Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Narelle Yeo, Senior Lecturer in Voice and Stagecraft, Sydney Conservatorium of Music, University of Sydney

The most eclectic of music theatre composers was not only a gifted wordsmith and lyricist, but also had a truly original compositional voice.

Stephen Sondheim, who died at home on the weekend at 91, had a singular ability to craft narrative in short, poignant moments, with constantly evolving, twisting and turning motifs in melodies and harmonies that signify, place, time, feeling, emotion and sensory experience.

He built a score by taking an idea – either lyrical or musical – turning it upside down and spinning it around to reveal a different view. It is clear Sondheim enjoyed the play of words, of motifs, of reinventing musical theatre to fit the changing perspectives of contemporary life. The audience in a Sondheim show revels in each character’s complexity.

Alongside his storied wordplay, exquisite melodies and complex harmonies, one of Sondheim’s greatest achievements was his ability to write women characters that actors want to play: complex women, women at the centre of a narrative, from Desiree recalibrating at the end of her career in A Little Night Music (1973) to the complicated Mary, her life revealed backwards in Merrily We Roll Along (1981).

The young writer

Sondheim’s first big break was as the lyricist on West Side Story (1957), after the book by Arthur Laurents, working with the great Leonard Bernstein and Jerome Robbins. The experience of writing West Side Story for a young lyricist was challenging. The show came to Sondheim at 25 after meeting Laurents at the theatre, and he was convinced by his great mentor and friend Oscar Hammerstein II to take on the task.

Sondheim wanted to show his abilities in rhyme on his edits on I Feel Pretty, whose original lyric had been written by Laurent. Some commentators have struggled with the innocent simplicity of the characterisation of Maria in this song.

Read more:
Spielberg’s West Side Story will need to bring something new to the table

When Sondheim first heard her version live on stage, he famously realised that the lyricist’s voice was too strong, too self conscious and the character’s voice was weak.

He asked to change it, but by then the tune had taken off and the dye was cast.

Sondheim’s lyrical and musical output following West Side Story presented complex characters of all types, and his works have singularly elevated the Broadway diva more than any other composer/lyricist in the past 70 years.

Leading ladies

Sweeney Todd (1979), largely considered Sondheim’s epic opus, was inspired by an apocryphal story of a 19th century serial killer.

A melodrama, comic in parts and with very little dialogue, Sweeney Todd is a critique of the class divide in 19th century, Industrial England – personified by a murderous couple who cook their victims into meat pies.

While Sweeney is the man with a plan for revenge, Mrs Lovett, his accomplice and business partner, is every inch the protagonist along with him. The powerful, complex female lead was a rarity in traditional music theatre, where operatic tropes were easily assimilated, such as the virginal naif, the coquette, the old shrew.

Sondheim delighted in presenting what we think to be a stereotype and then justifying its subversion. As coarse and pained as Mrs Lovett is, she is an outlaw hero in this story.

His works championed careers of seasoned performers, creating opportunities for many actors who might have otherwise been seen as “too old” to play the leading lady.

Subsequently, actors lined up to play Sondheim women characters. A wonderful lockdown moment was Christine Baranski, Audra MacDonald and Meryl Streep singing Ladies Who Lunch from Company (1970) – a smirk to their own stage diva personas, the effects of COVID and a winking celebration of Sondheim on his 90th birthday.

I’m Still Here, from Follies (1971), is Sondheim’s self-reflexive moment for women in theatre: the ultimate female survival mantra in a tough industry.

When it was performed by Elaine Stritch at 85, and delivered in tights and a white shirt, the song revealed so much about Sondheim’s role in placing women at the centre of the stage. Sondheim’s tight, episodic rhyming lyrics, and twisting, arpeggiated, complicated music reveals so many intricacies about the life of a woman, particularly a woman of the theatre:

Black sable one day, next day it goes into hock, but I’m here
Top billing Monday, Tuesday, you’re touring in stock, but I’m here
First you’re another sloe-eyed vamp
Then someone’s mother, then you’re camp
Then you career from career to career
I’m almost through my memoirs, and I’m here.

Complicated, wise older women

Sondheim had a difficult relationship with his mother. She reportedly once wrote to him “the only regret I have in life is giving you birth”.

Despite this, he wrote complicated, wise and relatable older women, mothers and carers. This is exemplified in Children Will Listen, sung by the Witch in Into the Woods (1986):

How do you say to your child in the night?
Nothing’s all black, but then nothing’s all white
How do you say it will all be all right
When you know that it mightn’t be true?
What do you do?

Children Will Listen reveals an important moral value contained in Into the Woods, yet it is delivered by the female antagonist. This is the complicated, unexpected humanity of a Sondheim character: you think you know the character type in act one, they are revealed to be someone else in act two.

Dichotomy is possible and vital in a complex characterisation.

It will be new

Sondheim inspired a generation of women to believe complex female characters have a place at the centre of the Broadway stage.

With Sondheim’s genius’ passing on, we look to the next generation of writers and composers to continue his legacy and create an innovative place, smack bang in the centre of the stage, for not only women but for the entire range and breadth of humanity.

As Sondheim famously wrote:

Anything you do, let it come from you, then it will be new.

Narelle Yeo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Here’s to the ladies who lunch: one of Sondheim’s greatest achievements was writing complex women – https://theconversation.com/heres-to-the-ladies-who-lunch-one-of-sondheims-greatest-achievements-was-writing-complex-women-172765

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elizabeth Jackson, Senior Lecturer in Supply Chain Management & Logistics, Curtin University

Australians have been warned to do their Christmas shopping early, as international supply chain issues are impacting global shipping. One industry under particular pressure is that of books, with printers, publishers and booksellers in Australia, the United States and Britain feeling the impact at their most important time of year.

Chris Redfern, who owns three Avenue Bookstores in Melbourne, recently told the ABC booksellers are facing “a crisis”.

While book supply chains are being affected globally, in the United States, paper and cardboard scarcity, along with labour shortages, are pressuring the situation at the printing press.

In the UK, a shortage of lorry drivers is limiting stock movement. This part of the supply chain is also being impacted in Australia. Our three major book distributors all use one company to distribute their books, and the company is reportedly “overwhelmed with demand.”

Use of a single service provider for freight makes sense for purposes of cost control, but it’s a high-risk strategy, particularly during times when flow cycles are so disrupted.

A problem for smaller players

Supply chains operations are highly-coordinated. They aim to get the right product, in the right way, in the right quantity and quality, to the right person and place at the right time at the right cost.

Most booksellers embrace the low-cost, fast-paced principles of lean supply chains: inventories are minimised with few resources wasted on books sitting idly in warehouses.

Most of the time, being able to respond to the market with agility exposes publishers, input suppliers, printers, transporters, warehouses and retailers to minimal risk.

But this careful balance of coordinating everything begins to show stress when even one part is impacted – let alone the multiple stressors of COVID.

In the US, publishers are encouraging early ordering and bulk buying and holding large quantities of inventories to satisfy consumer demands. Large Australian book retailers like QBD and Booktopia have organised themselves in similar ways.

But smaller players, such as independent bookshops, are less able to buy in bulk or maintain large inventories. They are more likely to order only what they reasonably believe they can sell, quickly ordering more books in relation to demand.

There are some 1,900 bookstores in Australia that contribute about A$1.4 billion to the national economy. Most of the market – 84% – is made up of small players.

Read more:
Love of bookshops in a time of Amazon and populism

Even pre-COVID, the industry has been under increasing pressure. Between 2016 and 2021, the industry contracted by 6.1%, and it was expected to continue to fall. Printing of books was on the decline, and many bookstores shut or reduced their capacity.

Paper, printing, binding, logistics and warehousing have all been exposed to COVID-19 disruptions. But at the same time, when COVID hit, demand for books suddenly increased as people looked for amusement to get them through lockdown. The sudden increase in demand forced an industry in decline to play catch-up.

Books are still easy to find

However supply chain issues shouldn’t be impacting our reading at all. There is a cheap, accessible and innovative form of books not reliant on many of the steps in the traditional book supply chain: ebooks.

Readers are now capable of using technology to circumvent the printing and delivery process by buying and instantly downloading books at very low cost. But printed books are still in demand.

In 2020, 15.9% of Australians purchased an ebook but 41.2% purchased a printed book. This is in sharp contrast to music sales: physical music sales in Australia in 2020 accounted for just 11% of sales revenue.

Read more:
Has the print book trumped digital? Beware of glib conclusions

It has been suggested people prefer the physical texture of books and our brains are hardwired to inherently process analogue information. In spite of the promising adoption of new reading technologies we remain wedded to the printed word – but even this doesn’t mean we should remain wedded to supply chains.

For those dedicated to print, there are many more options: choosing a book you haven’t heard of from your local bookshop, buying from second-hand bookstores, borrowing from libraries, swapping books with friends and participating in local little libraries.

Supply chains may be impacting the shelves of your favourite independent book seller, but there is no reason they should impact your reading joy.

Elizabeth Jackson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Australian booksellers are facing a supply chain ‘crisis’. Here’s how books get into your hands – and how you can keep reading – https://theconversation.com/australian-booksellers-are-facing-a-supply-chain-crisis-heres-how-books-get-into-your-hands-and-how-you-can-keep-reading-167991

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nathan Bartlett, Associate Professor, School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy, University of Newcastle

Last week, AstraZeneca’s chief executive officer said the company’s COVID vaccine may provide longer-lasting protection than mRNA vaccines like Pfizer’s, especially in older people.

CEO Pascal Soriot said this might explain the United Kingdom’s more stable hospitalisation rate compared to the escalating COVID situation in continental Europe.

The UK used the AstraZeneca vaccine a lot more widely than other European countries, many of which restricted its use to older age groups or abandoned using it altogether after reports of very rare blood clots.

The theory behind this is the AstraZeneca vaccine may provide more durable “T cell protection”. T cells are a crucial part of our immune system, and differ from antibodies.

There’s not enough evidence yet to support the CEO’s claim. But we do know a lot more about adenovirus vector vaccines, such as AstraZeneca’s, as they’ve been around for decades, while mRNA vaccines are relatively newer.

Theoretically, it is possible adenovirus vector vaccines do give more durable protection against COVID via T cells.

Let me explain.

What is AstraZeneca’s vaccine again?

AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine is an adenovirus vector vaccine.

This means it uses an adenovirus – a common type of virus that affects humans and many other animals. The adenovirus is genetically modified so it doesn’t replicate.

It’s used as a way to deliver the vaccine’s information into our cells.

In this case, the information packaged in the adenovirus tells our body how to make the coronavirus spike protein. This teaches our immune system how to deal with the coronavirus if we’re exposed.

Adenovirus vectors have been used in medicine for a few decades in other vaccines and also cancer therapy. They’re very good at stimulating both antibody production and T cell responses.

What are T cells?

Antibodies bind tightly to a specific target, locking onto invading viruses and preventing them from entering our cells.

But the immune system is more than just antibodies.

T cells are also really important for our immune response, and have different roles. One type, known as “killer T cells”, attack and destroy virus-infected cells.

Another type, known as “helper T cells”, interpret the nature of the infection and help the immune system respond appropriately. This includes activating killer T cells to destroy virus-infected cells, and also helping B cells make antibodies.

Antibodies wane over time, which can lead to more breakthrough infections in fully vaccinated people.

When viruses are not stopped by antibodies, we rely on killer T cells to eradicate the virus. And T cells almost certainly help prevent severe outcomes if you get COVID.

It’s a lot harder for a virus to escape a T cell-based immune response. So a vaccine that generates strong T cell immunity should help retain effectiveness over time against variants including Delta and Omicron.

Read more:
Why are we seeing more COVID cases in fully vaccinated people? An expert explains

All COVID vaccines stimulate our bodies to produce both antibodies and T cells.

So the key questions are: does AstraZeneca’s vaccine produce a longer-lasting T cell response than the mRNA vaccines? And might this be one reason why the UK, which relied heavily on the AstraZeneca vaccine, has a more stable hospitalisation rate than other parts of Europe?

Unfortunately, there are not enough data yet to answer these conclusively.

There are many reasons why hospitalisation rates can vary between countries, so it’s difficult to know how much of a factor the use of AstraZeneca’s vaccine would be.

But we can lean on what we know about adenovirus vector vaccines to break down this theory.

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

It’s plausible

Adenovirus vector vaccines are very good at stimulating immune responses, particularly T cell responses.

Current wisdom tells us the mRNA vaccines provide a stronger antibody response than the viral vector vaccines like AstraZeneca’s.

But this antibody protection seems to wane relatively quickly over 4-6 months.

It’s possible immune memory with the mRNA vaccines isn’t as strong, and the AstraZeneca vaccine may produce a longer-lasting T cell response that supports more durable immune memory.

This could slow the loss of antibodies and generate a better killer T cell response.

Why might AstraZeneca produce a longer-lasting response?

One reason might be because the RNA in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines doesn’t last very long in the body, only a week or so, because RNA is very fragile.

But the DNA delivered by adenovirus vector vaccines will likely hang around in the body for a bit longer.

DNA is more stable than RNA, and might allow for a more prolonged, low-level activation of our immune system that provides longer-lasting protection.

This might explain longer-lasting T cell responses with the AstraZeneca vaccine.

But this is only speculative for now as such direct tests haven’t been done yet.

Read more:
No, COVID vaccines don’t stay in your body for years

If true, we can learn from this

This isn’t about which vaccine is “better”, or picking and choosing which vaccine to get.

Both are excellent vaccines that have saved many, many lives already. We shouldn’t play a tribal game where we say we’re only going to get one type of vaccine.

It’s important to learn from both types of vaccine, while we continue to learn about immunity to COVID, so we can incorporate the best characteristics of both into next-generation vaccines that help us better fight COVID and future pandemics.

I’m sure mRNA vaccine producers will learn from this and develop new formulas to give a longer-lasting response.

It’s worth remembering Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines are the first mRNA vaccines ever approved for use in humans.

There was an immediate need to get antibodies against COVID in our bodies as soon as possible, and they’ve done a fantastic job doing that.

Nathan Bartlett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Does AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine give longer-lasting protection than mRNA shots? – https://theconversation.com/does-astrazenecas-covid-vaccine-give-longer-lasting-protection-than-mrna-shots-172609

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Beckett, Lecturer in Media and Communications, The University of Melbourne

Yesterday, Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Attorney-General Michaelia Cash announced proposed new legislation aimed at making online “trolls” accountable for their actions.

Over the past few weeks, we’ve heard Morrison decry trolls as “cowardly” and “un-Australian”, language that made it into the talking points at yesterday’s media conference. But is his new-found concern about trolling all it’s cracked up to be?

The proposed new legislation would give courts the power to force social media companies to pass on to people the details of their trolls, so they can pursue defamation action against them.

This decision is largely a reaction to the High Court’s upholding of the ruling in the Dylan Voller case, which now holds media companies responsible for defamatory comments posted on their social media pages. But there are some things that we need to be wary of in this legislation.

Defamation isn’t the same as trolling

Speaking to the media yesterday, Morrison argued this legislation is a necessary means to curb online trolling. But the policy proposal largely deals with issues of defamation, which isn’t necessarily the same thing.

As I have previously pointed out, trolling is a grossly overused term that encompasses a range of activities. Defamation, meanwhile, is far more specific and legally defined. To prove defamation, one has to prove the content posted has damaged the victim’s reputation.

À lire aussi :
High Court rules media are liable for Facebook comments on their stories. Here’s what that means for your favourite Facebook pages

Framing this announcement in the context of the very real harms of targeted online bullying and harassment is, I believe, disingenuous. I say this because those who suffer this kind of harassment aren’t likely to be bringing defamation suits. In short, this legislation won’t necessarily help them.

What’s more, a version of the newly announced powers already exists anyway. The recent Online Safety Act 2021 allows the e-Safety Commissioner to order social media companies to remove bullying or harassing content within 24 hours, or face a A$555,000 fine. Crucially, it also gives the commissioner powers to demand information about the owners of anonymous accounts who engage in online abuse.

Where social media companies fail to provide information about the offending poster, the newly announced laws would see them held accountable for the defamatory content. But that assumes they know this information in the first place.

Social media companies already collect users’ details on sign-up, including their name, email address, country of residence and, increasingly, telephone number. But for many social media platforms, there is nothing to stop users setting up an account with a fake name, using a throwaway email address or a “burner” phone, and then ditching all of that but maintaining the account once the information has been initially verified.

Even if the information provided is correct, it doesn’t mean the person will necessarily answer their phone or respond to an email. As one journalist asked yesterday, should social media companies be held accountable in that instance? The standard “reasonable person” assessment in law would likely find not, meaning any defamation action brought against the company itself would likely fail.

Social media ID laws by stealth

My main concern with this proposed legislation is that it will prompt social media companies to collect enough information on their users so they become readily identifiable upon request. This seems a very similar concept to the government’s suggestion earlier this year that Australians who set up social media accounts should have to provide 100 points of identification.

That proposal was met with a barrage of criticism, both for reasons of simple privacy, and because some experts, including myself, believe removing anonymity won’t fix online toxicity anyway.

À lire aussi :
Ending online anonymity won’t make social media less toxic

The other real issue, ironically enough, is one of user safety. Yes, online anonymity gives trolls a mask to hide behind, but it also allows people to access support for addiction or mental health issues, for example, or for a young LGBTQI+ person in fear of real-world violence or disapproval to find a community online. Online anonymity can be a crucial shield for victims of domestic violence who want to avoid being found by their abusers.

Forcing social media companies to provide users’ details to a court also opens up the possibility of “abuse of process”. This is where the legal process itself is used as a form of intimidation and bullying or, worse, for an abuser to gain access to their victim. The government has assured us the policy will contain safeguards against this, but has provided no detail so far on how this will be achieved.

Finally, it’s worth noting that several of the highest-profile current plaintiffs in Australian defamation cases involving social media defamation are to be found among the government itself. So while it might sound cynical, we’re entitled to wonder whom this policy is really designed to help.

Jennifer Beckett ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. The government’s planned ‘anti-troll’ laws won’t help most victims of online trolling – https://theconversation.com/the-governments-planned-anti-troll-laws-wont-help-most-victims-of-online-trolling-172743

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher O’Neill, Research fellow, Monash University

What’s the meaning of Christmas? For many, it’s about feasting, family, and napping while watching the cricket.

But for e-commerce giants like Amazon, Christmas is the most lucrative time of the year. During the 2020 holiday season, Amazon processed more than A$6.6 billion in sales.

And for the warehouse and shipping workers who actually get these purchases to their destinations, the run-up to Christmas means long hours and more demanding work, often under poor conditions and with little job security.

In our research project on “automated precarity”, we are trying to learn more about workers’ experiences to understand whether conditions in Australian e-commerce warehouses are comparable to those documented overseas.

The Christmas rush

This year, almost four in five Australian households are expected to buy Christmas presents online.

The frenzy really kicks off with the manufactured “shopping holiday” of Black Friday, which follows the US Thanksgiving holiday but has become a global event. A single day wasn’t enough, so we now also have Cyber Monday, focused explicitly on consumer spending on e-commerce platforms.

E-commerce and Christmas have become so entwined that Dave Clark, a senior executive at Amazon, calls his company’s warehouses “Santa’s workshops”.

Read more:
Black Friday for Amazon workers: the human costs behind consumer convenience

‘Tis the season of hiring and firing

We want to understand how things like seasonal shopping events and the promise of warehouse automation are shaping conditions for the growing number of logistics workers employed in e-commerce.

In Australia, Amazon has made extensive use of labour-hire temps engaged through recruitment agencies. Amazon Australia alone will mobilise more than 1,000 seasonal workers in the lead-up to the Christmas rush.

This temporary workforce often experiences some of the most intense working conditions. Aside from no job security, many workers are reportedly required to work at an accelerated pace for incredibly long hours, with the added expectation they will be available on call for the duration of the shopping season.

Read more:
3 ways ‘algorithmic management’ makes work more stressful and less satisfying

Burnout by design?

Traditional thinking in worker management suggests there are benefits to retaining workers who improve their skills and build loyalty to employers.

But in the United States, Amazon churns through workers at an alarming pace. Its annual employee turnover rate of 150%, nearly twice the industry average, has reportedly even led some executives to worry about “running out of workers”.

The urgency of seasonal shopping means Amazon can push workers to the max, making them work long hours doing physically demanding tasks at breakneck speeds.

Managers do not necessarily need to fire people when the rush ends – instead research and reporting suggests workers leave of their own volition, because their bodies simply cannot handle the strain any longer.

In a recent article, Canadian researcher and workers’ rights advocate Mostafa Henaway describes his experiences working in an Amazon fulfilment centre:

Amazon does not openly push people out the door. It lets the work do that on its own.

These conclusions are supported by reporting on working conditions at Amazon in different countries where the company operates, such as the UK and Italy.

Regardless of intent, burning through workers at a rapid rate is a consequence of how the work and conditions are designed.

Amazon workers in the US report the app they use to manage their schedules even has a handy “submit voluntary resignation” button to make the process convenient and automated.

Internal documents reportedly show Amazon executives “closely track” and set goals for a metric called the “unregretted attrition rate”, which is the percentage of workers the company is happy to see leave every year. This applies to Amazon employees, rather than temporary labour, but could suggest churning through workers is an intentional management strategy.

As well as synchronising labour needs to seasonal demands, rapid turnover of workers makes organisation and unionisation less likely. In the context of an ongoing fight by Amazon workers to unionise, shorter-term workers are less likely to have the opportunity to become union members and push for better conditions.

We asked Amazon Australia whether “burnout by design” is a deliberate strategy. Director of Operations Craig Fuller said:

These claims are baseless. We’re proud to offer a safe, enjoyable and supportive work environment for our fulfilment centre team members all year round. As with all retailers, the holiday season is our busiest time of year, and we work hard to ensure that everyone working in our buildings is supported and has a positive experience at work.

This year we have onboarded around 1,000 additional seasonal workers around Australia to support our existing workforce over the festive season. While they are hired to work over the holidays, these seasonal opportunities can also present a path to employment and a longer-term career at Amazon and we have many examples of seasonal workers who have chosen to stay on and build their career with Amazon Australia.

We continue to place tremendous value and focus on the wellbeing and safety of our team.

Will automation fix it?

Online retailers are making big investments in automation.

Amazon is aiming to finish a new A$500 million warehouse in Western Sydney by Christmas. It will be the biggest in Australia, equipped with swarms of robots ferrying items around 200,000 square metres of floor space.

Increasing automation and reports of looming massive job losses can make workers feel threatened by the risk of being made obsolete by technology.

Read more:
Coles and Woolworths are moving to robot warehouses and on-demand labour as home deliveries soar

But this highly robotic workplace will still have plenty of human workers. There are plenty of things even the most advanced warehouse robots still aren’t good at, or that humans can do more cheaply.

Workplace automation is arguably less about replacing workers and more about pushing them to keep up with the pace of machines and algorithms. More speed takes its toll: Amazon warehouses in the US reportedly have an injury rate 80% higher than the industry standard.

The holidays are here to stay

We can expect corporations to further expand shopping holidays, following in the footsteps of Amazon’s mid-year revenue-boosting “Prime Day” in June. The exhausting and precarious conditions of seasonal work are likely to spread to the rest of the year.

We fear convenient online shopping comes at the expense of burnout, exhaustion, and precarious jobs. This situation may become permanent without improved labour rights and tighter corporate regulations.

Christopher O’Neill receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society, which includes various industry partners such as Google, Volvo and Telstra.

Jake Goldenfein is an Associate Investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society which includes various industry partners such as Google, Volvo and Telstra.

Jathan Sadowski receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society, which includes various industry partners such as Google, Volvo and Telstra.

Lauren Kate Kelly receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society, which includes various industry partners such as Google, Volvo and Telstra. She works with United Workers Union.

Thao Phan is a full-time Research Fellow in the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society, which includes various industry partners such as Google, Volvo and Telstra.

– ref. Burnout by design? Warehouse and shipping workers pay the hidden cost of the holiday season – https://theconversation.com/burnout-by-design-warehouse-and-shipping-workers-pay-the-hidden-cost-of-the-holiday-season-172157

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

The emergence of a new SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern, Omicron, has reignited global discussions of vaccine distribution, virus mutation, and immunity against new virus strains.

Some experts have suggested the emergence of a new strain could be a result of low levels of vaccine coverage in developing nations.

So how do new virus variants emerge? And what role does vaccination play? The relationship is still unclear but here’s what we know so far.

Read more:
Omicron is the new COVID kid on the block: five steps to avoid, ten to take immediately

Viruses naturally change during reproduction

A virus is life at its most simple, and essentially contains two main elements: (1) a blueprint for reproduction (made of DNA or RNA), and (2) proteins that let the virus enter cells, take over, and start replicating.

While only a few SARS-CoV-2 viruses are needed to cause an infection, replication of the virus in the lungs is explosive. Millions of virus particles are eventually produced, and some of these viruses are then exhaled to infect another host.

Importantly, the process of duplicating the virus’ RNA is imperfect. Eventually, errors will accumulate in the growing pool of viruses, causing what we refer to as virus variants.

What is a SARS-CoV-2 variant virus and why are some of them concerning?

When viruses are transmitted from one person to another, some of the new variants will be better at entering cells or duplicating themselves than others.

In these cases, the “fitter” variants are more likely to take over and become the main virus that replicates within a population.

Over the course of the pandemic, this has occurred several times. The original SARS-CoV-2 virus that emerged from Wuhan in 2019 was later replaced by a variant called D614G, followed by the Alpha variant and now, the Delta variant.

Every time someone gets infected with SARS-CoV-2, there is a chance the virus could generate a more fit variant, which could then spread to others.

How are vaccines holding up as the virus changes?

Our current vaccines are still highly effective against SARS-CoV-2 variants, including the Delta strain. This is because the vaccines target the whole “spike” protein of the virus, which is a large protein with a relatively small number of changes across variants.

Concerningly, some SARS-CoV-2 variants (Beta, Gamma, Lambda and Mu) have been reported to “evade” immunity from vaccination. This means the immune system is unable to recognise the variant virus as well as the original strain, which reduces the effectiveness of vaccination.

Read more:
The Lambda variant: is it more infectious, and can it escape vaccines? A virologist explains

However to date, the global impact of such “immune escape” strains has been limited. For instance, the Beta variant, which showed the highest amount of immune escape, was unable to out-compete Delta in the real world.

Are low vaccination rates a risk for generating new virus variants?

For now, any relationship between vaccine coverage and new SARS-CoV-2 variants is unclear.

There are two main factors that could lead to the development of new variants.

First, low vaccine coverage might increase the risk of new variants by allowing transmission within a community.

In this case, high viral replication and person-to-person transmission provides plenty of opportunity for the virus to mutate.

Alternatively, as vaccination rates rise, the only viruses that will be able to successfully infect people will be variants that at least partially escape the protection of vaccines.

This scenario might require continual global surveillance efforts and new vaccines to maintain long-term control of the virus, similar to the flu.

Either way, with COVID-19 almost certain to stick around, we should expect new strains will continue to be a challenge. We will need careful and active management to address this risk.

So where did Omicron come from?

The recent reports of a new variant of concern, Omicron, has raised global alarm bells.

Discovered by the impressive virus sequencing efforts of South African scientists, Omicron contains an incredible 32 changes in the spike protein alone. This includes mutations that can increase transmission and evade immunity.

So there is a risk that Omicron may spread rapidly and reduce (but not eliminate) the effectiveness of current vaccines.

Read more:
The hunt for coronavirus variants: how the new one was found and what we know so far

With low overall vaccination coverage in southern Africa (albeit with higher population level immunity from infection), some have suggested global inequities in the supply of COVID vaccines may be responsible for the emergence of Omicron.

However, the extensive mutations in Omicron are also consistent with the virus changing over an extended time, as it replicated in a person with a compromised immune system.

Such highly mutated variants have been documented in the past but have generally not spread widely.

Global vaccine coverage benefits us all

Expanding global vaccine coverage by increasing supplies, ensuring equitable distribution, and combating hesitancy and misinformation remains critical.

High global vaccine coverage will limit overall viral evolution, protect immunocompromised people and lessen chances highly mutated viruses can spread, all of which can directly or indirectly lower the risks of new variants emerging.

With the global community now highly interconnected, countries will struggle to keep their citizens safe in the face of pandemic threats without embracing a framework for greater international cooperation and coordination.

Jennifer Juno receives funding from the NHMRC and MRFF.

Adam Wheatley receives funding from the NHMRC, ARC and MRFF.

– ref. Are new COVID variants like Omicron linked to low vaccine coverage? Here’s what the science says – https://theconversation.com/are-new-covid-variants-like-omicron-linked-to-low-vaccine-coverage-heres-what-the-science-says-170262

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Henry Sherrell, Deputy Program Director (Migration), Grattan Institute

The Australian government’s new temporary visa for agricultural workers is meant to fix labour shortages in the agricultural sector. But it’s a risky approach that could lead to more exploitation of low-skilled farm workers and fewer permanent skilled workers.

The agriculture sector is heavily reliant on temporary visa holders for labour, with the two main sources being “backpackers” doing three months as a condition of further stay and workers from the Pacific Island nations and Timor-Leste sponsored by employers to work full-time.

The new Australian Agriculture Visa will enable employers in the farming, forestry, fisheries and meat-processing sectors to recruit full-time workers from other countries, with the first expected to be Indonesia, and arrangements with other Southeast Asian nations to follow.

This move comes after decades of lobbying by farmers. The immediate catalyst is the new Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement, which will exempt British backpackers from the requirements of the Working Holiday Visa to complete 88 days of farm work to extend their stay. This is expected to reduce the agricultural labour force by about 10,000 workers a year.

Details of the new visa are still being finalised. Like the existing arrangements for Pacific Island and Timorese workers, visas will be sponsored, so numbers will depend on the scheme’s popularity with employers.

Standard workplace laws will apply, including the payment of award wages.

Read more:
Closing the loophole: a minimum wage for Australia’s farm workers is long overdue

But enforcing the rights of migrant workers on farms has proven notoriously difficult. Regardless of what visa people hold, the jobs are low-wage and often in isolated areas. There is also the problem of visas binding workers to sponsoring employers, making it harder to escape mistreatment.

Opportunities for exploitation

Stories of exploitation of migrant farm workers abound. As the Fair Work Ombudsman reported in 2016, backpackers working on farms have been at risk of being a “black market, exploited labour force”.

The Pacific work visas that have been available under two programs (the Seasonal Worker Programme and Pacific Labour Scheme) are more regulated, with employers obliged to provide a minimum number of work hours at the prevailing award rate, as well as accommodation and pastoral support.

But these rules have not prevented reports of exploitation and mistreatment of workers who often speak poor English, may be unfamiliar with their workplace rights, and have no ability to quit and find a new employer.

Low-wage jobs carry particular risks under employer sponsorship rules. Skilled workers are better able to bargain for themselves and typically have options to move. But workers in entry-level roles have fewer options. The choice is often putting up, leaving the country altogether or “absconding”.

Read more:
Australia needs better working conditions, not shaming, for Pacific Islander farm workers

The Seasonal Worker Program and Pacific Labour Schemes are being rolled into a single scheme – the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme – that the federal government is promising will cut red tape and improve worker protections. But critics are not confident the changes will address the loopholes that facilitate exploitation.

The same concerns also apply to workers recruited under the new agricultural visa. Why would the results be any different for a new visa with fewer protections?

Many farmers want to do the right thing. But their livelihoods will be threatened if weak visa rules allow dodgy operators to mistreat migrant workers.

Read more:
New Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme offers more flexibility … for employers

Sponsoring employers (typically labour hire agencies) that underpay their workers will gain an advantage, driving down costs and pushing the good guys to the brink.

A widely used agricultural visa risks supercharging these forces, making exploitation of agricultural workers more common.

Displacing skilled migrants

The federal government is also considering a pathway to permanent residency for workers arriving on the new visa.

But with the total number of permanent visas available each year capped at 160,000, granting permanent residency to agricultural visa holders will likely mean displacing workers with more skills.

Australia could end up swapping migrant workers who can get higher-paid jobs for those who can only get low-paid jobs. Migrants who earn less will also pay less income tax.

The government may yet expand the number of permanent visas granted each year. But increasing the quota for permanent migrants is something the Morrison government is likely to want to avoid, given the politics of population pressures on major cities. The reasons it cut 30,000 places from the permanent migration program just three years ago – housing affordability being the most obvious – haven’t gone away.

If the permanent migration program were to be expanded, lower-skilled agricultural workers should be well down our priority list.

Australia’s experience with temporary migration shows that once a new visa is established the number of migrant workers can grow quickly. A new agricultural visa could see history repeat.

Instead of rushing ahead, the Morrison government should hit pause and rethink its approach to helping farmers find workers. As it stands this dedicated visa for agricultural workers risks opening a Pandora’s box that will prove impossible to close.

Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute’s activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations and individuals to support its general activities as disclosed on its website. Grattan Institute’s work on migration policy is currently supported by a generous contribution from the Scanlon Foundation.

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

Grattan Institute’s work on migration policy is currently supported by a generous contribution from the Scanlon Foundation.

– ref. Australia’s new agricultural work visa could supercharge the forces of exploitation – https://theconversation.com/australias-new-agricultural-work-visa-could-supercharge-the-forces-of-exploitation-172304

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

As climate change worsens, bushfires are likely to become more intense and frequent. We must find new ways of managing bushfires to prevent catastrophic events altogether.

Satellite data can help in this task. It helps us identify where and when vegetation such as grass and leaves forms a continuous swath of fuel dry enough for a catastrophic bushfire to ignite and take hold.

Right now, Australia relies on foreign satellites to gather this information. These satellites are not designed to assess our unique bush landscape and its highly flammable eucalyptus. We need to develop bespoke Australian satellites to better prevent bushfires.

Today, a roadmap released by the Australian Space Agency outlines its priorities for Earth observation. It lists national bushfire fuel load monitoring as a priority “mission purpose” – recognising the need for satellites built specifically to watch Australia’s fire conditions from space.

A quick continent snapshot

We have been developing an Australian satellite mission to monitor fuel conditions. This work helped inform the Australian Space Agency’s roadmap.

Information about fuel conditions is crucial on two counts. In the lead-up to bushfire season, it helps fire authorities decide where and when to conduct prescribed burning to reduce the amount of flammable material in the landscape, and where to focus community messaging. And when bushfires break out, it helps authorities plan where to allocate personnel and equipment.

Fuel condition can be gathered using various methods, including ground sampling, observations by plane or drone, and the satellite imagery currently available.

Read more:
A staggering 1.8 million hectares burned in ‘high-severity’ fires during Australia’s Black Summer

But generally speaking, these methods can only be used on small areas, are slow and time-consuming, or can lack accuracy. Dedicated fuel-monitoring satellites, on the other hand, could cover the Australian landmass in a matter of hours or days with great precision.

Low soil and vegetation moisture content, due to dry conditions, were a key driver of the catastrophic 2019-20 Black Summer bushfires.

Two inquiries into those fires – the national royal commission into natural disasters and the New South Wales parliamentary inquiry – highlighted the need for a continent–wide map of vegetative fuel states.

Following the Black Summer fires, the Australian Space Agency identified the need for satellite monitoring of fuel conditions which provided more rapid and frequent data, broader coverage and improved resolution. It raised the prospect of new satellite missions specific to bushfire risk management.

Satellite data is key

Satellite sensors systematically observe Earth’s surface, allowing for analysis of fuel conditions over time.

To date, Australia has relied heavily on Earth observation data provided by foreign satellites. For example, the CSIRO has purchased a 10% share of time on the NovaSAR-1 satellite developed in the United Kingdom.

This satellite can take images of Earth through clouds and smoke, in both day and night. But it cannot provide regular operational support to Australian fire authorities.

And other satellites currently in space are not ideal for distinguishing the individual compounds that make our native eucalyptus so flammable – such as water content, lignin, cellulose and oil content. That’s because they lack the narrow spectral bands on the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum where these compounds can best be detected.

This limits Australia’s ability to accurately predict fuel conditions. A space mission dedicated to monitoring fuel loads in Australia is needed to improve bushfire management and prevention. That’s where our research can help.

Read more:
Some say we’ve seen bushfires worse than this before. But they’re ignoring a few key facts

The OzFuel mission

Our team, based at the Australian National University, recently examined the feasibility of a satellite mission to monitor Australian forest fuel from space, dubbed the OzFuel mission. This research helped inform the Australian Space Agency roadmap released today.

The OzFuel mission would measure fuel properties, as opposed to detecting fires. It would target the specific wavelengths related to dry matter, water content and other compounds of eucalypts that make them flammable, so providing a comprehensive picture of fuel loads at a continental scale.

The OzFuel microsatellite would monitor Australian eucalyptus forests from space every six to eight days during the early hours of the afternoon, when vegetation is most stressed and more easily ignites. Images would be taken at a spatial resolution of about 50 metres, which is adequate for bushfire management operations.

We propose a program of work beginning with the OzFuel demonstrator mission comprising one pathfinder satellite launched into space. We envisage the long-term vision is a group of satellites providing near-real-time analysis of fuel conditions.

An ongoing launch program such as this requires significant investment, which would be enabled through industry and government partnerships.

But this should be considered an investment into protection against catastrophic bushfires, which research suggests will cost the Australian economy up to A$1.1 billion per year over the next 50 years.

Partner investment in the OzFuel mission would also help develop Australia’s capability in small satellite missions more generally.

The risk of larger and more frequent megafires will only increase in future. Clearly, Australia needs more effective prediction, prevention and mitigation strategies to prevent a repeat of Black Summer. A space mission designed to monitor Australia’s highly flammable landscape has a crucial role to play.

Read more:
I made bushfire maps from satellite data, and found a glaring gap in Australia’s preparedness

James Gilbert works for the Australian National University.

Rob Sharp is the scientific lead at ANU for the sensor program on which the OzFuel mission is based. This work is part of a wider program of technical development in infrared sensor technology funded through a combination of government and private industry research awards.

Marta Yebra and Nicolas Younes do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Yes, it’s rocket science: Australia needs eyes in space to monitor our tinderbox landscape – https://theconversation.com/yes-its-rocket-science-australia-needs-eyes-in-space-to-monitor-our-tinderbox-landscape-166667

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caroline Fisher, Co-author of the Digital News Report: Australia, Deputy Director of the News and Media Research Centre, and Associate Professor of Journalism, University of Canberra

The News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code was enacted early this year in response to a call by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) for strong action by the government to reduce the power imbalance between Australian news media businesses and digital platforms.

It was a fraught negotiation process, described as a three-way tug-of-war between the government, the digital platforms and the news media. The code has been strongly criticised by organisations – including The Conversation and SBS – that have missed out on deals even though they fall within its definition of news.

Another concern is for smaller and regional players that do not meet the $150,000 threshold for a news business to qualify under the code.

In early 2022, the Department of the Treasury will start its review of the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code legislation to see if it remains fit for purpose by ensuring digital platforms contribute to the sustainability of the Australian news industry.

How will they do that, given the code is yet to be put to the test?

To date, no digital platforms have been designated by the treasurer under the code. If the treasurer is satisfied Google and Facebook have adequately contributed to the Australian news industry, they may never be.

Read more:
Google’s and Facebook’s loud appeal to users over the news media bargaining code shows a lack of political power

A range of commercial content agreements between Facebook and/or Google and news businesses have been concluded outside of the legislation. This allows their content to be provided on Google News Showcase and Facebook News Tab. No comprehensive list is available, but company announcements and media coverage reveal deals have been done with The Guardian Australia, Junkee, News Corp Australia, Schwartz Media, The New Daily, ABC, Australian Community Media, The Conversation, Country Press Australia, Ten, Seven West Media, Nine Entertainment Co., Times News Group, Crikey, and Solstice media, and others.

These deals are commercial-in-confidence, so very little is known about how much they are worth, how the money will be spent and how effective they will be in supporting news businesses.

On the one hand, several news organisations that struck deals with Facebook and/or Google have made announcements about hiring more journalists.

On the other hand, companies have announced reductions in print services and job cuts, despite striking deals with the platforms. Because of the lack of transparency, it is not clear how the commercial deals struck have influenced these business decisions. It is even harder to predict the longer-term impact of these content agreements on the sustainability of the news industry and whether they will contribute to a diverse Australian news ecology.

Reviewing the code will be a major task. To explore possible options, the News and Media Research Centre (N&MRC) at the University of Canberra held a Chatham House rules roundtable discussion with representatives of the news industry, platforms, government and the community.

The aim was to identify gaps in research to help inform media policy into the future. The bargaining code was one of the key topics discussed on the day. Based on our interpretation of those discussions and our research expertise, we have come up with a list of indicators to monitor the impact of the commercial content agreements on the sustainability of news businesses and the health of the wider news environment.

Different indicators are needed to reflect the distinct accountabilities of the three key actors involved: digital platforms, news businesses and government. Some of the suggested indicators below are observable and can be measured externally. Others will require collaboration with independent researchers.

Indicators to estimate the impact of the voluntary content agreements on the news industry could include:

• changes in the number of journalists and other staff

• closures, contractions or expansions of news outlets

• the size of investment in cadets and staff training.

Other important measures would be to track the volume of public interest journalism content, as well as readership, subscription and membership figures. In the longer term, enrolments in journalism courses and their graduate employment outcomes will also provide useful indicators of the health of the industry.

Read more:
Why Google is now funnelling millions into media outlets, as Facebook pulls news for Australia

The assessment of the government’s performance may include independent evaluation of current and former government support programs for the news media industry, and if other countries adopt the code. For Google and Facebook, they will need to satisfy the treasurer that the power imbalance has been corrected and enough has been done to help sustain the Australian news media.

It must be stressed that the news media bargaining code was never designed to be a silver bullet to fix the ailing news industry. It was part of a wider suite of supports for the news media that the ACCC recommended.

These suggested indicators are by no means exhaustive, but they paint a picture of the complexity of the task at hand. It will require co-operation and collaboration between government, industry and academia. After all, it is journalism in the public’s interest that is at stake here.

A copy of the N&MRC’s research priority report can be found here.

Caroline Fisher receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Social Science Research Council, and the Alannah and Madeline Foundation.

Kerry McCallum receives from the Australian Research Council and the Office of the e-Safety Commissioner

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

– ref. Is the news media bargaining code fit for purpose? – https://theconversation.com/is-the-news-media-bargaining-code-fit-for-purpose-172224

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Colm Cunningham, Conjoint Associate Professor, UNSW

A decline in verbal skills is a source of grief for any person living with dementia.

For First Nations peoples, the loss of speech brings the added pain of lost connection to Country, community, family and culture, which are so central to their health and well-being.

Dementia is a serious emerging health issue for Indigenous people, who experience the disease at a rate between three to five times that of the general population, with onset at an earlier age.

The prevalence of dementia-related risk factors such as diabetes and vascular disease, a lack of education and awareness, and cultural considerations means diagnosis of the condition is often overlooked or delayed by health care services.

Dementia Support Australia, funded by the Australian government, has produced a set of picture cards specifically to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as their verbal skills decline and dementia symptoms progress.

Read more:
What do Aboriginal Australians want from their aged care system? Community connection is number one

Indigenous Elders suffering from dementia at alarming rates

According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report Dementia in Australia, released in September, rates of dementia for Indigenous people in Australia in remote and rural communities are “among the highest in the world”.

Elders have a significant role in First Nations communities, and there is strong preference for their care to continue at home or somewhere where they can remain close to their families. There is sensitivity to the idea of removal from their communities. There is a view held by some First Nations people that dementia should not be viewed as a medical issue. Rather, it should be seen as part of the natural cycle of life and deathIt’s not a problem as long as it does not adversely affect their cultural connections or responsibilities as elders.

As identified in the recent Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, there is a pressing need for culturally sensitive support and services for First Nations people living with the condition. One area requiring focus is assistance with communication for people suffering from dementia.

A culturally safe way to communicate

The picture cards, co-designed with First Nations representatives including artist Samantha Campbell, are a simple yet, we hope, effective tool. We recognise that the inability for a person with dementia to communicate what they want or need can be frustrating for both them and care staff.

For an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person with dementia, the communication barrier with those providing care can be greater due to language and cultural differences.

Since its inception in 2016, Dementia Support Australia has assisted up to 300 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients. For consultants based in Alice Springs, about 80% of their referrals are Indigenous Australians. The picture cards are based on the learnings of this work.

The cards are the first of their kind, designed to support First Nations older people and people with dementia. Co-designing the cards involved listening to and learning what First Nations people needed.

Australian Regional and Remote Community Services, which provides care and support to older people in regional and urban communities throughout the Northern Territory and beyond, had a critical role in reviewing Ms Campbell’s work. Anthony Lew-Fatt, ARRCS Regional Manager Indigenous Programs, ARRCS Care Manager Kerrie Stevens, based in Mutitjulu, and ARRCS Care Manager Irene Snell, based in Tennant Creek, all had input.

“Trial” sessions were organised with residents living with dementia in one of ARRCS’s care homes at Alice Springs with some changes resulting to the illustrations following feedback.

The cards have been a success, with more than 1,300 sets so far downloaded or ordered since they were launched in July during NAIDOC Week.

Ms Campbell, a proud Dagoman woman, did the illustrations for all 58 cards in each set. Each picture card was carefully considered for its cultural meaning. Ms Campbell created images based on what would relate to the lived experiences of First Nations people across Australia.

For example, when illustrating the doctor picture, Ms Campbell didn’t draw the stereotype of a westernised doctor dressed in a white coat. This is because some First Nations people may perceive white coats and hospitals as places where people go to when they’re sick and don’t return home due to negative historical experiences with health services.

So the doctor is illustrated someone in a casual shirt, to depict a “friendly bush doctor”.

A set of illustrated cards is divided into eight categories of People, Activities/Objects, Food/Drinks, Personal care, Health, Feelings, Places, and Animals. Each card has the English word and includes space on the back to write the word in the language of the person.

The designs help carers and medical staff communicate with the person they are caring for. Activities such as showering, needing to see a doctor or going for a walk are communicated through the cards.

They can also help a person with dementia start a conversation or reflect on their experiences. This is an important way of revisiting past memories, usually in a positive way, and keeping these memories alive.

Last week the cards won the Indigenous Communities category in the 2021 Future of Ageing Awards, run by Inside Ageing magazine.

Read more:
Getting vaccinated is the act of love needed right now to support the survival of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples during the pandemic

However, it’s just the beginning of what is expected to be a long journey towards understanding and respecting the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living with cognitive impairment.

Dementia Support Australia intends to reach out to recipients of the cards to obtain feedback on possible improvements and additional new designs for future editions. Of course, there needs to be more investigation and innovative thinking to respond fully to the prevalence of dementia in First Nations people.

To download or order a set of these cards, click this link.

HammondCare as my employer may benefit from the recognition

Samantha Campbell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. A new way to keep First Nations people with dementia connected to Country, community, family and culture – https://theconversation.com/a-new-way-to-keep-first-nations-people-with-dementia-connected-to-country-community-family-and-culture-171293

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Rich, Senior lecturer in History and International Relations, Curtin University

With nuclear talks between Iran, the US, and the other members of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) resuming on November 29, one question looms large. Is engagement with Iran likely to bear diplomatic fruit, or be squandered?

Negotiated in 2015 by the Obama administration (alongside Germany, France, Britain, China and Russia), the JCPOA represented a major effort to curtail Iranian nuclear ambitions.

The 159-page agreement committed the US and its European partners to lift longstanding sanctions to allow Iran to bring back foreign investment and sell its natural resources globally without restriction.

In exchange, Iran agreed to put a wide array of dampers on its nuclear program for 15 years. These included:

• keeping uranium enrichment levels below 3.67% (the level used to produce fuel for commercial nuclear plants)

• limit centrifuge numbers and the amount of stockpiled uranium

• allow for greater monitoring, verification and transparency of its nuclear program by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

• and shut down several facilities.

These steps would allow limited civilian activities to remain, but potential military applications would, for the time being, be neutralised.

Importantly, the JCPOA avoided addressing other Iranian actions viewed as destabilising by the US and its partners. These included Tehran’s support of insurgents like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and various Iraqi and Syrian militias, as well as its ever-expanding ballistic missile and drone programs.

The agreement explicitly noted that sanctions for these activities would remain in place and be treated as separate issues.

Beyond addressing the immediate crisis of possible nuclear proliferation, the agreement was intended to act as a trust-building exercise. US leaders believed that by offering an olive branch to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and acting in good faith, they could pave the way for a broader US-Iranian rapprochement. The deal would demonstrate the US could be a reliable partner for future negotiations.

Confidence not built

Of course, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the US once again failed to anticipate arguably its biggest foil in foreign affairs: itself.

The surprise upset election of Donald Trump in 2016 threw the JCPOA into disarray. Whereas Obama had separated the issues of Iran’s nuclear program from its other destabilising acts, Trump viewed both through the same lens.

This led Washington to unilaterally withdraw from the agreement in May 2018 and implement the so-called “maximum pressure” campaign that sought to bully Iran into wider concessions.

This jarring shift occurred despite Iranian compliance with the JCPOA framework. The agreement actually continued for a year after the US withdrew in hopes the other signatories could guide Washington back to the table.

Such hopes proved fruitless, however, as Trump scorned the Europeans, levied new sanctions against Tehran, and engaged in other provocative behaviours. This included the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani, a greatly respected figure in Iran.

Read more:
Political assassinations were once unthinkable. Why the US killing of Soleimani sets a worrying precedent

Trump’s about-face confirmed longstanding elite Iranian views about American duplicity and sullied Obama’s uncharacteristically liberal attempt at building a working relationship with Tehran.

Feeling betrayed, Iran began escalating tensions in the Middle East – including strikes on Saudi oil processing facilities – and resumed enriching uranium well beyond the levels agreed to in the JCPOA.

Heels dug in

Many hoped that with Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 US presidential election, Washington would rapidly move to reengage Tehran and return to the JCPOA agreement. Time was of the essence with Rouhani, the chief proponent of the deal in Iran, due to finish his term this August. (He was replaced by the more conservative and hawkish President Ebrahim Raisi.)

Nevertheless, Biden was not Obama, and despite sharing many of the same staff, his administration quickly displayed more conservative and bullish foreign policy chops.

Rather than offer an act of good faith to clear the bad air, Biden signalled he expected Iran to resume adherence to the JCPOA before any US concessions would be made. At the G20 meeting last month, the US, Germany, France and Britain reaffirmed this message in a joint statement, saying

Return to JCPOA compliance will provide sanctions lifting with long-lasting implications for Iran’s economic growth. This will only be possible if Iran changes course.

Iranian diplomats, however, want the US to right its betrayal and remove sanctions before Tehran begins to comply with the agreement again.

These two intractable and incompatible positions have so far scuttled any efforts to make meaningful headway in negotiations.

For both parties, it is clear the previous terms of the JCPOA simply won’t cut it – especially now that demands from both ends are no longer limited to the nuclear discussions and the wider strategic conditions in the region have changed.

Under Biden, the US focus has shifted towards confronting China in the Asia-Pacific and recovering domestically from COVID-19. This has meant a slow disengagement from the Middle East, placing the Iran issue on somewhat of a backburner (at least compared to 2015).

Iran may also be apprehensive due to the significant possibility of Biden as a one-term president (with a chance, however slim, he could be succeeded by Trump). Iran is also aware the US commitment to the region may not be what it once was, and that biding its time may be the best course of action.

Read more:
Biden is already carving out a different Middle East policy from Trump — and even Obama

Flickers of hope?

Despite such gloom, there is cause for limited optimism through subtle gestures on both sides.

Iran has agreed to return to negotiations on November 29 without the lifting of US sanctions first. This can be considered a mild olive branch.

And US officials recently met with representatives from Persian Gulf states in Saudi Arabia to discuss potential channels of diplomacy with Tehran. They also discussed deeper economic ties once sanctions are lifted under the JCPOA.

Such an optimistic declaration suggests US policymakers are at least entertaining the possibility of a positive outcome and path forward from negotiations – despite significant pressure from Republicans in the US and Israel to the contrary.

But making predictions in the current muck of diplomatic negotiations is difficult. There may be a path towards resuscitating the JCPOA. If possible, however, it will require reestablishing a level of trust that neither side seems open to embracing, nor fostering in the current frosty diplomatic climate.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The Iran nuclear talks are resuming, but is there any trust left to strike a deal? – https://theconversation.com/the-iran-nuclear-talks-are-resuming-but-is-there-any-trust-left-to-strike-a-deal-171937

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Coates, Program Director, Economic Policy, Grattan Institute

As more and more Australians are forced into private renting, including Australians who once would have owned homes or lived in social housing, more are living in poverty, suffering financial stress and becoming homeless.

Social housing – where rents are typically capped at 25% of tenants’ incomes – used to make a big difference to the lives of many vulnerable Australians.

Infrastructure Victoria has found that it makes a big difference to homelessness. Only 7% of renters in social housing subsequently become homeless, compared to
20% of private renters.

But the stock of social housing – currently around 430,000 dwellings – has barely grown in 20 years, during a time Australia’s population has grown 33%.

Given that most social housing tenants stay for more than five years, the stagnating stock of such housing means there are few openings available for people whose lives take a turn for the worse.

We not only have fewer social houses per person, we also have vastly fewer openings for anyone looking.

The fund would leverage cheap money

Social housing is expensive. The capital cost per unit over and above what is recouped in rent amounts to about A$300,000.

A new Grattan Institute paper released on Monday makes the case for a $20 billion federal government Social Housing Future Fund, which would make regular capital grants to state governments and community housing providers.

Future funds are not unusual. The Future Fund Board of Guardians, chaired by former Commonwealth Treasurer Peter Costello already manages $247.8 billion in assets across six funds addressing problems ranging from covering federal public servants’ superannuation entitlements to drought to disability care to medical research.

The endowment for the Social Housing Future Fund could be established by borrowing at today’s ultra-low interest rates. Some states, including Victoria, NSW, and Queensland already operate social housing investment funds, some financed by privatisations, others financed by government borrowing.

The funds would be managed by the existing Future Fund Board of Guardians with only the returns above inflation used to provide capital grants for housing, maintaining the real value of the fund over time.

Capital grants for new social housing units would be allocated by the existing National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation via competitive tenders after specifying dwelling size, location and subsidies for tenants.

As is the case with the existing Future Fund, the funding would be off budget, with only each year’s profits or losses affecting the budget balance.

The extra $20 billion in gross government debt would be small compared to the nearly $1 trillion currently on issue, supported by about $500 billion a year in federal government revenues.

How much could a $20 billion fund support?

A $20 billion fund that achieved after-inflation returns of 4-5%, could over time provide $900 million each year – enough to deliver 3,000 extra social housing units a year in perpetuity, assuming capital grants of $300,000 per dwelling.

Starting in 2022-23, the fund could build 24,000 social housing dwellings by 2030, and 54,000 by 2040. Future governments would be at liberty to top up the fund, helping expand the social housing share of the national housing stock.

The Labor Party has proposed something similar, in which funds are used for annual service payments to community housing providers rather than via upfront capital grants.

The on-budget cost of our proposal would be modest: about $400 million a year, or less than 0.1% of federal government spending in the form of interest costs.

Read more:
Top economists back boosts to JobSeeker and social housing over tax cuts

Alternatively, part of the above-inflation return from the fund each year could be used to cover these costs, leaving $500 million available to fund the construction of nearly 1,700 new social housing units per year with no hit to the budget.

The Commonwealth should require state governments to match its contributions.

States could double the money

Any state that did not agree to provide matching contributions would be ineligible for capital grants for social housing in that year, with the savings reinvested in the Future Fund and distributed across all states the following year.

If matched state funding was forthcoming, the fund could provide 6,000 social homes a year – enough to stop social housing shrinking as a share of the total housing stock.

This would double the build to 48,000 new homes by 2030, and 108,000 by 2040, boosting the current stock by one quarter.

By itself, a Social Housing Future Fund wouldn’t solve the housing crisis for low-income Australians. We would still need to boost rent assistance for people on income support and do more to boost housing supply to bring rents down.

But it would give a much-needed helping hand to some of our most vulnerable, and keep social housing there for future generations should they need it.

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

– ref. The compelling case for a future fund for social housing – https://theconversation.com/the-compelling-case-for-a-future-fund-for-social-housing-172508

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Zwi, Professor of Global Health and Development, UNSW

There is global concern and widespread alarm at the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.529, which the World Health Organization (WHO) has called Omicron.

The WHO has classified Omicron as a “variant of concern” because it has a wide range of mutations. This suggests vaccines and treatments could be less effective.

Although early days, Omicron appears to be able to reinfect people more easily than other strains.

Australia has followed other countries and regions – including the United States, Canada, United Kingdom and the European Union – and banned travellers from nine southern African countries.

À lire aussi :
Omicron is the new COVID kid on the block: five steps to avoid, ten to take immediately

Australians seeking to return home from southern Africa will still be able to do so. But they will have to enter hotel quarantine and be tested, as will those who have returned from the nine stipulated countries – South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Lesotho, Eswatini, the Seychelles, Malawi and Mozambique – in the past 14 days.

But Omicron has already been detected in other regions, including the UK, Germany, Israel, Hong Kong and Belgium. So while a travel ban on southern African countries may slow the spread and buy limited time, it’s unlikely to stop it.

As the Australian government and others act to protect their own citizens, this should be accompanied by additional resources to support countries in southern Africa and elsewhere that take prompt action.

When was Omicron detected?

The variant was identified on November 22 in South Africa, from a sample collected from a patient on November 9.

South African virologists took prompt action, conferred with colleagues through the Network of Genomic Surveillance in South Africa, liaised with government, and notified the World Health Organization on November 24.

This is in keeping with the International Health Regulations that guide how countries should respond.

The behaviour of this new variant is still unclear. Some have claimed the rate of growth of Omicron infections, which reflects its transmissibility, may be even higher than those of the Delta variant. This “growth advantage” is yet to be proven but is concerning.

‘Kneejerk’ response vs WHO recommendations

African scientists and politicians have been disappointed in what they see as a “kneejerk” response from countries imposing travel bans. They argue the ban will have significant negative effects for the South African economy, which traditionally welcomes global tourists over the summer year-end period.

They note it is still unclear whether the new variant originated in South Africa, even if it was first identified there. As Omicron has already been detected in several other countries, it may already be circulating in regions not included in the travel ban.

Travel bans on countries detecting new variants, and the subsequent economic costs, may also act as a disincentive for countries to reveal variants of concern in future.

The WHO does not generally recommend flight bans or other forms of travel embargoes. Instead, it argues interventions of proven value should be prioritised: vaccination, hand hygiene, physical distancing, well-fitted masks, and good ventilation.

In response to variants of concern, the WHO calls on all countries to enhance surveillance and sequencing, report initial cases or clusters, and undertake investigations to improve understanding of the variant’s behaviour.

Omicron must be taken seriously. Its features are worrying, but there are large gaps in our current knowledge. While further analyses are undertaken, the variant should be controlled with testing, tracing, isolation, applying known public health measures, and ongoing surveillance.

What can wealthier countries do to help?

Wealthy countries such as Australia should support African nations and others to share early alerts of potentially serious communicable disease threats, and help mitigate these threats.

As the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response noted in May:

[…] public health actors only see downsides from drawing attention to an outbreak that has the potential to spread.

The panel recommended creating incentives to reward early response action. This could include support to:

• establish research and educational partnerships
• strengthen health systems and communicable disease surveillance
• greatly improve vaccine availability, distribution, and equity
• consider financial compensation, through some form of solidarity fund against pandemic risk.

Boosting vaccine coverage is key

Vaccines remain the mainstay of protection against the most severe effects of COVID-19.

It’s unclear how effective vaccines will be against Omicron, but some degree of protection is presumed likely. Pfizer has also indicated it could develop an effective vaccine against a new variant such as Omicron within 100 days or so.

COVID’s persistence is partly attributable to patchy immunisation coverage across many parts of the world, notably those least developed. South Africa itself is better off than most countries on the continent, yet only 24% of the adult population are currently fully vaccinated. For the whole of Africa, this drops to only 7.2%.

Greater global support is urgently needed to boost these vaccination rates.

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

African institutions and leaders, supported by global health and vaccine experts, have argued for mRNA vaccine manufacturing facilities on the African continent. These would prioritise regional populations, overcome supply-chain problems, and respond in real time to emerging disease threats.

Yet developing nations face significant barriers to obtaining intellectual property around COVID-19 vaccine development and production.

While there is still much to learn about the behaviour and impact of Omicron, the global community must demonstrate and commit real support to countries that do the right thing by promptly and transparently sharing information.

Anthony Zwi ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. Travel bans aren’t the answer to stopping new COVID variant Omicron – https://theconversation.com/travel-bans-arent-the-answer-to-stopping-new-covid-variant-omicron-172736

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Garry Cook, Honorary Fellow, CSIRO

The Black Summer forest fires of 2019–2020 burned more than 24 million hectares, directly causing 33 deaths and almost 450 more from smoke inhalation.

But were these fires unprecedented? You might remember sceptics questioning the idea that the Black Summer fires really were worse than conflagrations like the 1939 Black Friday fires in Victoria.

We can now confidently say that these fires were far from normal. Our new analysis of Australian forest fire trends just published in Nature Communications confirms for the first time the Black Summer fires are part of a clear trend of worsening fire weather and ever-larger forest areas burned by fires.

What did we find?

Our study found that the annual area burned by fire across Australia’s forests has been increasing by about 48,000 ha per year over the last three decades. After five years, that would be roughly the size of the entire Australian Capital Territory (235,000 hectares).

We found three out of four extreme forest fire years since states started keeping records 90 years ago have occurred since 2002.

And we found that the fire season is growing, moving out of spring and summer into autumn and winter.

These trends are almost entirely due to Australia’s increasingly severe fire weather and are consistent with predicted human-induced climate change.

Our study is based on satellite and ground-based estimates of burnt forest area, and trends of nine wildfire risk factors and indices that relate to characteristics of fuel loads, fire weather, extreme fire behaviour, and ignition.

We have focused here only on the most dangerous forest fires, not the fires affecting Australia’s savanna across the tropical north.

Fire burns much more land than 25 years ago

Before the 1990s, Australia’s forest fires were infrequent, though damaging. A given area would burn at an interval between 20 to over 100 years.

The exception were rare summers which would see severe and extensive fires, such as 1939. Overall, only a small fraction of the total forest area burned in any year.

This pattern of fire behaviour no longer exists.

Over the last 30 years, the areas affected by fire have grown enormously.

If we compare the satellite records from 1988–2001 to the period from 2002–2018, the annual average fire area has shot up by 350%.

If we include the 2019–20 Black Summer fires, that figure soars to 800% – an enormous leap.

We are seeing fires growing the most in areas once less likely to be affected by fire, such as cool wet Tasmanian forests unaccustomed to large fires as well as the warmest forests in Queensland previously kept safe from fire by rainfall and a humid microclimate. This includes ancient Gondwanan rainforests not adapted for fire.

Read more:
A staggering 1.8 million hectares burned in ‘high-severity’ fires during Australia’s Black Summer

More extreme fire years and longer fire seasons

Before 2002, there was just one megafire year in the 90 years Australian states have been keeping records – and that was 1939.

Since 2001, there have been three megafire years, defined as a year in which more than one million hectares burn.

Our fire seasons are also getting longer. Spring and summer used to be the time most forest fires would start. That’s no longer guaranteed.

Since 2001 winter fires have soared five-fold compared to 1988–2001 and autumn fires three-fold.

Overall, fires in the cooler months of March to August are growing exponentially at 14% a year.

What’s driving these changes?

Imagine a forest fire starts from a lightning strike in remote bushland. What are the factors which would make it grow, spread and intensify?

A fire will get larger and more dangerous if it has access to more fuel (dry grass, fallen limbs and bark), and if the fire starts when the weather is hotter, drier and windier. Topography also plays a role, with fire able to move much faster uphill.

To get a sense of the overall risk of forest fire, temperature, humidity, windspeed and soil moisture are combined into a single figure, the Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI).

As you might expect, this index has been steadily worsening over the past 40 years. The number of very high fire danger days in forest zones has been increasing by 1.6 days per decade.

So what does this mean for fire behaviour and spread?

In what we believe is a first, we have used 32 years of fire index data across Australia’s forest zones and compared the number of very high or severe fire danger days with areas subsequently burnt by fire.

Read more:
Humans see just 4.7km into the distance. So how can we truly understand what the bushfires destroyed?

We found a clear link, with a 300 to 500% increase in burnt area for every extra day of severe fire danger, and a 21% increase in burnt area for every extra day of very high fire danger.

Could fuel loads or prescribed burning be to blame? No. We looked for trends in these factors, and found nothing to explain the rise in burnt areas.

The main driver for the growing areas burnt by fire is Australia’s increasingly severe fire weather, accounting for 75% of the variation observed in the total annual area of forest fires. This is consistent with predictions from climate change scenarios that severe fire weather conditions will intensify due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

Other fire weather risks are also growing. We’re seeing more higher atmospheric conditions which can lead to the formation of fire-generated thunderstorms (known as pyrocumulonimbus clouds).

These thunderstorms emerging out of fire plumes can spread burning embers further and whip up more dangerous winds for unpredictable fire behaviour on the ground, as well as generate lightning in the fire plume that can ignite new fires far ahead of the fire front.

Dry lightning is the primary natural cause of fire ignitions. Here too, the trends are worsening in southeast Australia. We are now seeing 50% more dry lightning in forest areas in recent decades (2000–2016) compared to the previous two (1980–1999).

Under most climate change scenarios, fire weather is predicted to keep on worsening.

Can we predict our next megafire?

So could we have predicted how bad and how widespread the Black Summer fires would have been, if we had examined fire danger index forecasts in mid-2019?

In short, yes.

The huge amount of bush that burned is entirely consistent with the 34 days of very high forest fire danger across the forest zones that summer. That’s in line with the long-range bushfire weather forecasts provided to fire agencies earlier in 2019.

This means that in future years, we will be able to broadly predict the area likely to burn each fire season by examining fire index forecasts.

We can also safely – and sadly – predict that more and more of Australia will burn in years to come, with increasing numbers of megafire years.

While many factors contribute to catastrophic fire events, our Black Summer was not an aberration.

Rather, it was the continuation of fire trends beginning more than two decades ago. It is now clear that human-induced climate change is creating ever more dangerous conditions for fires in Australia.

We need to be ready for more Black Summers – and worse.

Andrew Dowdy receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program (NESP) Climate Systems Hub.

Pep Canadell receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program – Climate Systems Hub

Garry Cook, Juergen Knauer, Mick Meyer, and Peter Briggs do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Australia’s Black Summer of fire was not normal – and we can prove it – https://theconversation.com/australias-black-summer-of-fire-was-not-normal-and-we-can-prove-it-172506

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gail Iles, Senior Lecturer in Physics, RMIT University

A NASA spacecraft the size of a golf cart has been directed to smash into an asteroid, with the intention of knocking it slightly off course. The test aims to demonstrate our technological readiness in case an actual asteroid threat is detected in the future.

The Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) lifted off aboard a SpaceX rocket from California on November 23, and will arrive at the target asteroid system in September, next year.

The mission will travel to the asteroid Didymos, a member of the Amor group of asteroids. Every 12 hours Didymos is orbited by a mini-moon, or “moonlet”, Dimorphos. This smaller half of the pair will be DART’s target.

Are we facing an extinction threat from asteroids?

We’ve all seen disaster movies in which an asteroid hits Earth, creating an extinction event similar to the one that killed off the dinosaurs millions of years ago. Could that happen now?

Well, Earth is actually bombarded frequently by small asteroids, ranging from 1-20 metres in diameter. Almost all asteroids of this size disintegrate in the atmosphere and are usually harmless.

There is an inverse relationship between the size of these object and the frequency of impact events. This means we get hit much more frequently by small objects than larger ones – simply because there are many more smaller objects in space.

Asteroids with a 1km diameter strike Earth every 500,000 years, on average. The most “recent” impact of this size is thought to have formed the Tenoumer impact crater in Mauritania, 20,000 years ago. Asteroids with an approximate 5km diameter impact Earth about once every 20 million years.

The 2013 Chelyabinsk meteoroid, which damaged buildings in six Russian cities and injured around 1,500 people, was estimated to be about 20m in diameter.

Assessing the risk

NASA’s DART mission has been sparked by the threat and fear of a major asteroid hitting Earth in the future.

The Torino scale is a method for categorising the impact hazard associated with a near-Earth object (NEO). It uses a scale from 0 to 10, wherein 0 means there is negligibly small chance of collision, and 10 means imminent collision, with the impacting object being large enough to precipitate a global disaster.

The Chicxulub impact (which is attributed to the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs) was a Torino scale 10. The impacts that created the Barringer Crater, and the 1908 Tunguska event, both correspond to Torino Scale 8.

With the increase of online news and individuals’ ability to film events, asteroid “near-misses” tend to generate fear in the public. Currently, NASA is keeping a close eye on asteroid Bennu, which is the object with the largest “cumulative hazard rating” right now. (You can keep up to date too).

With a 500m diameter, Bennu is capable of creating a 5km crater on Earth. However, NASA has also said there is a 99.943% chance the asteroid will miss us.

Brace for impact

At one point in their orbit around the Sun, Didymos and Dimorphos come within about 5.9 million km of Earth. This is still further away than our Moon, but it’s very close in astronomical terms, so this is when DART will hit Dimorphos.

DART will spend about ten months travelling towards Didymos and, when it’s close by, will change direction slightly to crash into Dimorphos at a speed of about 6.6km per second.

The larger Didymos is 780m in diameter and thus makes a better target for DART to aim for. Once DART has detected the much smaller Dimorphos, just 160m in diameter, it can make a last-minute course correction to collide with the moonlet.

The mass of Dimorphos is 4.8 million tonnes and the mass of DART at impact will be about 550kg. Travelling at 6.6km/s, DART will be able to transfer a huge amount of momentum to Dimorphos, to the point where it’s expected to actually change the moonlet’s orbit around Didymos.

This change, to the tune of about 1%, will be detected by ground telescopes within weeks or months. While this may not seem like a lot, 1% is actually a promising shift. If DART were to slam into a lone asteroid, its orbital period around the Sun would change by only about 0.000006%, which would take many years to measure.

So we’ll be able to detect the 1% change from Earth, and meanwhile the pair will continue along its orbit around the Sun. DART will also deploy a small satellite ten days before impact to capture everything.

This is NASA’s first mission dedicated to demonstrating a planetary defence technique. At a cost of US$330 million, it’s relatively cheap in space mission terms. The James Webb Telescope set to launch next month, costs close to US$10 billion.

There will be little to no debris from DART’s impact. We can think of it in terms of a comparable event on Earth; imagine a train parked on the tracks but with no brakes on. Another train comes along and collides with it.

The trains won’t break apart, or destroy one another, but will move off together. The stationary one will gain some speed, and the one impacting it will lose some speed. The trains combine to become a new system with different speeds than before.

So we won’t experience any impact, ripples or debris from the DART mission.

Is the effort really worth it?

Results from the mission will tell us just how much mass and speed is needed to hit an asteroid that may pose a threat in the future. We already track the vast majority of asteroids that come close to Earth, so we would have early warning of any such object.

That said, we have missed objects in the past. In October 2021, Asteroid UA_1 passed about 3,047km from Earth’s surface, over Antarctica. We missed it because it approached from the direction of the Sun. At just 1m in size it wouldn’t have caused much damage, but we should have seen it coming.

Building a deflection system for a potential major asteroid threat would be difficult. We would have to act quickly and hit the target with very good aim.

One candidate for such a system could be the new technology developed by the US spaceflight company SpinLaunch, which has designed technology to launch satellites into orbit at rapid speeds. This device could also be used to fire masses at close-passing asteroids.

Read more:
Where do meteorites come from? We tracked hundreds of fireballs streaking through the sky to find out

Gail Iles does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Could we really deflect an asteroid heading for Earth? An expert explains NASA’s latest DART mission – https://theconversation.com/could-we-really-deflect-an-asteroid-heading-for-earth-an-expert-explains-nasas-latest-dart-mission-172603

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

University of Canberra Professional Fellow Michelle Grattan and University of Canberra Associate Professor Caroline Fisher discuss the week in politics.

This week they review the dramatic start to the final parliamentary fortnight of the year. Scott Morrison has faced revolts within his own ranks from the right and the left.

Senators Gerard Rennick and Alex Antic have been withholding their votes in the Senate in an attempt to strong-arm the government over state vaccine mandates.

In the House, Liberal moderate Bridget Archer made the bold move to second a cross-bench motion to try (unsuccessfully) to force debate on a federal integrity commission. Morrison has now confirmed the government will stick with the very limited model unveiled a year ago by former attorney-general Christian Porter. This is despite consultations that were expected to produce revisions.

The pair also canvass the government’s new religious discrimination
legislation, which is highly controversial. They also cover the government’s despatch of police and military personnel to the Solomon Islands to help quell rioting there.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. VIDEO: Michelle Grattan on a crazy week in Canberra – https://theconversation.com/video-michelle-grattan-on-a-crazy-week-in-canberra-172679

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacques Raubenheimer, Senior Research Fellow, Biostatistics, University of Sydney

Social media posts commenting on data from the UK, Israel and South Africa, among others, claim deaths from COVID (or all deaths) are now higher in vaccinated than unvaccinated citizens. Others make the more moderate claim vaccines do nothing to prevent death from COVID.

These reports appear intimidating, because they usually utilise real data or statistics. Many of the raw numbers presented are indeed correct, though not complete.

But people – including Clive Palmer who said this week vaccines don’t work and Craig Kelly who spread vaccine misinformation via text message – should ask whether they have understood the context, analysed the data properly and interpreted the results accurately.

Read more:
No, vaccinated people are not ‘just as infectious’ as unvaccinated people if they get COVID

What counts as ‘vaccinated’?

When comparing studies or statistics, a lot hinges on how data providers define “vaccinated”.

Some vaccines are single-dose, others are double-dose regimens. Most jurisdictions define “fully vaccinated” as two weeks after the last required dose, but some social media posts like this one lump together anyone who has had any dose.

Some jurisdictions track patients in the interim period, others more crudely lump them with the partially vaccinated. We also have to compare patients who have received different vaccines, or mixed vaccine doses. Soon we will have to track those who have received booster shots.

To complicate things further, not all jurisdictions publish the necessary level of detail. Thankfully, we do have some good data at our fingertips: NSW is on track to become one of the most highly vaccinated jurisdictions in the world, and has published very detailed data with comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated cases that show vaccination is highly effective.

Read more:
Now everyone’s a statistician. Here’s what armchair COVID experts are getting wrong

Not all numbers are equal

Focusing on an absolute number – how far it is from zero, regardless of its relative value in the real world – can be very misleading.

Let’s say 95% of NSW’s entire population of approximately 8,000,000 was fully vaccinated. That’s 7.6 million people. Imagine 0.05% of fully vaccinated people needed to be hospitalised with COVID. That’s just shy of 4,000 people.

Let’s also say 1% of the remaining 400,000 unvaccinated people were hospitalised with COVID. That’s 4,000 people.

So the absolute number of hospitalised vaccinated people would be similar to the hospitalised unvaccinated people.

But, less than 0.05% of fully vaccinated people are in hospital, compared to 1% of unvaccinated people – that’s 20 times higher!

The same scenario could be applied to absolute numbers of COVID deaths.

Another way to explain this relates to what’s known as Simpon’s paradox: when a very large proportion of the population is vaccinated, it is quite likely that a larger absolute number of cases will be vaccinated rather than unvaccinated. To compare effects, one must instead focus on the rates of cases and death from COVID.

COVID doesn’t affect everyone in the same way

COVID hospitalisation and death rates are skewed sharply by sex, pre-existing health conditions like metabolic syndrome, and age. So, men are more likely to die than women and the same is true for older people and those with other health problems.

And almost all countries vaccinated the most at-risk populations first. Some, like the elderly, already displayed higher death rates. Given the most likely to die are the first vaccinated, then we may see more deaths in the group vaccinated first. The vaccine will have lessened the deaths, but at-risk people were always more likely to die.

To truly discern the effect of the vaccine, then, one has to compare rates across matched levels of risk, especially age. A very good analysis matches different levels of age risk on the Israeli data and shows that even though the absolute number of vaccinated hospitalised cases was more than the unvaccinated hospitalisations, the Pfizer vaccine still showed good effectiveness against severe disease.

The two charts below, prepared from figures via Our World in Data, show the cases, deaths, and vaccinations for Israel and the UK across the entire pandemic. Both experienced three waves, with the third being after the start of vaccinations. Both showed dramatically fewer deaths in the third wave, even though case numbers were high (for Israel, the highest of the three waves).

Some posts like this one claim to show “vaccine-caused mortality” but ignore uneven risk across the population. The rates are higher for unvaccinated people in all other age groups (conveniently omitted from the chart) and, more importantly, the data report states:

For the 10–59 age group, the vaccinated population will on average be older than the unvaccinated population … As mortality rates are higher for older people, this will increase the mortality rates for the vaccinated population compared to the unvaccinated population.

Making sense of all the numbers

We know there are “lies, damned lies, and statistics”. And yet, some spurious social media claims rely on real numbers.

So the question isn’t: should you believe the statistics? Rather: which statistics should you believe? The best advice is to step back and look at the bigger picture.

When this pandemic winds down, there could be a day when there is only one hospitalised COVID patient. If that patient were to be vaccinated, would we say that 100% of hospitalised patients are vaccinated, and therefore the vaccines don’t work?

We need to look at the numbers over the whole course of the pandemic, or even over a single wave of infection, to see things more clearly. A single set of numbers does not show the whole picture.

Read more:
Why are COVID cases in India decreasing, despite the low double vaccination rate?

Jacques Raubenheimer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. COVID death data can be shared to make it look like vaccines don’t work, or worse – but that’s not the whole picture – https://theconversation.com/covid-death-data-can-be-shared-to-make-it-look-like-vaccines-dont-work-or-worse-but-thats-not-the-whole-picture-172411

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tess Newton Cain, Adjunct Associate Professor, Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University

On Thursday evening, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced Australia would deploy police, diplomats and defence force personnel to Solomon Islands “to provide assistance” following serious unrest in the capital, Honiara.

As the initial deployment start their first day in Honiara, there are mixed reports of what is happening around them. Australia’s rapid response follows a request from the Solomon Islands government.

What has been happening?

On Wednesday, there were protests against the government of Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare, which deteriorated into rioting.

These riots persisted, despite a snap 36-hour lockdown, ordered by the government to keep people off the streets. Thankfully, it appears there have been minimal injuries. However, damage to property has been extensive. Businesses in the Chinatown district were targeted, as has happened on several occasions previously. Public infrastructure, including at least one police post and the Honiara High School was also attacked.

After two days of rioting, looting, and arson, things seem to be a bit quieter on Friday. As Solomon Islanders emerge from the lockdown, they are taking stock, assessing damage, and starting to focus on what happens next for them, their communities, and their country.

Why has this happened?

The question of why this is happening involves a complex mix of domestic politics and geopolitical shifts.

It is way too simple to say that this is because Solomon Islands “switched” allegiances from Taiwan to China in late 2019, as some analyses suggest. This was certainly a critical juncture for Solomon Islands. But to understand what is happening now, we need to take a wider and deeper perspective.

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

There has been a lot of focus on the discontent of people in the populous province of Malaita. The provincial premier, Daniel Suidani, has not held back in his criticism of the central government’s decision to trash its 36-year relationship with Taipei in favour of Beijing. And he enjoys strong support from his community.

Less prominent is the fact that the provincial leadership of Guadalcanal, where the capital Honiara is located, have also been highly critical of Sogavare.

Calls for his resignation relate to longstanding concerns about corruption, lack of service delivery, and insufficient consultation on the part of his government (including around the diplomatic switch in 2019). Indeed, many have commented that had Sogavare and his ministers come out to meet with protesters and engage in a dialogue this week, the ensuing disorder may have been avoided.

The history of Australia in Solomon Islands

On Thursday, it became clear the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force resources were being stretched to breaking point. This prompted Sogavare to look for assistance from friends and neighbours. Requests were made to both Papua New Guinea and Australia.

The request to and response from Canberra marks the first activation of a security treaty that was signed between the two countries in 2017 further after “Operation Helpem Fren” (also known as the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands or RAMSI) ended. RAMSI was a multi-country deployment of police, military and government advisers led by Australia under the auspices of the Pacific Islands Forum between 2003 and 2017.

Morrison has made it clear this current response is an assistance mission, and not an intervention – as was the case for RAMSI. It is expected Australian personnel will be in Solomon Islands for a period of “weeks”. Their primary responsibility is to assist Solomon Islands’ law enforcement authorities in securing and protecting critical infrastructure. Under the terms of the treaty, there is scope for third countries – such as PNG and Fiji – to be joined to a mission, with the permission of the government of Solomon Islands.

What next?

What happens next is not easy to predict.

Sogavare says he will not resign as this would be anti-democratic and an acceptance of mob rule. He is also insisting alignment with China puts Solomon Islands on “the right side of history”. In fact he has gone further to (without naming names) imply Taiwan and the United States are fomenting discord in his country.

The people of Solomon Islands already bear a heavy burden. Their young population lack opportunities and it is no surprise to learn that many of those involved in this week’s disorder are teenage boys with no meaningful political agenda in mind, looking for whatever excitement presents itself on a given day.

While the country is COVID-free, the impacts of extended border closures have had significant economic impact on a country struggling to provide basic services to its population. For many, the events of the last few days have brought back unhappy and traumatic memories of the days of “The Tensions” – the inter-ethnic conflicts and bloodshed that led, eventually, to the RAMSI intervention.

The people of Solomon Islands are strong, resourceful, and resilient. They are blessed with some of the most articulate and strategic thinkers of our region who can help them navigate what the future brings. Australia has an opportunity to walk the talk of “tru wantok” (Pidgin for “real friend”) and support them in this journey.

Tess Newton Cain does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. As Australia deploys troops and police, what now for Solomon Islands? – https://theconversation.com/as-australia-deploys-troops-and-police-what-now-for-solomon-islands-172678

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Omer Yezdani, Director, Office of Planning and Strategic Management, Australian Catholic University

The Strategy for International Education released today by the federal government highlights the importance of international education to the Australian economy and community.

But, with the arrival of COVID-19, commencing international student numbers fell dramatically by 22% in 2020. The impacts prompted the government to further rethink its ten-year plan for international education and exposure to risks in foreign markets, not to mention sector-wide budget overhauls, restructures and cost savings.

Read more:
Why the international education crisis will linger long after students return to Australia

Over the past ten years, international education in Australia had grown by 151% to the highest levels on record. International student numbers reached a peak of more than 956,000 in 2019.

International education has been a major export earner. Its value to the economy had grown to A$40.3 billion a year and supported 250,000 jobs.

Why is a new strategy needed?

Despite being a major source of revenue, international students have been highly concentrated in some universities. And most come from a limited number of source countries.

Before the pandemic, six universities accounted for half of all overseas student revenue: Sydney, Melbourne, Monash, UNSW, RMIT and UQ.

Read more:
Which universities are best placed financially to weather COVID?

Following public consultations under the Council for International Education, the government has released the new strategy. It’s based on four pillars:

• diversification
• meeting Australia’s skills needs
• students at the centre
• growth and global competitiveness.

The pandemic has been a key driver for rethinking the strategy. However, it has served as an amplifier of the need for reform rather than the sole rationale.

In its 2019 report to the prime minister, the Council for International Education had already recommended a new plan. It highlighted concerns about increased competition, the sustainability of the sector and geopolitical rebalancing.

The report portrayed a major success story for Australian international education. It noted double-digit growth in the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, India and Sri Lanka. However, it also noted softening demand in other key markets, particularly China.

The risk of over-concentration in source countries was evident, but seriously underemphasised at the time. And this concern was connected mainly to worries about foreign interference and geopolitical tensions.

A renewed focus on managing risks

The new strategy aims for the sector to reposition itself to increase offshore and transnational education. Typically, one in five international students study in these ways. Transnational education is often delivered through offshore campuses or in partnership with an overseas institution.

The strategy seeks greater diversity of courses, disciplines, source countries and delivery modes. The outcomes are to be measured through a diversification index, greatly increasing transparency for the sector.

Often a source of complex risk, increased transnational education and sustained offshore study may require the higher education regulator, TEQSA, to review its approach. Its guidelines were last updated in October 2017.

In addition, the expansion of Australia-based transnational education may face increased global competition from other offshore providers.

Read more:
Australia’s international education market share is shrinking fast. Recovery depends on unis offering students a better deal

For universities to diversify into new markets they will have to manage a risk associated with limited market knowledge. Market concentration has meant Australian universities have become geo-market experts with a focus on particular countries. This approach is ingrained into university operations, strategic aspirations and global partnerships.

Adopting the jack-of-all-trades approach that “everyone diversity” may require additional government efforts to avoid simply transferring the risk of market concentration to other risks to quality arising from limited market knowledge and a lack of geo-market specialisation.

One assumes the pathway to diversification is not only growth but also better distribution of international student demand across universities. This will require smaller universities to take on a greater share of Chinese and Indian student enrolments, now concentrated in the larger universities.

Read more:
Universities lost 6% of their revenue in 2020 — and the next 2 years are looking worse

Engagement and a sense of belonging matter too

The move to off-campus studies had major impacts on student satisfaction in 2020, as measured by the Quality Indicators of Learning and Teaching (QILT). While universities were quick to adapt, learner engagement and sense of belonging deteriorated. These trends were key drivers of the decline in satisfaction.

A challenging aspect of the strategy is to reconcile its goals of increased transnational and offshore education while at the same time increasing the sense of belonging to Australian communities, and managing risks to quality. Such a result appears to be operationally counter-intuitive.

Read more:
Our unis do need international students and must choose between the high and low roads

A question that requires further detail is how the government plans both to enhance its regulatory framework to allow for greater flexibility and to cultivate greater capabilities across the sector in online, offshore and transnational education.

As the strategy notes, international education is one of Australia’s great success stories. At the heart of that story is the realisation of ambition for millions of students who have lifted themselves from poverty, learned new skills and joined a global community. The real test of whether the strategy holds water is if it satisfies its most central asset – our students.

Omer Yezdani does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Australia’s strategy to revive international education is right to aim for more diversity – https://theconversation.com/australias-strategy-to-revive-international-education-is-right-to-aim-for-more-diversity-172620

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Rowe, Emeritus Professor of Cultural Research, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University

Australian men’s test cricket captain Tim Paine’s sudden resignation due to a sexting scandal meant a rapid search for a suitable new captain. The most obvious choice was Pat Cummins, the current vice-captain and the world’s best fast bowler. Cricket Australia has today confirmed Cummins will step into the role ahead of the Ashes series starting on December 8. Steve Smith will be the deputy.

Described as a “cleanskin” by former test captain Greg Chappell – perhaps unwisely, as that was also Paine’s image when he became captain after the Sandpapergate scandal – Cummins had plenty of support to fulfil the role often described as second only to the prime minister in importance in Australia.

But there was one major reservation – no fast bowler has captained the men’s team since Ray Lindwall stood in for one test match on the 1956-57 tour of India. Why are batters, wicketkeepers or even spin bowlers (such as Richie Benaud) favoured over fast bowlers to lead a cricket team?

Read more:
Howzat? The Ashes are on, but so is the pandemic

Fit for the captaincy role

Unlike a batter-captain fielding in the slips, it is asked whether a revved-up fast bowler can make sophisticated on-field decisions, such as ending a spell of their own bowling at the right time. Could they see the big game management picture through the red mist that descends for many pace bowlers when facing an opposition batter? A spinner uses guile rather than the intimidation of speed to take wickets, so it is assumed they have the necessary tactical acumen.

Even with regard to physical positioning on the cricket field, fast bowlers are viewed as either too close to the action when bowling and too far from it when, as is conventional, fielding on the boundary.

Most importantly, fast bowlers have a reputation for being brawny, unintellectual types, while batters are regarded as more cultured and thoughtful. There is more than a tinge here of what is called “stacking” in sport. This concept involves the racial, ethnic and class stereotyping that assigns leadership positions in team sports (and later in coaching roles) to the already socially privileged. The less privileged generally follow directions, especially where their duties involve brute force.

This replication of the traditional mental-physical labour hierarchy has been found in sports such as American football, soccer, basketball, baseball, rugby union and cricket.

So how did Cummins overcome the reservations that ruled out distinguished pace-bowling predecessors such as Dennis Lillee and Glenn McGrath as captaincy material?

A different class of fast bowler

Ever since his emergence as a cricket prodigy in 2011, Cummins has been routinely regarded as the pride of Penrith in the working-class “heartland” of Greater Western Sydney. Certainly he played around and for Penrith in his formative years, but was brought up in the small, lower Blue Mountains town of Mount Riverview.

With an accountant and manager father and schoolteacher mother, he went to grammar school in nearby Cranebrook, later venturing east to the University of Technology, Sydney. There, as part of its Elite Athlete Program, he completed a Bachelor of Business degree.

Cummins has acquired a reputation as a controlled, almost bookish breed of fast bowler whose commitment to matters environmental, Indigenous and anti-racist might attract the go-to derogatory label “woke”.

His appointment as test captain continues Paine’s cultural approach of distancing Australian men’s cricket from the win-at-all costs mentality and macho posturing that saw the Test team slide down the team affinity rankings among fans.

His good looks and wholesome style give him “brand appeal” in intensely competitive global sport and media markets. Cummins is as-yet untainted by scandal, unlike another candidate, Smith, who was deposed as captain and suspended after the ball-tampering scandal in 2018, only to be appointed Cummins’ vice-captain.

In the light of the tearful exits of captains Smith and Paine, cricket’s caution about ethical standards and “skeletons in the closet” resembles the “fit and proper person test” in the corporate world.

Read more:
How COVID caused chaos for cricket – and may force a rethink of all sport broadcasting deals

Captains in crisis

Being the captain of a team is a tricky remit, requiring a teammate to be “first among equals”, having sensitive conversations with peers, and making important decisions that can affect whole careers. Captains must attend to their own sporting performance with the additional burden of making calls that every armchair critic will scrutinise.

That Cummins has been appointed captain a short time before a home men’s Ashes series, with its huge historical baggage, places his personal conduct in the public eye as never before.

His English opponents must deal with their own pressing reputational crisis following allegations their national game is “institutionally racist” and that captain Joe Root has been oblivious to racist behaviour among his Yorkshire teammates. The cricket authorities in both countries have been criticised for “blundering deeper” into crisis.

Cummins’ time to celebrate the T20 Men’s World Cup victory was brief, curtailed as it was by Paine’s ignominious exit. He must rally a disrupted test team in cricket’s longest-running and most renowned series, and rise to the challenge of becoming a captain who bowls fast thinks even faster on his feet.

David Rowe does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Pat Cummins becomes Australian men’s test captain: why is it so rare for a fast bowler to take the reins? – https://theconversation.com/pat-cummins-becomes-australian-mens-test-captain-why-is-it-so-rare-for-a-fast-bowler-to-take-the-reins-172287

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Narelle Yeo, Senior Lecturer in Voice and Stagecraft, Sydney Conservatorium of Music, University of Sydney

Adele writes and sings female rites of passage: 19 was the teen experience; 21 the transition to adulthood; 25 relationships. Now, 30 reveals the pain of letting go.

Adele’s singing is imperfect perfection. As described by Amanda Petrusich in the New Yorker, “her voice is not a crystal stream. It is a gust of wind that’s picked up some grit.”

Adele’s songs can gut-punch, and this new album intends for the audience to feel. Her music is a combination of soul and blues colours, deeply personal lyrics and heartfelt vocalism valuing the text foremost in her raw and expressive voice.

She crafts with relatively simple chordal structures, and her sound has danger in it: in the muscling and widening in her chest voice, the audible pop as she moves between registers of chest and head.

This affect is deeply moving.

A changing voice

Most pop songs are written in the tenor range, making them hard for other voice types to sing. As a mezzo-soprano, Adele’s songs sit in a range that suits most listeners, singing along. Adele can mix her chest voice up quite high (E5, 10 notes above middle C) but she is not taken to the range extremes of early Mariah or Celine.

The middle of Adele’s voice is soulful, rich and powerful, occasionally with an edgy tone colour. She has the ability to create a breathy, fragile head voice, but can also take her chest up high and create a strong and powerful effect. In these high notes, Adele has been known to take on a quality of “vocal fry”, embodying pain.

The pressure applied to the vocal folds in taking the chest voice up high can lead to danger. No doubt two throat surgeries would have given Adele pause. On 30, she uses her floaty head voice sound more than on previous albums. This gives her the possibility of more vocal colours, and can help to protect her from vocal problems in the future.

Because of this, 30 contains a number of tumbling strains (falling phrases, like sighing) that sound more like melodious expressions than cries. She allows the flip into the lighter head voice more often, and then tumbles back down into the chest without added pressure, as in Easy On Me.

It is almost as if the more careful approach to her voice matches the aftermath of the damage of divorce, and of working under pressure since she was 18. Adele’s voice has changed. In close-up on the mic, she is more vulnerable now than she was as a teenager.

A brave album

Voices change as people change, and this iteration of Adele sits lower. She is more powerful and grounded – and yet more fragile.

There are nods to Amy Winehouse, Erroll Garner, Aretha Franklin and Marvin Gaye on this album. Her lyrics are positioned as the “knowing now”, looking back over the lessons she has learnt in the six years since her last album.

To Be Loved is an aching testimonial, posted on youtube almost as a rehearsal on a couch.

In Hold On, Adele is close to the mic, leaning into the imperfections, twists and turns of her instrument, and her life.

As she said to Oprah, “I don’t have to expect someone else to give me stability. I can also be stable for myself and be a solid house that doesn’t blow over in a storm.”

She only lets us in after her house is sorted. In I Drink Wine, she has already changed: “Sometimes the road less travelled is the road best left behind”.

Read more:
Adele 30: the psychology of why sad songs make us feel good

Delivering this album live would require bravery. My Little Love begins with a turn-of-the-millenia rhythm and blues vibe. Every instrument is heavily produced and filtered. Yet the song becomes increasingly painful to listen to as Adele samples voice recordings of her conversations with her son.

These conversations are achingly introspective, and her voicemail message at the end of the song, where she talks about her struggles with anxiety, is peak confessional.

The two guitar-based pop songs are recorded up close, showing bite and dirt in her voice. Women Like Me is up tempo, sitting low in Adele’s range. Can I Get It has a plucked and unplugged feel, with whistling adding a retro touch.

Cry Your Heart Out begins with heavily engineered harmonies, all voiced by Adele. The notes sound bent, as the sound engineer manipulates the pitch in the studio. Likewise, Oh My God heavily manipulates Adele’s voice, this time in a pop dance mix, taking her sound away from soul and the blues.

These two tracks show her stylistic versatility: she values quality music and storytelling above all.

Read more:
Adele has successfully asked Spotify to remove ‘shuffle’ from albums. Here’s why that’s important for musicians

In more retrospection, Love is a Game could be the theme to a Bond film, the strings and expansive colours belong in the 1960s. Strangers by Nature could be a rediscovered jazz standard, with floated head voice and romantic lyrics.

My favourite song of the album, All Night Parking, centres around a light and floaty sampled jazz piano from Erroll Garner, composer of the 1954 jazz standard Misty. Adele’s light touch vocals on the top line here shimmer and flirt and the programmed percussion is subtle. The vinyl feel from the crackling, breathy ambience is a stylish recreation of a past era.

Throughout this album, we not only get a glimpse of Adele’s recent past, but her broad definition of soul music, too. 30 is an intimate studio album exploring the rite of passage of motherhood and love-loss through an authentic, fragile and powerfully emotive voice.

Narelle Yeo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Many define Adele’s voice by its power. But the true artistry comes from her fragile, authentic self – https://theconversation.com/many-define-adeles-voice-by-its-power-but-the-true-artistry-comes-from-her-fragile-authentic-self-172299

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

New South Wales is moving closer to legalising voluntary assisted dying. But there are hurdles ahead.

After days of speeches in the NSW lower house, MPs voted yesterday – 53 in favour and 36 against – to consider the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2021 in detail.

Now MPs will consider multiple amendments, largely around proposed safeguards, before the bill returns to the upper house.

So what does this mean for terminally-ill people in NSW?

Independent MP Alex Greenwich tabled the bill in the lower house last month. The bill largely reflects the voluntary assisted dying legislation passed in other Australian states.

To be eligible for voluntary assisted dying, a person must be:

• an adult with decision-making capacity

• have a condition that is advanced, progressive and will cause death within six months (or 12 months for a neurodegenerative disease)

• be acting voluntarily and not because of pressure or duress

• be experiencing intolerable suffering

• must have lived in NSW for 12 months before their first request for voluntary assisted dying, and

• must be an Australian citizen, permanent resident or a resident of Australia for three years or more.

As with other states, there is a rigorous request and assessment process. A person must make three requests, and be assessed as eligible by two senior doctors who have completed mandatory training.

After the person has been assessed as eligible, the bill requires one of these senior doctors (the “coordinating” doctor) to apply to the Voluntary Assisted Dying Board for authorisation to proceed.

The bill permits registered health practitioners (doctors, nurses and others) to conscientiously object to participation, a feature of other Australian voluntary assisted dying legislation.

The bill also regulates the extent to which individual institutions can hinder access to voluntary assisted dying, for instance, by requiring institutions to allow access to voluntary assisted dying in certain situations. This aspect is also a feature of South Australian and Queensland laws.

Consistent with other states, the Voluntary Assisted Dying Board will monitor how the law operates.

Read more:
Voluntary assisted dying will be debated in NSW parliament this week. Here’s what to expect

What happens next?

The next step is for MPs to consider the bill in detail.

Judging by the experience of other states, we can expect an onslaught of proposed amendments. Indeed, this has already started, with amendments debated until late last night.

Amendments will likely involve adding new safeguards. In Queensland, for example, proposed amendments included making a psychiatric assessment of someone’s capacity mandatory as part of the eligibility assessment, a requirement for one of the doctors to be a specialist in the person’s illness, and a requirement for a consultation with a palliative care specialist. These amendments were ultimately rejected.

Amendments that introduce more safeguards raise significant barriers to patients accessing voluntary assisted dying. Considered together, the above proposed amendments would have added three new specialist health practitioners to the process, each needing to be available in the person’s location and not have a conscientious objection. The law would have been unworkable.

It is also important to consider the amendments in the context of the bill as a whole.

The NSW bill is narrow and conservative (like the other Australian models) with extensive procedural safeguards.

The bill currently requires two independent assessments of a person’s capacity to request voluntary assisted dying, by doctors who will be trained on their additional legal duties under the bill. Doctors are also required to refer to an expert if they are unsure about the person’s capacity. When considered in this context, a mandatory psychiatric assessment is unnecessary.

Caution is needed as this last minute “piling on” of safeguards is risky. Amendments would be “add ons” to an established model and run the risk of introducing unintended consequences. They could also make the law unwieldy, incoherent and even unworkable.

Read more:
One year of voluntary assisted dying in Victoria: 400 have registered, despite obstacles

NSW can learn from other jurisdictions

As NSW is the last state in Australia to be passing such legislation, its MPs have the benefit of multiple parliamentary committees, expert panels and extended parliamentary debates in the other states.

The issues likely to be raised in amendments will not be new. Every other state has already considered, debated and resolved how best to deal with them; this is reflected in the current bill.

MPs in NSW also have the benefit of research on Victoria’s regime, which has been in operation for more than two years. This reveals participating doctors do not have concerns about safety. Reports from Victoria’s Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Board also show only eligible people are receiving assistance to die.

There is therefore a heavy onus on MPs proposing amendments to justify why they are needed.

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

What should the amendments look like?

We challenge MPs proposing amendments to answer two questions.

First, what is the new problem the amendments are trying to solve that is not already addressed well? Second, because this law is about terminally-ill patients, what impact would any amendments have on their ability to access voluntary assisted dying?

If the evidence from Victoria is these laws are already safe, how would additional amendments making patient access even harder improve this bill?

Read more:
In places where it’s legal, how many people are ending their lives using euthanasia?

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

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

– ref. Voluntary assisted dying is one step closer in NSW. Now the negotiation starts – https://theconversation.com/voluntary-assisted-dying-is-one-step-closer-in-nsw-now-the-negotiation-starts-172600

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacynta Krakouer, Research Fellow, Monash University

Child protection processes in Australia have a history of injustice that disproportionately targets and harms First Nations children, families and communities.

As a result, contemporary child protection systems and associated professions have sought to distance themselves from explicitly racist past policies and practices by apologising for their past involvement in the Stolen Generations and committing to change.

Yet child protection systems continue to operate on assumptions about race and class that increase inequalities and injustices against First Nations families.

In a Queensland study published in 2018 that used data from 2010-2011, Indigeneity was found to be a greater predictor of “subsequent child protection reports and investigations than a rating of ‘high risk’ on child protection’s risk assessment tool”.

Another study in Western Australia found, when controlled for all other factors, Aboriginality was associated with almost double the risk of infant removal.

Understandings of risk, child abuse and neglect are often biased in favour of white middle-class parenting practices. This can lead to over-surveillance of First Nations families, and a flawed notification system.

Read more:
The government’s Stolen Generations redress scheme is piecemeal and unrealistic

First Nations styles of parenting are disregarded or considered unsafe

According to University of Utah academic Audrey Thompson, “Whiteness Theory treats whiteness not as a biological category but as a social construction.” White social constructions are often informing major decision-making in child protection practice and policies. This is because legislators and those making decisions about child protection are often white. However, families disproportionately affected by these decisions are often Indigenous.

As a result, white constructs also inform the baseline for good parenting practices in Australian child protection services. Essentially, Australian child protection systems were built around white, middle class standards of parenting. This means they often ignore cultural differences in how children are raised.

For example, many First Nations families raise their children collectively, with resources – such as food and housing – shared among family, kinship and community members.

The recent documentary The Department told the story of First Nations woman Stacey and her struggles trying to get her children returned to her care.

The size of Stacey’s house was viewed by child protection services as a barrier. Stacey complied with the department’s guidelines, including moving into a larger house with four bedrooms. Despite having two of her children in her care, the film ends with three of Stacey’s children remaining in out-of-home care.

Another case was a First Nations woman who had her baby taken from her by child protection. According to The Guardian, the chief executive officer of the First Peoples’ Health and Wellbeing Clinic said the initial assessment of this mother had been culturally inappropriate.

This ignorance of Indigenous ways of parenting could be contributing to the 20,077 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care as of 30 June 2019. According to the Family Matters Report, this represents one in every 16.6 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children living in Australia.

First Nations children had far higher rates of substantiations for neglect (31.8%) compared to non-Indigenous children (18.2%) in 2019-20, and lower rates of substantiations for sexual abuse.

Understandings of neglect and emotional abuse are subject to interpretation by child protection practitioners. These interpretations can be based on societal and cultural values often incompatible with collective child rearing, and do not account for the impacts of material poverty when raising children.

Read more:
Thirteen years after ‘Sorry’, too many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are still being removed from their homes

Families facing punishment instead of support

Currently, child protection services often punish and blame individuals for their “dysfunction” or risk. Genuine support, with a focus on addressing the drivers of child protection involvement, remains lacking.

For First Nations families, these drivers include poverty, housing issues, racism, trauma, mental health concerns, domestic and family violence, and alcohol and other drugs abuse.

Rather than offering support to First Nations families who are in dire circumstances – such as financial support – the response of child protection systems remains coercive, controlling, and punitive.

For example, reasons for emotional abuse substantiations can include children witnessing domestic and family violence. Rather than providing ways for victim-survivors of domestic and family violence (often women and children) to stay together, child removal often occurs.

There is no focus on the structures driving these problems. Instead, blame is placed on the affected individual.

As argued by Derecka Purnell, lawyer and author of Becoming Abolitionists, child protection systems in the United States are predicated on the failure of individuals to “protect” and supply their children with certain provisions. However there is limited support from these services to supply resources needed for parents to feed, clothe and house their children.

Australia’s child protection systems have the same flaws.

A flawed notification system

Increased involvement of child protection agencies with First Nations families contributes to a harmful perception among those who report issues to child protection (teachers, health professionals, police and the general public) that First Nations families ought to be surveilled more than others.

This becomes a vicious circle, increasing the number of reports, contributing to the overrepresentation of First Nations children in child protection and out-of-home care.

Anyone in the community can make a notification of alleged child abuse or neglect to child protection authorities. The concerned neighbour, the midwife at the maternity hospital, the teacher in the classroom, or the police officer responding to a family violence call-out.

They do not need to supply substantive proof or evidence of the alleged harm. They need only have “reasonable belief” of harm or potential harm. Their judgement as to what constitutes child abuse or neglect is at their discretion. The notifier can also remain anonymous to the family who are the target of the allegation.

Once a notification of alleged child abuse or neglect has been made to child protection authorities, the likelihood of future allegations increases. This is because an allegation in and of itself serves as another “risk factor”.

Child protection authorities hold the power to investigate any allegation of child abuse or neglect made to their jurisdiction. But affected families are left with no choice but to comply with child protection’s directives. These families often feel voiceless, powerless and in fear of a system that continues to remove First Nations children at disproportionate rates (despite making commitments to change).

Social workers have acknowledged the harms of past practices. However they remain complicit in child protection systems that continue to inflict harm against First Nations families and communities. These practices have resonance with the Stolen Generations.

Changing child protection systems requires more than apologies and acknowledgements of past harms. On-paper reforms, such as the commissioning of independent reviews into child protection systems without fully implementing the recommendations, ring hollow. As a result, child protection systems continue to cause harm to another generation of First Nations children and families.

It needs to be accepted that understandings of “risk” in Australian child protection systems have been built on racial discrimination and biased understandings of “good parenting”.

Transformation of these systems requires investment in prevention and early intervention, confronting whiteness in these practices, and improving cultural awareness about different styles of parenting.

These are a vital steps in addressing the structural drivers of involvement with child protection systems.

Better support for First Nations families to stay together is needed to avoid more generations of stolen children.

Jacynta Krakouer is affiliated with the Family Matters campaign run by SNAICC – National Voice for Our Children, the peak body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. She has previously received funding via a Research Training Scholarship from the Australian Government for her doctoral studies.

Alex Bhathal is a current National Director of the AASW. She previously worked as the National Manager of the Family Matters campaign with SNAICC – National Voice for Our Children.

Catherine Chamberlain receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (Career Development Fellowship and project funds).

Paul Gray is co-chair of the Family Matters campaign, the national campaign run by SNAICC – National Voice for Our Children, the peak body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council investigating effective restoration practice and consults on child protection systems and practice.

James C. Beaufils and Tatiana Corrales do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. First Nations children are still being removed at disproportionate rates. Cultural assumptions about parenting need to change – https://theconversation.com/first-nations-children-are-still-being-removed-at-disproportionate-rates-cultural-assumptions-about-parenting-need-to-change-169090

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karinna Saxby, Research Fellow & PhD Candidate, Monash University

The Morisson government’s religious discrimination bill was introduced to parliament on Thursday. The bill, now on its third draft, has been a contentious piece of legislation for years.

One of the key reasons for this are concerns about what it will mean for LGBTIQ+ Australians.

While protecting people against discrimination on the grounds of religious belief (or non-belief), is an important objective, this bill goes a step further, overriding federal, state and territory anti-discrimination laws to make “statements of belief” immune from legal consequences.

Read more:
Third time lucky? What has changed in the latest draft of the religious discrimination bill?

This is not just about words. Research tells us, this has the potential to harm the health and well-being of sexual and gender diverse Australians.

What would the bill allow?

The bill would allow people, and organisations of faith, to make “statements of belief,” without legal consequences. This could conceivably include statements like “your identity is not valid under God” or “you deserve AIDS for sinning in God’s eyes”.

Such statements could definitively harm the mental health of gender and sexual minorities.

“Statements of belief” in a healthcare setting can obviously hinder access to necessary care. Instances of this has already been documented by the NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby.

One includes a lesbian who was seeking pregnancy advice from her GP:

The doctor who diagnosed my pregnancy expressed disgust when she asked about my situation and I told her I was a lesbian. She tried to refer me for a termination.

Another example comes from a trans man who was seeking access to hormone therapy:

The doctor commented on my need for testosterone – was it for a beard? [They were] not going to give me a new script initially.

Why this is a problem

LGBTIQ+ Australians already have significantly poorer health outcomes when compared to their cis/heterosexual counterparts.

Members of the LGBTIQ+ community are more likely to have suicidal thoughts, engage in self-harm, and have higher rates of suicide.

When sexual and gender diverse populations experience discrimination and stigma, these health inequalities get even worse. Previous research has shown that experiencing stigma and discrimination affects stress hormone levels and, more broadly, that chronic exposure to these stressors can damage the body by activating our physiological systems (think “flight or flight” responses).

Read more:
The debate about religious discrimination is back, so why do we keep hearing about religious ‘freedom’?

In turn, these imbalances can lead to increased levels of psychological distress, anxiety and depression, high blood pressure and cholesterol, and various indicators of disease at the cellular level. Chronic exposure to stressors can also lead to poorer physical health indirectly if individuals engage in risky health behaviours (such as, alcohol or smoking) to try and cope with their distress.

Specifically, sexual and gender diverse populations can also delay seeking healthcare, due to fear of experiencing discrimination. Those that don’t feel comfortable disclosing their sexuality or gender identity to healthcare providers may also be less likely to receive the specific care they need.

Our research

In our 2020 and 2021 studies, colleagues and I used the results of 2017 same-sex marriage survey to develop a measure for social stigma around sexual minorities. Specifically, we looked at the percentage of responses against legalising same-sex marriage (“no votes”) in different regions.

We found LGBTIQ+ people who live in areas where there was higher share of “no votes” were in poorer health but less likely to access primary healthcare services, including seeing the doctor and undergoing sexual health checks.

Further, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men living in regions with more “no votes” were less likely to be aware of their HIV status or receive HIV-related care, including HIV prevention strategies and antiretroviral therapy.

This suggests stigma is exacerbating health inequalities by reducing timely and appropriate primary healthcare use among our LGBTIQ+ community.

It’s not just about healthcare

If enshrined in law, this bill will effectively prioritise the personal religious views of health professionals over the needs of some of their most vulnerable patients – sexual and gender diverse people who already face significant barriers in accessing appropriate and timely care.

But there are also broader impacts to think about.

Previous research has shown that public debates about the rights of minority groups detrimentally impacts their mental health. For example, during the highly publicised lead up to the marriage equality vote in late 2017, increased exposure to the “no campaign” was associated with poorer mental health among LGBTIQ+ Australians.

This drawn-out debate around the religious discrimination bill is no different. High-profile debates about whether religious schools should be able to expel LGBTIQ+ students or whether individuals should be allowed to express damaging and discriminatory views is undoubtedly already harmful.

Read more:
Schools can still expel LGBTQ+ kids. The Religious Discrimination Bill only makes it worse

Passing discriminatory laws can also embolden individuals to be more vocal about their prejudiced views if they now perceive these views to be more aligned with social norms. It’s not surprising therefore that sexual and gender minorities living in regions with more discriminatory laws and policies experience more abuse and bullying.

To address health disparities, we need to push for inclusive policies and ensure that all Australians – irrespective of sexuality, gender identity or religion – are free from discrimination and have equitable access to the care they need.

The last thing we need is legislation that will make this worse.

Karinna Saxby receives funding from the Government Research Training Program

– ref. The religious discrimination bill is not just words – it will make LGBTIQ+ Australians sick – https://theconversation.com/the-religious-discrimination-bill-is-not-just-words-it-will-make-lgbtiq-australians-sick-163649

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gabriella Edelstein, Lecturer in English, University of Newcastle

Review: The Boomkak Panto, directed by Richard Carroll and Virginia Gay, Belvoir

The great Victorian playwright George Bernard Shaw was not an admirer of pantomimes. He wrote in 1897 that this dramatic genre is “a glittering, noisy void”, which worries “the physical senses without any recreative appeal to the emotions and through them to the intellect”.

What value, then, can there be to a pantomime? As Virginia Gay and Richard Carroll’s exuberant The Boomkak Panto shows, pantomime as a genre may be utterly bonkers and fundamentally nonsensical, but it offers audiences the possibility of irreverence, joy and, most importantly, community.

The Boomkak Panto centres on the inhabitants of the fictional “Little Aussie Town™” of Boomkak, who are fighting to save their home from the evil Big Developer’s scheme of building a freeway, high-density housing or a casino.

In classic meta-theatrical tradition à la The Muppets, the townspeople plan to put on a panto to raise money and save their town.

No pretence to realism

For the uninitiated, pantomime – or panto, as it is more affectionately called – is a type of British theatrical entertainment mainly for children played around Christmas. They are comedic retellings of fairy tales and nursery rhymes, from Mother Goose to Cinderella.

There’s song and dance, slapstick, extravagant sets and outrageous costumes, enormous casts, audience participation, clowning, cross-dressing, puns galore, satirical topical references – and no pretence to realism.

Pantomime, as the anti-panto Alison (Virginia Gay, who also wrote and co-directed the production) tell us, is void of structure, tone, logic, emotion and time, where “things seem to happen without cause or effect”. Especially when the villain is somehow trounced, the lovers marry and order is magically restored at the happy ending.

Although pantomime is now a distinctly British art form, it has its origins in the Italian commedia dell’arte, a masked, clowning style of acting, which was nativized in England as the Regency harlequinade.

During the Victorian period – the heyday of panto – the entertainment was transformed into an extravagant spectacular. While the genre is still popular throughout Britain, you would be hard pressed to find a panto in Australia today.

Read more:
A brief history of the pantomime – and why it’s about so much more than ‘blokes in dresses’

How, then, do you refresh pantomime for a modern Australian audience? You make it a queer love story set in the Outback, of course.

Gender play

The true heart of the show is the love story between Zoe (Zoe Terakes) and Yazmin (Mary Soudi). Zoe is a young queer person who has found their identity. Yazmin is the daughter of an Iranian refugee who feels the pressure of living up to her mother’s high expectations.

There has always been something subversive about panto, particularly when it comes to its carnivalesque play with gender.

Traditionally, the panto’s protagonist is the prince, known as the Principal Boy – although the audience is perfectly aware this strapping lad is actually a woman in men’s clothing.

(This type of casting is known as a breeches role, which emerged in the 1660s with the introduction of the English actress, but it was mostly an excuse to show women’s legs in tights.)

There is also the Panto Dame, a middle-aged man in campy drag, playing a matronly woman always on the hunt for a new husband.

The reversals of gender in pantomime highlight and parody rituals of masculinity and femininity, and the extent to which gendered identity is performed. But it also relies on sexist reproductions of gender, presenting women’s bodies as either highly sexualised or grotesque.

One of The Boomkak Panto’s subversive innovations is its treatment of gender. Rather than having the Principal Boy as a sexualised woman who just happens to be in boy’s clothing, the play’s hero is the non-binary Zoe. Their gender identity isn’t performed to the audience for laughs, but with heart and empathy.

Happy endings

When all seems lost, the Big Developer (hilariously played by Rob Johnson) strikes a bargain with the townspeople: if they can perform something “true and beautiful” in their panto, he will leave the town. As may come as no surprise, all’s well that ends well.

The highlight of the show is the panto-within-a-panto: Aladdin with a twist. Like the play’s treatment of gender, Gay and Carroll take this most problematic of stock pantomimes and make it ironic, simultaneously showing their love for the art form while refreshing it with Australian humour, sex jokes and plenty of swear words.

The panto in this play is meant to bring the community together and, for us, The Boomkak Panto does exactly that: the audience was overjoyed to be back in the theatres after lockdown, cheering and booing along with the play’s rollicking plot.

But pantomime is also based on fairy tales. The idealised Boomkak doesn’t exist, and theatre cannot save the day from the developments that are destroying small towns and big cities alike. While The Boomkak Panto may indulge a little too much in a happy ending that does not offer the same satirical bite as the rest of the play, the production shows there is still much to love about pantomime.

The Boomkak Panto plays at Belvoir, Sydney, until December 23.

Gabriella Edelstein does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Belvoir’s The Boomkak Panto is a joyous, subversive and Australian twist on the classic Christmas tradition – https://theconversation.com/belvoirs-the-boomkak-panto-is-a-joyous-subversive-and-australian-twist-on-the-classic-christmas-tradition-171728

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deb Batterham, Post doctoral research fellow, Launch Housing and Centre for Urban Transitions, Swinburne University of Technology

Homelessness is traumatic. It affects not just housing arrangements but whether or not someone can get enough food, feel safe and maintain relationships with friends and family. The physical and mental health effects often persist long after people are rehoused, and the community and government costs are high.

Much of the current response to homelessness is focused on supporting people after they become homeless or just before they do so.

However, to really reduce homelessness we need to prevent those at risk from ever becoming homeless in the first place. It’s akin to turning off a tap at the source to prevent a flood downstream.

Our recent research, published by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, gives critical insights into how we can do that.

Read more:
400,000 women over 45 are at risk of homelessness in Australia

Who is at risk of homelessness?

In our study, people were considered at risk of homelessness if they lived in rental housing and were experiencing at least two of the following:

• low income

• vulnerability to discrimination in the housing or job markets

• low social resources and supports

• needing support to access or maintain a living situation due to significant ill health, disability, mental health issues or problematic alcohol and/or drug use

• rental stress (when lower-income households put more than 30% of income towards housing costs).

From here, it often doesn’t take much to tip those at risk into actual homelessness.

To estimate the number, profile and geography of the Australian population at risk of homelessness we combined data from two sources: the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey and the 2016 Census. We estimated the size of the population at risk at the national and also small area (SA2/suburb) level.

We found between 8.5% and 11.7% of the total population aged 15 years and over were at risk of homelessness. This equates to between 1.5 and 2 million people.

These numbers are large but shouldn’t be surprising. In the nine years between July 2011 and July 2020, some 1.3 million people received assistance from specialist homelessness ervices (agencies that provide support to people experiencing homelessness).

Who’s at risk of homelessness?

Compared to the national population, those at risk of homelessness are more likely to be:

• female

• Indigenous

• living in a lone-person or lone-parent household

• low income

• unemployed or outside the labour force

• in receipt of income support payments.

They are more likely to identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual, and report fair or poor health.

Those at risk have lower levels of education and are more likely to report difficulty paying bills and rent on time.

They are also more likely to experience rental stress and forms of material deprivation such as skipping meals and being unable to heat their home.

A third have children in their care.

Where are they?

The highest rates (per head of population) of homelessness risk are typically found in remote areas and small pockets of capital cities.

However, the greatest numbers of people at risk of homelessness are located in capital cities on the eastern coast of Australia. These high numbers extend well beyond inner city areas and into the suburbs.

In several states (Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia and South Australia), high rates of homelessness risk are spread across greater capital cities and regional areas.

In Victoria, however, risk is concentrated in Greater Melbourne.

And in the Northern Territory, risk is highly concentrated in remote areas.

Preventing homelessness in Australia

Our findings suggest Australia urgently needs more rental housing specifically targeted to those on low incomes and at risk of homelessness.

Our fine-grain data on homelessness risk can help state and territory governments, as well as local governments, decide where this housing will be most effective to reduce homelessness risk.

Australia also needs more private rental access programs, which provide ongoing subsidies and financial help with rent arrears to people at risk of homelessness. They also provide advocacy help in negotiations with landlords.

Given Indigenous Australians are over represented in the at-risk and homeless populations, especially in remote areas, we need targeted support developed in consultation with Indigenous communities.

Those living with a disability or reporting fair or poor health are particularly vulnerable. There is a clear role for state and territory governments in ensuring access to health and disability supports, especially for those on low incomes.

Key priorities for the federal government and agencies include:

• increasing the levels of income support payments and Commonwealth Rent Assistance

• increasing the wages for the lowest paid workers;

• increasing funding for the construction of social and affordable housing, and;

• playing a coordinating role in primary prevention policy through a national housing and homelessness strategy.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted homelessness can be closer than many think – especially after sudden loss of employment or a health crisis.

Now we know who is at risk of homelessness and where they are, it’s time for governments to act.

Read more:
Coronavirus puts casual workers at risk of homelessness unless they get more support

Deb Batterham works part-time for Launch Housing – a Specialist Homelessness Service in Melbourne and receives or has received funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI)

Christian A. Nygaard receives or has received funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, the Community Housing Industry Association, other housing peak bodies, and a number of not-for-profit community housing organisations and homelessness service providers.

Jackie De Vries receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) and has recently begun working for the Tasmanian government in the Department of Communities.

Margaret Reynolds receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI).

– ref. We identified who’s most at risk of homelessness and where they are. Now we must act, before it’s too late – https://theconversation.com/we-identified-whos-most-at-risk-of-homelessness-and-where-they-are-now-we-must-act-before-its-too-late-172501