Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Patrick O’Leary, Professor and Director of Violence Research and Prevention Program, Griffith Criminology Institute and School of Human Services and Social Work, Griffith University

Today is a far cry from what we hoped for and expected from 2020.

After Australia’s disastrous summer of bushfires, the unprecedented upheaval of the COVID-19 pandemic has seen serious social and economic effects for us individually and collectively.

Many of us have felt grief. And with grief can emerge feelings of hopelessness and resignation.

We tend to lose hope when we can’t see a pathway to our goals.

At a time like this, it’s important we rethink our goals to create and maintain hope.

Read more: Is isolation a feeling?

Why is hope important?

Hope provides a positive vision for the future about what’s possible, motivating us to look forward. While it’s an optimistic state of mind, hope can emerge from distressing and even tragic situations.

Research shows both mental and physical health deteriorate quickly when we don’t have hope.

Suicide is closely correlated with feelings of hopelessness.

Conversely, people with high levels of hope have better physical and mental health.

A lot of us are probably feeling a lack of hope right now

To have hope, it’s vital we feel a sense of meaning in our lives. Particularly during a crisis, having meaning or purpose can protect our mental health.

In recent months, two things that give our life meaning – work and connections with friends and family – might have been disrupted.

And while necessary to prevent the spread of COVID-19, social distancing measures have meant many of the things we looked forward to – from holidays to going to the theatre to simply having dinner at a restaurant – were off, in favour of staying at home.

Read more: What are the characteristics of strong mental health?

Coronavirus restrictions have had more serious consequences for vulnerable groups. For example, some victims of domestic violence lost the safe refuge normally found in school or the workplace.

Meanwhile, we’re now in a recession. Many people have lost their jobs and businesses, and almost 1.5 million Australians are experiencing mortgage stress.

All of this brings uncertainty and throws our plans into jeopardy.

Adjusting our goals

To work through grief and hopelessness, we need to modify our goals to ensure they’re realistic within the “new normal”, and we have a clear pathway to achieving them.

For example, you might have been saving for a big family trip. But now – due to financial challenges, or travel restrictions, or both – it will be more realistic to plan a holiday in a nearby caravan park.

It’s important to focus not only on long-term hopes, but on the short term too. If we focus too much on the future, we can lose sight of what’s achievable and important to us now.

We should ask ourselves, what can we reasonably do this week or next month within current restrictions?

Things that are important to us – such as family, friends and career – are unlikely to change, but we may need to find new ways to connect with loved ones or feel accomplished in our jobs. For example, we might spend more time socialising using digital technologies rather than face-to-face.

We can even think about setting goals daily. How can we do something to enact our values each day? This could be as simple as a kind gesture towards a loved one or work colleague.

Read more: Predicting the pandemic’s psychological toll: why suicide modelling is so difficult

Navigating uncertainty

Even as restrictions ease, we worry about the potential for virus outbreaks.

Meanwhile, people in financial trouble won’t simply recover overnight, and may face added stress at the prospect of the government ending its support programs.

And people who have experienced mental health problems during the pandemic will need ongoing support.

Fear can get in the way of identifying pathways to achieving our hopes. So to nurture hope we must recognise, acknowledge and address our fears.

If this all feels like a lot, setting a goal such as going for walk during the day can give us space to reflect.

Further, research shows engaging in mindfulness meditation and focusing on the present can reduce our stress and increase our sense of hope.

Sharing hope

Sharing your hopes with trusted others means you’re supported not only to dream of exciting things, but also to make these things happen.

We’re actually programmed to share in each others’ hopes and dreams. Vicarious hope is the desire for something positive to happen to someone else. It switches our attention to how our actions might contribute to other people’s hopes as well as our own.

“Hope interventions”, whereby community and social services offer programs with the aim of improving people’s hope, can enhance well-being and reduce depression.

Read more: ‘Cabin fever’: Australia must prepare for the social and psychological impacts of a coronavirus lockdown

Despite the uncertainty associated with COVID-19, over recent months we’ve seen communities around the world generating hope.

In Europe, people played music on their balconies and collectively applauded health-care workers.

Here in Australia, volunteers established kindness armies to support vulnerable members of the community.

This speaks to a social world which feels an ongoing responsibility to focus on hope.

Throughout history, hope has risen from ruins. Out of this pandemic, too, we can be hopeful and even dream of a better world.

– ref. Feeling hopeless? There are things you can do to create and maintain hope in a post-coronavirus world – https://theconversation.com/feeling-hopeless-there-are-things-you-can-do-to-create-and-maintain-hope-in-a-post-coronavirus-world-140330

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sara Wilkinson, Professor, School of the Built Environment, University of Technology Sydney

The government’s HomeBuilder scheme allows certain home owners to apply for a tax-free grant of A$25,000 if they are spending between $150,000 and $750,000 renovating a home or building a new home. Eligibility criteria are strict.

The scheme has boosted renovation talk in some circles (although, as CoreLogic has pointed out, it may merely bring forward works that were already planned).

Here are some questions to ask yourself when trying to decide between renovating and moving – and how to add value to your existing home.

Read more: Scott Morrison’s HomeBuilder scheme is classic retail politics but lousy economics

What adds value to a house?

Property market observers advise updating or renewing bathrooms or kitchens – even small fixes such as replacing a cracked or dated splashback, replacing a bath or adding skylights can go a long way.

Think about easy repairs that create an invaluable good first impression – a fixed-up fence, a new carpet or resurfaced flooring or even good old decluttering.

But remember you’ll only qualify for HomeBuilder if you plan to spend at least $150,000 on an owner-occupied home worth no more than A$1.5 million (CoreLogic has listed which suburbs have the most owner-occupied properties under A$1.5 million).

Factors to consider if you’re thinking of renovating

How long till you retire? How secure is your employment? Thinking carefully about your earning potential between now and retirement will help you understand how what you can borrow and afford. If you are planning to stay, you will get the benefit and enjoyment of the renovations.

Do you need to stay close to school or work? If that’s a consideration, renovating may be worth more to you than buying further out.

Look closely at what your property is worth (there are plenty of online calculators) and keep track of how much similar local properties with one extra bedroom or bathroom sell for. That will give you a sense of the value-add to your home equity that a renovation might represent.

Be honest with yourself about the total cost of renovation. There are myriad expenses not always initially apparent. These may include:

• planning fees (the cost of getting a development assessed by council)
• the cost of architectural drawings
• consultants’ fees for environmental impact statements or arborists’ reports
• extra costs due to a heritage listing
• renting, if it’s not possible to live at home during renovation
• the cost of protecting underground public assets such as water or sewerage pipes
• extra costs caused by poor access or other limitations.

Consider the possible long-term savings of retrofitting your home to be more energy-efficient. Proper insulation, secondary glazing, draught excluders and solar PV energy are expensive upfront but will save on long term running costs. It’s likely, as energy costs increase, homes that are at least partially off grid will be more attractive and valuable over time.

And remember that for some, even with help from HomeBuilder, renovation won’t stack up economically.

Some older people may eschew home renovation to put money aside to help children get a foot on the property ladder.

Others may decide potentially expensive renovation is worth it to hold onto a family home to which children return as they get older. It might sound sentimental but the idea of Christmas in the family homestead is worth it, for some.

Tax considerations

Find out what tax breaks, if any, you might be eligible for if you renovate to divide the family home into a smaller space (if you’re keen to downsize, or enhance the accessibility of your home, for example) and adding a self-contained granny flat.

However, if the granny flat is leased out, this section of the home would be considered income-producing. Your “main residence” is generally exempt from capital gains tax when it comes time to sell, but you may not qualify entirely for this exemption if a section of the property is income-producing.

You may also consider remodelling the family home into a duplex and, depending on council planning laws, convert the title into dual occupancy. However, these suggestions may complicate eligibility for the HomeBuilder grant (which seems to exclude property investors, although there’s no mention of partly converting the main place into a dual occupancy).

The best option here is to seek advice from a tax specialist.

Factors to consider if you’re thinking of selling up and buying elsewhere

Use a stamp-duty calculator and cost-of-selling calculator to get a rough idea of those costs.

How important is proximity to work? Particularly if the coronavirus pandemic has opened your (or your employer’s) eyes to working remotely, would you consider a move to a more remote area where you can afford a bigger house?

Chat with a range of real estate agents and get into the habit of reading market media coverage. Have a sense of what houses sell for that featured your desired attributes (such as more bedrooms or off-street parking).

As a chartered building surveyor, I’d advise would-be downsizers to be cautious when buying a brand new high-rise apartment, due to risks of potentially costly defects that might become apparent over time.

And remember, even if you do sell and buy a new place, very few are able to find the perfect home. You may decide to make renovations anyway.

There are no easy answers. It comes down to your individual circumstances, your attitude to risk and ensuring you have a good grasp of the relative costs of each option.

Talk to a financial adviser, tax accountant, real estate agents, builders, architects and others who have been through each process about what they’d do differently next time.

Read more: Australia’s housing system needs a big shake-up: here’s how we can crack this

– ref. What adds value to your house? How to decide between renovating and moving – https://theconversation.com/what-adds-value-to-your-house-how-to-decide-between-renovating-and-moving-140627

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tom Logan, Lecturer of Civil Systems Engineering, University of Canterbury

Roads, cycleways and housing developments are among 11 projects announced this week as the first tranche of infrastructure developments to kickstart New Zealand’s economic recovery in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

New Zealand is investing at least NZ$3.3 billion into “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects, which will be fast-tracked under a new law currently going through parliament.

But this approach ignores an important aspect of recovery. In our research, we make the case that communities become more resilient to future crises when people have access to basic services such as supermarkets, hospitals and schools.

The people selecting recovery projects should ensure the projects prepare communities for future hazards and reduce future vulnerability.

Read more: We may live to regret open-slather construction stimulus

Vibrant communities

This first set of projects lacks a broad, cohesive vision for future communities; perhaps a consequence of the fast-tracking that limits feedback and innovation.

Instead, we should look at ideas such as Hamilton’s 20-minute city: a city where all residents are within 20 minutes of essential services, without depending on a car. Better yet, Paris and some of Britain’s cities have proposed 15-minute cities.

This is not a call for highways and on-street parking. Instead, it can be achieved by providing new facilities in deprived areas and through smart planning.

Housing projects can bring people back into community centres. Medium-high density and mixed-use housing developments, in or near community hubs, would stimulate local economies long after the projects themselves are completed.

This type of initiative adds incentives for family-owned stores and cafes to return downtown. For example, as Christchurch continues to rebuild after the 2011 earthquake, affordable medium-high density housing in the empty lots of the inner city would invigorate local shopping and hospitality while enhancing safety of the community centre.

So-called anchor projects (such as stadiums or pools) that bring only occasional pulses of activity continue to fail our communities.

Instead, projects that create higher-density housing near community centres should be funded. Housing projects that relegate people to far-flung sprawling suburbs should not.

Read more: How pandemics have changed American cities – often for the better

A modern approach to resilience

The challenge is to define what community resilience actually means. In the past, it has been characterised through two lenses: community capacity and infrastructure functionality.

Capacity-based resilience seeks to build a community’s ability to prepare, respond, recover and improve when faced with a hazard. The infrastructure functionality approach focuses on ensuring that infrastructure withstands disruptions and can quickly be restored afterwards. But this approach can be limited in its potential to enable necessary change.

Instead of these ideas, we argue that decision-makers should think about community resilience in terms of people’s access to amenities and opportunity. Fundamentally, communities need everyday services such as water, food, education, health care and employment to function.

Access to these resources, specifically equitable access, builds community cohesion, social capital and place attachment.

Read more: Drought, fire and flood: how outer urban areas can manage the emergency while reducing future risks

Evaluating future projects

Given the fast-tracking of consent processes, decisions should at least consider two aspects: hazard exposure and the equitable distribution of amenities.

Investment must consider hazard exposure. But given that essential infrastructure continues to be developed in exposed places – for example, the Buller hospital, Nelson airport and Napier airport are all built near sea level – there are major concerns about decision processes.

As much as NZ$14 billion worth of existing local government infrastructure, in New Zealand alone, is at risk from sea-level rise. Stimulus investment is an opportunity to reduce this exposure.

The second factor is community vibrancy, which can be achieved through equitable access to essential infrastructure and services. This brings benefits to community resilience, physical and mental health and local economic growth.

Today, we have the computational ability to evaluate and improve access and its equity. We can even evaluate how access changes during a disaster like Hurricane Florence, which struck Wilmington, North Carolina, in 2018. We can optimise the location of amenities like supermarkets to reduce food deserts and ensure they’re safe from future disasters.

Building resilience for people

This shift to a more contemporary, people-centric, thinking about community resilience should happen without needing the prompt of a global pandemic.

Before a disruption, we need to improve community well-being and health (the Māori concept of hauora) and social connectedness (whanaungatanga) through equitable access to services. In doing so, we foster the conditions necessary for resilience. It has been devastatingly evident during the Black Lives Matter protests how social injustices undermine community cohesion.

Following disruptions, we should focus on people’s access rather than solely on restoring infrastructure functionality. For example, providing generators may restore access to food or health care more rapidly than focusing on the electricity network.

Communities can be designed and retrofitted to achieve both lower exposure to natural hazards and improved equity in access. This is not the “green nirvana” NZ First MP Shane Jones opposes. Instead, it is a blueprint for invigorating and preparing communities for the next disruption, be that a drop in tourism, a global pandemic or a natural hazard.

– ref. ‘Shovel-ready’ projects ignore important aspects of community resilience – https://theconversation.com/shovel-ready-projects-ignore-important-aspects-of-community-resilience-139850

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Geoffrey Robinson, Senior Lecturer, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Deakin University

Victorian Labor, the jewel in the party’s crown, has been thrown into crisis by the allegations of massive branch stacking.

A third state Labor minister has now left their position over the scandal that as engulfed the party in the wake of revelations by the The Age and 60 Minutes.

But with federal leader Anthony Albanese also facing questions about party culture, the scandal will not be contained to Victoria.

Declining membership facilitates branch stacking

On Monday, Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews sacked Labor powerbroker Adem Somyurek from his cabinet. This came after allegations Somyurek was involved in “industrial scale” branch stacking and used offensive language about a ministerial colleague.

As federal Labor MP and former academic Andrew Leigh has shown, the propensity of Australians to join formal organisations has been in steady decline for 50 years, and parties are a key example. Weeds have sprouted in these ruins.

The infrastructure of party and union branches that once underpinned politics in Labor heartlands has collapsed. The factories are gone and Labor branches have in most cases shrunken to a few ageing true believers.

Read more: Explainer: what is branch stacking, and why has neither major party been able to stamp it out?

Branch stacking is possible because Labor’s active membership is now so low they can be easily swamped by those “stacked” into the party.

Preselections for safe seats in state parliament are often determined by fewer than 50 votes at the local level.

We have been here before

Branch stacking is, however, not new.

During the Cold War, membership soared as left and right battled for control. But back then, it reflected real ideological disagreements that mobilised thousands. This popularisation sparked a catastrophic split in the ALP.

Today, Labor is not divided by deep ideological battles and as a consequence, its membership is much lower. As a further result, it is much easier to stack the branches.

With Labor as the dominant political force in Victoria, it is now mostly jobs – from lowly electorate officers to ministerial roles – that people fight about. The power of factional bosses rests on their ability to control access to these positions.

The need for change

The decline in the levels of Labor membership and the commitment of Labor voters have concerned supporters for decades.

Today, new political forces such as the Greens and independents are now going after Labor in their heartland. Even at the 2018 landslide victory of the Andrews government, the Greens retained three seats and independents mounted serious challenges in safe Labor seats.

One popular proposal has been to increase the rights of members, so they can have a greater say in how the party is run.

At the federal level and for some states, this has taken the form of direct ballots for parliamentary leaders.

This method was described by former ALP national secretary George Wright as “an outrageous success” in 2013, leading to an extra 4,500 members at the time. But some states – including Victoria – have not gone down this path.

Read more: Explainer: what does the law say about secret recordings and the public interest?

Some have argued it would be better to give up the dream of building a mass membership Labor Party and instead allow all Labor voters, not just party members, to select candidates by an American-style system of primaries.

However, here, the likely outcome would be an even more media-centric politics, where political celebrities – such as Canadian leader Justin Trudeau – would communicate directly with voters. It is a weak shield against a populist right on the march.

Organisational reforms flagged

On Tuesday night, ALP president Wayne Swan announced former Victorian premier Steve Bracks and former federal frontbencher Jenny Macklin had been appointed administrators of the Victorian branch until the end of January 2021.

They will report on how the branch “should be restructured and reconstituted so that the branch membership comprises genuine, consenting, self-funding party members”.

So, organisational reforms are most likely in the short term. These could include banning the payment of membership fees in cash as well as a proposed audit of party membership.

But in the absence of a larger and engaged membership, organisational reforms will always be subject to evasion. The highly-centralised pre-selection system in Victorian Labor provides an incentive to stack, but reform of this would disrupt the delicate factional balance within the ALP.

The political fallout

The branch stacking scandal also presents political opportunities for Labor’s opponents.

For the Greens, this latest scandal offers the opportunity to challenge Victorian Labor’s progressive image. In the short run, the Andrews brand is strong enough to ride out the loss of less talented ministers, but one day, the political tide will turn. The collapse of the once all-conquering NSW Labor Party is a cautionary lesson.

At a federal level, it drags Albanese back into mire of Labor politics and undercuts his attempt to present him as an inner-suburban everyman – unlike former leader Bill Shorten, who could never escape his identity as a political hack.

If Labor loses the forthcoming Eden-Monaro byelection, this is something all Labor MPs, not just the Victorians, will have more to worry about.

Albanese most of all.

Read more: Eden-Monaro byelection to be on July 4

– ref. Labor’s branch stacking scandal is a problem for the whole party. Not just Victoria. – https://theconversation.com/labors-branch-stacking-scandal-is-a-problem-for-the-whole-party-not-just-victoria-140839

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Burnett, Honorary Associate Professor, ANU College of Law, Australian National University

Prime Minister Scott Morrison yesterday announced environmental approvals for 15 major infrastructure projects will be fast-tracked to accelerate investment as Australia emerges from the COVID-19 lockdown.

Under the current system, proponents must seek both state and federal approvals for big developments. The new “single touch” approvals process will involve teams of state and federal officials assessing the projects jointly.

Read more: View from The Hill: ‘Can do’ Scott Morrison needs to take care in deregulating

This is by no means the first attempt by governments to streamline environmental approvals. Morrison says the latest push will be informed by a ten-year review of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity (EPBC) Act, which has also been framed around cutting so-called “green tape” that slows developments. An interim report is due this month.

I was a federal environment official for 13 years, and from 2007 to 2012 was responsible for administering and reforming the Act. There are ways the laws can be streamlined without sacrificing the environment. But isolated from more comprehensive environmental reform, faster approval will bring significant environmental risk.

We’ve been here before

The first national agreement to streamline environmental approvals dates back to 1990, and Bob Hawke’s “New Federalism” push to reduce overlap between Commonwealth and state environmental laws.

More recently, the Gillard government in 2012, at the urging of business interests, sought to strike bilateral agreements with the states to reduce duplication in environmental approvals. The push was abandoned when each state demanded different arrangements, making the proposed system too messy and complex.

In 2014 the Abbott government revived this “one-stop shop” approach, but the move was blocked by the Senate.

A risky business

Environment advocates naturally oppose moves to streamline environmental laws and approval processes. They argue the regime already fails to protect threatened species and biodiversity, and the bar should not be lowered further.

It’s true that while governments may claim faster approvals won’t erode environmental standards, there aren’t many hard-and-fast standards to maintain.

Instead, EPBC Act decisions mostly hinge on the minister’s conclusion that assessed environmental impacts are “not unacceptable”, provided certain conditions, such as minimising a project’s physical size, are met. But this is no standard at all, because such decisions are arbitrary and no “bottom line” for a project’s environmental performance is set.

As things stand, the closest thing to an on-ground environmental standard is the environmental offsets policy, which allows environmental damage from a project to be compensated for by environmental improvements elsewhere. But policies are not binding, there is no public register of approved offsets and little evidence of them being monitored and enforced.

Read more: Be worried when fossil fuel lobbyists support current environmental laws

The Act does include mechanisms for setting standards. These include “bioregional plans” intended to inform industry and decision-makers of the environmental values and objectives of a region, and how these should be met.

But since the Act commenced in 2000, just five such plans for marine areas have been developed, and none have been prepared for regions on land.

The Act also provides for recovery plans setting out the actions necessary to support listed threatened species. But as of 2018, fewer than half these species have recovery plans, and where they exist, the plans are often out of date and not specific enough.

Efficient approvals require proper resources

Morrison said his government wants to reduce Commonwealth assessment and approval times for major projects, from an average of 3.5 years to 21 months. But to do that, his government must stop starving its own regulatory systems of resources.

Between 2013 and 2019, the federal environment department’s budget was cut by 39.7%, according to an assessment by the Australian Conservtaion Foundation. So it’s little wonder approval processes slowed.

In November last year the Morrison government announced A$25 million to reduce unnecessary delays in environmental assessments, including the establishment of a major projects team. In effect, this was merely a reversal of previous funding cuts by this government and some of its predecessors.

What’s more, an efficient approvals process needs good information, yet this can be hard to come by.

The much-needed National Plan for Environmental Information was established in 2010 “to improve the quality and accessibility of Australian environmental information”. It would have reduced the need for fieldwork in environmental assessments. But in my view it was never properly resourced, and it has since been abolished.

But streamlining could work

There are ways the Commonwealth and states could cut environmental approval times without cutting corners.

The proposed joint assessment teams would have to be well-resourced. They would also have to be authorised to negotiate procedural or cultural obstacles to meeting both federal and state legal requirements.

When I was in the environment department, it was common for federal and state officials to complain their counterparts were not addressing the assessment and approval requirements of the other jurisdiction.

And if companies behind developments want faster approvals, they will have to provide information to officials in a timely fashion – something that doesn’t always happen now.

Read more: Environment laws have failed to tackle the extinction emergency. Here’s the proof

Australia has learnt much during the pandemic – not only about cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states, but also between government and business. Success in this latest streamlining attempt will demand excellence in both.

The larger challenge is to speed up the process without lowering the environmental bar.

The federal government should commission independent monitoring and evaluation of the environmental outcomes of approvals under these new arrangements. In 2009 a Senate committee recommendedmore resources for monitoring and audits, but nothing has improved in the decade since.

Independent evaluation won’t win over the sceptics, but it might assuage their worst fears.

– ref. Mr Morrison, you can cut ‘green tape’ without harming nature – but it’ll take money and gumption – https://theconversation.com/mr-morrison-you-can-cut-green-tape-without-harming-nature-but-itll-take-money-and-gumption-140732

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erik Malcolm Champion, UNESCO Chair of Cultural Heritage and Visualisation, Curtin University

SpaceX’s recent Falcon 9 rocket launch proves humanity has come leaps and bounds in its effort to reach other worlds. But now there’s a quicker, safer and environmentally friendlier way to travel to the centre of the galaxy – and you can do it too.

NASA has co-developed a free virtual reality (VR) adventure providing 500 years of travel around the black hole at the centre of the Milky Way. The experience is available to download from two major VR stores, Steam and Viewport, in a non-collapsed star system near you.

And this kind of spacefaring may be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the potential of virtual travel and tourism.

Read more: Virtual reality adds to tourism through touch, smell and real people’s experiences

The virtual travel bug

Simply speaking, VR refers to technology that immerses users in a computer-generated world that removes them from reality. Augmented Reality (AR), however, aims to superimpose virtual imagery over a user’s view of the real world. Pokémon Go is a popular AR game.

VR-based tourism has a longer history than you might think. In the 1850s, it involved staring at stereographs with a stereoscope. With this invention, viewers looked at slightly different images through each eye, which were then assembled by the brain to make a new image providing the illusion of spatial depth (in other words, a 3D effect).

A century later, 1950s Cinerama widescreen viewing inspired cinematic travel though its large, curved screens and multiple cameras.

The 1960s Sensorama foretold a shiny future of multimodal immersive cinematic experiences, playing 3D films with sound, scents and wind to immerse users. In VR circles, Ivan Sutherland became famous for inventing the head-mounted display, as well as augmented reality (AR).

Travel restrictions under COVID-19 present an opportunity for virtual reality travel to finally take off.

In an era of lockdowns and social distancing, we could use VR to travel to remote, distant or even no longer existing places. Remote tourism is here (the Faroe Islands offers a great example), and interest in VR tourism is blossoming.

VR comes in many forms

The word “virtual” can refer to an immersive 3D experience, but also 360° panorama photographs and movies (a cylinder, sphere or cube of photographs).

What is deemed “virtual” varies greatly across different devices and platforms. Let’s look at some of the ways this term is applied.

Desktop virtual environments: these are computer-based 3D environments on a flat screen, without the spatial immersion of VR platforms.

Cinematic VR: these are phone-based panoramic environments. Many desktop experiences of 360° movies or images can be conveyed in low-cost stereoscopic VR through smartphones. Google Street view can be viewed in Google VR on Android and some Apple smartphones, but it’s not real VR.

Head-mounted displays: HMDs such as Google Cardboard and Google Daydream are what many people think of when they hear “virtual reality”. Some HMDs are self-contained, not requiring connection to a computer or console. Arguably, the market is dominated by the Oculus range owned by Facebook, the HTC Vive range, and PlayStation VR.

VR in a pandemic

In a post-coronavirus age, device sharing is problematic. HMDs aren’t easy to clean and VR software can quickly become obsolete, with new headsets sometimes not running two-year-old software. Users also have to deal with costly updates, eyestrain, and having to share displays that sat on someone else’s face.

Developing and sharing content across different devices can be a nightmare but there are increasingly simple and effective ways to create AR and VR content, despite a bewildering range of platforms and equipment (there are more than 140 3D file formats).

Despite this, many VR projects are not preserved – including virtual heritage projects! Even for the largest HMD companies, supplies can be limited.

Places you can virtually visit now

Nonetheless, there are plenty of VR programs available to help relieve lockdown boredom, with many sites offering lists of their favourite picks.

The Street View app for Google Daydream and Cardboard provides a “virtual tour” of Chernobyl. Google Earth and Google Earth Voyager feature travel sections, too.

Google Earth VR is available on the HTC Vive and Oculus Rift. VRfocus also has an interesting travel section. You can virtually explore Switzerland or Yosemite.

Or you may want to stay in Australia. Australian company White Spark Pictures’ Cinematic/360 experience of Antarctica tours museums. Melbourne-based company Lithodomos brings “the ancient world to life” and Hidden AR offers mythical augmented reality.

Read more: What is augmented reality, anyway?

Other links to check out include:

Escapism through gaming

There are also VR games with which you can:

VR can show your outer space, and also convey interpretations of time and space. With it, there is vast potential for travelling to infinity and beyond.

– ref. Antarctica without windchill, the Louvre without queues: how to travel the world from home – https://theconversation.com/antarctica-without-windchill-the-louvre-without-queues-how-to-travel-the-world-from-home-140174

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gary Sacks, Associate Professor, Deakin University

In Australia and around the world, junk food companies are targeting children on social media.

In our new study, we found most major social media platforms have restrictions on the advertising of tobacco, alcohol and gambling to children.

But there are hardly any such restrictions in place around junk food.

Read more: Is social media damaging to children and teens? We asked five experts

Children are exposed to junk food marketing everywhere

Globally, we’ve seen persistent calls to protect children from exposure to the marketing of unhealthy food and drinks.

This recognises the harmful effects of junk food marketing on children.

While some governments have adopted legislation to restrict kids’ exposure to the marketing of unhealthy foods, these laws typically don’t apply to social media.

Some food companies have voluntarily pledged to restrict their marketing of unhealthy foods to children. But most of these pledges are narrow in scope and full of loopholes that allow junk food marketing to proliferate.

As a result, children are heavily exposed to unhealthy food marketing, including on TV, online and through outdoor advertising.

Junk food marketing on social media

In Australia, a recent study found almost half of children aged 10-12, and almost 90% of those aged 13-16, were active on social media.

Junk food brands target children on social media through direct advertising, sponsored posts, and by integrating their brand into engaging and entertaining content.

This includes establishing promotional relationships with online “influencers”, who then promote the brand as part of the content they post.

Read more: Kids’ diets and screen time: to set up good habits, make healthy choices the default at home

In one recent study, more than half of Australian kids who were active on Facebook had “liked” a fast food brand, which subscribes them to its content. A similar proportion of kids had “liked” a soft drink brand.

Another study showed teenagers engaged with posts advertising junk food more often than they engaged with posts promoting healthy food.

There’s also evidence that when kids are exposed to unhealthy food marketing on social media, it increases the chance they’ll consume the promoted product over an alternative brand of the same type of snack.

Social media policies on junk food advertising

In our study, we focused on the 16 largest social media platforms globally. These included platforms popular with children, such as Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat and Facebook.

We examined each platform’s advertising policies related to food and drinks.

We found none of the social media platforms have comprehensive restrictions on the advertising of unhealthy foods to children.

YouTube Kids, a platform popular with children under 13, does ban direct junk food marketing. But media reports have shown children could still be exposed to junk food brands through product placement and promotional videos on the platform.

Other advertising policies

We also looked at each platform’s advertising policies related to other areas affecting public health.

We found most of the social media platforms were prepared to take a stand against tobacco, alcohol and gambling ads targeting kids.

In many cases, their policies in these areas are aligned with government regulations. But in some cases they go further.

Facebook and Instagram also recently implemented a ban on advertising diet and weight-loss products as well as cosmetic procedures to users under 18. These policies are substantially more restrictive than most government policies.

Read more: In a virtual universe of ‘perfect’ bodies, Instagram’s new policy offers important protection for young users

Notably, current social media advertising policies don’t completely eliminate children’s exposure to ads in these areas. For example, children still report seeing gambling ads on social media.

Although these policies need to be more comprehensive, they do signal social media platforms’ willingness to take action to protect children from the advertising of unhealthy products.

Social media platforms have an opportunity

Social media platforms have demonstrated they recognise the important role they can play as corporate citizens.

There’s now a real opportunity for them to take concerted action to reduce children’s exposure to junk food marketing.

In doing so, they can follow the lead of children’s entertainment networks, such as Disney and Nickelodeon, that have taken steps to restrict advertising of junk food to children.

In line with global public health recommendations, social media platforms should adopt junk food advertising restrictions that:

1. apply to all children and adolescents aged under 18

2. cover a wide range of marketing techniques (for example, direct advertising, sponsored posts, and brand relationships with “influencers”)

3. use a comprehensive definition of unhealthy foods and drinks, based on government-endorsed criteria.

Read more: More than one in four Aussie kids are overweight or obese: we’re failing them, and we need a plan

We need global regulations

Public health groups have consistently highlighted that food industry self-regulation in the area of junk food marketing has proven ineffective. As such, there are strong global recommendations for comprehensive national and international government regulation.

But the potential role of social media platforms in regulating junk food marketing has largely escaped attention.

While we await further government regulation, social media platforms can take immediate action to protect children from the marketing tactics of junk food advertisers. This would be a critical contribution to efforts to improve young people’s diets and address the growing problem of obesity worldwide.

– ref. Social media platforms need to do more to stop junk food marketers targeting children – https://theconversation.com/social-media-platforms-need-to-do-more-to-stop-junk-food-marketers-targeting-children-140772

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leticia Anderson, Lecturer in Humanities, Southern Cross University

As Black Lives Matter protests rage across the world, many of us are motivated to learn more about racism, and talk to our students and children in ways that can facilitate change.

Education is a powerful took for creating change. So, it’s important teachers don’t shy away from difficult conversations in the classroom, even if they may feel daunting.

Here are some things teachers can consider to help them discuss racism with their students.

1. Provide accurate, historical context

Understanding and coming to terms with past racist practices is essential to an anti-racist education.

When historical oppression is denied, omitted or whitewashed – as when Prime Minister Scott Morrison incorrectly claimed Australia didn’t have a history of slavery – it is difficult to explain how racism still affects black, Indigenous and people of colour today.

Read more: Was there slavery in Australia? Yes. It shouldn’t even be up for debate

A teacher can take students to visit memorials and museums, or ask them to research place names. Do names in your local community, for example, hark back to racist practices? In some towns, “Boundary Road” recalls a line Indigenous Australians could not cross after curfew.

Teachers can encourage students to critically reflect on whose stories are celebrated in public memory, and brainstorm what would better represent the contributions and experiences of all members of the community.

2. Explain racism is not just done by ‘bad people’

Racism should be taught as a system of racial hierarchy that is sustained consciously and unconsciously by the idea that one group of people is superior. Because of this presumed superiority the ideas, books, voices and expertise of one group are seen as the “norm”.

Read more: Bias starts early – most books in childcare centres have white, middle-class heroes

Racial discrimination today is often referred to as “soft” or “new” racism, often expressed through covert microagressions.

Categorising racism as something only “bad” people do means the “good” ones are denied the opportunity to examine how their everyday thoughts and actions may be sustaining society’s racial hierarchy structure.

The below video of the blue-eyed/brown-eyed experiment (in which kids are told brown-eyed people are superior to blue-eyed people and vice versa), is a good way to show students how unconscious behaviours emerge and how quickly prejudice can form.

3. Show the impacts of unintended harm

People commonly assume their good intentions bear more weight than their unintended consequences. Just because someone did not intend to be racist, does not lessen the impact on the person experiencing it. You can use metaphors to illustrate this.

For example, if you accidentally pour hot coffee on someone, the natural response is not to say “why are you upset when it wasn’t my intention to pour a hot drink on you?”.

The more appropriate response is to acknowledge your mistake, apologise to the other person and move more carefully in future.

The insidiousness of “new” racism is that people who do not consider themselves racist might actually be perpetuating racism without being aware of it.

4. Encourage students to be brave in calling out racist behaviour

Being silent after observing racist behaviour is being complicit in racism. Teachers need to practise giving constructive feedback on racist speech and behaviour, and support students in being resilient about taking on board anti-racist feedback.

Read more: Explainer: what is casual racism?

Actively anti-racist teachers are quicker to notice and respond to racial micro-aggressions when they occur in the classroom, such as teaching students not to use racial nicknames or stereotypes.

5. Explain there are hierarchies within racism

Experiences of racism are magnified when different forms of discrimination combine to create a more intensified exclusionary experience for people, based on intersections between their multiple marginalised identities.

Experiences of racism for young black men, for example, may vary a lot from the experiences for young black women. Explain to students it is possible to experience oppression in one identity category but be privileged in another.

6. Be aware of students’ racial trauma

Teachers sometimes strive to teach about racism, without considering that it is the lived experience of some of their students.

Racialised trauma is passed across generations, and can include indirect and direct experiences of interpersonal and systemic racism.

We need to support people who have been traumatised by racism, not just challenge those who instigate it.

Teachers should also be sensitive about the way anti-racist teaching is delivered. If you are going to discuss sensitive topics, you can provide trigger warnings in advance to the class. This way students can prepare or raise concerns in advance.

Be aware of who is in your class and avoid using potentially re-traumatising images, examples or videos.

7. Model inclusive behaviour

Teachers should model anti-racist behaviour in their classroom. For example, they should not mock or say inappropriate things about other people’s cultural and racial backgrounds. Teachers should encourage students to think of the various cultures as different and not superior to, or better than, others.

Read more: Growing Up African in Australia: racism, resilience and the right to belong

You can also model an understanding of relevant cultural protocols, including through Acknowledgements of Country, or avoiding the use of names and images of Indigenous people who have passed away.

8. Ensure diversity in the curriculum

A consequence of colonialism has been the centring of white experiences and knowledge, and erasure of other ways of knowing and being.

We can challenge the historic and continued silencing of alternative voices by integrating diverse voices into our curriculum.

As a teacher, you can select readings, videos, and other classroom resources that are informed by diverse knowledge and experiences.

You can use a racial Bechdel test to check the diversity of resources.

9. Focus on change, not blame or shame

Discomfort is often an essential part of any learning process, more so for sensitive topics. Anti-racist education should be compassionate and aim to move through discomfort to produce change, rather than instilling shame or blame.

Anti-racist and decolonial education is often just as much about unlearning, as it is about learning.

We may have to challenge ourselves to unlearn inaccurate history and stereotypes, question our own deeply ingrained thoughts and habits, and practise different ways of listening to, and working with, people from different backgrounds.

– ref. 9 tips teachers can use when talking about racism – https://theconversation.com/9-tips-teachers-can-use-when-talking-about-racism-140837

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bhavna Middha, Research Fellow, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University

Local governments across Australia are mandated to consult their residents on urban development issues. They are increasingly using digital platforms to do this.

Early findings from our international research project, Democratic Urban Development in the Digital Age, are that the use of digital technologies for community consultation mirrors patterns of offline engagement. So, for example, we see tightly designed questions and a prescribed process. Councils often disregard social media feedback such as Facebook accounts run by residents’ groups.

Digital engagement hasn’t replaced traditional consultation and participation processes. Council Facebook pages and web-based consultation portals sit alongside resident surveys, town hall meetings and citizen juries. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has increased reliance on these technologies.

Read more: City calls on jury of its citizens to deliberate on Melbourne’s future

Little research has been done on whether e-participation overcomes some of the problems of traditional participatory governance, which is often seen as favouring the articulate and powerful. Digital engagement might even be creating new barriers, such as digital exclusion or distrust in the handling of data.

Issues of public consultation especially matter for urban development projects. Local councils typically regulate these projects. Poor development can harm local amenity and residents’ well-being, while irreversibly changing urban forms.

Read more: In your backyard: why people need a say on planning that affects their local community

How can we enhance digital participation?

How can the digital become a part of everyday governance, including community engagement? More frequent, higher-quality engagement would be required for a start. And citizen participation would then have to be channelled into policy.

Digital platforms are often limited to simply collecting information. Genuine participation is more challenging.

Participation by diverse populations is a particular challenge. Some councils pay specific attention to this issue. An example is the City of Melbourne’s digital place-making initiative.

However, as online and offline boundaries blur, digital technologies may help overcome barriers to participation.

Barcelona and Jackson, Mississippi, are two cities that have customised digital participation. It’s part of their design and implementation of community engagement, whether on social media or on dedicated digital platforms.

The City of Brimbank, in outer Melbourne, designed a digital engagement project as a game. Council staff took to the streets with iPads. The game was also available in shops, train stations and community centres.

Real-time data analysis enabled the council to adjust locations and boost the diversity of participants. Co-ordinating online and offline approaches was the key to achieving broad participation.

It is important to understand if and how digital engagement perpetuates inequities. The methods and platforms used for participation might be a factor in this.

Digital engagement is often limited to surveys. This could be due to a lack of council time and resources to analyse any other qualitative data that might be generated. Providing those resources would signal the data generated through digital engagement, and the process itself, are being taken seriously.

Read more: Boaty McBoatface poll shows how not to do community consultation

What role can social media play?

The feedback from community social media accounts can be rich and candid. But analysing this sort of data involves greater effort on the part of councils. This makes closing the feedback loop difficult.

Councils prefer bespoke web-based digital platforms. They’re easier to manage, both in deciding which issues are open for consultation, and in organising data for analysis.

These platforms are increasingly popular with councils. Yet sole reliance on them may favour digitally savvy citizens who are already engaged and familiar with planning processes.

Resident activists have effectively used social media to mobilise a wider audience. A recent campaign to overturn the proposed lease of public land in inner-west Melbourne to a national sporting club is a good example.

Read more: How do we turn a drain into valued green space? First, ask the residents

Real engagement supports better development

It’s an open question whether the politically engaged and digitally literate dominate such campaigns. But they do remind us urban development is an arena of political contest. It’s more than just a topic for consultation, whether online or offline.

Important strategies in community engagement include:

• working with all stakeholders, both formally and informally

• paying attention to the purpose and variety of digital methods available

• helping with access, whether digital or offline.

Ensuring robust community engagement in these ways supports better urban development.

If you are a city official, a representative of business, non-government or civic organisations, a community member or a politician in an inner Melbourne council and would like to contribute your experience to the project Democratic Urban Development in the Digital Age, please participate in the 10-12 minute survey here.

– ref. Councils often ignore residents on social media. How can digital platforms ensure they have a say in planning? – https://theconversation.com/councils-often-ignore-residents-on-social-media-how-can-digital-platforms-ensure-they-have-a-say-in-planning-138609

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Flavio Romero Macau, Senior Lecturer in Supply Chain Management and Global Logistics, Edith Cowan University

Hand-written letters and posted bills are disappearing, and they were vanishing well before the latest slump.

Australia Post says between 2007 and 2019 the volume of personally addressed letters more than halved (over a period in which Australia’s population grew 20%).

Over the past year, between May 2019 and May 2020, they slumped a further 36%.

Worldwide, postal operators reliant on letters have been experiencing heavy losses. In 2019 the letter side of Australia Post lost $192 million.

As it notes on its website, “the amount of postage you are charged to send a letter is substantially less than what it costs us to deliver it”.

It tooled up for the right thing… 20 years ago

For more than a century Australia’s postal service has invested in equipment, skills, and processes to “provide a universal letter service which includes a standard domestic letter service at a uniform price”.

But, like a couple investing in bigger and bigger homes as its family grows, it is now finding time has moved on and it’s left with too much space for the wrong thing.

Lower letter volumes mean trucks leave buildings less than full, equipment is no longer run at full capacity, workers are less-fully occupied, and volume discounts with freight forwarders shrink.

Aggressive delivery standards are the last straw.

Daily delivery matters less

Australia Post has been required to deliver daily (Monday to Friday) to 98% of delivery points. Within cities it has to get there within three business days.

The requirements have made it hard for it to aggregate volumes in order to regain scale.

Rather than waiting for full truckloads it has had to send them out less than full, effectively “moving air”.

So in May the government eased the regulations, “temporarily” for 13 months until the end of June 2021.

Read more: Australia Post’s cash cow is drying up: time for some new thinking

Within cities, deliveries could take up to five business days. Mail could be pushed into the slots of city mailboxes (but not country mailboxes) only every second day.

Labor will seek to overturn the change, arguing, with good cause, that the changes are intended to be permanent and that COVID-19 is being used as cover.

It is right to want a debate, but that debate ought to face up to some hard truths

• email and instant messaging have replaced letters for communication

• apps have largely replaced mail for credit card statements

• platforms such as Instagram have largely replaced postcards

• platforms such as Facebook have largely replaced birthday cards

(And where people still want to use the post to send cards for events such as birthdays, Mothers Day and Christmas, they can plan well in advance.)

While the door is closing on letters, a window is opening for parcels.

Labor is right to want a debate

COVID-19 accelerated the move from brick-and-mortar stores to e-commerce. Australia Post says parcel volumes almost doubled in May, and are 80% higher than this time last year.

Britain’s Royal Mail reports a 31% increase, a trend it expects to continue after lockdown is lifted.

The challenge is to adapt the previous system to the changed demands.

Different equipment is needed, and retraining. A parcel is heavier than a letter and comes in a wider variety of sizes and shapes.

Automated warehouses and vans can be better suited to handling them than letter sorting machines and motorbikes.

Service will be measured differently

And there’s a need for a different way of measuring good service.

With parcels, people want to know what’s happening. They are often not as concerned with how long it takes to deliver a parcel as not knowing where it is. There’s a role for apps, SMS and emails and options including the delivery to smart lockers where parcels can be collected 24 hours a day.

Read more: Adapt or perish: Australia Post must embrace digital disruption

What comes next for Australia Post will be an unfolding story. Competition in parcel delivery is fierce in the new sharing economy. Anyone with a big enough trunk soon will be able to do deliveries as crowd shipping gains momentum.

One thing certain, and it is summed up best in the words of an Australia Post Community Moderator: “Our letters service is never going to go back to what it was before, I’m sorry”.

– ref. Australia Post can’t turn back. Here’s why – https://theconversation.com/australia-post-cant-turn-back-heres-why-140722

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

Foreign Minister Marise Payne has attacked China’s “disinformation” about racism in this country and committed Australia to a more activist role in pressing for reform of multilateral institutions, including the World Health Organisation.

In a Tuesday night speech titled “Australia and the world in the time of COVID-19”, Payne rebutted criticism of the Morrison government for getting out in front of other countries in pushing for an inquiry into the origins and handling of COVID.

“We can be small in our thinking, timid in purpose and risk averse. Alternatively …we can be confident, believe in Australia’s role in the world and prioritise Australia’s sovereignty – and Australians’ long term interests – by making the difficult decisions and choices,” she said.

Payne condemned countries using COVID “to undermine liberal democracy and promote their own, more authoritarian models.

“I have also been very clear in rejecting as disinformation the Chinese government’s warnings that tourists and students should reconsider coming here because of the risk of racism.

“I can say emphatically that Australia will welcome students and visitors from all over the world, regardless of race, gender or nationality,” she said, adding that law enforcement agencies would deal with individual crimes.

“The disinformation we have seen contributes to a climate of fear and division when what we need is cooperation and understanding.

“Australia will resist and counter efforts at disinformation. We will do so through facts and transparency, underpinned by liberal democratic values that we will continue to promote at home and abroad.”

Payne said a foreign affairs department audit of Australia’s engagement in multilateral institutions, commissioned by Scott Morrison last year, had recognised the limitations of these bodies. But “Australia’s interests would not be served by stepping away and leaving others to shape the global order for us”.

“We must stand up for our values and bring our influence to bear in these institutions to protect and promote our national interests, and to preserve the open character of international institutions based on universal values and transparency.

“Australia will continue to work to ensure global institutions are fit-for-purpose, relevant and contemporary, accountable to member states, free from undue influence, and have an appropriately strong focus on the Indo-Pacific.

“We will continue to support reform efforts in the United Nations and its agencies to improve transparency, accountability and effectiveness. This is foreign policy designed to use Australian agency and influence to shape a safer world and make us safer at home.”

On the World Health Organisation, she said, “Through our role on the WHO executive board, and proactive participation in a range of regional and global health forums, Australia will present tangible proposals and initiatives to ensure that the global health architecture emerges stronger from Covid-19.”

In general, Australia would direct its efforts to preserving three fundamental parts of the multilateral system:

• rules protecting sovereignty and peace and enabling international trade and investment

• international standards on health, transport, telecommunications and other matters underpinning the global economy

• norms underpinning universal human rights, gender equality and the rule of law.

“We will work to ensure that the development of new rules and norms to address emerging challenges is consistent with enduring values and principles. This is particularly important in the case of critical technologies, including cyber and artificial intelligence, and critical minerals and outer space.”

“Effective multilateralism, conducted through strong and transparent institutions, serves Australia’s interests,” Payne said.

“Our challenge is to ensure the institutions, and our active engagement, delivers for Australia and for Australians. To do this, Australia must better target our role in the global system.

“Australia’s role in seeking an independent review of COVID-19 is a prime example of this active engagement in the national interest,” she said.

– ref. Foreign Minister Payne pledges continued fight against Chinese ‘disinformation’ – https://theconversation.com/foreign-minister-payne-pledges-continued-fight-against-chinese-disinformation-140874

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

The ALP national executive has decided on sweeping federal intervention into the crisis-ridden Victorian ALP, in the wake of revelations of the alleged “industrial scale” branch stacking and threats by now former state minister and power broker Adem Somyurek.

Former state premier Steve Bracks and former federal cabinet minister Janny Macklin will run the state branch and prepare reforms, while the ALP national executive will handle federal and state preselections.

The intervention follows Nine’s 60 Minutes and The Age revealing recorded conversations in which Somyurek boasted of his power over state and federal MPs, and of running massive branch stacking. He also used highly offensive language about a female colleague.

Victorian premier Daniel Andrews sacked Somyurek from his cabinet on Monday, and two other ministers, Robin Scott and Marlene Kairouz, whose staff were allegedly associated with the stacking have resigned, while denying any wrongdoing. Somyurek quit the Labor party on Monday before he was due to be expelled.

The scandal comes at the worst time for federal leader Anthony Albanese who is fighting the byelection in the Labor held seat of Eden-Monaro, which is on a margin of under 1%.

Another complication for the federal party is that some of the secret recording was apparently in the electorate office of Victorian federal Labor MP Anthony Bryne, who is deputy chair of the powerful parliamentary committee on intelligence and security.

ALP national president Wayne Swan said in a statement after a national executive hook up on Tuesday night that Bracks and Macklin “will provide the national executive with recommendations on how the Victorian branch should be restructured and reconstituted so that the branch membership comprises genuine, consenting, self-funding party members”.

He said in developing their recommendations, the administrators would consult party members and affiliated unions.

“The conduct exposed in recent days is reprehensible and at odds with everything the ALP stands for,” Swan said. “The national executive takes these matters incredibly seriously.”

Andrews wrote to ALP national secretary Paul Erickson calling for profound reform of the branch, and asking for its members’ voting rights to be suspended.

“I have no confidence in the integrity of any voting rolls that are produced for any internal elections in the Victorian branch,” he said.

“Accordingly we must suspend those elections and begin a long and critical process of validating each and every member of the Labor party in Victoria as genuine, consenting and self-funded”.

All state officials and staff will have to report to Bracks and Macklin, who are appointed until January 31 next year. All committees are suspended.

All voting rights are suspended until 2023.

Bracks and Macklin will do a scoping report by the end of next month, including recommendations on integrity measures that are needed for the branch. By Novemeber 1 they are to produce a final report on the restructuring and reconstitution of the branch.

– ref. Steve Bracks and Jenny Macklin installed to run crisis-ridden Victorian ALP – https://theconversation.com/steve-bracks-and-jenny-macklin-installed-to-run-crisis-ridden-victorian-alp-140858

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shaun Hendy, Professor of Physics, University of Auckland

New Zealand is one of a handful of countries where community transmission of COVID-19 has been eliminated.

But with two new cases announced today (June 16), we have learned that elimination is not the end – rather, it’s the the start of the next phase.

After 23 consecutive days with no new cases, today’s announcement that two people returning from overseas have tested positive does not mean New Zealand’s elimination strategy has failed. Just two weeks ago, we estimated we were likely to see one or two cases a week at New Zealand’s border.

Read more: New Zealand hits a 95% chance of eliminating coronavirus – but we predict new cases will emerge

The two travellers in question came from the UK, where the disease is still very active.

The two women arrived in New Zealand on June 7, via Doha and Brisbane, and stayed in a managed isolation hotel in Auckland. But they were granted an exemption on compassionate grounds on June 12 to travel to Wellington to visit their dying parent.

This development shows how important our border controls are. Currently, all new arrivals must remain in quarantine for at least 14 days, unless they receive an exemption. It’s unlikely someone is still infectious after 14 days without showing symptoms, so this should minimise the chances of spread from overseas arrivals.

But as these cases show, this doesn’t mean the risk is zero. Whether from an exemption on compassionate grounds as in this case, people working at the border, or from people getting infected shortly before leaving quarantine, it is inevitable that new cases will make it across the border.

As we explained in our previous article, to stop the virus coming back, we need more than just good border controls. New Zealanders will need to keep avoiding the three Cs of possible infection – closed spaces, crowded places and close contact – as best they can. And it’s crucial we keep meticulously tracking where we’ve been and who we’ve been in contact with.

It also shows the importance of getting tested. One of the travellers reported mild symptoms, but didn’t associate these with COVID-19. Anybody with symptoms should get tested and stay home until the results come through, especially if they have had contact with someone who has been overseas or work in a high-contact job.

Now that New Zealand is at alert level 1 and 40,000 people can go to the rugby, it’s more than important than ever that we don’t let our guard down.

– ref. 2 new COVID-19 cases in New Zealand, but elimination of community transmission still stands – https://theconversation.com/2-new-covid-19-cases-in-new-zealand-but-elimination-of-community-transmission-still-stands-140843

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Celeste Rodriguez Louro, Senior Lecturer and ARC DECRA Fellow, Discipline of Linguistics, University of Western Australia

Aboriginal English is spoken by an estimated 80% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and is the first and only language spoken by many Aboriginal children.

There are similarities between Standard Australian English and Aboriginal English, but this can pose serious obstacles for its speakers, who are misinterpreted by some as speaking poor English.

In fact, Aboriginal English has its own structure, rules and the same potential as any other linguistic variety.

Aboriginal English ranges from light varieties, spoken by most Aboriginal Australians, to heavy varieties. These heavy varieties tend to be inaccessible to an outsider, and are sometimes closer to Kriol, a creole language spoken in northern Australia.

Read more: Explainer: the largest language spoken exclusively in Australia – Kriol

We collected Aboriginal English stories about family, history and the supernatural. From there, we studied the conventions that arise from the way language is used in society. Here are ten features unique to Aboriginal English, based on our observations in Nyungar country in Perth, Western Australia.

1. Address terms and kinship

Aboriginal English speakers convey respect by referring to people as Auntie or Uncle, including senior people the speaker has never met before.

Aboriginal English also makes use of reciprocal address, where certain words apply to people interchangeably. For example, the term “granny” may be used by a grandmother to address her granddaughter and for the granddaughter to address her grandmother.

2. Eye contact

While Standard Australian English speakers are expected to hold direct eye contact, for some speakers of Aboriginal English this can be perceived as rude or threatening.

3. Questions

In seeking information, Aboriginal English speakers are likely to prefer uninverted questions such as “That’s your Auntie?”, rather than “Is that your Auntie?”

4. Endings

The term unna is frequently used at the end of spoken utterances to establish shared knowledge.

So when someone says “She wicked big, unna” the speaker uses unna to seek confirmation for her statement. Unna is used widely in Western Australia but also appears in varieties of Aboriginal English spoken in the Northern Territory, Queensland and New South Wales.

5. Sounds

A common feature of Aboriginal English is the omission of the “h” sound at the beginning of words, such as “appy” from “happy”.

This “h” sound is also sometimes added to the beginning of words, with “instance” becoming “hinstance”.

Aboriginal English speakers also switch “k” and “s” sounds in the word “ask”, pronouncing it as “aks”. This also happens in African American Vernacular English throughout the USA.

6. Grammar

The irregular verb “be” (which includes the forms “is”, “was”, “are”, “been”) is often left out, as in “she wicked big”.

Sometimes when the verb “be” is used in speech, it doesn’t change with speakers in the same way it does in Standard Australian English. So someone might say “we was yarning” instead of “we were yarning”.

Double negatives are commonly used. Aboriginal English speakers may say “No one got out of no motor”, where “no one” and “no” are used together to express negative meaning.

Aboriginal English also uses the word “them” in place of words such as “those”. For example, “all them tablets” instead of “all those tablets”.

These are not grammatical errors: they are correct given the rules of Aboriginal English.

Read more: ‘It don’t be like that now’ — the English history of African American English

7. Meanings

Some words in Aboriginal English are Standard Australian English words but with different meanings. “Deadly” is used to mean “really good” and “hungry” is used to mean “great”.

The word “cruel” is used as an intensifier (“cruel tired”), and the term “shame” is used to mean “embarassed”, as in “I was shame to say that in front of my people”.

8. Nyungar terms

Speakers sprinkle their speech with words from original Australian languages. In the Nyungar community, these include boya (money), boodjar (country), maya-maya (camp/home) and moorditj (awesome/the best).

These give Aboriginal English in southwest Western Australia its unique flavour.

9. Quotes

The practice of quoting someone using the phrase “be like” has spread rapidly across the English speaking world over the past 50 years, including in Aboriginal English.

In white communities, “be like” can introduce a speaker’s internal thought process. Someone may say “I was like, ‘That hat looks wrong on you’ but I didn’t say it”. In Aboriginal English speakers also use “be like”, but they mostly do it to introduce content that was actually said.

Young speakers of Standard Australian English have almost abandoned “say” in favour of “be like”. But young Aboriginal English speakers use “say” a lot: almost 50% of their quotative verbs are instances of “say”, as in “They was saying, ‘Quick, tell them to get away from the house’”.

10. Yarning

Yarning is a conversational and storytelling style where Indigenous people share stories based on real experience and knowledge, from intimate family gatherings to formal public presentations.

The expression has recently gained momentum in Indigenous Health contexts where it is used to help people quit smoking, for therapy and healing more generally. Instead of a formalised question-and-answer interview, health information is gathered through conversation and story-telling.

In our research, we didn’t need interview questions. The Aboriginal researcher engaged the community in sharing experience and knowledge through yarning. It’s yarning that helps Aboriginal English thrive.

– ref. 10 ways Aboriginal Australians made English their own – https://theconversation.com/10-ways-aboriginal-australians-made-english-their-own-128219

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Val Hooper, Associate Professor, and Head of the School of Marketing and International Business, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Anyone familiar with George Orwell’s novel 1984 will relate to the menace of Big Brother watching their every keystroke and mouse click. For a growing share of the workforce that dystopian reality arrived while most of us were hunkering down in our “bubbles”.

With employees working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic, more companies felt the need to track them remotely. US-based Hubstaff, which develops and markets employee time-tracking software, boasted a three-fold increase in New Zealand sales during the first month of lockdown alone.

Now, with some organisations thinking of continuing work-from-home flexibility beyond the pandemic restrictions, that scrutiny should cut both ways.

Employers have long used swipe cards and video surveillance for safety and security, and monitoring staff email during work hours is nothing new. But the latest generation of employee surveillance software has transformed the modern workplace into a digital panopticon.

While newer tools aimed at tracking employee productivity, such as computer-usage monitors, have increased the management arsenal, most focus on specific activities. What is now proposed are mechanisms that monitor employees 24/7, including apps that can be loaded onto mobile phones.

Read more: Working from home remains a select privilege: it’s time to fix our national employment standards

One such product advertises its ability to “catch disgruntled employees and protect business intellectual property”. It can “monitor all social media and networking apps by accessing conversations, passwords and media shared through the apps”.

More trust means better productivity

The uncomfortable reality is that many employers feel entitled to monitor employee activity. If I’m paying their salaries, they argue, they should be doing my work. Their time is mine.

The problem with effectively intimidating employees into being productive is that it strongly suggests an organisational culture of mistrust – yet research shows that mistrust undermines productivity.

Spyware that is introduced outside the collective bargaining process concerns trade unions, who argue workers’ privacy may be unfairly invaded in the name of performance measurement.

In the year to June 2019, only 5% of collective agreements in New Zealand included a specific clause (or referred to a document outside the agreement) dealing with internet or telephone monitoring. That amounts to only 1.1% of employees on such agreements.

The prevalence of agreements that mention work being electronically monitored varies considerably across the labour market. But far more employees are on collective agreements that make no mention of it, despite their work being regularly monitored.

Read more: About that spare room: employers requisitioned our homes and our time

Those who make up the 80% of the New Zealand workforce covered by individual agreements have few choices. The obligation to install and use monitoring software derives from the duty of employees to obey the reasonable orders of their employer, and contractual obligations to comply with employer policies.

The law is getting left behind

The standard against which actions are judged is that of the “reasonable employer” – not a neutral party, let alone a reasonable employee. The result is that employees have very limited protection from intrusions into their privacy and personal life.

Compounding the problem, monitoring software is evolving so rapidly the law has no time to respond. Other than in the most egregious circumstances, the courts are unlikely to hold that using already widely adopted tools constitutes the action of an unreasonable employer.

Under the principles of the Privacy Act 1993, people should be made aware of any information being collected about them and why. They are entitled to know how it will be used and stored, who will have access to it and whether anyone can be modify it.

The information should not be kept longer than necessary, and it is essential to know how it will eventually be disposed of and by whom. Above all, such information should not be collected if it intrudes “to an unreasonable extent on the personal affairs of the individual concerned”.

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

Naturally, people should be entitled to access that information. However, as with employment law, privacy law tends to give greater weight to the right to manage than to intrusions into employee privacy.

Privacy is a health and safety issue too

The law reflects an underlying assumption that time spent on a job equates with higher-quality work. But this is not necessarily correct.

In many industries, including IT, the focus is very much on the task. Employees are often dotted all over the world in different time zones. They contribute at times of day that work for them.

Monitoring attendance, productivity and hours worked – in other words, checking up on employees to ensure they’re not “skiving off” – leaves them feeling mistrusted and that their privacy has been invaded. Stress and sick days increase, morale drops and staff turnover rises.

As yet, the health and safety implications of intense monitoring have received little attention in the courts from workplace health and safety regulator Worksafe.

Allowing staff to work at home requires trust and the openness to have honest, frank and supportive discussions if substandard performance is noticed. Employers seriously considering monitoring employees working at home should be very clear about their reasons before jumping on the post-COVID work-from-home bandwagon.

The devices that allow the monitoring of home workers should be used carefully and not exploited. Otherwise, the trust inherent in good workplace culture will quickly erode, along with the productivity that goes with it.

– ref. A question of trust: should bosses be able to spy on workers, even when they work from home? – https://theconversation.com/a-question-of-trust-should-bosses-be-able-to-spy-on-workers-even-when-they-work-from-home-140623

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Euan Ritchie, Associate Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin University

Feral and pet cats are responsible for a huge part of Australia’s shameful mammal extinction record. Small and medium-sized ground-dwelling mammals are most susceptible.

But we’ve found one mammal in particular that can outsmart cats and live alongside them: the long-nosed potoroo.

Read more: A season in hell: bushfires push at least 20 threatened species closer to extinction

These miniature kangaroo-like marsupials are officially listed as vulnerable. And after the recent devastating fires, extensive swathes of their habitat in southeastern Australia were severely burnt, leaving them more exposed to predators such as foxes and cats. But the true extent of the impact on their numbers remains unclear.

Amid the devastation, our new study is reason to be optimistic.

Using motion-sensing camera traps on the wildlife haven of French Island – which is free of foxes, but not cats – we found potoroos may have developed strategies to avoid prowling cats, such as hiding in dense vegetation.

If these long-nosed potoroos can co-exist with one of the world’s most deadly predators, then it’s time we rethink our conservation strategies.

Surviving cats with a deadly game of hide and seek

We conservatively estimated that between five and 14 cats lived in our study area (but it takes only one cat to eradicate a population of native animals).

Although cats were common here, we detected them less often in areas of dense vegetation. By contrast, this was where we found potoroos more often.

Long-nosed potoroos are nocturnal foragers that mainly, but not exclusively, feed in more open habitat before sheltering in dense vegetation during the day. But we found potoroos rarely ventured out of their thick vegetation shelter.

This may be because they’re trading off potentially higher quality foraging habitat in more open areas against higher predation risk. In other words, it appears they’ve effectively learnt to hide from the cats.

Read more: Yes, kangaroos are endangered – but not the species you think

Another intriguing result from our study was that although potoroos and feral cats shared more than half of their activity time, the times of peak activity for each species differed.

Cats were active earlier in the night, while potoroo activity peaked three to four hours later. This might be another potoroo strategy to avoid becoming a cat’s evening meal.

Still, completely avoiding cats isn’t possible. Our study site was in the national park on French Island, and it’s likely cats saturate this remnant patch of long-nosed potoroo habitat.

It’s also possible cats may be actively searching for potoroos as prey, and indeed some of our camera images showed cats carrying young long-nosed potoroos in their mouths. These potoroos were more likely killed by these cats, rather than scavenged.

Cats are expert hunters

Cats are exceedingly difficult to manage effectively. They’re adaptable, elusive and have a preference for live prey.

The two most common management practices for feral cats are lethal control and exclusion fencing. Lethal control needs to be intensive and conducted over large areas to benefit threatened species.

Read more: One cat, one year, 110 native animals: lock up your pet, it’s a killing machine

And outside of predator-free sanctuaries, it must be ongoing. If control stops, cats can reinvade from surrounding areas.

“Safe havens” – created through the use of exclusion fencing or predator-free islands – can overcome some of these challenges. But while exclusion fencing is highly effective, it can create other bad outcomes, including an over-abundance of herbivores, leading to excessive grazing of vegetation.

Fencing and islands can result in native animals rapidly losing their anti-predator behaviour. This can limit the success of reintroducing them to areas outside predator-free havens.

In any case, removing introduced predators might not be really necessary in places native species can co-exist. If long-nosed potoroos have learnt to live with feral cats, we should instead focus on how to maintain their survival strategies.

Why cat eradication isn’t always the best option

It’s clear cats are here to stay, so we shouldn’t simply fall back largely on predator eradication or predator-free havens as the only way to ensure our wildlife have a fighting chance at long-term survival.

Yes, for some species, it’s vital to keep feral predators away. But for others like long-nosed potoroos, conserving and creating suitable habitat and different vegetation densities may be the best way to keep them alive.

Read more: Don’t let them out: 15 ways to keep your indoor cat happy

But perhaps most important is having predator-savvy insurance populations, such as long-nosed potoroos on French Island. This is incredibly valuable for one day moving them to other areas where predators – native or feral – are present, such as nearby Phillip Island.

In the absence of predators, native wildlife can rapidly lose their ability to recognise predator danger. Programs aimed at eradicating introduced predators where they’re co-existing with native species need to pay careful attention to this.

– ref. Cats wreak havoc on native wildlife, but we’ve found one adorable species outsmarting them – https://theconversation.com/cats-wreak-havoc-on-native-wildlife-but-weve-found-one-adorable-species-outsmarting-them-132265

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

Conversation-Democracy 2025 Podcast on “Political Trust in Times of COVID-19” produced by ContentGroup

A week ago, the British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab announced that the number of people killed by the coronavirus in the United Kingdom stood at 32,313, the second highest death toll in the world.

Health experts believe that the real figure is likely to be closer to 50,000.

The number of deaths from COVID-19 in Australia currently stand at 103.

Critics have accused a “complacent” British government of “massively underestimating” the gravity of the coronavirus crisis.

The prominent Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera reported that the situation in the UK was “like a nightmare from which you cannot awake, but in which you landed because of your own fault or stupidity”. London correspondent Christoph Meyer writes, Britain has emerged as Europe’s “problem child” of the COVID-19 crisis.

Although international comparisons of COVID-19 death tolls, are methodologically problematic and morally bankrupt, there can be no doubt that the lived citizen experience of COVID-19 has been dramatically different in the United Kingdom when compared with Australia.

Every citizen has a heart-breaking personal story to tell.

In contrast, most Australians, have been blessed voyeurs on the pandemic further perpetuating its image as the Lucky Country.

In this podcast Mark Evans and Michelle Grattan explore differences in the management, experience and impact of the crisis in the company of three leading British academic thinkers and members of the Trustgov project at the University of Southampton.

Will Jennings is Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at the University of Southampton. He is an expert on public policy and political behaviour, Principle Investigator on the Trustgov project, Co-Director of the UK Policy Agendas Project, and elections analyst for Sky News.

Dr. Jennifer Gaskell joined the TrustGov project as a Research Fellow in July 2019. She holds an interdisciplinary PhD in Web Science from the University of Southampton. Her research focuses on the ways new Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) impact civic and political participation. She is also the co-founder of Build Up, a social enterprise working at the intersection of new technologies, civic engagement and peace-building.

Gerry Stoker is Professor of Governance at the University of Southampton and Centenary Professor at the University of Canberra. He is an expert on democratic politics and governance, and advisor to governments and international organisations on public sector reform.

– ref. Trust, democracy and COVID-19: A British perspective – https://theconversation.com/trust-democracy-and-covid-19-a-british-perspective-140844

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, La Trobe University

If you’re lucky enough to be able to afford a winter holiday, some good news: ski fields are reopening across the country as coronavirus restrictions continue to ease.

This makes the slopes perhaps more attractive than they’ve ever been. Indeed, the website of one of New South Wales’ most popular venues, Thredbo, crashed last week as 25,000 customers tried to buy a lift pass at once – the largest volume the resort had ever experienced on its online store.

What’s more, skiing is great exercise and also good for both the tourism industry and the economy. And it’s an outdoor activity (which makes it safer than indoor activities as far as COVID-19 risk is concerned).

But there are still risks. So how do you stay safe on the slopes?

Read more: How to stay safe in restaurants and cafes

When do they open?

Ski resorts in NSW and Victoria are allowed to open from June 22, which is just around the corner.

Both Thredbo and Mount Buller are scheduled to reopen on that date, while Falls Creek, Mount Hotham and Perisher will launch two days later. Charlotte Pass opens on June 26.

Many of these holiday spots have COVID-19 advice on their websites, which is worth reading closely before you book.

Caution required

The risk of contracting COVID-19 in the community is much reduced thanks to all our efforts over the previous few months. But we still need to still be cautious and sensible as we navigate the next phase with our newly granted freedoms.

There is no doubt things will be different this year on the slopes, as ski companies do what they can to make sure you’re safe.

Some extra planning and care can reduce the coronavirus risks to you, your loved ones and the community.

Read more: Heading back to the gym? Here’s how you can protect yourself and others from coronavirus infection

Planning your holiday

The first and most important rule: stay home if you are sick. This should go without saying but if you have any symptoms, such as a sore throat or fever, get tested. Consider cancelling your holiday until you know you’re COVID-19-free.

You could also consider downloading the COVIDSafe app before you set off and make sure you know how to use it.

Read more: COVIDSafe tracking app reviewed: the government delivers on data security, but other issues remain

Remember, all ski slopes in Australia will limit numbers to ensure people can maintain social distancing.

Demand for ski holidays will be great, with overseas getaway options limited. But many ski resorts will operate at about 50% capacity to ensure social distancing, which means some people may miss out on accommodation and lift passes.

Furthermore, all resorts are asking people to book resort entry and lift passes well ahead of time, to help with planning. Same-day lift ticket sales will not be available at many resorts.

Besides the usual warm clothing, pack hand sanitiser and perhaps even a few face masks for times you’re not able to physically distance.

What will the new normal look like?

Ski resorts face a range of challenges in dealing with the pandemic, and you should expect things to feel very different.

Aside from limiting numbers to ensure patrons can physically distance, resorts will have to institute rigorous cleaning protocols.

And the usual international ski workers will not be available due to travel restrictions.

Resorts are placing limits on classes. Although some are running lessons for adults, others are not running group lessons at all. Thredbo and Mount Buller are offering private lessons only. Make sure to check your destination’s rules before leaving.

There will be strict enforcement of social distancing in queues and limitations in the numbers on ski lifts. Mt Hotham is restricting ski lifts to two people per quad chair and asks that you only ride with those you’re sharing accommodation with on the mountain. Like many resorts, it is also banning cash.

Indoor seating at cafes and restaurants will be strictly limited and some resorts advise you to pack your own snacks and lunch.

Tobogganing and snow play is prohibited throughout Perisher this year, to reduce COVID-19 risk.

There will also be hand sanitiser stations and increased cleaning protocols, particularly of frequently touched surfaces such as lift guardrails.

What about when you’re not skiing or snowboarding?

What will be most obvious is the absence of events that bring large groups of people together at ski resorts. Restaurants and cafes will operate in line with their respective state guidelines, involving limits to the numbers of people allowed indoors.

And just like the rest of Australia currently, there will be no nightclubbing.

As with all our activities, it’s your own responsibility to stay safe by making sure you maintain hand hygiene and physical distancing wherever possible.

However, resorts will be adapting to the current situation to keep you safe. With a bit of planning and flexibility, it can be a great holiday for you and your family that also supports Australia’s tourism industry.

Read more: As coronavirus restrictions ease, here’s how you can navigate public transport as safely as possible

This article is supported by the Judith Neilson Institute for Journalism and Ideas.

– ref. Planning a snow holiday? How to reduce your coronavirus risk at Thredbo, Perisher or Mount Buller – https://theconversation.com/planning-a-snow-holiday-how-to-reduce-your-coronavirus-risk-at-thredbo-perisher-or-mount-buller-140770

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rick Sarre, Adjunct Professor of Law and Criminal Justice, University of South Australia

Nine’s 60 Minutes program recently aired surveillance footage appearing to show Victorian minister Adem Somyurek, an upper house MP in the Andrews government and a member of the ALP national executive, preparing a folder of cash along with dozens of party membership forms for the alleged purpose of branch stacking.

The program also aired recordings in which Somyurek disparaged his colleagues, including Premier Daniel Andrews, and other office staff. Apparently, the tapes were recorded over the past 12 months. It is not clear how this was done, or who made and released them.

Read more: Explainer: what is branch stacking, and why has neither major party been able to stamp it out?

The recriminations were fast and furious. Andrews immediately sacked Somyurek from his cabinet, and referred the matter to the police and the state’s anti-corruption commission, IBAC. Two more ministers have since resigned pending an investigation.

In a statement, Somyurek claimed he had been a victim of an illegality:

It is clear that I was taped and surveilled in a federal electorate office without my knowledge and that this material was published without my knowledge of its existence or my consent […] The conversations published without my knowledge or consent were with someone who I trusted about internal party matters […] I will be taking steps to seek a police investigation into these matters.

Does he have a valid argument? Are his private conversations protected?

To answer these questions, we need to look at the laws that regulate surveillance devices such as cameras and microphones. Unsurprisingly, the law is a patchwork of some federal but mainly state and territory legislation.

All Australian jurisdictions have laws regulating the use of listening devices, some for the past 50 years. Each of these statutes makes it an offence to listen to or record a private conversation using a listening device.

Broadly speaking, it is illegal to install a listening device without an appropriate police warrant. It is an offence in all jurisdictions to broadcast a recording of a taped conversation or publish the information from it.

Indeed, a person may be committing an offence in some jurisdictions by simply possessing a report that contains a summary of the contents of the recording. Most jurisdictions have now expanded their legislation to embrace cameras and CCTV, too, under the broader term “surveillance devices”.

Most relevant for our purposes is the Victorian Surveillance Devices Act 1999. This law protects a “private conversation” from surveillance. And that protection extends to the broadcasting of any recording.

A private conversation is one that is “carried on in circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that the parties to it desire it to be heard only by themselves”.

So far, so good, for Somyurek.

But as Nine’s lawyers would have advised the 60 Minutes producers, all Australian legislation provides for a public policy exception. For example, this may apply where surveillance is designed to protect the lawful interests of the person making the recording. It may also apply where it appears activities are being carried out for nefarious purposes, such as an alleged abuse of ministerial office.

Section 7(2) allows a defence to the charge of installing and monitoring a surveillance device if the installation, use or maintenance is reasonably necessary for the protection of any person’s lawful interests. That’s a very broad defence.

And section 11(2) allows a communication of any recording for a “publication that is no more than is reasonably necessary in the public interest”.

This same “public interest” defence would apply to the publication of the internal briefing with Rio Tinto staff last week following the destruction of an ancient Aboriginal site at Juukan Gorge.

Read more: Is the government’s coronavirus app a risk to privacy?

This tape was leaked to The Australian Financial Review. The lawyers arguing for the release of a private recording of a company meeting would argue (if challenged) that the testy interactions heard therein indicated the views of Rio employees about the company’s unapologetic stance on the destruction of the site.

In this instance, the “public interest” arguably relates not only to the authorisation of the blast, but also the reputation of all members of staff who are seen as representatives of Rio Tinto and its values.

Applying the public interest defence in the Somyurek and Rio Tinto cases, one could argue, has led to appropriate outcomes. But these laws and the protections they are designed to offer need improvement. The variety of offences, and the breadth and length of the numerous defences in each jurisdiction, all illustrate the awkward consequences of state and territory governments failing to pursue uniform legislation.

This multitude of approaches leaves Australian surveillance laws (including laws regulating telephone tapping, internet snooping and metadata surveillance) complicated and confusing. This applies not only in matters like those discussed above, but also to what is and what is not permitted in relation to workplace surveillance.

It is high time that attorneys-general (state and federal) around Australia came together to craft a consistent approach to surveillance device laws.

– ref. Explainer: what does the law say about secret recordings and the public interest? – https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-does-the-law-say-about-secret-recordings-and-the-public-interest-140731

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carol Johnson, Emerita Professor, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Adelaide

The Conversation is running a series of explainers on key figures in Australian political history, examining how they changed the country and political debate. You can read the rest of the series here.

Paul Keating was one of Australia’s most charismatic and controversial prime ministers.

Born in Bankstown, New South Wales, into an Irish-Catholic, working-class and Labor-voting family, he left school before he turned 15. Keating joined the Labor Party as a teenager, quickly honing the political skills that would serve him so well in later life. He entered parliament as MP for Blaxland in 1969 at just 25 years old, and briefly served as minister for Northern Australia in the ill-fated Whitlam government.

He subsequently served as a very high-profile treasurer in the Hawke government from 1983-1991, before defeating Bob Hawke in a leadership ballot in December 1991. In doing so Keating became Australia’s 24th prime minister, serving until John Howard defeated him in the 1996 election.

To Keating’s supporters, he is a visionary figure whose “big picture” ideas helped transform the Australian economy, while still pursuing socially inclusive policies. To his conservative critics, Keating left a legacy of government debt and rejected “mainstream” Australians in favour of politically correct “special interests”.

He was a skilled parliamentary performer, renowned for his excoriating put-downs and wit.

Keating played a major role in transforming Australian political debate. He highlighted the role of markets in restructuring the economy, engagement with Asia, Australian national identity and the economic benefits of social inclusion.

Economic rationalism

Keating is remembered most for his eloquent advocacy of so-called “economic rationalism” both as treasurer and later as prime minister.

Under Hawke and Keating, Labor advocated free markets, globalisation, deregulation and privatisation, albeit in a less extreme form than the Liberals advocated. For example, while Labor introduced major public sector cuts, it attempted to use means tests to target the cuts and protect those most in need. Nonetheless, Hawke and Keating embraced the market far more than previous Labor leaders had.

Along with New Zealand Labour, Australian Labor became one of the international pioneers of a rapprochement between social democracy and a watered-down form of free-market neoliberalism. Years later, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who had visited Australia during the Hawke and Keating years, was to acknowledge the influence of Australian Labor on his own “Third Way” approach to politics.

Keating justified his economic rationalism on the grounds that the Australian economy needed to transform to be internationally competitive in a changing world. To avoid becoming one of the world’s “economic museums” or “banana republics”, in Keating’s view, there was no alternative but to embrace his economic rationalist agenda.

Trade unions and the ‘social wage’

At the same time, Keating argued that his economic policies would avoid social injustices. This contrasted with the outcomes of the extreme economic rationalism of the Thatcher and Reagan governments.

Unlike in the UK or US, where anti-union policies were pursued, the Labor government was prepared to work with the trade union movement to introduce its economic policies. Under the Accord agreements, trade unions agreed to wage restraint, and eventually real wage cuts, in return for government services and benefits.

Read more: Australian politics explainer: the Prices and Incomes Accord

Hawke and Keating referred to this as the “social wage”. They claimed the resulting increased business profits would encourage economic growth and rising standards of living.

Social inclusion and economic growth

Keating saw his economic policies and progressive social policies as compatible. Increased social inclusion would contribute to economic growth.

Drawing on Hawke-era affirmative action legislation, Keating argued improved gender equality would mean women could contribute their skills to the economy.

Keating was also a passionate advocate for reconciliation with Indigenous Australians, including acknowledging the injustices of Australia’s colonial past and facilitating Native Title. He envisaged an Australia where Indigenous people would benefit from sustainable economic development, cultural tourism and could sell their artworks to the world.

National identity, Asia and the republic

In Keating’s ideal vision, Australia would engage more with Asia and benefit from the geo-economic changes occurring in the Asia-Pacific region.

Then Opposition Leader John Howard accused Keating of rejecting Australia’s British heritage. In fact, Keating acknowledged many positive British influences on Australian society. However, he argued that Australia had developed its own democratic innovations such as the secret ballot long before Britain accepted these. He also suggested Australian values had become more inclusive as a result of diverse waves of immigration.

Consequently, it was time for Australia to throw off its colonial heritage, including the British monarchy, and become a republic. Keating believed that doing so would enable Australia to be more easily accepted as an independent nation in the Asian region. He established a Republic Advisory Committee as part of preparations for a referendum on becoming a republic.

Keating’s legacy

Australia’s greater relationship with Asia has had major benefits for the economy, although Keating underestimated the downsides of increased competition. Recently, he complained about what he sees as excessive security fears in relation to China and their impact on Asian engagement. The republic remains unfinished business.

Keating’s vision has also left some unintended consequences for Labor today. Despite his patchy record in achieving them, Keating argued that both tax cuts and budget surpluses were important, even at the expense of public sector cuts.

Read more: Vale Bob Hawke, a giant of Australian political and industrial history

Consequently, it became harder for Labor leaders to make a case for deficit-funded stimulus packages when needed (as Kevin Rudd tried to do during the Global Financial Crisis). Similarly, it became harder for Labor leaders to argue for increased taxes to fund a bigger role for government, as Bill Shorten attempted during the 2019 election.

In addition, as I argue in a recent book, Keating-era policy contributed in the longer term to poorer wages and conditions for workers. Labor is predictably loath to acknowledge this. Keating also underestimated the detrimental impacts of economic rationalism on other vulnerable groups in the community.

The 2019 election result suggests many Australians no longer believe Labor governments will improve their standards of living.

Rather than the prosperous brave new world he envisaged, parts of the Keating legacy may have made things harder for subsequent Labor leaders. Nonetheless, Keating remains a revered figure in the Labor Party and one of its most memorable leaders.

– ref. How Paul Keating transformed the economy and the nation – https://theconversation.com/how-paul-keating-transformed-the-economy-and-the-nation-131562

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caroline Fisher, Co-author of the Digital News Report: Australia 2020, Deputy Director of the News and Media Research Centre, and Assistant Professor of Journalism, University of Canberra

Australian news consumers are far more likely to believe climate change is “not at all” serious compared to news users in other countries. That’s according to new research that surveyed 2,131 Australians about their news consumption in relation to climate change.

The Digital News Report: Australia 2020 was conducted by the University of Canberra at the end of the severe bushfire season during January 17 and February 8, 2020.

Read more: Media ‘impartiality’ on climate change is ethically misguided and downright dangerous

It also found the level of climate change concern varies considerably depending on age, gender, education, place of residence, political orientation and the type of news consumed.

Young people are much more concerned than older generations, women are more concerned than men, and city-dwellers think it’s more serious than news consumers in regional and rural Australia.

15% don’t pay attention to climate change news

More than half (58%) of respondents say they consider climate change to be a very or extremely serious problem, 21% consider it somewhat serious, 10% consider it to be not very and 8% not at all serious.

Out of the 40 countries in the survey, Australia’s 8% of “deniers” is more than double the global average of 3%. We’re beaten only by the US (12%) and Sweden (9%).

While most Australian news consumers think climate change is an extremely or very serious problem (58%), this is still lower than the global average of 69%. Only ten countries in the survey are less concerned than we are.

Strident critics in commercial media

There’s a strong connection between the brands people use and whether they think climate change is serious.

More than one-third (35%) of people who listen to commercial AM radio (such as 2GB, 2UE, 3AW) or watch Sky News consider climate change to be “not at all” or “not very” serious, followed by Fox News consumers (32%).

This is perhaps not surprising when some of the most strident critics of climate change science can be found on commercial AM radio, Sky and Fox News.

Among online brands, those who have the highest concern about climate change are readers of The Conversation (94%) and The Guardian Australia (93%), which reflects their audiences are more likely left-leaning and younger.

Read more: We want to learn about climate change from weather presenters, not politicians

More than half of Australians get their information about climate change from traditional news sources (TV 28%, online 17%, radio 5%, newspapers 4%).

However, 15% of Australians say they don’t pay any attention to news about climate change. This lack of interest is double the global average of 7%. Given climate change impacts everyone, this lack of engagement is troubling and reflects the difficulty in Australia to gain political momentum for action.

The polarised nature of the debate

The data show older generations are much less interested in news about climate change than news in general, and younger people are much more interested in news about climate change than other news.

Read more: Bushfires, bots and arson claims: Australia flung in the global disinformation spotlight

News consumers in regional Australia are also less likely to pay attention to news about climate change. One fifth (21%) of regional news consumers say they aren’t interested in climate change information compared to only 11% of their city counterparts.

Given this survey was conducted during the bushfire season that hit regional and rural Australia hardest, these findings appear surprising at first glance.

But it’s possible the results simply reflect the ageing nature of regional and rural communities and a tendency toward more conservative politics. The report shows 27% of regional and rural news consumers identify as right-wing compared to 23% of city news consumers.

And the data clearly reflect the polarised nature of the debate around climate change and the connection between political orientation, news brands and concern about the issue. It found right-wing news consumers are more likely to ignore news about climate change than left-wing, and they’re less likely to think reporting of the issue is accurate.

Regardless of political orientation, only 36% of news consumers think climate change reporting is accurate. This indicates low levels of trust in climate change reporting and is in stark contrast with trust in COVID-19 reporting, which was much higher at 53%.

The findings also point to a significant section of the community that simply don’t pay attention to the issue, despite the calamitous bushfires.

This presents a real challenge to news organisations. They must find ways of telling the climate change story to engage the 15% of people who aren’t interested, but are still feeling its effects.

19% want news confirming their worldview

Other key findings in the Digital News Report: Australia 2020 include:

• the majority of Australian news consumers will miss their local news services if they shut down: 76% would miss their local newspaper, 79% local TV news, 81% local radio news service and 74% would miss local online news offerings

• more than half (54%) of news consumers say they prefer impartial news, but 19% want news that confirms their worldview

• two-thirds (62%) of news consumers say independent journalism is important for society to function properly

• around half (54%) think journalists should report false statements from politicians and about one-quarter don’t

• news consumption and news sharing have increased since 2019, but interest in news has declined

• only 14% continue to pay for online news, but more are subscribing rather than making one-off donations

• TV is still the main source of news for Australians but continues to fall.

The ‘COVID-trust-bump’

In many ways these findings, including those on climate change reporting, reflect wider trends. Our interest in general news has been falling, along with our trust.

This changed suddenly with COVID-19 when we saw a big rise in coverage specifically about the pandemic. Suddenly, the news was relevant to everyone, not just a few.

We suspect that key to the “COVID-trust-bump” was the news media adopting a more constructive approach to reporting on this issue. Much of the sensationalism, conflict and partisanship that drives news – particularly climate change news – was muted and instead important health information from authoritative sources guided the coverage.

This desire for impartial and independent news is reflected in the new report. The challenge is getting people to pay for it.

– ref. The number of climate deniers in Australia is more than double the global average, new survey finds – https://theconversation.com/the-number-of-climate-deniers-in-australia-is-more-than-double-the-global-average-new-survey-finds-140450

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tony Walker, Adjunct Professor, School of Communications, La Trobe University

The case of Australian Karm Gilespie, who has been sentenced to death by a Chinese court on drugs charges pending an appeal, cannot be separated from a recent souring in Sino-Australian relations.

Gilespie was reportedly arrested with 7.5 kilograms of ice in his luggage in 2013, while attempting to leave China.

His arrest clearly pre-dates the recent deterioration of relations between Australia and China. But the sudden announcement of his death sentence raises questions about whether China-Australia tensions have influenced his case.

Certainly, the backdrop makes his prospects even more grim. Bad relations lessen the chance of securing a commutation of his sentence, or indeed his early release, in an opaque justice system.

These are very unpromising circumstances for a foreigner who falls foul of the Chinese authorities, whether that individual has done anything wrong or not. The risks are greater these days for nationals of countries – like Australia and Canada – that have displeased Beijing.

One of the ways this has played out has been in a rise in “hostage diplomacy”, a relatively modern description of an age-old diplomatic weapon. It occurs when one country detains a foreign citizen as retaliation for actions that might have displeased it, or as a bargaining chip to secure the release of one of its own nationals, or a combination of both.

In Australia’s case, it is hard to separate the example of Chinese-Australian academic Yang Hengjun from a souring of relations. Yang was arrested in early 2019. He has lived ever since under the shadow of espionage charges that carry the death penalty.

The Australian government has been pushing for Yang’s release, or at least access to him for his family and lawyers. He has been held in solitary confinement for much, if not all, of his detention.

Read more: Australian-Chinese author’s detention raises important questions about China’s motivations

Again, it is hard not suspect an element of “hostage diplomacy” at play. It has not been revealed what he is alleged to have done wrong beyond his public criticism of the communist system.

His continued detention without reasonable explanation is an affront to the sort of relationship Australia has sought to build with China.

In Canada’s case, Beijing’s ire has been directed at Canada’s detention of Meng Wanzhou, daughter of the founder of telecommunications giant Huawei, pending American-initiated extradition hearings.

Meng is accused of breaching Iran sanctions.

In retaliation, China has arrested two Canadians and held them since 2018. The continued detention of former diplomat Michael Kovrig and businessman Michael Spavor are pernicious cases of hostage diplomacy against the release of a Chinese national awaiting further extradition hearings in Canada.

Kovrig and Spavor are being detained on allegations of breaching Chinese security. No details have been forthcoming.

Unlike the Canadians in primitive detention in China, Meng is biding her time in luxury accommodation in Vancouver before court proceedings reach a conclusion.

The treatment of Kovrig and Spavor is, not to put too fine a point on it, outrageous. Beijing’s resort to this form of hostage diplomacy is a stain on its reputation.

It quashes doubt about the gulf that has opened in recent years between global aspirations for China’s compliance with a rules-based international order and its behaviour.

In the sedate world of international diplomacy, Chinese official representative are giving voice to a new and uncompromising diplomatic posture. After biding its time and holding its counsel, Beijing has unleashed on the world the sort of rhetoric that would not have been out of place during the Cultural Revolution.

The Chinese ambassador in Ottawa, Lu Shaye, wrote in a Canadian publication about Meng’s arrest in words that could have been drawn from a Maoist handbook.

The reason why some people are used to arrogantly adopt double standards is due to Western egotism and white supremacy. In such a context the rule of law is nothing but a tool of the political class and a fig leaf for their practising negotiations in the international arena. What they have been doing is not showing respect for the rule of law, but mocking and trampling the rule of law.

These words were contributed, apparently, without irony.

In recent Chinese history, hostage diplomacy is not new.

During the Cultural Revolution (1966-76), British diplomats and civilians were held hostage for several years as retaliation for humiliations colonisers had imposed on the Chinese.

Then there was the case of Reuters journalist Anthony Grey. He was detained in his apartment in Beijing for 777 days in retaliation for the arrest of a New China News Agency journalist in Hong Kong.

Red Guards killed Grey’s cat and dumped its corpse on his bed. He wrote about his experiences in Hostage in Peking.

In the annals of hostage diplomacy, China is far from alone in the modern era in detaining foreign nationals for political purposes.

While it was not referred to in those days as hostage diplomacy, perhaps the most striking example was the detention in Tehran of American embassy personnel after the fall of the shah.

Eventually, after 444 days and attempts to negotiate the return of the shah to stand trial in Tehran, the last of the Americans was released. This was not before an abortive attempt in the dying days of the Carter administration to free them by military force. Jimmy Carter’s presidency effectively crashed and burned in the wreckage of helicopters in the desert outside Tehran.

Another example of Iranian hostage diplomacy is the case of British-Australian academic Kylie Moore-Gilbert, who has been convicted of spying and sentenced to ten years in jail.

No details have emerged of what she is alleged to have done.

Read more: The Australian government needs to step up its fight to free Kylie Moore-Gilbert from prison in Iran

Over the years, terrorist groups in the Middle East have regularly taken Western hostages as bargaining chips in internal power struggles or for ransom. This is not hostage diplomacy per se, but it shares characteristics in common with “state-sponsored” hostage takers.

In China’s case, hostage diplomacy in an environment in which it feels under siege globally is a bad development. Unfortunately for those like Karm Gilespie who are arguably caught up in a wider political game, there is little sign of tensions easing. To the contrary, the atmosphere is getting worse.

To its discredit, hostage diplomacy looks set to remain part of Beijing’s diplomatic arsenal for the time being.

– ref. Karm Gilespie’s case cannot be separated completely from strained Sino-Australian relations – https://theconversation.com/karm-gilespies-case-cannot-be-separated-completely-from-strained-sino-australian-relations-140720

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gabi Mocatta, Research Fellow in Climate Change Communication, Climate Futures Programme, University of Tasmania

Many Australians enjoy a glass of homegrown wine, and A$2.78 billion worth is exported each year. But hotter, drier conditions under climate change means there are big changes ahead for our wine producers.

As climate scientists and science communicators, we’ve been working closely with the wine industry to understand the changing conditions for producing quality wine in Australia.

Read more: We dug up Australian weather records back to 1838 and found snow is falling less often

We created a world-first atlas to help secure Australia’s wine future. Released today, Australia’s Wine Future: A Climate Atlas shows that all 71 wine regions in Australia must adapt to hotter conditions.

Cool wine regions such as Tasmania, for example, will become warmer. This means growers in that state now producing pinot noir and chardonnay may have to transition to varieties suited to warmer conditions, such as shiraz.

Hotter, drier conditions

Our research, commissioned by Wine Australia, is the culmination of four years of work. We used CSIRO’s regional climate model to give very localised information on heat and cold extremes, temperature, rainfall and evaporation over the next 80 years.

The research assumed a high carbon emissions scenario to 2100, in line with Earth’s current trajectory.

From 2020, the changes projected by the climate models are more influenced by climate change than natural variability.

Temperatures across all wine regions of Australia will increase by about 3℃ by 2100. Aridity, which takes into account rainfall and evaporation, is also projected to increase in most Australian wine regions. Less frost and more intense heatwaves are expected in many areas.

Read more: An El Niño hit this banana prawn fishery hard. Here’s what we can learn from their experience

By 2100, growing conditions on Tasmania’s east coast, for example, will look like those currently found in the Coonawarra region of South Australia – a hotter and drier region where very different wines are produced.

That means it may get harder to grow cool-climate styles of varieties such as chardonnay and pinot noir.

Some regions will experience more change than others. For example, the Alpine Valleys region on the western slopes of the Victorian Alps, and Pemberton in southwest Western Australia, will both become much drier and hotter, influencing the varietals that are most successfully grown.

Other regions, such as the Hunter Valley in New South Wales, will not dry out as much. But a combination of humidity and higher temperatures will expose vineyard workers in those regions to heat risk on 40-60 days a year – most of summer – by 2100. That figure is currently about 10 days a year, up from 5 days historically.

Grape vines are very adaptable and can be grown in a variety of conditions, such as arid parts of southern Europe. So while adaptations will be needed, our projections indicate all of Australia’s current wine regions will be suitable for producing wine out to 2100.

Lessons for change

Australia’s natural climate variability means wine growers are already adept at responding to change. And there is much scope to adapt to future climate change.

In some areas, this will mean planting vines at higher altitudes, or on south facing slopes, to avoid excessive heat. In future, many wine regions will also shift to growing different grape varieties. Viticultural practices may change, such as training vines so leaves shade grapes from heat. Growers may increase mulching to retain soil moisture, and areas that currently practice dryland farming may need to start irrigating.

The atlas enables climate information and adaptation decisions to be shared across regions. Growers can look to their peers in regions currently experiencing the conditions they will see in future, both in Australia and overseas, to learn how wines are produced there.

Industries need not die on the vine

Agriculture industries such as wine growing are not the only ones that need fine-scale climate information to manage their climate risk. Forestry, water management, electricity generation, insurance, tourism, emergency management authorities and Defence also need such climate modelling, specific to their operations, to better prepare for the future.

The world has already heated 1℃ above the pre-industrial average. Global temperatures will continue to rise for decades, even if goals under the Paris climate agreement are met.

If Earth’s temperature rise is kept below 1.5℃ or even 2℃ this century, many of the changes projected in the atlas could be minimised, or avoided altogether.

Australia’s wine industry contributes A$45 billion to our economy and supports about 163,000 jobs. Decisions taken now on climate resilience will dictate the future of this critical sector.

Read more: Just how hot will it get this century? Latest climate models suggest it could be worse than we thought

– ref. Pass the shiraz, please: how Australia’s wine industry can adapt to climate change – https://theconversation.com/pass-the-shiraz-please-how-australias-wine-industry-can-adapt-to-climate-change-140024

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alice Gorman, Associate Professor in Archaeology and Space Studies, Flinders University

Only 566 people have ever travelled to space. Sixty-five of them, or about 11.5%, were women.

NASA recently proclaimed it will put the “first woman and next man” on the Moon by 2024. Despite nearly 60 years of human spaceflight, women are still in the territory of “firsts”.

Valentina Tereshkova, the first woman in space

The first woman in space was cosmonaut Valentina Vladimirovna Tereshkova, who orbited Earth 48 times from June 16 to 18, 1963.

Her flight became Cold War propaganda to demonstrate the superiority of communism. At the 1963 World Congress of Women, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev used Tereshkova’s voyage to declare the USSR had achieved equality for women.

Women across the world took heart and dreamed they too might travel to space. Ekaterina Ergardt, a Soviet state farm worker, wrote to Tereshkova:

I am eighty years old. I started to live in the years of the beginning of women’s struggle for a life of freedom and equality … now the road to space is open for women.

Earthbound again

Despite this optimism, it was 19 years before another woman was allowed to venture beyond Earth.

In the United States, women were excluded from space by the restriction that astronauts had to be military test pilots – a profession barred to them.

While the first American astronauts – known as the Mercury 7 – were training in the 1960s, aerospace doctor Randy Lovelace recruited 13 women pilots and put them through the same paces as the male astronauts. The “Mercury 13” outperformed the men on many tests, particularly in how they handled isolation.

But NASA wasn’t convinced. A congressional hearing was held to investigate whether women should qualify to be astronauts. In her testimony, Mercury 13 astronaut candidate Jerrie Cob said:

I find it a little ridiculous when I read in a newspaper that there is a place called Chimp College in New Mexico where they are training chimpanzees for space flight, one a female named Glenda. I think it would be at least as important to let the women undergo this training for space flight.

She was prepared to take the place of a chimp, if that was the only way to get into space.

Message in a bottle

Historically, even those like Lovelace who believed women should go to space have seen their role as helping men, acting as a civilising influence, or providing sex.

In one sense the first women on the Moon were Playboy playmates, in the form of pictures jokingly included in the Apollo 12 astronauts’ checklists. Their names were Cynthia Myers, Angela Dorian, Reagan Wilson, and Leslie Bianchini. The women’s bodies were likened to the lunar landscape: both the object of male conquest.

In popular culture in the 1960s, women were often associated with magic and emotion rather than science and technology.

The sitcom I Dream of Jeannie depicted the relationship between a US astronaut and a magical djinn or genie, imaginatively named Jeannie. NASA was an advisor for the series, which mirrored real space events. Jeannie represented seductive oriental femininity in opposition to the strait-laced, masculine, all-American astronauts.

(In the similar sitcom Bewitched, the witch Samantha travelled to the Moon for picnics before she renounced her craft to be a regular housewife.)

The message was clear in popular culture: women needed to stay in the kitchen – or the boudoir. These sitcoms are still aired around the world.

Read more: ‘I Dream of Jeannie’ left us with enduring stereotypes

From aprons to spacewalks

By the 1970s, the women’s movement had made great strides and NASA had to adapt. The first women were admitted to astronaut training in 1978. Not to be outdone, the USSR rushed more women into its own program.

In 1982 Svetlana Savitskaya visited the Salyut 7 space station, becoming the second woman in space and the first to perform a spacewalk. But she wasn’t allowed to forget the nature of women’s work: when she arrived, her male colleagues presented her with an apron.

The following year, Sally Ride flew as a mission specialist on the Space Shuttle Challenger, becoming the first US woman in space. The first American woman to spacewalk was Kathryn Sullivan in 1995.

In the 21st century, there are still barriers to women’s equal participation in space. In March 2019 the first all-woman spacewalk was cancelled because there were not enough medium-sized spacesuits. Astronauts Christina Koch and Jessica Meir subsequently accomplished the feat in October 2019.

Discussing the cancellation, NASA administrator Ken Bowersox made clear the ideal astronaut body is still male. He blamed women’s smaller average stature, saying they were less able to “reach in and do things a little bit more easily”.

Read more: Female astronauts: How performance products like space suits and bras are designed to pave the way for women’s accomplishments

‘Weightlessness is a great equalizer’

Is it women’s bodies that are the problem, or a space world built for men? What would space technology designed by and for women look like?

There is a massive gender data gap in space. There has been much less research on the effects of microgravity on women’s bodies than there has been for men.

However, women in many ways are ideal astronauts. Physical strength and height are not advantages in microgravity.

Women use less food and oxygen, maintain their weight better on restricted diets, and create less waste. In the words of Sally Ride, “weightlessness is a great equaliser”.

Space4Women

Women’s access to space, not just as astronauts but as users and creators of space services like Earth observation and satellite telecommunications, is still far from equal. But there are signs of progress.

One is the Space4Women program run by the United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA), which aims to ensure

the benefits of space reach women and girls and that women and girls play an active and equal role in space science, technology, innovation, and exploration.

As UNOOSA director Simonetta di Pippo has noted, 40% of the targets of the UN’s sustainable development goals rely on the use of space science and technology.

NASA’s plan to land a woman on the Moon is another positive sign. On her post-orbit world tour in 1964, Valentina Tereshkova expressed her own desire to go to the Moon, but she never made another spaceflight.

Now aged 83, Dr Tereshkova has had a distinguished career in science and politics and remains a sitting member of the Russian parliament. To see a woman set foot on the lunar surface within her lifetime would truly be a ground-breaking moment.

– ref. Almost 90% of astronauts have been men. But the future of space may be female – https://theconversation.com/almost-90-of-astronauts-have-been-men-but-the-future-of-space-may-be-female-125644

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

Scott Morrison is casting himself as the “can-do” prime minister, and what’s notable is how he is forging institutions around his style.

The national cabinet was born of the COVID crisis, but has been made permanent with a broader purpose; Morrison is determined it will have less bureaucracy than surrounded the former Council of Australian Governments (COAG).

Now he has flagged the National COVID-19 Coordination Commission will have an “onward life” and “translate into a new mode soon” with “a few more voices” added (likely to include those from small business and agriculture).

Read more: Politics with Michelle Grattan: Nev Power on the role of business in a post-coronavirus world

The commission was set up to liaise with business on immediate problems created by the pandemic and had been due to finish in September. Ahead of its further blossoming, it has already branched into a much wider advisory and ideas-generating role.

It suits the approach of Morrison, who dislikes the conventional bureaucracy, with (what he would see as) its tiresome preoccupation with “process”. It fits neatly with his idea that “there is a time for having the discussion and then we will make a decision and then we’ll get on with it”.

On Monday Morrison, speaking to CEDA, also announced he was bringing the deregulation taskforce from within treasury into his department of prime minister and cabinet, where it will “zero in on areas to assist COVID-19 economic recovery”.

He described the move “as part of the government’s JobMaker agenda”; it would “further drive a whole-of-government approach to how regulatory policy is prosecuted”.

Morrison’s drive for deregulation is much more ambitious than just accelerating approval processes for infrastructure and other business projects.

Crucially, it is aimed at a general change in attitudes.

“Our focus applies as much to the culture of regulators as it does to the content of regulations,” he said. “I’m sure anyone in business would understand that point. This crisis has shown what can be achieved when regulators are pragmatic and responsive, solving problems without compromising safeguards.”

He lauded “APRA [Australian Prudential Regulation Authority] in particular working with the major banks, to ensure that we could be dealing with deferral of loan payments … just working constructively together to solve quite a serious problem that was going to have a significant impact on whether businesses could keep their doors open. The attitude of the regulator mattered as much as the regulations themselves.”

Morrison said he had asked his assistant minister Ben Morton to report back on “‘lessons learned’ in recent months, highlighting cases where governments and regulators have responded to the COVID crisis and its economic fall-out with urgency and common-sense”.

He noted diverse “encouraging examples”. In health alone, these included ensuring “unnecessary professional requirements” did not block nurses returning to the workforce, fast-tracking approvals for drug trials, making changes to promote the use of telehealth, and cutting red tape to allow companies to use overseas standards for hand sanitiser.

“And we reduced financial reporting and other requirements that would have hit firms struggling to survive the shock … businesses are able to sign documents with electronic signatures and conduct virtual AGMs”.

The mention of APRA triggered a memory.

Could it have been just short of a year ago that a government-commissioned report criticised APRA for its “strong preference to do things behind the scenes with regulated entities”? The review had come out of the royal commission into banking, which produced some horrific stories resulting from financial institutions’ bad behaviour, which had gone unchecked by regulators.

Commenting at the time on the report into APRA Allan Fels, a former head of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, said APRA had in the past been too cosy with the institutions it regulated.

APRA has lifted its game, but what happened before is a salutary reminder of the danger of too slack a “culture”.

None of this is to suggest the short cuts during COVID aren’t desirable. Or to argue regulations of all sorts should not be examined and where necessary overhauled or scrapped.

And to be fair, Morrison did talk about “solving problems without compromising safeguards”.

But his main message is about regulatory excess.

It is worth remembering that when it comes to regulations, one person’s frustrating road block is another’s useful amber light.

Writing for The Conversation, Martin Loosemore, Professor of Construction Management at the University of Technology in Sydney, has pointed out how in the residential apartment sector “poor-quality buildings have devastated people’s lives”.

It’s great we could fast track nurses into work and speed drug trials during COVID, but for the longer term let’s be sure that various regulations were not written for sound purposes. Some will have been; some won’t. Crisis times and normal times may require different balances between expediency and risk.

If the government misjudges when it takes the scissors to the red tape, it or a successor government will almost inevitably find itself being called on to string up new tape.

– ref. View from The Hill: ‘Can do’ Scott Morrison needs to take care in deregulating – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-can-do-scott-morrison-needs-to-take-care-in-deregulating-140743

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lauren Waller, Postdoctoral Fellow, Lincoln University, New Zealand

Large-scale reforestation projects such as New Zealand’s One Billion Trees programme are underway in many countries to help sequester carbon from the atmosphere.

But there is ongoing debate about whether to prioritise native or non-native plants to fight climate change. As our recent research shows, non-native plants often grow faster compared to native plants, but they also decompose faster and this helps to accelerate the release of 150% more carbon dioxide from the soil.

Our results highlight a challenging gap in our understanding of carbon cycling in newly planted or regenerating forests.

It is relatively easy to measure plant biomass (how quickly a plant grows) and to estimate how much carbon dioxide it has removed from the atmosphere. But measuring carbon release is more difficult because it involves complex interactions between the plant, plant-eating insects and soil microorganisms.

This lack of an integrated carbon cycling model that includes species interactions makes predictions for carbon budgeting exceedingly difficult.

Read more: Coldplay conundrum: how to reduce the risk of failure for environmental projects

How non-native plants change the carbon cycle

There is uncertainty in our climate forecasting because we don’t fully understand how the factors that influence carbon cycling – the process in which carbon is both accumulated and lost by plants and soils – differ across ecosystems.

Carbon sequestration projects typically use fast-growing plant species that accumulate carbon in their tissues rapidly. Few projects focus on what goes on in the soil.

Non-native plants often accelerate carbon cycling. They usually have less dense tissues and can grow and incorporate carbon into their tissues faster than native plants. But they also decompose more readily, increasing carbon release back to the atmosphere.

Our research, recently published in the journal Science, shows that when non-native plants arrive in a new place, they establish new interactions with soil organisms. So far, research has mostly focused on how this resetting of interactions with soil microorganisms, herbivorous insects and other organisms helps exotic plants to invade a new place quickly, often overwhelming native species.

Invasive non-native plants have already become a major problem worldwide, and are changing the composition and function of entire ecosystems. But it is less clear how the interactions of invasive non-native plants with other organisms affect carbon cycling.

Read more: Climate explained: how different crops or trees help strip carbon dioxide from the air

Planting non-native trees releases more carbon

We established 160 experimental plant communities, with different combinations of native and non-native plants. We collected and reared herbivorous insects and created identical mixtures which we added to half of the plots.

We also cultured soil microorganisms to create two different soils that we split across the plant communities. One soil contained microorganisms familiar to the plants and another was unfamiliar.

Herbivorous insects and soil microorganisms feed on live and decaying plant tissue. Their ability to grow depends on the nutritional quality of that food. We found that non-native plants provided a better food source for herbivores compared with native plants – and that resulted in more plant-eating insects in communities dominated by non-native plants.

Similarly, exotic plants also raised the abundance of soil microorganisms involved in the rapid decomposition of plant material. This synergy of multiple organisms and interactions (fast-growing plants with less dense tissues, high herbivore abundance, and increased decomposition by soil microorganisms) means that more of the plant carbon is released back into the atmosphere.

In a practical sense, these soil treatments (soils with microorganisms familiar vs. unfamiliar to the plants) mimic the difference between reforestation (replanting an area) and afforestation (planting trees to create a new forest).

Reforested areas are typically replanted with native species that occurred there before, whereas afforested areas are planted with new species. Our results suggest planting non-native trees into soils with microorganisms they have never encountered (in other words, afforestation with non-native plants) may lead to more rapid release of carbon and undermine the effort to mitigate climate change.

– ref. Planting non-native trees accelerates the release of carbon back into the atmosphere – https://theconversation.com/planting-non-native-trees-accelerates-the-release-of-carbon-back-into-the-atmosphere-139841

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katie Pickles, Professor of History at the University of Canterbury, University of Canterbury

The global furore about the meaning and relevance of statues, memorials and place names from a racist, imperial past presents a special challenge to Aotearoa-New Zealand. In this former colonial outpost we are dealing with a double burden: the memorialisation of unsavoury historical figures, and the fact that they were imported from elsewhere.

There is the added irony of this current debate having arrived here from overseas, too. Are we ready to craft our own decolonial exit strategy? Or will we weakly copy what’s taking place at the former imperial centre?

Examining all this drills to the very bedrock of colonial history. It shakes the imperial foundations.

The Black Lives Matter protests in the US have provided the latest flashpoint for this issue. The echo in Aotearoa-New Zealand has so far involved a restaurant named after infamous Pacific slave trader Bully Hayes, a pub named after Captain Cook and a statue of New Zealand Wars figure Andrew Hamilton in the city that took his name.

As in Australia, the once unquestioned legacy of James Cook has again been challenged: having laid the groundwork for subsequent colonisation, he began the renaming of places – many still in use – and erasure of local knowledge and ownership.

Read more: Friday essay: taking a wrecking ball to monuments – contemporary art can ask what really needs tearing down

In the UK, what started with the dumping of a statue of slave trader Edward Colston into Bristol harbour has grown into a “topple the racists” movement, complete with its own interactive map. After slaver Robert Milligan’s statue was removed, London Mayor Sadiq Khan ordered a review of London’s monuments. The Māori Party has made the same call here.

The imperial past is all around us

Defacing and removing statues is nothing new. Erected as markers of power and dominance in the landscape, they represent the ideas and actions of those commemorated.

It’s no surprise, then, that as regimes change, place names are written over and statues are toppled. Fallen monuments to Stalin, Lenin and Saddam Hussein provide dramatic 20th-century evidence of societies breaking from the past.

In Aotearoa-New Zealand, memorials to the most offensive colonial characters are just the tip of the iceberg. This is a place riddled with colonial markers – a nation where British imperial culture was stamped onto the landscape as a fundamental part of settlement.

Some Māori place names were allowed to survive, but often they were supplanted by old-world people and places. British heroes were feted for imperial conquest and domination, often for their roles in subjugating Māori, such as Marmaduke Nixon whose statue stands in Ōtāhuhu, Auckland.

The imperial master was copied, with the likes of Thomas Picton and Edward Eyre (currently being shamed) the rule rather than the exception when it came to naming places. Following in their mould, settlers who emulated imperial values were memorialised most.

Read more: An honest reckoning with Captain Cook’s legacy won’t heal things overnight. But it’s a start

But the current agitation is not just a flash in the pan from a woke generation, as Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters implied. The storm has been brewing for the past decade, targeting historical figures whose legacies live on in the present. The Rhodes Must Fall campaign in Africa and Britain and the destruction of Confederate statues in the US were part of widely publicised anti-racist protests.

Removing history or rewriting it?

Arguments for and against removing statues and changing names tap into powerful forces.

On one side are those who assert they are hurtful, irrelevant and fail to represent contemporary diversity.

On the other are those who fear that effectively erasing historical evidence risks history repeating. By separating past from present, they argue, we can accept the behaviour of those cast in stone was and is reprehensible, but it should be seen in the context of its time, not erased because it offends modern sensibilities.

Others view the desecration of memorials as vandalism by those wanting to replace the past with propaganda.

Meanwhile, a heritage lobby preserves statues as art forms but shies away from critical consideration of how they represent the structure of past or present societies.

Read more: Britain’s monument culture obscures a violent history of white supremacy and colonial violence

And, taking the threat personally, a militant and reactionary right wing seeks to protect and defend statues and place names.

Short of nature intervening, as it did when the Canterbury earthquakes toppled a number of colonial-era relics, what is the way forward?

Context is everything

One solution is to acknowledge these statues as an uncomfortable part of history and move them into museums and statue parks. Again, this is nothing new. Defunct Queen Victoria statues have ended up in a Quebec museum, Sydney shopping centre and in Indian storage. In Gisborne, a James Cook statue was relocated.

This allows their legacy to be discussed while simultaneously casting them as history. Statue parks with interpretation and graffiti boards would promote further discussion. This is common, too – Coronation Park in New Delhi, for example.

Revising street and place names is more difficult because transplanted colonial names are everywhere, although the promotion of Māori place names is rapidly gaining momentum already.

But in simply mimicking the removal of some of those explicitly responsible for colonial violence, Aotearoa-New Zealand risks falling in behind what suits elsewhere. The sun may be setting once more on the British Empire, but it’s the old empire leading the charge.

In this part of the world, reconsidering monuments and place names challenges the very foundations of settler societies and the evolution of race relations. The imperial past really is a different country, and we will have to do things differently here.

– ref. Removing monuments to an imperial past is not the same for former colonies as it is for former empires – https://theconversation.com/removing-monuments-to-an-imperial-past-is-not-the-same-for-former-colonies-as-it-is-for-former-empires-140546

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lucy Strang, PhD Candidate, University of Melbourne

Is time travel possible for humans? Jasmine Burr, age 8, Canberra, ACT.

Hi Jasmine.

I wish! In books and movies, our favourite characters can use “time-turners” and treehouses to travel through time. Unfortunately, it isn’t that easy for people in real life. Let’s look at why.

First, there are two types of “time travel”: going back in time, and going forward in time.

Travelling to the past

As far as we know, travelling back in time is impossible. Even sending information back in time is difficult to imagine, because it can change things that have already happened, which should be impossible.

Say you broke your arm falling off the monkey bars. What if you could travel back in time and tell yourself to not go on the bars? If you were successful, you’d never fall and break your arm. But then you would have no reason to travel back in time. So what does this mean for your arm? Did it break, or not?

If thinking about this makes your head hurt, you’re not alone.

Time travelling is a confusing idea for most people. That’s because when we think of time, we think about it as going in a straight line, with one thing happening after another.

If we could travel back in time and change something that happened before, we would then change the order of that line. This would mean breaking a rule called “causality”.

Causality is the rule saying that a “cause” (your actions, for instance) happens before an “effect” (the result of your actions). In our monkey bar example, the cause is falling, and the effect is breaking your arm – which happens because you fell.

Causality is one of the unbreakable rules of the universe. Breaking it would have nasty consequences for the universe and all of us. Experts think that because the universe has this rule, travelling to the past must be impossible otherwise the rule would be broken all the time.

Travelling to the future

If going to the past is impossible, can we go forward in time to the future?

Well, technically we’re already travelling forward in time, because time is passing. Every second we travel one second into the future. But this happens to everyone, so it’s not really time travel, right?

Well, believe it or not, two people can feel time at different rates. Time passes differently for someone who is moving fast, compared to someone who is staying still. This is a very complicated idea called “time dilation”.

Someone flying from Sydney to Melbourne will feel like the time passed more quickly than someone waiting for them at the airport without moving for the whole time the flight was in the air. So why don’t we notice this difference?

It’s because you have to be moving much, much faster than an aeroplane before you start to notice time dilation. Even if you flew all the way around the world, the time would only feel about a billionth of a second different to someone who stayed home.

Read more: Curious Kids: Does space go on forever?

The only way scientists even know about time dilation is because of amazingly accurate experiments that have measured it.

Unfortunately, this still can’t help us “time travel”. If you flew around the world for more than four million years, people on the ground would only have experienced one more second than you!

How fast can we go?

So if it’s all down to speed, the answer must be to go faster, right? If you could go fast enough for long enough, hundreds of “human” years could slip by on your journey, meaning you would feel like you were travelling into the future!

Unfortunately, a fast enough speed to do this would be close to the speed of light, which is the fastest speed anything can go. Light travels at about one billion kilometres every hour – that’s very, very fast.

The fastest human-made thing is NASA’s Parker Solar Probe, a spaceship sent to the Sun in August, 2018. But as fast as it is, it’s only 0.064% as fast as the speed of light. So light is more than 1,000 times faster!

All of this means that if humans want to visit the future, we’ve got a long, long way to go.

Looking back to the past

Ok, so we can’t time travel. But we can see into the past, every night.

Light has a fixed speed, as we just learned. It’s really, really fast, but things in the universe are so far apart that it still takes a long time for light to reach us from faraway stars and planets.

When light arrives from the Sun, the light we see actually left the Sun eight minutes and twenty seconds ago. This means we see the Sun as it was eight minutes and twenty seconds in the past. By the way, remember never to look straight at the Sun as it can damage your eyes.

The nearest galaxy to our Milky Way is the the Canis Major dwarf galaxy, which is 25,000 light years away. This means it takes the light 25,000 years to get here!

When we look at this galaxy through a telescope, we’re actually seeing it as it was more than 25,000 years ago. So although we can’t time-travel ourselves, we can look up to the sky and see the past every night.

Read more: Time travel is possible – but only if you have an object with infinite mass

– ref. Curious Kids: is time travel possible for humans? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-is-time-travel-possible-for-humans-140703