access applicants’ data with their permission, and “fintechs” developing products to cost-effectively mine that data, it seems likely that loan assessment costs (including meeting responsible lending obligations) are likely to decline.

If costs are the issue, why change the rules in the midst of a cost-reducing revolution?

And they ought to have stopped bad loans

Another argument has been that abolishing responsible lending obligations will facilitate growth in lending.

Maybe – but not permanently without increasing unsuitable lending. Responsible lending obligations may slow the approval process but could only have reduced the level of loans on issue if one or both of two conditions apply:

• the information-supply requirements (gathering of which should help applicants understand their borrowing capacity) have dissuaded potential applicants, meaning removing them would allow more poorly-informed borrowers to take out loans

• the obligations have led to banks lending less to unsuitable borrowers, meaning removing them will encourage more lending to unsuitable borrowers

Another argument, that the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority can police and enforce good lending behaviour ignores the fact that APRA’s remit relates to credit risk and safety of the banks.

It has no mandate for (nor expertise in) considering whether borrowers will be put into financial hardship by loan obligations.

– ref. None of the justifications for weakening bank lending standards quite makes sense – https://theconversation.com/none-of-the-justifications-for-weakening-bank-lending-standards-quite-makes-sense-147843

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Smith, Senior Lecturer in Music, University of New England

A child’s toy may seem like an unlikely candidate for the classical concert hall. Around the world, however, thousands of musicians gather every year for festivals, conferences and concerts dedicated to the toy piano.

Exploring its sound, range, and playing technique, these composers and performers congregate to talk about latest developments in toy piano music and perform new pieces.

Along with many festivals in the US and Germany, Italy and Korea have both held their first toy piano festival in recent years.

Pop artists such as Bruno Mars and groups such as Coldplay have brought a larger audience to what was once considered a niche and experimental use of the instrument. Search “toy piano” or “tiny piano” on Twitter or Facebook and you’ll find countless posts featuring performers and composers using or discussing the instrument.

Read more: Jamming with your toddler: how music trumps reading for childhood development

Serious music with a playful spin

Toy pianos, despite being designed and marketed to children and families, have been used for decades to write everything from concertos to pop songs.

French composer Yann Tiersen used one prominently in his score to the 2001 film Amélie to represent the title character’s inner child.

Neil Diamond’s song, Shilo, is one of the earliest pop songs to feature toy piano (you can hear it in the bridge at about the 2:28 mark here).

And John Cage’s 1940s suite for toy piano, where he took all the seriousness of writing for the piano and put a playful spin on it, came at a crucial moment in the mid-20th century; hard borders of the musical arts, which reached a limit of seriousness in the 1920s and 1930s, had started to break down.

This mixing of traditional “high music” with artefacts that might be considered juvenile, populist, naff, or domestic, was becoming more common — and more exciting.

Play and experimentation

Toy pianos typically have a range of 12-36 keys, roughly one quarter the range of a full piano (though there are smaller and larger examples, too).

These acoustic instruments are made from a wood or plastic frame. They produce a bell-like sound when a small hammer hits a tube or flat piece of metal inside.

Unlike a typical piano, toy pianos are rarely tuned to perfection and can sound a bit off to the ear but many can’t help but be charmed by their tiny size, variety of colours and quirky inconsistent plonking.

With its history and connection to ideas of childhood, this instrument is commonly used to musically convey a sense of innocence and nostalgia.

Traditionally, art music composition can be very prescriptive and confined. The traditional conservatorium or university composition class teaches the rules of writing — what you can and cannot do with an instrument — but something about the toy piano invites play and experimentation.

Every toy piano is different

Unlike many instruments used for composing, the toy piano is not standardised around the world.

There are dozens of makers who use different techniques and different materials giving every toy piano a unique sound, range, and register. This makes writing music for the piano a bit random — but for many of us, therein lies the fun.

If you write a piece of music for the toy piano and if a performer in another part of the world has enough keys on their instrument, they can play your piece in their own special way. It’s like a singer using their own unique voice to cover a song.

The composer gives up some control, which contrasts sharply with romantic and and modernist-era ideas that positioned the composer as a genius whose works should never be altered.

Many composers end up collecting toy pianos, which gives them a variety of sounds to play with. Australian composer Elena Kats-Chernin became known as the toy piano lady at a Sydney toy store after buying eight in a row. I’m up to a modest five and am resisting buying my sixth.

Toy piano specialists are becoming more common as performers and composers in demand.

Italian specialist Antonietta Loffredo has performed several times in Australia and released many recordings with the Australian art music label Wirripang. You can hear her recordings of works by Australian composers on Spotify here.

Margaret Leng Tan, a toy instrument virtuoso with many commissions and dedications to her name, was due to perform with toy piano at the Sydney Opera House this year but the concert was postponed due to COVID-19.

As Margaret Leng Tan herself puts it:

I remain wholeheartedly intrigued by the toy piano’s magical overtones, hypnotic charm, and not least, its off-key poignancy. In the words of author John David Morley, “Sound combed from the keys of a stairway ascending faintly into sleep”. My composer-friends were similarly beguiled and driven to frenzied heights of creativity by this modest little instrument.

Escaping a rigid world

Artists are always looking for new ways to challenge and surprise audiences. What is and isn’t accepted on the concert stage is constantly shifting and the rise of the toy piano suggests that we are ready to welcome new sounds and new instruments into the relatively closed world of classical music.

To many composers, the toy piano offers more than a symbolic representation of childhood — it provides an exciting escape from the strict and rigid world of formal contemporary art music.

Read more: From the First Fleet to Changi, Australia’s pianos have a long history

– ref. How toy pianos went from child’s play into classical concert halls – https://theconversation.com/how-toy-pianos-went-from-childs-play-into-classical-concert-halls-146206

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

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian has admitted having a secret intimate relationship with disgraced former MP Daryl Maguire, which she only ended recently, despite his being forced to quit state parliament in 2018.

Berejiklian’s explosive appearance on Monday at the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption saw her personal life embarrassingly exposed, her political reputation thrown under a cloud, and her future put on the line.

ICAC, which is investigating whether Maguire sought to monetise his position as an MP between 2012 and 2018, heard damaging taped phones conversations between him and Berejiklian in which he spoke extensively of his lobbying on behalf of developers. He also talked about his concerns over his huge debts, which he said amounted to $1.5 million.

Maguire, who was a parliamentary secretary and member for Wagga Wagga, was forced to quit in 2018 after an earlier ICAC inquiry, which heard recordings of him seeking payment to help broker a deal with a Chinese property developer. This prompted a byelection that the Berejiklian government lost to an independent.

The premier’s colleagues and observers of NSW politics are gobsmacked at the revelation of Berejiklian’s “close personal relationship” with Maguire. There had been no whisper until her disclosure of it on Monday morning.

The relationship began in 2015 and lasted until after she gave evidence privately to ICAC in August.

After her evidence, Berejiklian told a news conference late Monday: “I stuffed up in my personal life”. But she said she wouldn’t consider resigning from her position because she had done nothing wrong.

She said she had trusted Maguire, whom she had known for 15 years, but she had not told her family or friends of their relationship because it didn’t have “sufficient status”.

Berejiklian said she had sacked Maguire from the Liberal party and engaged others to press him to leave parliament. But she hadn’t broken with him earlier because he was “in a very dark place”. “I didn’t feel that I could stop being his friend during that time, rightly or wrongly, on compassionate grounds.”

She told reporters she always applied the “highest level of integrity” in doing her public job.

The phone taps indicated Maguire was considering whether to resign at the 2019 election if he was in a financial position to do so. Berejiklian admitted to the hearing that she had thought if that happened, they could be in a position to make their relationship public.

In one of their phone conversations, Berejiklian said to Maguire: “You will always be my numero uno.” She told the hearing this showed “in my personal life I placed importance on how I felt about him”.

Berejiklian repeatedly stressed to the hearing she had taken no interest in Maguire’s financial affairs or his business activities, although he constantly referred to them in the phone conversations.

She said he was always talking about deals, but they then fell through. She always thought Maguire had made the appropriate disclosures.

On one occasion, she flagged to him that her chief of staff planned to call him to tell him a minister visiting China would raise a business matter Maguire was involved in.

In some calls she sounded anxious to distance herself from the details.

In one phone conversation, Maguire referred to “my little friend” and said, “you know my little friend?” Berejiklian replied, “Not really. I don’t need to know.”

In relation to a deal involving land owned by Louise Waterhouse, from the racing family, near Badgerys Creek, Maguire asked if she had received an email from Waterhouse. When she said no, he said, “You will, she’ll send you an email. She’s really pissed off now, you know, about the airport. They’re all passing the buck.”

In September 2017 he told her, “It looks like we finally got the Badgerys Creek stuff done … I’ll make enough money to pay off my debts, which will be good.” He added, “Can you believe it, in one sale?”

In a subsequent conversation about the deal, Berejiklian said, “I don’t need to know about that bit.”

The hearing went into private session twice to listen to tapes which were considered too private to be played publicly.

Berejiklian stressed to ICAC she would never compromise her public position: “I would never turn a blind eye to any responsibility that I had to any wrongdoing that I saw.”

She emphasised she was an independent woman with her own finances. “Anybody else’s finances would be completely immaterial to me,” she said.

He colleagues are standing by her, at least at the moment. The NSW Opposition said she should resign. Maguire gives evidence on Tuesday.

– ref. Gladys Berejiklian determined to tough out scandal of secret relationship with disgraced former MP – https://theconversation.com/gladys-berejiklian-determined-to-tough-out-scandal-of-secret-relationship-with-disgraced-former-mp-147917

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This week’s Newspoll, conducted October 8–10 from a sample of 1,527 voters, gave the Coalition a 52–48% lead over Labor in the two-party preferred question, a one-point gain for the Coalition since the previous Newspoll three weeks ago.

Primary votes were 44% Coalition (up one), 34% Labor (steady), 11% Greens (down one) and 3% One Nation (steady).

Prime Minister Scott Morrison remained very popular: 65% were satisfied with his performance and 31% were dissatisfied, for a net approval of +34. These figures are unchanged from the last poll.

Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese’s net approval slid three percentage points to -4. His net approval is down six points since late August. Morrison led as better PM by 57-28% (compared to 59-27% three weeks ago).

Newspoll asks three questions after each budget: whether the budget was good or bad for the economy, whether it was good or bad for you personally, and whether the opposition would have delivered a better budget.

On the economy, 42% said the budget was good and 20% bad. When it came to people’s personal fortunes, 26% said they would be better off after the budget, compared to 23% who said worse off. By 49-33%, respondents said Labor would not have delivered a better budget.

Analyst Kevin Bonham tweeted a graph showing this budget performed well compared to historical budgets. The 16-point deficit for the question of whether Labor would have delivered a better budget is the worst for an opposition since 2009.

The one-point gain for the Coalition on people’s voting intentions is also consistent with a well-received budget.

Australian state polls: Victoria and WA

A Victorian Morgan SMS poll, conducted September 29-30 from a sample of 2,220 voters, gave Labor a 51.5-48.5% lead over the Coalition, unchanged from mid-September.

Primary votes were 39% Labor (up two), 39.5% Coalition (up one) and 10% Greens (down two). Morgan’s SMS polls have been unreliable in the past.

In a forced choice, Premier Daniel Andrews had a 61-39% approval rating, down from 70-30% in early September.

Three weeks ago, Newspoll gave Andrews a 62-35% approval rating (compared to 57-37% in late July).

An Utting Research poll of five Western Australian marginal seats showed an average swing to Labor of 16%. In Liberal leader Liza Harvey’s Scarborough seat, the result was 66-34% to Labor.

Labor had a big victory at the March 2017 state election, and this poll suggests a Liberal wipe-out at the next election, due in March 2021.

Biden’s national lead over Trump exceeds ten points

In the FiveThirtyEight national poll aggregate, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden now leads President Donald Trump by 10.4% (52.2–41.9%). It’s somewhat closer in the key swing states, with Biden leading by 8.0% in Michigan, 7.3% in Pennsylvania, 7.2% in Wisconsin, 4.5% in Florida and 3.9% in Arizona.

Since my article about Trump’s coronavirus infection and the first presidential debate, Biden’s national lead has increased by 1.4%.

With Pennsylvania and Wisconsin now polling very closely, both can be seen as “tipping point” states. Previously, Pennsylvania had been better for Trump than Wisconsin.

The gap in Trump’s favour between the national vote and the tipping-point states of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania has increased from 2.4% to 3.2%. If Trump were within five points nationally, this election would be highly competitive. But this difference isn’t going to matter with Biden up ten points nationally.

CNN analyst Harry Enten says Biden is polling better than any challenger against an incumbent president since 1936, when scientific polling started.

US polls include undecided voters, so it is hard for candidates to reach 50%. In 2016, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton never reached that mark in polls, and Trump was able to win far more of the late deciders.

The FiveThirtyEight forecast gives Trump a 14% chance to win, down from 17% last week. Trump has just a 6% chance to win the popular vote.

The Senate forecast gives Democrats a 72% chance to win the Senate, up from 70% last Wednesday. The most likely Senate outcome is still a narrow 51-49 Democratic majority.

– ref. Coalition gains in Newspoll after budget; Trump falls further behind Biden – https://theconversation.com/coalition-gains-in-newspoll-after-budget-trump-falls-further-behind-biden-147916

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

Many Melburnians have despaired in recent days as it became clear the next step on its roadmap out of lockdown will be taken a bit later than originally planned, or in smaller steps.

That’s because Victoria is unlikely to meet the threshold needed to clear a key hurdle in the roadmap: a 14-day state-wide average of less than five new daily cases (and less than five cases with an unknown source in the last 14 days).

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews said on Monday the 14-day rolling average for metropolitan Melbourne was 9.9; for regional Victoria, the figure is 0.4.

The focus, for some time, has been on new daily case numbers. But what if we are looking at the wrong figure?

I’d argue that a useful alternative number we should focus more closely on is the average number of cases “under investigation” over the last 14 days. And on this measure, I think Melbourne is ready to move to step 3 in the roadmap out of lockdown, allowing Melburnians in general a greater degree of freedom, while still empowering authorities to ring-fence localised outbreaks.

Read more: 4 perspectives on how Victoria should exit stage 4 lockdown

‘Under investigation’

Instead of looking at total new case count each day, we should take out the cases linked to a known source within the first 24 hours, because those people are already likely in isolation.

The focus should instead be on the cases still “under investigation”, which includes some that may turn out to be linked to a known source but also a smaller number of what authorities call “mystery cases” (where the source of infection is never identified).

The vast majority of cases now are linked to a known outbreak; this suggests a good understanding of the “shape” of the outbreak, and good control. The number of “under investigation” cases each day has been low.

In fact, if you look only at the “under investigation” cases, it is already at about five a day on average, over the past 14 days.

I think it’s time to look at that number instead, as it is a useful measure of our capacity to contain and control spread. Many of the cases that do turn out to be linked may also already be in isolation, so it is still conservative, but the number highlights the cases where there is still some work to do. If the number of “under investigation” cases remains low, on average, we should be safe to move to step 3 of the plan to emerge from lockdown.

For metropolitan Melbourne, step 3 would mean no restrictions on leaving home, public gatherings of up to ten people, visitors allowed at home from one other household (up to a maximum of five people), and all hospitality and retail open (subject to some important rules).

If the 14 day average of daily new “under investigation” cases is about five, and we are keeping mystery cases under one a day, we should be ready move to step 3 in the roadmap.

If there are any remaining concerns about wider transmission, then I would suggest possibly delaying the introduction of visitors into the home for a week or two until these remaining outbreaks are brought under control.

Concentrated responses

We have demonstrated we can contain outbreaks. Clusters have been well managed in places like Kilmore and Colac that were not under the kind of tight restrictions Melburnians now live under.

The Victorian health system is at a point now where it has the resources to have a much more rapid and comprehensive response to individual cases and clusters than it did in the past.

That puts us in a strong position to actually move away from widespread restrictions for large swathes of the population as an integral part of our outbreak control.

We can now focus on a more concentrated response, to ring-fence cases and clusters rapidly and close them down — even when the broader population is allowed greater movement. The faster contacts of a positive case (and the contact’s own contacts) are isolated, the smaller the cluster is when it is contained as people are more likely to be in isolation before they are infectious. It is then less important how extensively people in other parts of the city or state are moving around.

The goal of reaching a 14-day state-wide average of less than five new daily cases is a noble one but it is conservative.

Victoria may have struggled earlier but we are now at a point where our response tactics are world class. We should be more comfortable relying on this responsiveness now built into the system.

The virus is really now focused within essential workers in certain workplaces and and in their families. It is not as though it is spread evenly and widely across the Melbourne citizenry.

We also have moved to a focus on virus surveillance in workplaces (where we know the risk is higher) to monitor virus levels within the community, and other early warning systems that allow us to move away from blanket approaches applied to the whole Melbourne population in both outbreak detection and response.

Read more: Can a High Court challenge of Melbourne’s lockdown succeed? Here’s what the Constitution says

– ref. A 14-day rolling average of 5 new daily cases is the wrong trigger for easing Melbourne lockdown. Let’s look at ‘under investigation’ cases instead – https://theconversation.com/a-14-day-rolling-average-of-5-new-daily-cases-is-the-wrong-trigger-for-easing-melbourne-lockdown-lets-look-at-under-investigation-cases-instead-147906

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacinthe Flore, Vice-Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Social and Global Studies Centre, RMIT University

The arts industry is among the most devastated by the pandemic. Artists and arts workers often rely on casual, project-based or fixed-term contracts, and COVID-19 restrictions have left many with little or no income. This has affected the mental health of many working in the arts.

In August, we set out to learn more about the impact of the arts shutdown on workers’ emotional and mental health. While statistics might present data on the scale of lost work or income, qualitative accounts of people’s personal experiences are revealing. So far 28 Victorian performers, writers, teachers, and those in technical or support roles, have provided detailed responses.

Emerging themes include how the pandemic has made unsteady work even more precarious; how community and identity are interrelated; how online performances and connections are far from a cure-all; and, ultimately, workers are on the verge of giving up on their artistic dreams.

Read more: The government says artists should be able to access JobKeeper payments. It’s not that simple

Insecurity is standard — the pandemic made it worse

Australian arts workers are familiar with the precarity of creative work. But the pandemic challenges this “normal uncertainty”.

With suddenly empty schedules and an interruption to seasonal work patterns, arts workers have lost the structures and routines that provided rhythm — and mental stability — to their lives. As a stage manager commented:

The performing arts and events are defined by constant, tangible deadlines. All of the structures in my life are built around the presence of this pressure. To have it suddenly and totally removed threw my entire world into disarray.

Creative community and identity are tied to mental health

Mental health challenges are linked to collective, not just individual, experiences. One production manager told us:

Watching all my fellow artists … descend into depression has taken its toll on me … For my own mental health, I have had to funnel certain exposure to the outside world and social media.

Physical restrictions isolated participants from supportive peers. A production technician from the LGBTI community shared:

Being separated from the community that loves and supports me has definitely compounded what I’m feeling.

Read more: Like the care economy, arts and culture are an opportunity missed in the 2020-21 budget

Digital work offers (limited) opportunities

Some had shifted their creative work, teaching and performances online. Others struggled to make their live events digital. One theatre performer distinguished between these modes:

It is important to me that (theatre) remains what it is: live. I have taught and developed shows online, all through Zoom. It has been challenging but gets easier over time.

While some performers and artists were adept enough to shift their practice online and work from home, workers in technical or administrative roles were often left out of this transition.

However, some technical workers have used online resources to further develop skills in their field of expertise with the expectation of returning to work.

Read more: Giving it away for free – why the performing arts risks making the same mistake newspapers did

Losing hope

While numerous respondents described productive ways of working or taking a break during the restrictions, many also felt hopeless. Participants said they were worried about their skills “becoming rusty” or being “past (their) prime”. They oscillated between feeling hopeless and resigned to the devastating impact of the pandemic.

Feeling powerless to control what was happening in their lives and communities contributed to poor mental health. One respondent, who worked as a teacher, performer and music producer said:

These feelings have become more pronounced since the second lockdown … feeling a strong disconnection from community (creative or otherwise) … I feel despair over the state of the arts sector and how this will impact the rest of society.

Living with uncertainty and loss of hope, arts workers are waiting to see what happens next. A visual artist wrote:

I expect to see the damage in the next year as some things return to normal, while other parts of life will be damaged forever.

Read more: Artists shouldn’t have to endlessly demonstrate their value. Coalition leaders used to know it

Towards recovery

Repairing the already suffering arts industry is an opportunity to boost the creative and economic “health” of the sector, but also the mental health of those who work in it.

Analysis of the sector prior to the pandemic shows there is not one solution. With promises of confusing or inappropriate government funding packages and schemes, many respondents found it difficult to see a way out.

Read more: Too little, too late, too confusing? The funding criteria for the arts COVID package is a mess

A global crisis such as COVID-19 prompts a re-think of the place of the arts. Indeed, the arts could help in recovery and support creative ways of coming together as a society after crisis.

The survey is still open to respondents and will close on 26 October. We hope it will be the first stage in a larger project to capture the experiences of arts and creative sector workers beyond Victoria.

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

– ref. ‘Parts of life will be damaged forever’ — arts workers describe the pandemic’s impact on their mental health – https://theconversation.com/parts-of-life-will-be-damaged-forever-arts-workers-describe-the-pandemics-impact-on-their-mental-health-147252

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luke Beck, Associate Professor of Constitutional Law, Monash University

Just days after Victorian Premier Dan Andrews signalled the state won’t be ready for a major loosening of COVID-19 restrictions next week as planned, a legal challenge is expected to be filed in the High Court to force the government to act more quickly.

The Age reports prominent Melbourne hotelier Julian Gerner is launching the challenge against Melbourne’s strict lockdown and has hired leading barristers Bret Walker SC and Michael Wyles QC to represent him.

Gerner argues the restrictions on people’s movements beyond five kilometres from their homes, as well as the need to have a permit to travel to work, are a disproportionate response to the coronavirus threat and violate the implied freedom of movement in the Constitution to undertake personal, family, recreational and commercial endeavours.

This is a bold argument. The High Court has never accepted the Constitution protects freedom of movement within states.

How does this case differ from Clive Palmer’s case?

Clive Palmer is currently challenging Western Australia’s tough border closure, arguing it contravenes section 92 of the Constitution, which says

trade, commerce and intercourse among the states … shall be absolutely free.

Palmer is challenging restrictions on movement across state boundaries on the basis of an express provision of the Constitution.

By contrast, Gerner is challenging restrictions on movement within a single state on the basis of an implication he says can be found in the Constitution, rather than on any express provision.

Read more: WA border challenge: why states, not courts, need to make the hard calls during health emergencies

How can freedoms be “implied” into the Constitution?

The Constitution expressly protects only a few freedoms in Australia, such as trial by jury for federal indictable offences and a narrow guarantee of freedom of religion.

Laws are considered invalid if they contradict the express terms of the Constitution such as these. But laws can also be ruled invalid if they impede the functioning of systems set up by the Constitution. This is how “implied” freedoms arise.

Read more: Is protesting during the pandemic an ‘essential’ right that should be protected?

The most prominent example is the implied freedom of political communication. There is nothing in the Constitution saying expressly that Australians have freedom of political communication.

But the Constitution does expressly say parliamentarians must be “chosen by the people”.

This guarantee is vital because it provides for an implied freedom of expression on matters relating to politics and government. If this freedom didn’t exist, then the people would not be able to freely choose their parliamentarians.

Using this logic, the High Court has ruled restrictions on the freedom of political communication are invalid because they impede the functioning of the political system set up by the Constitution.

For example, the High Court has struck down NSW laws that banned unions from making political donations to the state Labor Party because it limited the ability of the party to run political advertising.

What has the High Court said about freedom of movement?

Freedom of movement for the purposes of freedom of political communication — for example, to take part in a protest — would be protected by the Constitution, as part of the implied freedom of political communication.

However, Gerner seems to be arguing the Constitution protects freedom of movement more generally.

Individual justices have agreed with this idea in the past. In the 1970s and ‘80s, High Court Justice Lionel Murphy said in a number of cases he believed the Constitution guarantees freedom of movement generally.

Read more: States are shutting their borders to stop coronavirus. Is that actually allowed?

For example, Murphy said in a 1986 case that freedom of movement “in and between every part” of Australia is fundamental to a democratic society and necessary for the operation of the federal government and state constitutions. Murphy also said that freedom of movement is

a necessary corollary of the concept of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Justice Mary Gaudron said something similar in a 1992 case:

The notion of a free society governed in accordance with the principles of representative parliamentary democracy may entail freedom of movement.

However, a majority of the High Court has never accepted there is an implied freedom of movement in the Constitution.

What happens next?

Two hurdles need to be overcome for Gerner’s challenge to succeed.

First, he would need to persuade the High Court the Constitution really does protect freedom of movement generally. This won’t be easy.

Second, he needs to persuade the High Court the Melbourne lockdown is a disproportionate limitation on freedom of movement. This may require a separate hearing in a lower court to hear expert public health evidence about what is necessary to protect public health.

This kind of separate hearing happened in Palmer’s WA border closure case. This will take some time.

There is also the possibility the Victorian government will relax the lockdown just before any High Court hearing starts.

This is what happened after a legal challenge was filed with the Victorian Supreme Court arguing Melbourne’s curfew was imposed without following the correct legal procedure.

The government abolished the curfew the day before the case was due to start. Its lawyers showed up to court arguing the case should not go ahead because the issue was now merely hypothetical.

While it is not beyond the realm of possibility, Gerner faces formidable obstacles to succeed with his challenge. I wouldn’t be holding my breath the High Court declares the existence of an implied freedom of movement anytime soon.

– ref. Can a High Court challenge of Melbourne’s lockdown succeed? Here’s what the Constitution says – https://theconversation.com/can-a-high-court-challenge-of-melbournes-lockdown-succeed-heres-what-the-constitution-says-147904

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mayuri Wijayasundara, Lecturer, Deakin University

Face masks are part of our daily lives during the pandemic. Many are made from plastics and designed to be used just once, which means thousands of tonnes of extra waste going to landfill.

Masks may help stop the spread of the coronavirus. But according to one estimate, if everyone in the United Kingdom used a single-use mask each day for a year, it would create 66,000 tonnes of contaminated waste and 57,000 tonnes of plastic packaging.

Evidence also suggests masks may be a source of harmful microplastic fibres on land and in waterways and litter.

So let’s look at how face masks might be designed to cause minimal harm to the environment, while still doing their job – and which type is best for you.

Circular thinking

China is the world’s biggest face mask manufacturer. Its daily output of face masks reportedly reached 116 million units in February this year. That creates a big waste management problem around the world.

One way to address this is to adopt “circular design” principles. This thinking seeks to reduce waste and pollution through product design, keep products and materials in use, and regenerate natural systems.

Read more: Which face mask should I wear?

When it comes to face masks, the three common types are cloth, surgical and N95. N95 masks offer the highest level of protection, blocking about 95% of airborne particles. Cloth masks are designed to be used more than once, while surgical and N-95 masks are usually intended for single use.

Face masks may consist of one or more layers, each with different functions:

• an outermost layer, designed to repel liquids such as water
• the innermost layer, which absorbs moisture and allows comfort and breathability
• a non-absorbent middle layer, to filter particles.

Each type of mask is made of different materials and used in varying settings:

– N95 masks: These are designed to protect the wearer from 95% of airborne particles and are largely worn by health workers. N95 masks are designed to fit closely to the face and are usually worn only once. N95 masks comprise:

• a strap (polyisoprene)
• staples (steel)
• nose foam (polyurethane)
• nose clip (aluminum)
• filter (polypropylene)
• valve diaphragm (polyisoprene).

– Surgical masks: These are designed to protect sterile environments from the wearer, acting as barrier to droplets or aerosols. Generally intended as single-use items, they comprise mostly polypropylene between two layers of non-woven fabric.

– Cloth masks: These types of masks are worn by the general public. Some are homemade from fabric scraps or old clothing. They may be wholly reusable, or partially reusable with replaceable filters that must be disposed of.

These masks typically comprise an outer layer of polyester or polypropylene (or in some cases, cotton), and an inner layer designed for breathability and comfort – usually cotton or a cotton-polyester blend.

Research suggests cloth masks are less effective at filtering particles than medical masks, but may may give some protection if well-fitted and properly designed. Health advice is available to help guide their use.

Designing for a healthier environment

It’s important to note that any attempt to redesign face masks must ensure they offer adequate protection to the wearer. Where masks are used in a medical setting, design changes must also meet official standards such as barrier efficiency, breathing capacity and fire resistance.

With this in mind, reducing the environmental harm caused by masks could be done in several ways:

– Design with more reusable parts

Evidence suggests reusable cloth masks perform almost as well as single-use masks, but without the associated waste. Once life cycle assessment conducted in the UK found masks that could be washed and reused were the best option for the environment. Reusable masks with replaceable filters were the second-best option.

The study also found having a higher number of masks in rotation to allow for machine washing was better for the environment than manual washing.

– Make masks easier to dispose of or recyle

In high-risk settings such as hospitals and clinics, the reuse of masks may not be possible or desirable, meaning they must be disposed of. In medical settings, there are systems in place for disposal of such protective gear, which usually involves segregation and incineration.

But the general public must dispose of masks themselves. Because masks usually comprise different materials, this can be complicated. For example, recovering the components of a N-95 mask for recycling would involve putting the straps, nose foam, filter and valve in one bin and the metal staples and nose clip in another. And some recyclers may see mask recycling as a health risk. These difficulties mean masks often end up in landfill.

Masks would be easier to recycle if the were made of fewer materials and were easy to disassemble.

– Use biodegradable materials

For single-use items, placing synthetics with biodegradable materials would be a first step in circular design thinking.

The abaca plant, a relative of the banana tree, offers one potential option. Its leaf fibre reportedly repels water better than traditional face masks, is as strong as polymer and decomposes within two months. Most abaca is currently produced in the Philippines.

Which mask should you choose?

From a purely environmental perspective, research suggests owning multiple reusable face masks, and machine-washing them together, is the best option. Using filters with reusable face masks is a second-best option.

But when choosing a mask, consider where you will wear it. Unless cloth masks are shown to be as effective as other masks, health-care workers should not use them. But they may be suitable in low-risk everyday settings.

In the longer term, governments and manufacturers must make every effort to design masks that will not harm the planet – and consumers should demand this. Face masks will probably be ubiquitous on our streets for months to come. But once the pandemic is over, the environmental legacy may last for decades, if not centuries.

Read more: Cloth masks do protect the wearer – breathing in less coronavirus means you get less sick

– ref. Millions of face masks are being thrown away during COVID-19. Here’s how to choose the best one for the planet – https://theconversation.com/millions-of-face-masks-are-being-thrown-away-during-covid-19-heres-how-to-choose-the-best-one-for-the-planet-147787

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Clare Corbould, Associate Professor of History, Deakin University

Who turns out to vote, who stays at home, and who mails or drops in a ballot are all likely to play a significant role in the outcome of the US presidential election. Race and racism are important in motivating and suppressing voters.

Unlike in Australia and a handful of other democracies, voting in the United States is voluntary. People have to be motivated to vote, whether in person or by mail.

But with the public polarised and tribal, it is extremely difficult to convert likely voters away from their long-term allegiances.

So candidates try to mobilise likely supporters and suppress an opponent’s. Campaign strategists intended Donald Trump’s performance in the first presidential debate would signal strength. They hoped this would appeal to white women, whose support in important states he has been losing in droves.

Trump instead signalled strongly to a white supremacist group, the Proud Boys, that he wanted their support.

Read more: The first US presidential debate was pure chaos. Here’s what our experts thought

A shameful history

Democratic theorists argue high turnout provides legitimacy for the political system by ensuring all voices are heard in democratic processes.

In practice, however, efforts to manipulate electoral participation – and specifically to suppress Black voters – have been a prominent theme in the history of American elections.

Enslaved people could not vote. After the 1860s Civil War, newly freed African Americans seized the right to vote, sending several men to represent Southern states in Congress.

But as early as the 1870s, white Americans systematically disenfranchised Black voters (and also many poor whites) through a variety of regulations — including property and education clauses. The notorious “grandfather clause” decreed men could vote only if their grandfather was also eligible to vote in the years before 1867. Violence at the ballot box kept African American men, and African American women after 1920, away for decades.

When Trump incites his followers to sign up as “election poll watchers”, he evokes this very history, which dominated Southern politics until the civil rights movement.

New ways to suppress voters

Since the movement, African American voters have selected the Democratic presidential candidate in huge majorities. As a result, new forms of suppression have emerged to stop them.

Since 2010, 25 states have introduced measures to make it harder to vote. For example, they require voters to register prior to the election and/or provide photo ID at the point of voting.

In 11 states, people convicted of felonies are banned from voting long after custodial sentences end or fines have been paid – and sometimes for life. These laws have seen 6 million adults lose the right to vote.

These methods all affect poorer and less well-educated Americans more than affluent Americans. Non-white Americans, especially African American, Native American and to a lesser extent Latino voters, have been most affected.

In Florida, where this disenfranchisement affected more than 20% of African Americans, voters overturned the ban. Republican state legislators soon found a way to ensure 775,000 people still cannot vote by deeming ineligible anyone with outstanding court fees.

In neighbouring Georgia, Republican Secretary of State Brian Kemp narrowly edged out popular Democratic challenger Stacey Abrams – who is African American – in the 2018 election for governor. His success came by ruthlessly disqualifying 53,000 voters – 70% of them African American and only 20% white – with dubious “signature matching” requirements.

Activating voters

On the flipside, both camps need to inspire their own supporters to vote, as well. African American turnout was higher in the 2018 midterms than in 2014. Joe Biden, who needs to ensure sufficient pro-Democrat and/or anti-Trump adults vote, will hope that trend continues.

African Americans have even more reasons than usual to vote. These include involvement in or proximity to the prominent Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement; the shockingly higher rates at which African Americans are contracting COVID-19 and dying; the greater economic consequences of the health crisis for African American communities; and the possibility of electing Kamala Harris as the first African American woman vice president.

Read more: Trump is struggling against two invisible enemies: the coronavirus and Joe Biden

Biden’s eight years as Barack Obama’s vice president – and their apparently effective professional and affectionate personal relationship – may help inspire African American voters. A big question is whether the mobilisation that occurred through BLM rallies will translate into high participation by minority and young people in the election.

Trump needs to mobilise the large groups of white women who voted for him in 2016.

But recent national and key state polls suggest Trump has already lost a good proportion of white women, whether or not they have college degrees. Polls do not always translate into election numbers, but in this case they follow the trend in the 2018 midterm elections and may reflect the unprecedented involvement since 2016 of suburban white women in pro-Democrat grassroots campaigning.

In 2020, the stakes are particularly high

The 2020 elections seem unusually high stakes not just for public policy but for the future of electoral participation in America.

Trump has spent much of the past four years casting doubt on voting processes. If he can persuade Republican state legislatures to set aside the popular vote on the basis of alleged fraud, there is Constitutional scope for those legislatures to select whichever electors they like to represent the state at the Electoral College. This would be an almost unprecedented undermining of the fundamental ideal of “one person, one vote.”

Lawyers for both sides are preparing to take the battle into the courtroom if, as seems likely, the election outcome turns on a controversial electoral participation question. These controversies may make their way to the Supreme Court, perhaps including a new judge. Its judgements may shape the terrain of electoral participation for a long time to come.

The Trump era’s suppression of the vote is out of step with the long run trend of greater inclusiveness. Another four years of Trump seems likely to create more obstacles to participation.

By contrast, a Biden-Harris victory provides an opportunity to prevent further erosion of democratic participation. It would also mark a new high in the representation of African American women in federal politics.

Read more: Donald Trump has COVID-19. How might this affect his chances of re-election?

– ref. Racism has long shaped US presidential elections. Here’s how it might play out in 2020 – https://theconversation.com/racism-has-long-shaped-us-presidential-elections-heres-how-it-might-play-out-in-2020-147556

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Centaine Snoswell, Research Fellow Health Economics, The University of Queensland

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in rapid changes to the way Australians access health care. We’re now using telehealth more than ever.

Last week’s federal budget confirmed a six-month extension of Medicare subsidies for telehealth consultations, worth A$2.4 billion. It also included A$18.6 million for the preparation of permanent telehealth infrastructure beyond March 31 next year.

This goes some way to recognising telehealth is not only an important tool in our pandemic response — it’s much needed in our health system.

To fully realise the potential of telehealth, we need to recognise it’s more than just appointments via phone or videoconference.

COVID-19: a game changer for telehealth in Australia

In March, telehealth services were funded for all Australians under the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS).

The package covered phone and videoconsultations with GPs, specialists, nurse practitioners and allied health professionals (like physiotherapists, social workers and psychologists). This complemented existing MBS funding for medical videoconsultations for people in rural communities.

We saw a rapid uptake — more than 35% of MBS-funded consultations were conducted via telehealth in April 2020.

Read more: Telehealth in lockdown meant 7 million fewer chances to transmit the coronavirus

There’s more to telehealth than phone calls and videoconferencing

There are three main forms of telehealth: “real-time”, “store-and-forward” and “remote patient monitoring”.

Real-time is largely what we’ve got in place now — clinical consultations via phone and videoconferencing.

During the pandemic, health professionals have heavily favoured telephone over videoconsultations. More than 91% of MBS-funded telehealth services are delivered by phone.

While telephone can be effective in some situations (for example, history taking, triaging or referrals), videoconsultations can vastly improve the likelihood the clinician will make an accurate diagnosis.

Evidence shows videoconsultations can be as effective as in-person consultations, when it’s appropriate to use telehealth, regardless of the type of clinician.

Store-and-forward is the collection of clinical information and the process of sending it online.

A common example is when a patient or their GP photographs a skin lesion and sends the image to a dermatologist for an opinion and management advice.

Store-and-forward services exist in small silos in Australia. They often rely on hospital or commercial funding for support because they’re not currently funded on the MBS.

Store-and-forward services are offered around the world for a variety of conditions. Evidence shows they make services more accessible and cost-effective, and clinicians are generally satisfied with them.

Read more: What can you use a telehealth consult for and when should you physically visit your GP?

Remote patient monitoring, also called in-home monitoring or telemonitoring, involves collecting disease-specific health information and watching how it changes over time.

We can monitor conditions such as high blood pressure or diabetes (that often don’t have symptoms) using standard blood pressure machines or blood glucose monitoring devices that interact with apps or the internet.

If a patient’s readings fall outside healthy limits, an alert can be sent to both the patient and their primary care team.

Regular feedback combined with education and support can enable people to better self-manage their condition.

Remote monitoring is used internationally to manage chronic diseases, with good results. A recent review showed it led to positive outcomes in 77% of studies, with more people staying well and out of hospital for longer.

While there are a number of trials or small clinician-driven programs in Australia, lack of infrastructure and funding have prevented the wide roll-out of remote monitoring programs in the community.

Pleasingly, the federal budget has pledged money to begin working on infrastructure to monitor implantable devices, which will hopefully lead to interactive remote monitoring of patients with heart disease.

Choosing the right type

The choice of real-time, store-and-forward or remote patient monitoring should take into account the patient’s needs and their specific condition. It should also consider the cost of the service for the patient, provider and health system.

These lesser-used types of telehealth provide greater opportunity for multi-disciplinary care, and enable certain monitoring tasks to be redirected to nursing and allied health professionals, where appropriate.

For example, a nurse or pharmacist can review blood pressure readings and provide feedback to patients (and they can refer the patient for GP or specialist input if needed).

Remuneration for telehealth services should be commensurate with the amount of time, effort and skill required to provide the consultation. Incentivising video consultations (for example by subsidising them at a higher rate than telephone consultations) may be one way of encouraging clinicians to use them.

Thinking more broadly

Health systems around the world are not only battling the pandemic, but also the tsunami of chronic disease. So changes to the way we provide health care are inevitable.

In Australia, conditions like heart disease, stroke and diabetes lead to high rates of ill health and death.

We need strategies that inform patients about, and engage patients in, their own health care. We also need funding that supports services and health outcomes, rather than purely “fee for service” encounters.

Read more: Coronavirus has boosted telehealth care in mental health, so let’s keep it up

Store-and-forward and remote patient monitoring hold significant potential for enhancing the long-term management of chronic conditions, and ensuring easier access to specialist health services through a better connected health system.

We made the necessary changes to ensure health care was accessible during the pandemic. Now is the time to capitalise on this change to achieve true reform.

Crucially, we need to think about how we can make changes to the health-care system to take advantage of all forms of telehealth.

– ref. Video and phone consultations only scratch the surface of what telehealth has to offer – https://theconversation.com/video-and-phone-consultations-only-scratch-the-surface-of-what-telehealth-has-to-offer-146580

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

New Zealand has allocated an undisclosed sum, in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars, to access COVID-19 vaccines when they become available.

The funding is on top of a NZ$37 million vaccine strategy, but the government has not released specifics because of commercial sensitivities that “could prevent the best possible deal for New Zealanders”.

Apart from the intricacies of global efforts to develop, test and distribute a vaccine, there are also domestic legal issues the government might need to consider, particularly in patent law and the regulatory review of medicines.

Legislative changes to future-proof the law could avoid delays and lower access costs.

Patent law and access

Some fear pharmaceutical companies could patent a COVID-19 vaccine and hold the world hostage, demanding monopoly prices.

But to get a patent the invention has to be novel and non-obvious. There is possibly enough public information about vaccines currently under investigation or in trials to make it difficult for a company to prove novelty or non-obviousness.

Read more: Whoever invents a coronavirus vaccine will control the patent – and, importantly, who gets to use it

Even if a vaccine were in some way patent-protected in New Zealand, the government is already negotiating for access.

If the negotiations fail or the prices demanded are too high, New Zealand law allows for compulsory licensing and Crown use of patented inventions. Both are also allowed under international trade law.

At the moment, an application for a compulsory licence is only possible after negotiations with a patent owner have failed and if three years have lapsed since the patent was granted (or four years since the patent application was filed). But international trade law states that any requirement to negotiate with the patent owner may be waived in the case of a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency.

Parliament should consider amending New Zealand patent law to be clear that, in a national emergency, anyone can apply for a compulsory licence at any point, without the requirement to negotiate with the patent owner first.

Both international and New Zealand law allow pharmaceutical products manufactured under a compulsory licence to be exported to address a serious public health problem in another country. This might prove important for Pacific nations.

Read more: Why ‘vaccine nationalism’ could doom plan for global access to a COVID-19 vaccine

Government emergency access

Government departments can use patented inventions for the services of the Crown. This can be delegated, for example, to a local pharmaceutical manufacturing company.

In an emergency, there is no requirement for the Crown to negotiate a licence with the patent owner first. Nor does the Crown need to wait for a certain period of time to lapse.

This currently covers protecting New Zealand’s security or defence, or managing a state of emergency. A global pandemic can trigger a state of emergency, as happened in New Zealand in March 2020. But to future-proof the law, parliament should consider amending the definition of “emergency” to specifically include health emergencies.

Crown use provisions would allow the government to make and use any patented vaccine or medicine, and to sell any product in excess to its requirements. This would allow sale to a Pacific nation for a nominal amount.

A vaccine must be safe

In contrast to patent protection, there are no exceptions to the regulatory review of medicines. Anyone who wants to distribute, sell or advertise a medicine in New Zealand must have regulatory approval from Medsafe.

Applicants must submit information and data about the pharmaceutical and the proposed on-label uses. This includes reports on any tests and clinical trials, and data on safety and efficacy. Medsafe decides whether to approve a medicine based on this information.

The process can be lengthy and could delay access to a vaccine. But parliament could legislate a narrow regulatory review “highway” — if regulatory approval for a vaccine is granted elsewhere, such as the European Union, Australia or Canada, it could automatically get approval in New Zealand.

Other aspects of the regulatory process will determine the cost of a vaccine.

Generic medicines — essentially imitations — make the price of pharmaceuticals competitive. Generic pharmaceutical companies don’t usually generate data or run clinical trials. Instead, they show their product is equivalent to the original medicine and ask Medsafe to use the original data to determine safety.

Read more: Creating a COVID-19 vaccine is only the first step. It’ll take years to manufacture and distribute

But Medsafe is not allowed to use any data it receives for one application for the assessment of another for five years. Any vaccine could become obsolete within five years.

There is an exception allowing Medsafe to use data if it is “necessary to protect the health or safety of members of the public”. One can argue that having competition, lower prices and wide distribution of a COVID-19 vaccine meets this requirement. Parliament should amend the legislation to make this clear.

If we allow generic companies to rely on the data of original innovator companies, there would be at least two entities in the market competing with the same vaccine.

We don’t know what’s coming but that shouldn’t stop us from future-proofing our laws and regulatory processes for the different possibilities. New Zealand needs to take advantage of the flexibilities in international trade law to get a COVID-19 vaccine, possibly even two or three, to New Zealanders as quickly and cheaply as possible.

– ref. How patent law and medicine regulations could affect New Zealand’s access to a COVID-19 vaccine – https://theconversation.com/how-patent-law-and-medicine-regulations-could-affect-new-zealands-access-to-a-covid-19-vaccine-147653

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mandie Shean, Lecturer, School of Education, Edith Cowan University

The 2020-21 budget has continued funding for the National School Chaplaincy Program that received A$247 million over four years in the 2018-19 budget.

According to the program’s website, it:

…supports the well-being of students and school communities through the provision of pastoral care services.

However, the idea a chaplain should be responsible for students’ well-being has prompted some people to react with outrage. The assumption has been that chaplains have no place in secular schools; that chaplains may be trying to indoctrinate students into their faith and, unlike school counsellors, have no formal training in supporting student well-being.

But there are several misconceptions in this view. Not all chaplains are religious, and Australia’s chaplaincy program actually prohibits preaching or religious practice.

What is a chaplain?

The word chaplain comes from Latin word for “cloak”. The story goes that Saint Martin met a man begging in the rain without a cloak. Martin ripped his cloak in half to share with the man, seeing both his need and the man’s as equal.

While pastoral care originated from Christian philosophy, it is now widely used in non-religious organisations. It means ensuring the personal development of the student and, in particular, their general and moral welfare.

It is also important to note a chaplain’s role is not that of a psychologist. Chaplains run self-esteem programs, host breakfast clubs, and chat about daily friendship issues. Psychologists do not do this.

Psychologists assess and treat mental health issues, and learning and achievement problems. They provide counselling, and manage risk (such as for self-harm or suicide). Chaplains should not be doing any of these tasks.

Every week, Australia’s school chaplains have an estimated 28,264 informal conversations with students. While chaplains can have these chats, a psychologist cannot without consent from parents. In these moments, chaplains can provide pastoral care to encourage effective coping, friendship skills and resilience without having to go through an official process.

A chaplain does not replace a psychologist; they complement them.

What about religion?

Until 2011, the focus of chaplaincy was on spiritual and religious advice, support and guidance. Some of the religious advice that was acceptable in this time included teaching scripture and proselytising.

However, there has been a move away from these messages.

Under the National School Chaplaincy Program, a chaplain’s role in schools is determined by an agreement between the federal and state and territory governments. It states chaplains may be of any faith and they must not proselytise. Chaplains are also required to respect, accept and be sensitive to other people’s views, values and beliefs, and to meet minimum qualifications.

Despite the lessening of religion in the chaplain’s role, to gain employment as a chaplain in Australian schools in some states and territories, one must be endorsed by a religious affiliation. This excludes those who may be qualified (such as a youth worker or social worker) but not religious.

The Australian Capital Territory and Victoria have brought in changes to this model as they state it is discriminatory and undermines the secular nature of schools. Victoria has advocated for atheist chaplains.

The Victorian education department states school chaplains must not:

• take advantage of their privileged position to proselytise, evangelise or advocate for a particular religious view or belief

• conduct religious services or ceremonies or lead students or staff in religious observances unless agreed to by the principal if working in a government school deliver special religious instruction if working in a government school.

Are chaplains in schools effective?

In a government evaluation, the National School Chaplaincy Program was considered to be effective in dealing with family relationships, bullying and harassment, loneliness, and grief and loss.

In the same evaluation, 80% of principals and 60% of parents believed the program to be extremely effective in fostering a sense of purpose and self-esteem, peer relationships, social inclusion and self-image.

However, the chaplaincy program was perceived as less effective when dealing with issues of alcohol and drug abuse, sexuality, self-harm and suicide, and racism. Many parents and principals felt “unsure” if chaplains helped in these areas.

This is where roles are confused and issues occur. Chaplains are not specifically trained in these areas and should not be engaged in these services. These are areas for psychologists.

It is vital to have adults in schools with whom young people can connect to share their concerns and worries. Chaplains fulfil that role effectively. The historical religious basis and the current need for endorsement from an affiliate church can distract some from the role they perform.

– ref. Yes, there’s money in the budget for school chaplains. But that doesn’t mean your child will be preached to – https://theconversation.com/yes-theres-money-in-the-budget-for-school-chaplains-but-that-doesnt-mean-your-child-will-be-preached-to-147845

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin Kaufman, PhD Candidate, Cities Research Institute, Griffith University

Long-term planning has delivered mass transit systems to cater for high-patronage, hub-and-spoke transport systems. Unfortunately, this has left many city residents without basic access to public transport services. And we could never have planned for the impacts of COVID-19.

Our previous plans were based on the best available data at the time. Today, these plans must be critically reviewed using new data that properly represent the world and our transport needs as they are now.

Read more: If more of us work from home after coronavirus we’ll need to rethink city planning

Important facts to keep in mind

1: Fewer people commute to work.

The work-from-home transition is well under way. Our current transport networks (except for roads, which have rebounded to traffic equal to or above pre-pandemic levels in some cities) are operating far below previous levels, even allowing for social distancing. This may not be the best time to break ground on major infrastructure projects planned under previous assumptions of population and demand growth.

Read more: With management resistance overcome, working from home may be here to stay

2: Disadvantaged populations lack access to opportunities.

Public transport is key to enabling everyone in a population to be a productive member of society. Many disadvantaged groups cannot drive or afford car ownership. However, they also lack access to public transport, particularly in the outer suburbs.

Unfortunately, coronavirus impacts will hit the disadvantaged the hardest. If we want everyone to be able to participate in the economic recovery, we need to promote basic levels of access regardless of an individual’s circumstance.

Read more: Why coronavirus will deepen the inequality of our suburbs

3: Population growth will not meet projections.

Migration bans will greatly reduce short-term growth. Current projections show a population up to 4% smaller in 2040 than it would have been in a non-COVID world. This will further decrease demand for urban transit services as well as demand across many sectors of our society. These trends are important because much of our planning is based around these population growth metrics.

Read more: 1.4 million less than projected: how coronavirus could hit Australia’s population in the next 20 years

However, our suburbs still lack basic public transport services. If we want to increase patronage, we need to bring services to more people by improving coverage of our sprawling, low-density cities.

Over 80% of the population of our biggest cities live in the outer and middle suburbs, yet this massive majority have limited to no basic public transport service. Across our five largest cities, Infrastructure Australia reports, “public transport disadvantage in outer suburbs is significant”.

Households’ access to jobs and services gets much worse with increasing distance from the city centre. Development of suburban and regional mobility-as-a-service (MaaS) offerings could promote better access in these “harder to serve” areas.

Read more: For Mobility as a Service (MaaS) to solve our transport woes, some things need to change

Moving the country forward

Job creation will be an important aspect of economic recovery. Yet too often we look to large construction projects as the answer. There is plenty of other job-creating work to be done in our communities.

We could, for example, increase the miserly funding for our piecemeal walking and cycling networks.

We could also expand on-demand services to suburban and rural residents who lack basic public transport access. On-demand transit does not follow fixed routes or timetables. Riders book a trip for a cost similar to a bus fare.

Read more: 1 million rides and counting: on-demand services bring public transport to the suburbs

These options will encourage local spending to support small businesses. These are an important piece of our social fabric and improve livability in our communities.

We need to look locally

A focus on localised investment in the many neglected communities across the country will deliver major benefits. Money already committed to large projects that are under way represents sunk costs that may be too deep to renegotiate. However, future plans using public funds must be re-examined.

Investments should target disadvantaged groups and broaden access to transport networks, encouraging new potential users. For many, assistance in gaining access to the necessities of life will be invaluable during the coming economic recovery. Guaranteed access to groceries, medical services, work opportunities and recreational activities must not be reserved for the elite.

We need better localised public transport and we need it for the majority of citizens, not just those who live in the inner suburbs of our capital cities. Most regional populations lack even rudimentary public transport coverage at reasonable frequency.

Increasing services in these areas will create valuable jobs that will stick around, unlike large one-off construction projects. The money will stay local, going into the pockets of operators who live and work in their own community.

While our long-term planning is not to blame for our current situation, we need to develop for the future, not the past. The financial costs of building and maintaining our current infrastructure are not going away. However, we can no longer refuse to invest in many of our underserved communities.

It is time to ensure everyone, regardless of their income or where they grow up, has the basic services they need to be a productive member of society.

– ref. COVID impacts demand a change of plan: funding a shift from commuting to living locally – https://theconversation.com/covid-impacts-demand-a-change-of-plan-funding-a-shift-from-commuting-to-living-locally-144802

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carla Liuzzo, Sessional Lecturer, School of Business, School of Creative Industries, Queensland University of Technology

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg mocked the idea of a “well-being budget” as “laughable” back in February. He’s got less reason to laugh now.

According to an Essential Research poll last week, 78% of Australians agree the pandemic has exposed flaws in the economy and there is an opportunity to explore new ways to run things. A well-being budget might be just the ticket.

In February, Frydenberg dismissed a well-being budget as “just another word for Labor’s higher taxes and more debt”, after the shadow treasurer, Jim Chalmers, committed the heresy of saying gross domestic product was, on its own, a deficient economic measure, and countenanced “a version of New Zealand’s well-being budget, which redefines what success means in terms of economic outcomes”.

Frydenberg joked about Chalmers being “fresh from his ashram deep in the Himalayas, barefoot, robes flowing, incense burning, beads in one hand, well-being budget in the other”.

But now, with the federal government changing its tune on many things, such as debt, it might be a good time for Frydenberg to change his mind on this.

Well-being measures, for one thing, could greatly assist the Australian government in budgeting to improve mental health and prevent suicides – things Frydenberg said in his budget speech are national priorities.

It’s impossible to address the nation’s mental crisis just through the blunt tools of economic growth and money for band-aid services. If a bigger income was the main means to mental well-being, after all, James Packer would be happier.

Mental health is a complex problem, with complicated causes, requiring a sophisticated response. To do that, developing measurements of well-being can only help.

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

Measuring what’s worthwhile

There is no universal definition of well-being economics, but essentially it is an economic perspective that acknowledges gross domestic product – the monetary value of all goods and services produced by a country in a given period – as an all-too narrow metric for building a prosperous, sustainable, human-centred economy.

GDP is useful, as Chalmers acknowledged in his February speech:

It does still provide a powerful insight into the current state of the economy, and is useful for historical comparisons. […]

More broadly, growth matters to the jobs and opportunities created in our society. A healthy, growing economy can make people more comfortable with farsighted social and economic policy changes as well.

But GDP does not, as Chalmers said, paint the whole picture. He quoted Robert Kennedy, who said GDP measured everything “except that which makes life worthwhile”; and Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz: “If we measure the wrong thing, we will do the wrong thing.” So his point was hardly fringe.

Indeed even the architect of GDP as an economic measure, economist Simon Kuznets, warned against putting too much emphasis on it, and of the dangers of it subverting the normally “valuable capacity of the human mind to simplify a complex situation in a compact characterisation”.

Read more: Redefining GDP and what we mean by growth

New Zealand’s well-being budget

The first country in the world to introduce a well-being budget was New Zealand, in May 2019.

The main difference of The Wellbeing Budget to previous budgets was how it allocated resources to five priority areas: mental health; child well-being; Māori and Pasifika well-being; productivity; and environmental sustainability.

The traditional budget process tends to consider priorities on a yearly basis. This guides governments to put more money into short-term goals and less into initiatives with long-term returns. To overcome this bias, New Zealand’s Treasury created an assessment framework that considers the merits of projects according to 60 different measurements (covering economic, social and environmental impacts).

The intention is to ensure the budget doesn’t neglect to invest in long-term initiatives that can prevent problems, rather than being caught in a cycle of pumping money into alleviating the symptoms short-term.

In mental health this means more emphasis on policies that keep people well, rather than on providing help only once they are very unwell – the type of “defensive spending” dominating the Australian government’s priorities in mental health in last week’s budget.

Read more: New Zealand’s well-being approach to budget is not new, but could shift major issues

Building back better

The Australian Capital Territory’s Labor government has already replicated New Zealand’s model in its own Wellbeing Framework.

In February Chalmers indicated a desire for federal Labor to take a well-being budget to the next election.

ALP leader Anthony Albanese’s response to the federal budget on Thursday night gave few signals the Labor Party will do so. Though he criticised the government’s short-term GDP growth focus, the word “well-being” did not pass his lips.

But popular opinion suggests both parties should be putting well-being measures on the agenda. Already more than 30 countries measure “life satisfaction”. Support for well-being economics should transcend party lines, as it does in countries such as Britain.

If the Australian government is to “build back better”, it’s hard to see how a well-being budget could possibly hurt.

– ref. A question for the treasurer: how do you treat mental health without measuring well-being? – https://theconversation.com/a-question-for-the-treasurer-how-do-you-treat-mental-health-without-measuring-well-being-147572

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kirsten Stevens, Lecturer in Arts and Cultural Management, University of Melbourne

The 2020 federal budget has allocated A$53 million towards Australian screen production.

The funding comes attached to policy reforms harmonising incentives across film and television production and removing requirements for films to play in cinemas.

Arts minister Paul Fletcher argues “the old approach of treating film and television differently no longer makes sense” and “simplifying regulations” will encourage creators to develop higher production value content for international streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime.

But producers fear this will spell the end for Australian-made films and feature documentaries in cinemas.

Responding to the policy changes, film producer and distributor Sue Maslin AO tells me:

This announcement brings an end to producers like myself continuing to invest our time, money, blood, sweat and tears in developing features and forces us to focus on digital platforms in an unregulated environment where to date there has been negligible commissioning by streamers and no sustainable business model emerge.

Such a clear preference for eyeballs aimed at televisions and computer screens overlooks the importance films in the cinema have for sustaining a robust Australian screen industry.

From script to screen

Feature films are expensive to make and difficult to finance.

The producer offset is a key mechanism allowing Australian feature films to secure finance, with producers able to claim back a percentage of the film’s qualifying Australian production expenditure through a tax rebate.

Under the existing model, feature films with an Australian spend of at least $500,000 qualify for a 40% rebate, while television and online content receive 20%.

The new budget measures harmonise the offset for all productions at 30%. This means feature producers will be forced to find an additional 10% of their total budget to get their films made. Additionally, all productions must now spend at least $1 million in Australia to be eligible.

Read more: $400 million in government funding for Hollywood, but only scraps for Australian film

Feature film funding comes from a variety of sources. State and federal production grants and the producer offset account for roughly half of a typical budget.

The remaining finance comes from local distributors, international sales agents, television license fees and a shrinking pool of private investment.

With a rebate of just 30%, finance will become harder to access.

Foreign co-producers will look towards countries like Canada or the UK with more generous incentives and, with longform content such as drama series now eligible for the same rebates, broadcasters will have even less incentive to license feature-length content.

Diminishing confidence in the value of films within the Australian market further impacts the willingness of distributors to invest.

The government claims “the explosion of streaming video services” will address these shortfalls. But streaming video on demand services have shown little interest in picking up Australian content. Only 1.7% of content on Netflix is Australian, and the platform has fewer than 20 Australian films in its catalogue.

Read more: Crunching the numbers on streaming services’ local content: static growth, but more original productions

Documentary dilemma

Feature documentaries will be hardest hit by changes to the producer offset. Currently, each hour of documentary content produced in Australia costs, on average, less than $500,000 to make.

With the doubling of the qualifying Australian production expenditure requirement to $1 million, the vast majority of documentary films will be excluded from any offset eligibility.

Combined with the removal of documentary sub-quotas from broadcast content requirements, this signals a dim future for high-quality Australian documentary filmmaking.

Read more: Cheese ‘n’ crackers! Concerns deepen for the future of Australian children’s television

Out of sight, out of mind

Funding is only part of the problem. The other part is getting films seen.

Fletcher argues the changes are about “getting [Australian] content seen by as many people as possible and selling as well as possible.” Online is seen as the key to this.

Opportunities do exist for some filmmakers here, with films like Netflix’s I Am Mother (2019) or Stan’s Relic (2020) capturing attention.

But there is a risk Australian films will struggle to cut through in a crowded digital market.

The theatrical release of a film is about more than just bums on seats. It raises awareness about films through word of mouth and marketing material. Film festivals play a role too, generating buzz around programmed films and amplifying this buzz further for those that win awards.

Removing the requirement for a cinema release could see feature films disappear from the big screen. But, more importantly, it could also make films harder to find at home.

Read more: Picture this: 3 possible endings for cinema as COVID pushes it to the brink

While streaming services reach growing audiences, the discoverability of Australian films within and across these online platforms remains a challenge, particularly when sufficient content is not there to be discovered. Without the interest generated by a cinema release, how will local stories stand out?

This is a challenge that Australian film will now need to face. With the Government’s measures set to take effect in 2021, Sue Maslin warns:

As for going to the movies to see films like The Dressmaker, Last Cab to Darwin, Ride Like a Girl, Breath, The Sapphires, Animal Kingdom … forget it. Get used to the small screen experience, everyone.

– ref. $53 million for screen production, but policy reforms could spell the end of the Australian feature film – https://theconversation.com/53-million-for-screen-production-but-policy-reforms-could-spell-the-end-of-the-australian-feature-film-147834

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sean Maxwell, Research Fellow, The University of Queensland

The proportion of Earth’s surface designated as “protected” has expanded over the past decade. But new findings show these areas have failed to improve the state of the environment, casting doubt on government commitments to biodiversity conservation.

Our global research published in Nature yesterday found between 2010 and 2019, protected areas expanded from covering 14.1% to 15.3% of global land and freshwater environments (excluding Antarctica), and from 2.9% to 7.5% of marine environments.

Read more: New research reveals how Australia and other nations play politics with World Heritage sites

However, 78% of known threatened species and more than half of all ecoregions on land and sea remain without adequate protection. In Australia, we found nearly half of land-based ecoregions and threatened species have inadequate protections.

“Adequate” protection is different for individual species, but typically requires 10-100% of a species’ geographic range to be under some form of protection.

The Coalition government’s federal budget allocated A$233.4 million to six Commonwealth-run national parks — but most will be spent on tourism infrastructure upgrades. What’s needed is more staff and equipment to restore, enrich and maintain natural ecosystems, and to secure our most iconic natural places.

The best and worst performing countries

Our global assessment examined how nations are tracking a decade after committing to UN targets for area-based conservation: at least 17% of land and 10% of ocean must be protected by 2020.

Best-performing countries include Botswana, Hungary and Thailand. Botswana’s protected area estate adequately covers 86% of its ecoregions and 83% of its threatened species.

The worst performing countries — such as Indonesia, Canada and Madagascar — have a long way to go to meet these targets. For example, only 3% of Canada’s ocean waters are under formal protection.

But there are alarming and consistent problems with management. Globally, as much as 90% of marine protected areas have inadequate or below optimum on-site staff capacity. On land, some 47% of protected areas suffer from inadequate staff and budget resources. And the global budget shortfall for protected areas likely exceeds the multi-billion dollar mark.

Threatened species in Australia

Australia’s protected area estate is not immune to these management shortfalls. Between 1997 and 2014, there were more than 1,500 legal changes in Australia that eased restrictions, reduced boundaries or eliminated legal protections in protected areas.

Our research also showed less than 1% of the geographic ranges of the orange-bellied frog (Geocrinia vitellina), carpentarian dunnart (Sminthopsis butleri) and upriver orange mangrove (Bruguiera sexangula) — all threatened species — are protected.

Read more: Click through the tragic stories of 119 species still struggling after Black Summer in this interactive (and how to help)

Many of Australia’s savanna ecoregions also have poor levels of protection, including the Mitchell grass downs (less than 3% of its range is protected), Brigalow tropical savanna (less than 5% protected) and southeast Australian temperate savannas (less than 4% protected).

But it’s not all bad news. We found around 36% of Australia’s oceans are protected and 76% of our marine ecoregions have adequate protection.

Previous studies also suggest protected areas governed by Indigenous Australians and local communities effectively reduce deforestation pressure and support similar numbers of species to those inside nationally designated protected areas.

How should funds be used?

Protecting our wild places will not come cheap. One estimate suggests an effective global land-based protected area network would cost US$76 billion annually.

This level of investment would ensure each protected area has sufficient staff, resources and equipment to conserve local species and ecosystems. The spending is justified, given the direct value generated by visits to protected areas around the world is valued at US$600 billion per year.

Read more: ‘Backwards’ federal budget: Morrison government never fails to disappoint on climate action

In Australia, effective conservation typically requires mimicking land and sea use practices that were in place before Europeans arrived, which involves actively managing disturbances such as fire and invasive species.

Funds should also be used to track the biodiversity outcomes of protected areas to make sure they’re meeting their objectives.

Beyond budgets, national governments around the world must be more ambitious when negotiating the next round of international environmental targets, due in mid-2021. These negotiations will define national conservation agendas for the next decade.

Governments must adopt policies that make biodiversity conservation a greater part of broader land and sea management plans. They can, for example, embrace new models for land and sea stewardship that reward good behaviour by farmers, developers and miners.

Budget breakdown

In Australia, most national parks are funded and run by state governments. The federal government, through Parks Australia, is responsible for Kakadu, Uluru-Kata Tjuta, Christmas Island, Pulu Keeling, Booderee and Norfolk Island.

The Commonwealth also plays a key role in funding and managing Australia’s 16 natural World Heritage sites, including K’gari and the Ningaloo Coast.

Of the A$329.2 million allocated in the budget to protect iconic places, A$233.4 million (71%) is set aside for tourism infrastructure in non-World Heritage national parks in Australia.

Read more: These historic grasslands are becoming a weed-choked waste. It could be one of the world’s great parks

We calculate this provides about A$18,000 for every hectare of Booderee National Park and national parks on Christmas Island, Norfork Island and Pulu Keeling. Most of this will likely be spent on improving visitor amenities or ensuring nearby businesses can stay open, rather than directed to measures such as invasive species control or fire management.

Australia’s 16 natural World Heritage sites will receive just A$33.5 million — less than the $40.6 million promised to maintain and restore historical sites across Sydney Harbour.

A further $23.6 million was promised for compliance, enforcement and monitoring activities across Australia’s marine parks. Enforcing no-take marine protected areas improves species populations and biomass, but this funding boost is grossly inadequate. It equates to just 1 cent for every hectare of Commonwealth-run marine parks.

It’s hard to see how these measures will prevent further ecosystem degradation or species extinctions, when conservation of Australia’s biodiversity heavily relies on protected areas.

Read more: Invasive species threaten most protected areas across the world – new study

In response to this article, a spokesperson for federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley said investment in protecting national parks went beyond infrastructure spending, however infrastructure did assist people to “access parks in a responsible manner”.

Ley’s spokesperson said protecting biodiversity was “a core aspect of park operations” and included eradicating invasive species, and interaction with the National Environmental Science Program and the office of the threatened species commissioner.

In addition to national parks, Australia “also has the world’s largest network of Indigenous protected areas, which the government is already in the process of expanding,” the spokesperson said.

– ref. How much the budget undervalued conservation: 16 World Heritage sites received less than Sydney Harbour – https://theconversation.com/how-much-the-budget-undervalued-conservation-16-world-heritage-sites-received-less-than-sydney-harbour-147663

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

In a special “The Week in Politics”, Michelle Grattan discusses the 2020 budget with Professor Robert Tanton, of the University of Canberra’s National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling.

The pair discuss the modelling of NATSEM in light of this year’s budget, the efficacy of tax cuts for individuals and tax breaks for businesses, as well as the debt and deficit forecasts, and Labor’s budget reply.

– ref. VIDEO: Michelle Grattan and Robert Tanton on the 2020 budget – https://theconversation.com/video-michelle-grattan-and-robert-tanton-on-the-2020-budget-147795

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laurien Beane, Course Coordinator, Queensland Undergraduate Early Childhood, Australian Catholic University

Social distancing during COVID-19 has seen a radical upheaval to the way we work and socialise.

But what are the implications for young children? Many children have been uprooted from their places of education and care, and may struggle to understand why their routine has been disrupted.

If you’re a parent, particularly in Victoria, you may be wondering whether this period — a significant amount of time relative to the life of a young child — might affect your child’s social development.

The good news is, with less of the day-to-day rush, many young children have probably benefited from extra socialisation at home with their families.

Looking through a theoretical lens

We can explore the ways COVID-19 might affect children’s social development by considering three theories in psychology.

1. Supporting the individual child (attachment theory)

It’s important for young children to develop strong and secure “attachments” with parents and caregivers. These emotional and physical bonds support children’s social development.

Psychologists have shown very young children who develop strong and secure attachments become more independent, have more successful social relationships, perform better at school, and experience less anxiety compared with children who didn’t have strong and secure attachments.

Where the extra time children have spent with parents and caregivers during COVID-19 has been in a supportive environment, this may help the development of these attachments.

Read more: Don’t worry, your child’s early learning doesn’t stop just because they’re not in childcare

2. Supporting the child in the family (family systems theory)

Beyond parents and caregivers, it’s important for children to develop secure attachments within the whole family.

For young children, research shows these connections with family members can lead to improved social development, while fostering the child’s ability to develop their own identity as part of a family unit.

Young children might have spent more time with siblings and other family members during lockdown, possibly developing deeper connections with them.

3. Supporting the child in the community (sociocultural theory)

Sociocultural theory considers social interaction to underpin the ways children learn, allowing them to make meaning from the world around them.

While learning can and does take place between children and adults, there’s lots of research showing all children benefit from socialising with peers of the same age.

Evidence also indicates children learn to respond to social situations in social environments. This could be in early learning settings, on the playground, or with their families.

COVID-19 has curtailed many interactions children would regularly have in early learning and social contexts. But at the same time, it’s created opportunities for other meaningful interactions such as at home with family.

Day-to-day life with family, or socially distanced interactions within the community, still provide great opportunities for social development.

We can’t know for sure what toll this pandemic will take on children’s social development.

But it’s important to remember children are always learning wherever they may be, and whoever they may be with. So try to focus on the benefits you’ve gained spending time with your child at home.

Read more: How parents can help their young children develop healthy social skills

It won’t be the same for everyone

COVID-19 has brought tough times for many Australian families. We know added financial pressures can adversely affect family life, and may be compounded during lockdown by a lack of external support.

The Australian Early Development Census consistently identifies lower socioeconomic status as one of the risk factors for poorer “social competence” — a child’s ability to get along with and relate to others.

This doesn’t mean all children in families experiencing socioeconomic hardship during COVID-19 will necessarily face challenges in their social development. It’s more complex that that. However, some might.

Other risk factors for social competence may have also been heightened during the pandemic. These include family conflict, anxiety or illness (of the child or the parent), and trauma, such as exposure to stressful events, grief, or loss.

Children who already live in vulnerable situations may have become even more vulnerable during this time.

Getting back to ‘normal’

Alongside risk factors, a range of protective factors may reduce the impacts of adversity on a child.

We should think about providing young children with extra support, helping them regulate their emotions, fostering warm relationships, promoting resilience and encouraging problem solving, and facilitating social contact within the COVID-19 social distancing norms, such as video chats.

Read more: Are the kids alright? Social isolation can take a toll, but play can help

As children begin the transition back to early childhood education and care, some “clinginess” is natural.

Having a distressed child at drop-off time can be confronting. But trust in their capacity to regulate their emotions when you leave, and their ability to rediscover relationships with their educators, carers and friends. They should soon readjust.

To support smooth transitions back into early childhood education and care, talk positively with your child about the people they’re going to see, such as teachers and their friends, and encourage them to ask any questions they may have.

If you’re worried about how the lockdown has affected your child, you can always speak to your child’s educator, the centre director, or your GP about connecting with services designed to support you and your child.

– ref. Will COVID lockdowns hurt your child’s social development? 3 different theories suggest they’ll probably be OK – https://theconversation.com/will-covid-lockdowns-hurt-your-childs-social-development-3-different-theories-suggest-theyll-probably-be-ok-137248

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Norton, Professor in the Practice of Higher Education Policy, Australian National University

The Morrison government’s Job-ready Graduates legislation has passed the Senate. This higher education policy has two major aims:

1. to steer enrolments towards courses with good employment prospects

2. to ready the higher education system for the “Costello baby boom” students, the big birth cohort who will reach university age in the mid-2020s.

Unfortunately, achieving these goals is a much less certain outcome of this package than years of disruption for universities and decades of debt for some students. Three design flaws in Job-ready Graduates put it at high risk of not achieving its own objectives.

Read more: Universities can help Australia’s economic recovery, but that’s all at risk if the ‘job-ready graduates’ bill passes

Students aim to be ‘job-ready’ without fee incentives

To influence student course choices, Job-ready Graduates radically changes how student contributions are priced.

Current student contributions are roughly based on earnings prospects. Law and medical graduates on average earn high incomes, placing them in the highest student contribution band. They pay A$11,115 a year. Arts graduates tend to earn less, putting them in the cheapest band of A$6,684 a year.

Job-ready Graduates discards the link between student contribution and earnings prospects. Instead, its student contributions aim to encourage or discourage enrolments, to improve graduate job prospects or to meet other “national priorities”.

Arts courses are not a government national priority, so the student contribution for arts will more than double to A$14,500 a year. An eccentric exception is made for English and foreign languages, which will have student contributions of A$3,950, despite worse employment outcomes than other humanities fields. Law and business courses are not government priorities either and so go up from A$11,115 a year to A$14,500.

Revenue from the extra student contribution for non-priority courses will be spent cutting student charges in other courses. Student contributions for teaching and nursing courses will drop from A$6,684 in 2020 to A$3,950 in 2021. In science, engineering and IT, the amount students pay will be cut from A$9,527 a year to A$7,950.

Yet, despite shuffling billions of dollars in charges between students in the next few years, Job-ready Graduates will probably not significantly alter student course choices.

Read more: The government would save $1 billion a year with proposed university reforms — but that’s not what it’s telling us

The main drivers of course choices are student interests and job prospects. Prospective students can have more than one interest, and several courses may match their interests. But few students – less than 5% according to a first-year student survey – enrol in courses without interest in the field being a major factor. Fewer years spent repaying HELP debt cannot compensate for years of boredom in an uninteresting course and career.

Generally, university applications move with labour market trends without any policy intervention from government. Employment and salary prospects after graduation already provide a financial incentive for students to prioritise their interests in a “job-ready” way.

If university applicants are missing opportunities that might suit them, careers advice is a much cheaper way of pointing these out than reducing student contributions.

Read more: Cheaper courses won’t help graduates get jobs – they need good careers advice and links with employers

University and student incentives are not aligned

Job-ready Graduates assumes universities will respond to changed patterns of student demand by providing extra student places. University enrolments typically move in the same direction as student applications. But in key disciplines Job-ready Graduates reduces the financial incentive universities have to meet student demand.

Courses with likely employment growth in coming years, including teaching, nursing, allied health and engineering, will have less total funding per student under Job-ready Graduates than the current system.

The cut in funding for key disciplines derives from a redesign of overall funding rates in line with a consulting firm’s analysis of teaching and scholarship costs by field of education.

Yet universities are more likely to respond to financial incentives than students. Students can defer paying their student contributions through the HELP loan scheme, which reduces their price sensitivity. Universities have to meet all their costs each year. In the midst of a financial crisis, universities will examine their revenues and expenditures more closely than ever.

This contradiction between student and university incentives is poor policy design.

Read more: As universities face losing 1 in 10 staff, COVID-driven cuts create 4 key risks

Student places are more likely to grow in non-priority fields

The Job-ready Graduates strategy for increasing student places also suffers from mismatches between policy intent and likely outcomes.

Job-ready Graduates cuts the average student subsidy, called a Commonwealth contribution. This means that, on average, universities need to deliver more student places for each A$1 million they receive from the government.

If this cut was consistent across all disciplines it would probably achieve its objective. But the government has increased rather than decreased Commonwealth contributions in several priority fields, to compensate universities for lower student contributions.

As a result, in these priority fields universities need to deliver fewer places per A$1 million in government subsidy. For example, under current Commonwealth contributions universities need to deliver 91 IT places to earn A$1 million. Under Job-ready Graduates, they only need deliver 75 IT places.

By contrast, arts, law and business courses get lower Commonwealth contributions under Job-ready Graduates than the current system. As a consequence, universities can deliver many more student places per A$1 million in government subsidy. In law and business, student places per A$1 million will grow from 447 to 990.

The policy goal of increasing student places will succeed to the extent that the policy goal of moving enrolments to priority fields fails.

Collateral damage is near certain

These three design flaws — changes to student contributions that won’t change student preferences, overall funding rates that weaken university incentives, and Commonwealth contributions that limit enrolment growth in some courses — create serious doubt about whether Job-ready Graduates will achieve its stated goals. We can, however, be near certain of serious collateral damage.

Arts, law and business graduates will leave university with student debts of A$40,000 to A$50,000. Many arts graduates have relatively low incomes and will take decades to repay their HELP loans.

The cuts to overall funding rates will reduce university capacity to combine teaching and research, especially in science and engineering. It will add to the already significant fall in university research expenditure caused by a decline in international students.

Read more: Coronavirus and university reforms put at risk Australia’s research gains of the last 15 years

A future education minister is going to have to fix these problems. But before that happens, Job-ready Graduates, coming in on top of the international student crisis, guarantees several turbulent years for Australian universities.

– ref. 3 flaws in Job-Ready Graduates package will add to the turmoil in Australian higher education – https://theconversation.com/3-flaws-in-job-ready-graduates-package-will-add-to-the-turmoil-in-australian-higher-education-147740

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Noble, Education Policy Fellow, Mitchell Institute, Victoria University

Childcare was the centrepiece of last night’s budget reply speech from Leader of the Opposition Anthony Albanese.

He announced Labor’s plan to increase the maximum childcare subsidy from 85% to 90% and remove the annual cap on subsidies for families earning more than A$189,390 per year. This means families earning up to $80,001 would have their subsidy increased by 5% and most families earning more would have their subsidy increased slightly.

Removing the cap would benefit families on middle and high incomes. It currently limits childcare subsidy payments to $10,560 per child per year, for families with a combined income between $189,390 and $353,680.

When the cap is reached for each child, but the family still needs to use childcare, they now pay 100% of the childcare fees in excess of the cap. This acts as a big deterrent to increased parental workforce participation.

For families where both parents work full time, or almost full time, Labor’s proposed measure would result in thousands of dollars saved per year. For parents needing or wanting to work more, and increase their childcare hours, Labor’s plan could make this affordable.

The biggest news is the 90% universal subsidy

The biggest news in Labor’s plan is a longer-term shift to a 90% subsidy for all Australian families. Currently, families with a combined income between $174,390 and $253,680 receive a 50% subsidy. Families earning between $253,680 and $343,680 are subsidised between 20% and 50%.

These families would experience a significant reduction in fees, with exact amounts depending on the amount of childcare they use.

While Labor’s plan comes with a $6.2 billion price tag over four years, the McKell Institute estimates the subsidy boost would deliver a return on investment of at least 100%. This means all the money invested in the childcare measures would return into the economy via increased workforce participation and family spending.

Earlier Grattan Institute analysis also estimated high return on investment from increases to childcare subsidies that get more families working.

If Labor win the next election, the scheme could be in place by as early as July 2022. This is major economic reform that could dramatically increase affordability of childcare in Australia.

What’s missing from Labor’s announcement?

The success of Labor’s plan hinges on making sure increased subsidies flow through to reduced costs for families. In the past, fee increases have offset the benefits of subsidy increases for many families. To prevent this, Labor plans to task the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission with designing a mechanism to effectively regulate service prices.

The plan is also focused on affordability over quality. The benefits for children from early childhood education and care depend on services being good quality, and providing play-based learning programs led by skilled educators. Close to one in five early childhood services still do not meet quality standards, and vulnerable communities are more likely to be served by lower quality services. This means children who should benefit most from quality early learning are more likely to miss out.

Read more: Preschool benefits children and the economy. But the budget has left funding uncertain, again

Labor’s plan also doesn’t address systemic problems such as poor pay and conditions for early childhood educators, who are among the worst paid in the country, and who are critical to the delivery of high quality early education.

How does this compare with the Coalition’s plan?

So far, the Coalition has put in place three rescue packages to keep providers financially viable during the pandemic, and able to support children’s development and well-being as well as parents’ workforce participation.

While many have argued for temporary or permanent continuation of fee-free care, the Australian government has held fast with its intention to “snap back” to pre-COVID childcare arrangements, with some modifications for parents who’ve lost income or their jobs.

Read more: Childcare is critical for COVID-19 recovery. We can’t just snap back to ‘normal’ funding arrangements

A broad group of supporters — including unions, business groups, children’s and women’s advocates — saw this week’s budget as a missed opportunity to build a more sustainable plan for early childhood services. Many now understand how vital increased access to childcare could be in supporting Australian families (and particularly women) to make a strong recovery from the shocks of 2020.

Early childhood sector sources say the Coalition is planning a six-month public engagement campaign to prepare for more reforms in next year’s budget.

What about the Greens?

The Greens’ economic recovery plan has a strong focus on growing the care economy, and includes a commitment to continue fee-free childcare permanently. They advocate major reform towards a system similar to Sweden’s “Educare” model, which provide 525 hours per year for free from three years of age, and the design of which was driven by gender equality principles.

A brief stint of free childcare, where parent fees were suspended and covered by the federal government, gave many a taste of what a different funding model could mean for Australian families, and for the economy.

Read more: Increasing the childcare subsidy will help struggling families — and the economy

The events of 2020 have caused many of us to question old assumptions, and to value things we previously took for granted.

Many Australians — regardless or where they live or their politics — are now realising early childhood services are actually a critical piece of social and economic infrastructure. They’re the scaffolding that supports parents to contribute to our society and economy in meaningful ways, and provides children with the early education they need to get the best start.

What a difference a year makes.

– ref. Labor’s childcare plan may get more women into work. Now what about quality and educators’ pay? – https://theconversation.com/labors-childcare-plan-may-get-more-women-into-work-now-what-about-quality-and-educators-pay-147755