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

The Morrison government has announced a funding partnership with the states expected to see A$1 billion extra spent to deal with health costs around the coronavirus.

Scott Morrison said the Commonwealth would provide money on a matching 50-50 basis.

The federal government “will pay 50% of the additional costs incurred by state and territory health services as a result of the diagnosis and treatment of patients with COVID-19, those suspected of having the virus or activities to prevent the spread of it,” Morrison and Health Minister Greg Hunt said in a statement.

The support will be available for services provided in public hospitals, primary care, aged care, and community health care such as health services in child care.

The federal government is putting in an initial $100 million. While the estimate is that the likely cost to the Commonwealth will be around $500 million, there will be no cap and it could exceed that.

Morrison told a news conference: “It’s a demand-driven arrangement – the costs will be what the costs are.

“But we are estimating, based on the advice we have at the moment, that this could be as much as about a billion dollars, $500 million each. … I hope it’s not that much. It could be more”.

The 50-50 arrangement is a better deal than the states get from the Commonwealth for their hospitals, which sees 45% of the funding come from Canberra.

Details of the deal with the states will be tied down by the time the Council of Australian Governments meets on Friday, when the coronavirus situation will be at the centre of discussion.

By then the Morrison government is expected to have announced its fiscal package of billions of dollars aimed at protecting jobs and businesses hit by the crisis.

Global ratings agency Standard & Poor’s has predicted in a report on the implications of COVID-19 for the Asia-Pacific region that “Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Singapore and Thailand will enter or flirt with recession”.

It says COVID-19 “could knock US$211 billion from Asia-Pacific incomes and slow GDP growth to 4.0% in 2020. Our new baseline for China is 4.8% with a downside scenario of 2.8% in 2020.”

Saying various regional countries will flirt with recession, S&P doesn’t use the standing recession definition of two quarters of negative growth.

Its definition is “at least two quarters of growth substantially below trend and sufficient to cause unemployment to rise, underlying inflation to fall, and policymakers to react with stimulus.”

S&P predicts a “hit” of one percentage point to Australian growth, “to leave growth in 2020 at 1.2%, well below trend which is closer to 2.5%”.

“The initial spillover from the coronavirus came from people flows which were already depressed from the bushfires,” it notes.

S&P expects the Reserve Bank – which cut interest rates this week – to cut again, to 0.25% “which leaves the Reserve Bank of Australia on the cusp of quantitative easing.

“We also expect moderate, targeted fiscal stimulus aimed at the most-harmed sectors.”

– ref. Morrison government pledges funds to help states with health burden of COVID-19 – https://theconversation.com/morrison-government-pledges-funds-to-help-states-with-health-burden-of-covid-19-133164

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

Scott Morrison is facing new questioning over the sports rorts affair, after former cabinet minister Bridget McKenzie issued a statement on Friday denying she had made last-minute changes to a list of grants.

Evidence to a Senate estimate committee from the Audit Office this week reinforced allegations the Prime Minister’s Office – which exchanged numerous emails with McKenzie’s office during the $100 million grants process – was more deeply involved than Morrison has admitted. He has sought to portray its role as just passing on representations.

McKenzie, then sports minister and the decision-maker for the program, signed off on a list of grants on April 4 2019, and she sent this to the Prime Minister’s Office on April 10.

But in an email from McKenzie’s office to Sport Australia early on April 11, the day the election was called, one project was taken off the list and one added. According to the Audit Office’s evidence, this change was at the request of the PMO. This email was sent minutes after the parliament was dissolved.

Several hours later, with the government in caretaker mode, one project was removed and nine added, in another email from McKenzie’s office to Sport Australia. The Audit evidence about these was that “none were evident as being at the request of the Prime Minister’s Office rather than the minister’s office”.

In her statement, McKenzie said she had “become aware” through the Senate estimates process this week “of changes made to a Ministerial decision brief that I signed in Canberra on 4 April 2019” for the final round of the program.

“The brief authorised approved projects for the third round – this included nine new and emerging projects which, it must be emphasised, had been identified and sent to Sport Australia in March for assessment in line with program guidelines.

“I did not make any changes or annotations to this brief or its attachments after 4 April 2019. My expectation was that the brief would be processed in a timely and appropriate manner,” she said.

“Nevertheless, changes were made and administrative errors occurred in processing the brief.

“I have always taken responsibility for my actions and decisions as a Minister, and this includes actions by my office.

“I was the Minister for Sport and therefore ultimately and entirely responsible for funding decisions that were signed off under my name, including and regrettably, any changes that were made unbeknown to me.”

When a reporter tried to ask Morrison about the McKenzie statement at his Friday news conference, which was about the coronavirus, he cut her off before she could get her words out. He finished the news conference without taking questions on general issues.

McKenzie is due to appear before the Senate committee that is examining the sports rorts affair.

The Audit Office found she had allocated grants on a politically skewed basis, but she and Morrison have always defended the substance of the decisions made.

She was forced to resign from cabinet on the more technical ground she did not declare her membership of sporting organisations that benefited from the scheme. It is well known she feels badly done by, because it was clear Morrison wanted her resignation to try to limit the political damage of the affair.

– ref. More ‘sports rort’ questions for Morrison after Bridget McKenzie speaks out – https://theconversation.com/more-sports-rort-questions-for-morrison-after-bridget-mckenzie-speaks-out-133160

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alfredo R. Paloyo, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Wollongong

Panic buying knows no borders.

Shoppers in Australia, Japan, Hong Kong and the United States have caught toilet paper fever on the back of the COVID-19 coronavirus. Shop shelves are being emptied as quickly as they can be stocked.

Read more: Why are people stockpiling toilet paper? We asked four experts

This panic buying is the result of the fear of missing out. It’s a phenomenon of consumer behaviour similar to what happens when there is a run on banks.

A bank run occurs when depositors of a bank withdraw cash because they believe it might collapse. What we’re seeing now is a toilet-paper run.

Coordination games

A bank holds only a fraction of its deposits as cash reserves. This practice is known as “fractional-reserve banking”. It lends out as much of its deposits as it can – subject to a banking regulator’s capital-adequacy requirements – making a profit from the interest it charges.

If every customer simultaneously decided to withdraw all of their deposits, the bank would crumble under the liability.

Why, then, do we not normally observe bank runs? Or toilet paper runs?

The answer comes from Nobel-winning economist John Nash (played by Russell Crowe in the 2001 movie A Beautiful Mind). Nash shared the Nobel prize in economics for his insights in game theory, notably the existence of what is now called a “Nash equilibrium” in “games”.

Both banking and the toilet-paper market can be thought of as a “coordination game”. There are two players – you and everyone else. There are two strategies – panic buy or act normally. Each strategy has an associated pay-off.

If everyone acts normally, we have an equilibrium: there will be toilet paper on the shop shelves, and people can relax and buy it as they need it.

But if others panic buy, the optimal strategy for you is to do the same, otherwise you’ll be left without toilet paper. Everyone is facing the same strategies and pay-offs, so others will panic buy if you do.

The result is another equilibrium – this one being where everyone panic buys.

Preventing coordination failure

So either no one panic buys (a successful coordination) or everyone does (a coordination failure).

The fear of everyone else panic buying has made some people panic buy as well. But those who are panic buying are not acting irrationally. They’re not stupid! They are executing an optimal strategy because the fear has a basis in reality: many people have experienced going to supermarkets and finding empty shelves.

Read more: Stocking up to prepare for a crisis isn’t ‘panic buying’. It’s actually a pretty rational choice

Obviously, though, only one of these equilibria is desirable. So what can we do to prevent coordination failure?

One solution is a market mechanism – allowing the price of toilet paper to increase to reduce demand. This is unlikely to happen, though, given the potential backlash associated with “price gouging”.

There are two other solutions.

The first is for the government to step in as guarantor.

In 2008, for example, the market crash engendered by the subprime mortgage crisis left multiple Australian banks vulnerable to depositor runs. In response, the Australian government announced a guarantee scheme for deposits. Depositors, assured the government would cover their losses even if their bank collapsed, no longer had the fear of being caught out by not withdrawing their savings.

In the case of toilet paper, the government acting as guarantor might involve holding a strategic stockpile of toilet paper. But all things considered – from logistics to costs – this probably isn’t a very good idea.

The second solution is to ration the commodity – putting limits on the amount a customer can buy. Imperfect though these buying limits are, they are feasible, as shown by the restrictions put in place by Australia’s supermarkets.

– ref. A toilet paper run is like a bank run. The economic fixes are about the same – https://theconversation.com/a-toilet-paper-run-is-like-a-bank-run-the-economic-fixes-are-about-the-same-133065

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Belal Alsinglawi, PhD Candidate in Data Science and ICT Lecturer, Western Sydney University

The coronavirus disease COVID-19 has so far caused about 3,380 deaths, infected about 98,300 people, and is significantly impacting the economy in many countries.

We used predictive analytics, a branch of artificial intelligence (AI), to forecast how many confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths can be expected in the near future.

Our method predicts that by March 13, the virus death toll will have climbed to 3,913, and confirmed cases will reach 116,250 worldwide, based on data available up to March 5.

To develop contingency plans and hopefully head off the worst effects of the coronavirus, governments need to be able to anticipate the future course of the outbreak.

This is where predictive analytics could prove invaluable. This method involves finding trends in past data, and using these insights to forecast future events. There’s currently too few Australian cases to generate such a forecast for the country.

Number crunching

Our model analysed existing trends to predict COVID-19 infections to an accuracy of 96%, and deaths to an accuracy of 99%, up to about one week in the future. To maintain this accuracy, we have to regularly update our data as the global rate of COVID-19’s spread increases or decreases.

Read more: How do we detect if coronavirus is spreading in the community?

Based on data available up to March 5, our model predicts that by March 31 the number of deaths worldwide will surpass 4,500 and confirmed cases will reach 150,000. However, since these projections surpass our short-term window of accuracy, they shouldn’t be considered as reliable as the figures above.

At the moment, our model is best suited for short-term forecasting. To make accurate long-term forecasts, we’ll need more historical data and a better understanding of the variables impacting COVID-19’s spread.

The more historical data we acquire, the more accurate and far-reaching our forecasts can be.

How we made our predictions

To create our simulations, we extracted coronavirus data dating back to January 22, from an online repository provided by the Johns Hopkins University Centre for Systems Science and Engineering.

This time-stamped data detailed the number and locations of confirmed cases of COVID-19, including people who recovered, and those who died.

Choosing an appropriate modelling technique was integral to the reliability of our results. We used time series forecasting, a method that predicts future values based on previously observed values. This type of forecasting has proven suitable to predict future outbreaks of a disease.

We ran our simulations via Prophet (a type of time series forecasting model), and input the data using the programming language Python.

Further insight vs compromised privacy

Combining predictions generated through AI with big data, and location-based services such as GPS tracking, can provide targeted insight on the movements of people diagnosed with COVID-19.

Read more: Why public health officials sound more worried about the coronavirus than the seasonal flu

This information would help governments implement effective contingency plans, and prevent the virus’s spread.

We saw this happen in China, where telecommunication providers used location tracking to alert the Chinese government of the movements of people in quarantine. However, such methods raise obvious privacy issues.

Honing in on smaller areas

In our analysis, we only considered worldwide data. If localised data becomes available, we could identify which countries, cities and even suburbs are more vulnerable to COVID-19 than others.

We already know different regions are likely to experience different growth rates of COVID-19. This is because the virus’ spread is influenced by many factors, including speed of diagnoses, government response, population density, quality of public healthcare and local climate.

As the COVID-19 outbreak expands, the world’s collective response will render our model susceptible to variation. But until the virus is controlled and more is learned about it, we believe forewarned is forearmed.

Read more: Coronavirus: How behaviour can help control the spread of COVID-19

– ref. COVID-19 death toll estimated to reach 3,900 by next Friday, according to AI modelling – https://theconversation.com/covid-19-death-toll-estimated-to-reach-3-900-by-next-friday-according-to-ai-modelling-133052

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dominique Allen, Senior Lecturer in Law, Monash University

The #MeToo movement has reminded us that sexual harassment has not gone away. The legal tools we’re using are not working and may even be hiding the true extent of the problem.

Most sexual harassment complaints are resolved confidentially at the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) or its local equivalents. Few go to court. This system has three fundamental problems.

Read more: Rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment: what’s the difference?

Confidential processes and settlements

Confidentiality is essential to get people to the negotiating table. Who can forget the media scrutiny actors Geoffrey Rush and Eryn Jean Norvill were subjected to?

Even for people who are not famous, the potential media interest in a sexual harassment claim is a strong reason to settle, as it is for employers who fear reputational damage. But it means the community isn’t aware that sexual harassment is still occurring or how it’s being addressed.

Employers usually insist on a confidentiality clause when they settle a claim. I recently interviewed 23 lawyers in Melbourne, asking them how common confidentiality clauses are in discrimination settlements.

A solicitor told me settlement agreements “almost always” include confidentiality. Another described the confidentiality clause as “not negotiable”. A barrister said: “No one I know has ever settled on non-confidential terms.”

The lawyers said employers use confidentiality clauses to avoid opening the “floodgates” to other victims. Employees seek confidentiality if they have left the workplace and worry about what their former employer might say about them.

At their most extreme, confidentiality clauses have a chilling effect on victims, who fear the repercussions of discussing any aspect of their claim. At the same time, they protect the perpetrator at their current workplace and anywhere they work in the future.

A complex, costly legal system

Making a legal claim is complex and costly. A woman who has been sexually harassed could use her local anti-discrimination law or the federal system. The federal system is costly because if she loses at court not only will she have to pay her own legal costs, she risks having to pay the other side’s costs too.

If she’s been discriminated against, unfairly dismissed or has a worker’s compensation claim, three more legal avenues are open to her. These vary in terms of costs, procedures, time restrictions and levels of formality, so they’re difficult to navigate without legal assistance.

It’s not surprising, then, that most people don’t use the formal legal system and those that do tend to settle.

Individual burden

There is no equivalent of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) or the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) that can prosecute employers or represent victims, so the person who has been sexually harassed bears a heavy burden. As one of the lawyers I interviewed put it, the victim has to do “all the heavy lifting”.

Respect@Work

This week, the AHRC released Respect@Work, a lengthy report on sexual harassment. It made 55 recommendations, many of which are designed to improve the legal framework. Will they resolve these weaknesses?

In terms of shedding light on the prevalence of sexual harassment, the recommendations include that the AHRC and its local equivalents should collect de-identified data about sexual harassment claims and settlement outcomes, share this data and prepare coordinated annual reports. This is significant because at the moment they only release numerical annual complaint data. They don’t publish anything about the nature of claims or settlements. Acknowledging that some parties want confidentiality, the AHRC will develop “best practice” principles, which might include preparing a model confidentiality clause and making some disclosures permissible.

Lawyers told me they negotiate damages payments in excess of what courts are likely to order. Because settlements are confidential, they have no impact on the courts’ understanding of the harm of sexual harassment, and victims and their lawyers don’t have a realistic starting point for negotiations. It is pleasing that the AHRC has recommended the government conduct research on damages awards and that this should inform judicial training.

Lawyers repeatedly told me the risk of costs is the main reason victims don’t use the federal system. The AHRC recommended a losing party should only have to pay the other side’s legal costs if their claim is vexatious, which is how the Fair Work system operates. The government should act to remove this barrier right away.

The recommendations to increase funding for community legal centres and bring consistency to federal and local sexual harassment legislation (including adding sexual harassment to the Fair Work Act) will reduce the cost and complexity of the system.

Read more: Geoffrey Rush’s victory in his defamation case could have a chilling effect on the #MeToo movement

But a problem remains – the burden still rests on the victim. The AHRC has proposed establishing a Workplace Sexual Harassment Council comprised of federal and local equality and workplace safety agencies. But this is a leadership and advisory body, not an enforcement agency.

The AHRC president is conducting an inquiry into reforming discrimination law. Changing the enforcement model and alleviating the burden on the victim must be considered as part of this broader project.

– ref. Sexual harassment claims are costly and complex – can this be fixed? – https://theconversation.com/sexual-harassment-claims-are-costly-and-complex-can-this-be-fixed-133149

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Roberto Musotto, Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre Postdoctoral Fellow, Edith Cowan University

While many Australians were preoccupied with panic-buying toilet paper, sales of another commodity encountered a very different sort of crisis.

Wool sales were severely disrupted last week by a ransomware attack on IT company Talman Software, which processes more than 75% of sales in Australia and New Zealand.

A ransomware attack is a form of cyber-extortion, involving software that encrypts all of the files on a system. In this case, cyber-criminals then demanded A$8 million to unlock the files. Talman has refused to pay and has instead built a replacement version of the software.

Read more: Ransomware attacks on cities are rising – authorities must stop paying out

Wool sales were halted for several days and hastily rescheduled, with an estimated 70,000 bales held in limbo. The industry’s turnover in a typical week is up to A$80 million, but prices may now drop as the postponed sales cause a glut in the market.

A ransomware attack on such an important sector of Australia’s economy shows how vital it is for authorities to defend markets against cyber threats. It is a matter of when, not if, these attacks will happen. There is a ransomware attack on a business every 14 seconds and by 2021 it will be every 11 seconds.

Read more: What’s critical about critical infrastructure?

Diverse defences

How do we improve our resilience? One way is to avoid being too dependent on particular technologies. The wool industry already knew Talman Software’s dominant role represented a significant vulnerability.

Having a wider choice of software providers, not to mention an offline alternative, would have reduced or avoided the disruption.

Previous ransomware attacks on vital infrastructure, including last month’s attack against Toll Group, have shown the need for companies to keep their operations and IT systems separate.

We can define “operations” as the software and hardware that allow a company to keep its assets and processes working. IT systems, meanwhile, are the software and hardware that handles the company’s information and data.

Separating the two would make it harder for hackers to disrupt a company’s operations by invading its IT system. However, this would make it impossible to use IT systems to control operations remotely, which would bring its own pros and cons. Imagine a nuclear power plant – do you fit it with a remote shutdown option that could be crucial in an emergency but might also become a tempting target for hackers?

Read more: Is Australia’s electricity grid vulnerable to the kind of cyber attacks taking place between Russia and the US?

Governments need to help

This issue is bigger than simply a threat to companies’ profits. Although the latest attack targeted a commercial company, it damaged the economic welfare of farmers in two countries.

Fending off future attacks shouldn’t be a job just for companies seeking to safeguard their own profits – governments need to help too.

Read more: Hackers are now targeting councils and governments, threatening to leak citizen data

Governments should have a cyber-resilience unit that supports businesses in such emergencies. They should also provide support funds for victims, and national compulsory cyber insurance to guarantee the least disruption possible.

Governments need to defend public and economic infrastructure such as transport networks, power grids and important commercial markets.

– ref. Ransomware attack on sheep farmers shows there’s no room for woolly thinking in cyber security – https://theconversation.com/ransomware-attack-on-sheep-farmers-shows-theres-no-room-for-woolly-thinking-in-cyber-security-132882

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kathleen McPhillips, Senior Lecturer, School of Humanities and Social Science, University of Newcastle

Women still make up the majority of the Catholic workforce and Catholic congregations, but their participation in church life is in decline.

Indeed, each generation of Catholic women in Australia is less likely than the previous one to attend church and participate in parish life.

There are a number of reasons for this decline, one of which is a continued lack of action by church leadership in including women in agenda-setting and decision-making processes in church life.

Despite recommendations from the Child Abuse Royal Commission that church leaders undertake a review of their engagement of Catholic women and develop measures to increase women’s status and participation in the church, there has been little progress to date.

This is only likely to get worse after the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (ACBC)‘s recent decision to disband its Office for the Participation of Women (OPW) and Council for Australian Catholic Women (CACW). These bodies were a focal point to boost the participation of women across Catholic parishes and dioceses in Australia.

A long-discussed problem in the church

The disbanding of the OPW and CACW signals a giant step backwards for the church, and contradicts the radical reforms the Australian bishops committed to almost 20 years ago aiming to

engage the wisdom, the talents and the experience of women for the enrichment of the church and of society.

Research commissioned by the ACBC, published in the report Woman and Man: One in Christ Jesus in 1999, examined the participation levels and experiences of women in the church. It clearly identified several barriers to improvement, including a failure to address gender equality, and the lack of women in official positions or visible female role models.

Read more: After Pell, the Catholic Church must undergo genuine reform

The report also revealed the majority of Australian Catholics felt a strong sense of pain and alienation resulting from the church’s stance on women.

Few of the original ACBC recommendations have been implemented and there is now no clear agenda for addressing the challenges raised by the report.

Women theologians not being consulted

Later this year, the Catholic Church in Australia will hold its Fifth Plenary Council, providing some hope to women their voices will finally be heard.

On the agenda are six national themes, which emerged from consultations with the Catholic community in Australia.

The bishops have committed to addressing “the inclusion of women in church leadership roles” and “draw on the gifts and talents” of women, but how this will happen is uncertain with no mandate or quota for women to attend as delegates.

A further disappointment is the continuing failure to recognise the expertise of Catholic women theologians.

Read more: The Catholic Church is headed for another sex abuse scandal as #NunsToo speak up

Next week, 70 theologians and ethicists from around the world will gather in Rome for a workshop that will examine questions around church abuse.

Australian theologians will be well-represented at the gathering, but there are no women among the four delegates, despite a plethora of highly-qualified women theologians in Australia.

Recently, the Global Church Project published two blogs highlighting the work of over 160 women theologians from Australia and New Zealand, many of whom have published extensively on clerical sexual abuse and spiritual trauma.

Global response

This isn’t just a problem in Australia. Globally, Catholic women continue to be sidelined from important gatherings and processes determining the future of Catholicism. As a consequence, many women are beginning to mobilise for change.

In Spain, for instance, women theologians have joined together to speak out about equality and dignity for women in the Church. And Indian nuns are risking persecution by going public with stories of sexual assaults by priests.

Catholic women’s groups from five continents have also formed the Catholic Women’s Council (CWC), which is calling for Catholic women worldwide to take part in global activism on International Women’s Day this year. The Australian organisation Women and the Australian Church (WATAC Inc.) is part of this movement.

Despite these actions, though, the current situation looks grim. With a lack of political will, the full participation of women in the life and mission of the church is a still a long way from being realised. And women are responding by moving out of the church or mobilising for change.

– ref. Denied full participation, Catholic women mobilise for change – https://theconversation.com/denied-full-participation-catholic-women-mobilise-for-change-131557

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lee-Fay Low, Associate Professor in Ageing and Health, University of Sydney

In July 2019, the government introduced new aged care standards to “raise the bar” in an aged care system where some nursing home residents have experienced care that is neglectful, depersonalised, uncaring, unsafe and of poor quality.

We took a close look at breaches of aged care standards from 2019 to see what effect the new aged care standards are having, and where aged care providers are falling short.

In the interactive map below you can see aged care providers that were non-compliant in 2019.

What are aged care standards?

Aged care standards are the minimum standard of care the government expects nursing homes to provide.

They are supposed to ensure people in aged care have access to quality care including competent staff who listen, best-practice clinical care and nutritious and tasty food.

Nursing homes that don’t meet standards are given a notice of non-compliance. If the provider doesn’t fix the problems that made it non-compliant, then it will be sanctioned.

If assessors decide there is an immediate and severe risk to residents, nursing homes can also be immediately sanctioned. The nursing home provider must then bring the care up to standard before they can take new residents.

Read more: Nearly 2 out of 3 nursing homes are understaffed. These 10 charts explain why aged care is in crisis

The new aged care standards

From 2014 until the new standards were introduced in July 2019, the number of non-compliance notices and sanctions increased steadily as can be seen in the chart below.

This was likely due to a combination of increasing scrutiny of the quality of residential care as a result of the unsafe care revealed at Oakden in 2017, and the establishment of the aged care royal commission in October 2018. A 2018 policy change meant providers were no longer warned about upcoming accreditation visits.

The new standards, introduced in July 2019, focus on “personal dignity and choice”.

They were designed to support the provision of care based on what residents want, rather than penalising providers when they let residents do something that could be considered “risky”, such as allowing someone with mild dementia to walk to the shops, or having a pet in the nursing home.

The number of non-compliance notices and sanctions in the first six months of the new standards decreased. This is likely because assessors visited fewer nursing homes in this period, and may still be learning how to interpret the new standards.

Aged care providers and industry bodies have criticised the new standards for being subjective and vague. They do not measure objective resident outcomes like depression or number of infections.

For-profit companies had a higher rate of non-compliance in 2019

Some 6% of for-profit residential care facilities failed aged care standards in 2019, some of them multiple times. In comparison 5% of not-for-profit and 4% of government facilities failed standards.

The rate of non-compliance in for-profit facilities was 27% higher than not-for-profits, and 54% higher than government facilities.

This suggests for-profit providers in Australia are more likely to provide lower quality care. An international review has noted similar trends in other countries.

Profit margins are slim in aged care, and for-profit providers are under pressure to make profits by cutting costs. This could lead to a lower standard of care compared with not-for-profit or government providers.

Read more: Why is nursing home food so bad? Some spend just $6.08 per person a day – that’s lower than prison

Reasons for non-compliance in 2019

The most common reasons for non-compliance in 2019 were in the area of personal and clinical care and the area of governance.

An example of a nursing home breaching the personal and clinical care standard could be if the home’s practices mean it isn’t giving medication correctly, isn’t managing wounds properly, or isn’t providing dignified help for residents using the toilet.

Homes might also breach the personal and clinical care standards if they don’t have sufficiently skilled staff such as registered nurses to care for residents with complex health needs.

A nursing home might be non-compliant in governance when it doesn’t have the right systems in place to monitor and improve its clinical care, for example in the areas of infection control or restraints. It might also be non-compliant if residents and families don’t have enough of a say in how the facility is run.

The new standards were supposed to place an increased focus on dignity and choice, supporting the identity of a person, and increasing their say in the care they receive. This means catering for residents who want to have showers in the evening, stay up late, or make their own lunch. Previously there was much less emphasis on these aspects of aged care.

It is somewhat promising that more breaches of non-compliance in the “dignity and choice” standard have been picked up since the new standards came in. But given we know care is often poor in this area and there is an increased focus on this standard, we could have expected a more significant change.

Read more: How to check if your mum or dad’s nursing home is up to scratch

Based on the first six months of non-compliance and sanctions data for the new aged care standards, we cannot be confident the new standards are ensuring nursing homes provide higher quality care. We await more data.

Until then, aged care residents and their families should monitor the quality of care they receive, know their aged care rights, and complain if they think there is an issue.

If you or a family member are considering using an aged care provider, you can check whether the provider has breached standards via the My Aged Care non-compliance checker.

– ref. Which aged care services near you weren’t up to scratch in 2019? – https://theconversation.com/which-aged-care-services-near-you-werent-up-to-scratch-in-2019-131449

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jamie Pittock, Professor, Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University

The hellish summer of bushfires in southeast Australia triggered global concern for our iconic mammals. Donations flooded in from at home and around the world to help protect furry species.

But there’s a risk the government and public responses will not see the fish for the koalas.

Of the 113 priority fauna species identified by the federal government as worst impacted by bushfires, 61 (54%) are freshwater species that live in or around our inland rivers, such as fish, frogs, turtles and the iconic platypus.

These animals and ecosystems were already struggling due to prolonged drought and mismanagement of the Murray Darling Basin. Saving koalas and other mammals is of course important, but freshwater species should also be a priority for post-fire environmental programs.

A picture of devastation

The government’s priority species list includes three turtle species, 17 frogs, 22 crayfish, 17 fish and the platypus. Rounding out the list is an alpine stonefly, although many other invertebrates are also likely to be affected (as well as other species that depend on moist, streamside forest habitats).

Excluding tropical savannah, the recent bushfires burnt more than 7.7 million hectares in Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. Rainforests and riparian (riverside) forests were extensively damaged along the Australian east coast and alps. These are normally moist environments, which are not adapted to fire.

Plant and animal species at the edge of waterways, in peat wetlands and in riverside forests are likely to have been burnt or killed by heat, such as crustaceans , lizards, and corroboree and mountain frogs in the alps and east coast rainforests.

Read more: Fire almost wiped out rare species in the Australian Alps. Feral horses are finishing the job

Burnt riverside forests no longer shade the water, making water temperatures hotter and leading to increased evaporation that may stress surviving wildlife. The loss of vegetation cover also leaves prey exposed to predators.

Following recent rain, water flowing into rivers has washed ash into streams. This clogs fish gills and brings nutrients that drive algal blooms. Sediment washed into waterways fills in the gaps between rocks and holes in river beds – places where many species shelter and breed. For instance, the River Murray catchment’s last population of Macquarie perch was impacted as rain washed ash and sediment into Mannus Creek in southern NSW.

Fires tend to burn forests in patches, sometimes leaving refuges for land-based animals. However fire damage to waterways flows downstream, systematically degrading the habitat of aquatic animals by leaving little clean water to hide in.

Long-term damage

The devastating impact of the fires in river environments may be long-lived.

When aquatic animals species are wiped out in particular rivers, they may not be able to recolonise from surviving populations in other unconnected rivers.

Some species will invariably now be closer to extinction. For example many key peat swamp habitats of the critically endangered northern corroboree frog have been burnt in the Bogong Peaks and Brindabella mountains of NSW and the ACT.

Read more: The sweet relief of rain after bushfires threatens disaster for our rivers

And after fires, fast-growing young eucalyptus forests transpire much more water than older burnt trees. This may reduce inflows into streams for a century.

The recent bushfires followed several years of extreme drought across much of Australia. In the Murray-Darling Basin, these challenges were compounded by poor water management that contributed to dried-up rivers and mass fish deaths.

Water-sharing rules in the basin determine how much water is allocated to agriculture and the environment. Current water-sharing plans do not explicitly include allocations to manage losses due to climate change, and as the plans will only be updated once a decade, it is questionable whether they will be adjusted to sustain flows needed to conserve threatened species.

Here’s what to do

After the fires, government officials and scientists rescued a number of “insurance” populations of threatened aquatic animals such as turtle and fish species, and took them to captive breeding facilities, such as the stocky galaxias fish in the alps. We must ensure healthy habitat is available for these animals to re-establish viable populations when released.

In the short term, we must protect surviving and regenerating habitat. Government programs are off to a good start in promising to cull feral predators such as cats and foxes, as well as grazing animals such as pigs, deer and goats. The NSW and Victorian governments must also remove feral horses in the Australian Alps that are damaging the swamp habitats and streams.

Now so many infested riverside forests are accessible, it is a key time to control weed regrowth.

Read more: Last summer’s fish carnage sparked public outrage. Here’s what has happened since

In the medium term, we should expand programs to fence livestock out of waterways, install other watering points for these animals and revegetate stream banks.

Deep holes in rivers and streams with cool water are important refuges for aquatic animals, and ways to restore them should be investigated.

Impediments to fish migration, such as weirs, should be removed or fish “ladders” installed to aid fish movement. Aquatic species often won’t breed unless the water is the right temperature in the right season; to prevent the release of overly cold water from the bottom of dams, better water release structures should be installed.

An opportunity for change

Successive governments have been asleep at the tiller when it comes to threatened aquatic animals. Official recovery plans for many fire-affected species have not been adequately funded or implemented.

In the Murray-Darling Basin for example, a native fish strategy was shelved in 2013 after the NSW government reportedly pulled funding.

The impending release of a new fish strategy, and other post-fire recovery actions, are an opportunity for governments to right past wrongs and ensure our precious freshwater species thrive into the future.

– ref. Sure, save furry animals after the bushfires – but our river creatures are suffering too – https://theconversation.com/sure-save-furry-animals-after-the-bushfires-but-our-river-creatures-are-suffering-too-133004

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Gerrard, Senior lecturer, University of Melbourne

In recent days the federal government announced a new funding formula for non-government schools. Called the Direct Measure of Income, the formula will base the level of government funding on school parents’ incomes rather than the socioeconomic profile of where they live.

Education minister Dan Tehan said the changes will make the distribution of funding within the non-government sector “more accurate” and “equitable” and that funding will go to schools that need it most. Attached to this new measure is a significant boost in funds to non-government schools.

But while the funding formula may direct money to relatively more needy private schools, these extra federal resources aren’t addressing the inequalities of the education system as a whole.

How will the formula work?

At the moment federal government funding of non-government schools is calculated in relation to the socioeconomic profile of the suburbs where parents live. It uses census data to calculate what is known as the “SES score” of school families.

This means if a non-government school has a high proportion of families living in well-off areas, it is entitled to less government funding than a school with parents living in less advantaged areas.

The announced changes are based on recommendations of a review of the current funding model, conducted by the National School Resourcing Board. It recommended the government use a newly available measure of parents’ capacity to contribute financially to the school, which comes from combining census and income tax data.

The Direct Measure of Income formula will offer a more accurate picture of parents’ capacity to contribute. This is because it relies on parents’ actual income rather than the socioeconomic profile of the neighbourhood they live in.

The new formula requires an amendment to the Australian Education Act, a bill for which was introduced to parliament on February 26 and referred to a Senate committee with a report due in May.

What you need to know about this funding model

The new model is accompanied by a significant increase in government funds into the non-government sector. The education minister estimated there will be an additional A$1.3 billion in the current budget, and a $3.4 billion increase in funding over ten years.

The government is also directing $200 million to help schools transition to the new formula, and a further $1.2 billion through the Choice and Affordability Fund. The latter is to support “underperforming” and “educationally disadvantaged” non-government schools (among other target areas).

Calculating parents’ incomes requires a new combination of data. To calculate parental capacity to contribute the government will combine de-identified data from the Australian Tax Office and the census. This will be done through the Multi-Agency Data Integration Project (MADIP).

This kind of mapping has only recently become possible due to developments in data technology and cooperation between agencies. It marks a new kind of government policy making, driven by fine-grained personal data.

The new formula, based on how much parents can contribute to the school, reinforces the idea that schools are mainly about individual gain and contribution. It also suggests funding problems can be solved by more drilled-down data about children and their families.

What’s the problem with school funding in Australia?

The question of government funding for non-government schools is one of the most acrimonious public debates in Australia, and has been going for more than 100 years.

The 2010-2011 Gonski review of school funding was an attempt to end the school funding wars. But the report’s recommendations were never fully implemented.

The report described school funding in Australia as complex, confusing, opaque and inconsistent. Arguably, this is still the case, with successive federal governments generating their own methods to solve it.

Australia has one of the highest rates of private schooling in the world. We also have high rates of public funding of the private schooling sector – the majority of non-government schools would probably not survive long without it.

Our high levels of funding for private schools is now taken for granted. It is seen as an expression of parents’ rights over their children’s education.

The new funding model further entrenches the belief private schools are a national priority, to be funded by the federal government. The reforms don’t address the relative equity between government and non-government schools. This remains a burning question for Australian education.

– ref. More money for private schools won’t make Australia’s education fairer, no matter how you split it – https://theconversation.com/more-money-for-private-schools-wont-make-australias-education-fairer-no-matter-how-you-split-it-132769

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martin Freney, Lecturer in Industrial and Sustainable Design, University of South Australia

Recent disastrous bushfires have rebooted debate about how to (re)build in the Australian bush. Questions are being asked about building standards, whether a fire-proof home is possible, the value of fire bunkers when it’s too late to leave, and if we should even live in the bush any more.

I suggest homes and community buildings in bushfire-prone areas can be made much more fire-resistant, perhaps even fire-proof, by adopting earth-covered, off-grid structures – known as Earthships – as the new standard.

Read more: Before we rush to rebuild after fires, we need to think about where and how

Built for survival

Houses sheltered by earth have a higher chance of survival in a bushfire. This is because earth-based constructions are non-flammable (while topsoil can burn and smoulder, clayey, sandy and gravelly soil does not).

A typical Earthship design has double-glazed windows to the north to let in winter sun, while mounds of earth, pushed up to roof level, protect the south, east and west walls. Taking this a step further, an earth-covered house includes a layer of earth over the roof.

The north-facing double-glazed windows (an essential element of passive solar design) is the only part of the building that needs some other protection.

Bushfire building codes and standards already demand that windows have extra-thick, toughened glass to resist burning debris and intense heat. Double glazing (two layers of glass separated by a small air gap) offers extra protection. In very high-risk areas, bushfire shutters are a requirement.

Although not demanded by building codes, automated sprinklers could be used to spray water on the windows. But automated systems are problematic during a bushfire when power and water supplies are likely to fail.

Read more: No food, no fuel, no phones: bushfires showed we’re only ever one step from system collapse

Independent water supplies (big water tanks) and pumps (usually petrol or diesel) are often a condition of approval for new homes in fire-prone areas. However, these are difficult to automate because of choke, throttle, ignition and refuelling issues.

Examples around Australia

Enter the Earthship. Invented by American architect Michael Reynolds, thousands have been built all over the world, often by owner-builders.

Australian examples can be found in all states, including at Ironbank in South Australia, Kinglake in Victoria, East Augusta and Jurien Bay in Western Australia, and Narara and Marulan in New South Wales.

Earthships have an electric pump powered by solar panels and a battery for day-to-day water supply – and to fight fires. Sprinklers can then spray water on any vulnerable areas regardless of grid failures and without needing to deal with the flammable fuel that petrol and diesel pumps require.

The standard Earthship design has another feature that could save lives. Underground pipes called earth-tubes or cooling tubes bring fresh air into the building at a nice temperature (better than outside) due to the heat-exchanging effect of the earth around the pipes. When wet fabric is placed over the end of the pipes, these can filter out bushfire smoke.

Earth-covered homes are very air-tight, which combined with the earth-tubes helps keep out smoke and reduce asphyxiation risks.

Another defence mechanism is the “greenhouse”, a sunroom and corridor space on the sunny north side used for passive heating and cooling, treating wastewater and growing food. Yet another layer of double glazing isolates the greenhouse from the living spaces behind it. Adding indoor sprinklers (commonplace in commercial buildings) to the greenhouse could create a “wet buffer zone” and stop embers blowing into living areas where flammable furnishings are a hazard.

An iconic Earthship feature is the tyres used to form the exterior earth walls. While empty tyres are highly flammable, in this design they are not. The tyres are filled with compacted earth and protected by a layer of earth many metres thick (inside walls are rendered). There is already evidence of their fire-resistant nature.

Read more: Australian building codes don’t expect houses to be fire-proof – and that’s by design

Safer for the planet too

My PhD research focused on the energy efficiency and environmental footprint of the Earthship, comparing it to other construction systems and designs.

Earth is a low-cost, readily available material. It takes very little energy to dig it up, needs no processing and minimal (if any) transport. It is difficult to think of a more sustainable, inexpensive and non-flammable material.

I found off-grid homes minimise their eco-footprint by kicking three very dirty habits: the power, water and sewage grids. “Earthy” construction methods, such as Earthship, rammed earth, mudbrick and strawbale, also have much lower environmental impacts.

Earth-covered buildings are renowned for their energy efficiency. Earth insulates and has “thermal mass”, an architectural term for dense materials (e.g. concrete, brick, rammed earth, water). Thermal mass evens out temperature changes by absorbing heat when it is too hot inside and releasing heat when it is too cold inside. This means minimal heating and cooling bills.

There are a few “tricks” to getting council approval. Hire an experienced structural engineer and use a private certifier or surveyor for building rules consent as they are better equipped to certify compliance with the National Construction Code. The one aspect of the Earthship I couldn’t get approved was an indoor greywater garden and toilet-flushing system.

Read more: Sustainable cities? Australia’s building and planning rules stand in the way of getting there

Parts of the roof are earth-covered with fire-fighting sprinklers on the roof and windows. If I was building again I’d prioritise bushfire resilience by making it fully earth-covered with fire shutters, sprinklers and a safe room.

Further study is needed to scientifically validate my proposal here. However, we already have some evidence that Earthships, with a few minor design changes, might be the most sustainable, liveable, economical, fire-resistant buildings ever conceived of.

– ref. How ‘Earthships’ could make rebuilding safer in bushfire zones – https://theconversation.com/how-earthships-could-make-rebuilding-safer-in-bushfire-zones-131291

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

This week the Reserve Bank of Australia did something everyone expected and the US Federal Reserve did something almost nobody expected. Both are revealing.

At its monthly meeting Australia’s central bank cut official interest rates by 25 basis points to a record low of 0.5%.

The Fed cut rates by 50 basis points – not at a regular meeting but “off cycle” – in response to the COVID-19 crisis, which looks likely to become a global pandemic.

The Reserve Bank of Australia’s announcement of its decision made it seem COVID-19 was the main, if not only, reason it was cutting rates.

Read more: One word repeated 9 times explains why the Reserve Bank cut: it’s ‘coronavirus’

In reality, the bank was always going to cut rates sooner rather than later. Australia’s economic growth remains sluggish on a per capita basis, wage growth is still hovering about 2%, unemployment is 5.3% and inflation has been below the 2-3% target band for Philip Lowe’s entire time as governor (since September 2016).

The US economy, by contrast, is doing better on all these measures. Unemployment is at its lowest rate in several decades. Wage growth is above 3.6% on an annual basis.

That makes the US rate cut far more revealing about the Fed’s view on the economic effects of COVID-19.

The Fed’s Open Market Committee is worried. US stock markets responded to the announcement by dropping about 3%, before recovering the next day.

One tool in the box

There is a narrative in Australian business circles, among certain commentators – and voiced by former treasurer Peter Costello – that the Reserve Bank’s interest rate cuts no longer do anything to spur investment and growth because rates are already so low.

Moreover, the argument goes, by cutting rates the central bank sends a negative message about the state of the Australian economy.

The hard truth is the economy is in bad shape.

Read more: Economic growth near an end as Treasury talks of prolonged coronavirus downturn

Interest-rate cuts alone won’t solve the problem. But it is the tool the Reserve Bank has at its disposal. There is also good reason, as I wrote late last year, to believe the normal transmission mechanisms of monetary policy are still working.

As almost every mainstream economist has said, prior to the COVID-19 outbreak the Australian economy needed significant fiscal stimulus rather than the balanced-budget fetishism of the current Coalition government (and, to be fair, also the current Labor opposition).

We are now going to see some targeted stimulus because of COVID-19, but that won’t address the Australian economy’s pre-existing problems.

Sending a message

Curiously enough, the critique of the Reserve Bank of Australia just mentioned applies quite well to the US Federal Reserve’s decision to cut rates dramatically – and do so off-cycle.

The Fed cut its rate range from 1.5%-1.75% to 1.0%-1.25%. Doing so used up a lot of its remaining monetary policy ammunition.

And the virus crisis is not just a demand-side problem where consumers aren’t spending. It’s also a supply-side problem where businesses are unable to produce what consumers might be willing to buy. No rate cut can repair global supply chains disrupted by mass factory closures in China.

What the Fed definitely did do is send a message that the virus crisis is going to be a really big deal. That helps create its own vicious cycle of beliefs on the demand side as consumers respond to the rate cut by increasing precautionary savings and cutting back on spending.

So the Fed used some of its limited ammunition in a way unlikely to be very effective, and has freaked out markets and consumers. Oops.

A time to borrow and spend

Coming back to Australia, it will be important to unpack both the Reserve Bank’s monetary response and the federal government’s fiscal response. How much is a response to COVID-19 and how much to the underlying weakness of the Australian economy?

The real fear is that too little will be done, especially with fiscal policy, to address that underlying economic weakness.

There is some hope, now the prospect of a budget surplus has essentially evaporated, the Coalition government will be free to do what it should have been doing all along – making long-term investments in the Australian economy.

Read more: Vital Signs: Australia’s nation-building opportunity held hostage by the deficit daleks

Let’s not forget the government can borrow for 10 years at 1% in nominal terms – a negative interest rate when adjusted for inflation. Debt markets will essentially pay us to borrow from them. That is a rare opportunity to make smart investments that will pay huge dividends in years to come.

– ref. Vital Signs: Australian and US rate cuts underline seriousness of the coronavirus crisis – https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-australian-and-us-rate-cuts-underline-seriousness-of-the-coronavirus-crisis-132970

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cassandra Pybus, Adjunct Professor in History, University of Tasmania

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains images and names of deceased people.

In 1839, George Augustus Robinson arrived in Melbourne as Chief Protector of Aborigines for the Port Phillip District, bringing with him a select group of Aboriginal guides from Tasmania, including a woman called Truganini. He could never have foreseen the dramatic and tragic consequence.

Sometime in August 1841, Truganini left Melbourne with her new husband Maulboyheener travelling toward Westernport, working for food and shelter at stations along the way.

On September 4, they were on James Horsfall’s Ballymarang station, where they were joined by their companions, Peevay, his wife Plorenernoopner, and Maytepueminer, wife of their friend Lacklay who had gone missing. All five were on a mission to find out what had happened to Lacklay, last heard of heading into Lower Westernport in May 1840.

On a mission

Negotiating the mangroves at the top of Westernport was torturous. The Koo-Wee-Rup Swamp spread for miles to the north and east making it near impossible to find a way through. Truganini and her companions were obliged to make a wide detour around it to find higher ground, where they followed the course of the Lang Lang River to the coast, where massive tide fluctuations had created an extensive inter-tidal zone providing a rich harvest of scallops, mussels, oysters, abalone, limpets, marine worms, crabs and burrowing shrimp.

Despite the evidence of long-standing occupation in the exposed shell middens, the place was empty. When Samuel Anderson and Robert Massie first sailed from Launceston to the eastern shores of Westernport in 1835, they had found the Boonwurrung owners had been extinguished by the cumulative effect of encroachments from Van Diemen’s Land, endemic warfare with the Kurnai from Gippsland and attacks by sealers who “stole” women, all compounded by epidemic disease.

On September 15, Anderson and Massie became aware that Truganini, Maulboyheener, Peevay, Plorenernoopner and Maytepueminer had established camp on their pastoral lease on the Bass River. The two squatters knew members of the group very well from their time working for the Van Diemen’s Land Company, where Anderson had been a bookkeeper and Massie the engineer. If anyone in Lower Westernport knew what had happened to Lacklay, it would be these two squatters.

While at Anderson and Massie’s station, the five almost certainly heard the same information they’d given to Assistant Protector William Thomas when he had come looking for Lacklay — known to him as Isaac — in the previous year: that he was last seen in the company of settler who lived at the end of Westernport Bay. Further inquiries by Thomas established the man in question was the skipper of a cutter that had sailed away from the far eastern tip of Westernport Bay. On board where a woman and her three children, plus Lacklay and an unnamed German man as the crew.

The night they sailed, a heavy squall had swept in from the Tasman Sea and the boat was presumed to have capsized, with everyone drowned, though no bodies or pieces of wreckage had been recovered. Thomas was not convinced, noting in the margin of his journal “the death of Isaac supposed”.

Thomas was right to have reservations about this narrative of death by drowning. The truth, only established 176 years later, was that the cutter did not capsize, but sailed all the way to the remote whaling port of Kororareka in New Zealand. At the time, there was no conceivable way that anyone in Port Phillip could have known the boat had managed to sail across the Tasman Sea.

Lacklay’s disappearance was left to speculation. A story that made much more sense than drowning was that he had been shot by a settler, a narrative everyone in Port Phillip was familiar with. Truganini and Maulboyheener had heard that version of the story too, and now were in Lower Westernport to investigate.

After a leisurely stay at Anderson and Massie’s run, the five moved off on September 29. They crossed the Powlett River and made camp close to the home of William Watson. He was the sole settler below the Bass River, having very recently arrived with his wife, daughter and son-in-law, Walter Ginman, in May 1841. Watson was employed by a consortium of investors to work the seam of coal that Anderson had discovered. He had sunk a shaft into the coal seam near the mouth of the Powlett River, where he built a rudimentary hut just above the high-water mark.

Watson welcomed Truganini and her friends, giving them tea and sugar and even lending them a kettle. On October 2, the fourth day of their visit, Watson and Ginman departed for the mine, and the five approached the hut and lingered in the yard until Mrs Watson came out to give them some more tea and sugar.

Some time later, the women began to scatter the bark from their shelters and pack up their belongings, while the men went to the hut to return the kettle.

Shots fired

Once the men gained entrance to the hut, the tone of their interactions suddenly shifted. The reasons why would only become clear much later.

Peevay went to look for Watson’s guns, while Maulboyheener took Mrs Watson and her daughter by the shoulders to propel them outside. There Truganini and Maytepueminer pulled them into the bush and pointed them in the direction of safety at Anderson and Massie’s station. Meanwhile, Peevay and Maulboyheener systematically stripped the hut of food staples, blankets, clothing, an axe, two guns and a supply of buckshot. After setting fire to the hut, the five loaded up their plunder and followed the river towards the coast.

Early that evening, Peevay and Maulboyheener lay concealed in the low coastal heath watching Watson and his son-in-law returning from the mine. When the two men came into range, they fired a volley of shots from several guns, hitting Ginman in the calf and slightly wounding Watson in the foot and elbow. Hobbling towards their hut, the two men saw their home was a smouldering ruin and their wives had vanished. It was well after dark when they reached Anderson and Massie’s station and found their wives unharmed. The next day, Massie supplied Watson with a brace of firearms and two of his workers for a search party.

Peevay and Maulboyheener must have known that Watson would come looking for them, and that he would likely shoot them on sight, yet they lingered at the Powlett River mouth for another four days.

Blood on the beach

Staying low, with the heath to provide cover, the five kept careful watch for Watson’s search party. From a high point on the sand dunes, they had an excellent view of the flat country to the north and east, the direction they knew danger would come from. They managed to avoid detection until the evening of October 5, when Watson caught a glimpse of Maulboyheener standing on a high dune. Several shots were fired, failing to wound Maulboyheener, although a bullet came close enough to make a neat hole in the coat he was wearing.

Alert to the danger from Watson’s party, Truganini’s group failed to notice six unarmed men approaching from the south, walking along the beach to Watson’s mine in the late afternoon on October 6. The six men had walked overland from the whaling station at Lady’s Bay, on Wilson’s Promontory, more than 50 miles away. Two of the whalers, known as Yankee and Cook, had set out to locate the miners while their companions entered the hut to rest. Minutes later, two shots rang out in quick succession.

Maulboyheener and Peevay had each fired, first one then the other, in such quick succession there was no time between to reload with powder and shot. Having seen the two men fall, Maulboyheener kept watch from the top of the dune while Peevay, Truganini, Plorenernoopner and Maytepueminer went down to the beach to check the fallen. Lying on the beach were two men they had never seen before: a shot had hit one in the head, killing him instantly, while the other had entered the second man’s side, leaving him grievously wounded and in agony.

The four returned with this terrible information to Maulboyheener, who pulled up a couple of strong tree roots and went alone to the beach to dispatch the wounded stranger with heavy blows to the back of his head. Watching from above, the three women cried in distress.

They were not the only ones watching. Having been woken by the gunshots, two more whalers, Robbins and Evans, stepped outside the hut to look about. They saw a party of four or five people, with what looked like two guns visible on a high dune some 200 yards away. The whalers could not distinguish whether these figures were male or female, but they observed some of the group going down to the beach, leaving a person with a gun watching from above. When they returned, the one who had been watching went down to the beach alone.

Believing they had seen a group of miners hunting birds or kangaroos, Robbins and Evans concluded there was no reason to be alarmed and went back inside to sleep. Waking about an hour later, Evans was disturbed to see his companions Yankee and Cook had not returned. This time he went to search for them. He was a few yards from the hut when Watson’s search party materialised, with their guns aimed right at him. Evans talked quickly and established that none of these men had fired the shots he’d heard earlier.

Alarmed, he enlisted Watson’s party to help search for Yankee and Cook and found their bodies on the beach, their blood staining the sand. Yankee was already cold, with a bullet wound behind his ear. Cook had a deep wound in his side and had been bludgeoned on the back of his head.

‘What could make you do it?’

It was another six weeks before the five were captured before dawn on November 20, in the coastal heath just south of the murder site. The search party was led by Land Commissioner Frederick Armand Powlett, after whom the river was named. It was comprised of 18 soldiers and policemen, reinforced by four settler volunteers with seven Kulin men as trackers.

Once caught, Truganini, Peevay and Maulboyheener were taken by Powlett to point out the exact place of the murders. On locating the spot, Truganini explained only one shot had been fatal and Maulboyheener had used sticks to beat the wounded man’s head.

“What could make you do it?” Powlett demanded. “We thought it was Watson,” Maulboyheener volunteered, and then fell silent.

Truganini and her companions arrived in Melbourne in chains on November 26. They were taken to the watchhouse, where committal proceedings commenced almost straightaway. Statements were taken from the whaler Evans, from Watson and his wife, from Powlett and members of the search party.

When the display of damning evidence concluded, Maulboyheener made a garbled attempt at a defence. Watson had tried to kill him, he explained, and when he saw the whalers he thought it was Watson and had fired his gun.

On December 2, Robinson and the Methodist minister Reverend Joseph Orton went to speak with the accused men. Peevay remained silent, but Maulboyheener gave an explanation for their otherwise inexplicable actions. Both Robinson and Orton separately recorded in their journals how Maulboyheener explained that James Horsfall of Ballymarang station had told them Watson had in fact killed their friend Lacklay. The men were sentenced and publicly hanged on January 20, 1842.

Edited extract from Truganini: journey through the apocalypse by Cassandra Pybus, published by Allen & Unwin.

– ref. Friday essay: Truganini and the bloody backstory to Victoria’s first public execution – https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-truganini-and-the-bloody-backstory-to-victorias-first-public-execution-129548

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

It’s the ultimate bubble news perhaps, but this week the Department of Parliamentary Services put out a circular saying work was underway to ensure Parliament House “is prepared to manage any potential issues relating to coronavirus”.

Most immediately, hand sanitisers have been put around the place and cleaners are concentrating on “disinfecting high traffic touch points, particularly in the public areas”.

Goodness knows what will happen in the event the virus hits Parliament House, especially if the politicians are there. We can report, however, that so far the national toilet paper panic hasn’t threatened the spare rolls in the parliamentary lavatories.

Read more: Why are people stockpiling toilet paper? We asked four experts

The circular was a small reminder of how fast the COVID-19 situation is moving.

In just a week, we’ve seen a dramatic escalation. The travel ban has been extended and widened; it now prohibits the arrival of foreigners from Iran (announced on Saturday) and South Korea (added on Thursday) as well as from China, and there is enhanced screening for those coming from Italy.

We’ve had the initial locally-transmitted cases emerge. The first nursing home has been hit. The government has flagged the possible use of drastic biosecurity powers. The Reserve Bank has cut interest rates, and an official number has been put on COVID-19’s likely impact on the economy.

Scott Morrison has received praise for his handling of the situation, which is being contrasted with his cack-handedness during the bushfires.

(Notably, without the crisis, Morrison would have been on the back foot this week. It overshadowed embarrassing revelations at Senate estimates about the role of the Prime Minister’s Office in the sports rorts affair, and the Chief of the Defence Force, Angus Campbell, saying he had expressed concern to Morrison over the use of defence material in the PM’s notorious bushfire advertisement.)

Often secretive and downright slippery, on the coronavirus the government has shared information, and provided regular updates. It has acted strictly on the medical advice. The border closures are slowing the importation of the virus, allowing maximum time for local arrangements to be put in place.

Early on, some questioned whether the government was over-reacting. And the caution hasn’t been without cost, with about 90,000 students still unable to reach universities here. In a measure of the deepening crisis, that issue, at the centre of attention only weeks ago, has receded from public view.

Read more: First locally-transmitted COVID-19 cases in Australia, as Attorney-General warns drastic legal powers could be used

Despite what it has done so far, the government’s real battle is just beginning. Containing the virus from spreading in the aged care sector, and from penetrating indigenous communities will be critical tests for federal and state authorities. And if we reach the stage that draconian powers are used, they could be very controversial.

Then there is the economy.

Appearing before a Senate committee hearing, Treasury estimated the virus would shave “at least” half a percentage point from growth in the March quarter. That’s on top of the bushfires taking off an estimated 0.2% across the December and March quarters, mostly the March one.

In one piece of positive news this week, the national accounts showed 2.2% annual growth and 0.5% in the December quarter. Worse numbers had been feared, which would have left the economy in a weaker position for the extremely difficult time ahead.

Still, the future looks very hairy.

The government faces the prospect of a negative March quarter, and the knowledge the virus will still be infecting growth in the June quarter.

Two negative quarters would be a technical recession, something the Rudd government avoided in the global financial crisis and the Morrison government is desperate to dodge in the coronavirus health crisis.

In some ways this crisis is more complex to deal with than the GFC. Aspects of the public panic are irrational and so very hard to calm. The effectiveness of the planned stimulus could be limited by the difficulty businesses will have sourcing supplies from China, where the problem started.

Even as he and his ministers grapple with their fiscal response, Morrison, a totally political animal, is always anxious to make a partisan point. The Coalition harks back to Labor’s spending too much in the GFC, and to flaws in programs.

Well, now the Coalition will be tested in circumstances different but also comparable to those faced by the Rudd government.

It needs to keep growth going, spending enough (not too much, not too little) and choosing the right measures.

And it must keep flexible. As Treasury secretary Steven Kennedy said at the Senate estimates hearing, “The government will need to be nimble. in how it watches how the shock unfolds”.

“Go early, go hard, go households”, then Treasury secretary Ken Henry told Labor in the GFC.

On the health side of the COVID-19 crisis, the government has followed the advice of Chief Medical Officer Brendan Murphy to go early and go hard. In terms of the economy, its concern about the budget has made it reluctant to get ahead of the game.

Faced with dire forecasts, it is now rapidly pulling together an economic response. But it is not, at this stage, intending to “go households” – that is, to have a cash splash (although a change in the deeming rate for the pension will help some retirees).

Next week, when it is expected to release its package, we will see how “hard” it will go to fireproof the economy.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has confirmed the measures will run into billions of dollars, and indicated they’ll include some form of investment allowance. The government’s mantra is the package will be “targeted”, “measured” (the word “modest” has been dropped), and “scalable” – that is, able to be ramped up if the outlook deteriorates further.

It will be centred on preserving cash flow and encouraging investment.

Read more: Support package gains shape as GDP turning point swamped

Morrison says the package will be aimed at “keeping people employed and supporting jobs. … keeping business in business, so those businesses can support those jobs and the incomes of Australians.

“It will have a focus on ensuring that we bounce back better on the other side of this,” he told parliament, “because there will be a strong recovery on the other side of the coronavirus”.

The big question is: just how bad will things get until “the other side” comes into view? That will be crucial not just for many Australia’s businesses and workers, but also for the Morrison government’s credentials as an economic manager.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Can Scott Morrison match Kevin Rudd in keeping Australia out of recession in a global crisis? – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-can-scott-morrison-match-kevin-rudd-in-keeping-australia-out-of-recession-in-a-global-crisis-133084

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

Appointed minister for resources, water, and northern Australia in the Nationals reshuffle, Keith Pitt was handed a diverse portfolio with some highly contested issues.

As water minister, he’ll soon have a report from Mick Keelty on the Murray-Darling Basin, which could spark more fighting between states, and the ACCC report into water trading, expected at the end of the year.

“We do need to ensure the trading is fair,” he says. “I’m as concerned as anybody else if people are playing the market to their own financial benefit rather than what the purpose of it is.”

“They’ll be caught. And they’ll be punished.”

One of his priorities will be putting his foot on the accelerator to have the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility get its investment money out faster, after what’s been a slow start, with only some $2 billion of its $5 billion allocated.

“My view’s very straightforward. This is $2 billion worth of capital that can drive jobs and help drive the Australian economy. I want to get it out the door, into projects.”

Pitt’s pet project has long been nuclear energy as a means of clean power supply in Australia. Despite nuclear not being a policy of the government, he is hopeful community attitudes will change.

“I think there’s been some change over recent years… particularly in the younger generations. They’re certainly more concerned about other priorities…and they’re not as concerned about what’s happened in the past with the older type technology”.

New to podcasts?

Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click here to listen to Politics with Michelle Grattan on Pocket Casts).

You can also hear it on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Politics with Michelle Grattan.

Additional audio

A List of Ways to Die, Lee Rosevere, from Free Music Archive.

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Keith Pitt on the Murray-Darling Basin, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, and Nuclear Power – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-keith-pitt-on-the-murray-darling-basin-the-northern-australia-infrastructure-facility-and-nuclear-power-133067

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sahani Hendawitharana, PhD Scholar, Queensland University of Technology

Recent bushfires mercilessly destroyed almost one-third of Kangaroo Island, razing many homes to the ground.

Seeing this destruction on a recent visit to Kangaroo Island made us rethink how we could improve people’s safety. We spoke to people affected by the fires and learnt most preferred to stay and protect their properties, rather than evacuate. Here are some of their responses:

I’ll only leave my house if I see danger ahead.

When the fires started to come towards us, my husband wanted to evacuate early, but I wanted to spend the night in my home. The fires were far away and they didn’t reach us anyway.

He had $10,000 worth of hay he wanted to protect from the fires. But even with the help of fire services, we couldn’t save them.

People should always evacuate early to ensure their safety. But when they do decide to stay or they’re told it’s too late to leave, having a plan B is extremely important. Fire crews may struggle to reach you in time if anything goes wrong.

This is why having the option of a bushfire-safe room could be the last trump in your hand to save your life.

Read more: How to prepare your home for a bushfire – and when to leave

Safe rooms are a purpose-built, last-resort option to shelter from a bushfire attack. They should be built with fire-resistant material such as stone and bricks, be situated in or near a person’s home, and be resistant to toxic gas and smoke. This is a difficult task, so we’re researching how to make bushfire-safe rooms as safe as possible.

Why might you need a bushfire-safe room?

Imagine if:

• you have no clue of the fire direction or the speed

• your access road to escape is on fire

• you wanted to escape before the fire comes, but can’t

• you planned to stay and defend, but that seems impossible

• emergency services cannot reach you in time.

On Kangaroo Island, for instance, long straight roads are the sole way in and out of some remote and rural settings. Often there’s no mobile coverage, some parts of the island have no beach for people to escape to and emergency services may take a long time to arrive.

When fire is approaching, it’s common for people to flee to nearby brick buildings, such as schools, to seek shelter.

Read more: Building standards give us false hope. There’s no such thing as a fireproof house

But these buildings aren’t purpose-built for bushfire protection. And while they might be the safest option when there’s nowhere else to go, they are still risky. Smoke can penetrate, and burning embers can enter gaps in the building.

How safe are safe rooms?

Bushfire-safe rooms also have inherent risks. If they’re not constructed properly, they can be deadly.

Unlike other safe rooms used around the world (tornado shelters, war bunkers or bullet proof safe rooms), bushfire-safe rooms must be able to handle increased inside temperatures, carbon dioxide accumulation and smoke penetration, as well as withstand extremely high temperatures. They also need sufficient space for multiple people, and possibly space to store food supplies and valuables.

After Black Saturday, The Australian Building Codes Board released performance standards for the construction of private bushfire shelters. But these standards aren’t mandatory, and there’s room for improvement.

For example, the standards specify that an able-bodied person should stay in a private bushfire shelter for only one hour – the time it takes to withstand a fire front and any adjacent fires, and leaving a 10-minute safety margin before and after they hit.

But as bushfire severity and smoke conditions vary, people could, realistically, be stuck in there for a few hours.

This is why engineering safe rooms correctly and thoroughly is critical before the next bushfire disaster hits. This is where our research at Queensland University of Technology comes in.

Researching safety

We’re researching how to best construct bushfire-safe rooms from a structural engineering point of view, testing bushfire-resistant building materials, wall systems, and more. We’ll have results to share in six to eight months.

Interestingly, we’re also testing materials such as pumice (lightweight volcanic rock used in chimneys) and refractory blocks (ceramic material used to line kilns and furnaces), with promising results.

Safe rooms can be situated underground or above-ground at surface level, and we found both options have pros and cons. Above-ground structures would endure significant exposure to flames, while maintenance and accessibility for people with disabilities are problems for underground safe rooms.

Read more: Where to take refuge in your home during a bushfire

Still, Australia needs more scientific research beyond ours into the integrity of bushfire-safe rooms. We also need more behavioural studies to track how people respond to fires so we can better protect them with other survival options.

It’s high time people in bushfire-prone areas were given realistic ways to survive when evacuation is no longer an option.

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Potter, Associate Professor and Deputy Head of School (Research) School of Creative Industries, University of the Sunshine Coast

Last week, free-to-air broadcaster Seven, embracing the spirit of a petulant teen, stomped its foot and announced it would no longer follow the rules regarding its Australian children’s content obligations. Nine has suggested it will soon follow suit. With the Australian government poised to release a local content policy options paper any day now, Seven’s belligerence looks like a preemptive strike.

Commercial broadcasters have claimed the sky is falling for years. Since the late 2000s, their audiences and advertising revenues have fragmented across new television platforms. Broadcasters claim requirements to air local content and children’s programming exacerbate their struggle.

Seven – and its broadcast rivals Nine and Ten – claim they are operating on a far from level playing field. And indeed the competitive landscape has changed. The networks point at Netflix, the US-based streaming service that Australians have embraced. Neither Netflix, Disney+, nor Australian provider Stan face any local content obligations. But streaming services use a different technology and are not protected from new market entrants the way broadcasters are. They also don’t compete for advertiser spending. In reality, the issues facing commercial networks aren’t likely to be relieved by adjustments to local and children’s quotas.

The emerging crisis – which may include the fire sale of a broadcast channel – results from repeated inaction by government to develop 21st century policy frameworks. Here are three ways we can encourage local production and break the policy inertia:

1. Think beyond quotas

Seven, Nine and Ten have been subject to minimum local content rules, including for children’s programs, since the 1960s. These have been a condition of receiving a broadcast license. The networks have lobbied determinedly against Australian quotas virtually since their introduction.

Quotas are not the only longstanding challenge. Australian broadcasters have been on notice for at least 15 years that digital distribution would disrupt the sector. But the challenges facing the networks, and Australian screen production more broadly, have been compounded by sustained regulatory inertia.

Multiple recent inquiries have yielded precisely zero action. The current situation cannot be solved with band-aid solutions. Delaying further risks doing more damage, particularly to the Australian screen production sector, which depends on local quotas to initiate production for programs in demand in international markets.

Hours-based quotas – the primary policy mechanism for broadcasters – are meaningless in the 21st century, where streaming services have libraries, not schedules.

We live in a world that wasn’t even fully imagined when local content policies were put in place. Today’s television ecosystem is far more complicated. It includes those governed by the logics of public service (in the case of the public broadcaster ABC and SBS) and commercial aims, by linear and on-demand availability, and by government, advertiser, and subscriber-supported services. It has become an ecosystem of complementary services rather than direct competitors – and one that needs to be regulated fairly and equitably. But these underlying differences make a “level playing field” an unreasonable goal. Just as we wouldn’t expect common policies to govern plane and train transportation – policies are needed that acknowledge the differences among 21st century video services.

2. Learn from other countries

The new ecosystem may warrant new tools and approaches, but it doesn’t justify releasing broadcast license holders from their responsibility to Australians, including children. However, it may be time to create a different mechanism of support.

In the UK, the Young Audiences Content Fund was introduced in 2019 with nearly £60 million (A$116.5 million) in public funding. The fund provides 50% of the costs of programs made specifically for children and young people, with the rest to be sourced from broadcasters.

Germany requires streaming services to contribute 2.5% of their revenue to the country’s subsidy system to support German production. New Zealand’s peak funding body, New Zealand on Air, offered another experiment by launching the free children’s streaming service HEIHEI in 2019. HEIHEI provides locally-produced television to NZ children in a market dominated by US imports.

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

3. Revise the Incentives

Those profiting from the Australian market must play a role in solving the current policy challenge. Requiring all commercial television services operating in Australia, including streaming services, to contribute to a fund available to all producers is one equitable way of creating authentically Australian and enriching children’s programs.

Updating state-funded initiatives is also part of a sustainable solution. Australian television producers currently receive only half the rate of tax offset support that benefits Australian film producers. Bringing television support in line with film is necessary, but that expanded funding should come with new requirements appropriate for the new ecosystem.

Though the commercial networks decry the burden of local and children’s series, others are rewarded for their ambitious telling of Australian stories in the on-demand age. Last week, Netflix acquired global streaming rights to the new ABC drama Stateless. It also snapped up kids’ shows The Unlisted and The InBESTigators, suggesting the value of these Australian productions.

Australian children’s shows have a global reputation for excellence, but are also expensive and require local network investment. Bluey, now up to 200 million views on iView, is streaming all over the world on Disney+. Series produced by Jonathan Schiff such as H20: Just Add Water and Mako Mermaids have been among government agency Screen Australia’s most profitable shows.

Although broadcaster threats grab headlines, they won’t help us find a sustainable future for Australian television production. The changes in the competitive landscape offer as much opportunity as challenge, but that opportunity cannot be realised as long as the government relies on 20th century tools.

– ref. Save our screens: 3 things government must do now to keep Australian content alive – https://theconversation.com/save-our-screens-3-things-government-must-do-now-to-keep-australian-content-alive-132758

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Martin, Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

Australia’s three-decade run of near continuous economic growth is set to end, with treasury warning of a hit to growth of “at least” 0.5% in the first quarter of this year, potentially followed by a “prolonged downturn”.

If it came to pass, treasury’s preliminary assessment would most likley mean economic growth vanished and went backwards for several quarters, producing what is commonly known as a “technical recession” – two quarters or more in which economic activity shrank.

Providing the assessment to a Senate estimates committee on Thursday morning, treasury secretary Steven Kennedy said the COVID-19 coronavirus would take “at least half a percentage point” from economic growth during the current March quarter and more beyond that.

In recent quarters economic growth has been about half a percentage point.

Quarterly GDP growth

Treasury’s preliminary estimate of a hit of at least half a per cent took into account only the direct impacts of the virus on tourism and education, and some exchange rate effects.

It did not take into account broader economic effects or the impact of the coronavirus on supply chains.

The half a percentage point hit to growth would come on top of a hit of 0.2% from the summer bushfires, most of which would be felt in the March quarter.

Read more: Support package gains shape as GDP turning point swamped

Dr Kennedy, a former nurse who retrained as an economist, stressed that the impact of the bushfires would extend well beyond the immediate hit to economic growth.

“Evidence from past episodes suggest bushfires can lead to long-lasting physical and mental health effects and destroy cultural heritage,” he said.

“Research by the University of Melbourne after the Black Saturday bushfires in 2009 found mental health problems continued for three to four years.”

The bushfires made clear the increased probability of such events in a world of climate change.

“The CSIRO predicts climate change will make bushfires more likely, as fire weather patterns worsen as a result of an increase in weather patterns with hot and dry winds and fuel becoming drier.”

Deeper, wider and longer lasting than SARS

As on Tuesday there had been 91,868 confirmed COVID-19 cases worldwide and 3,131 deaths, most in China. COVID-19 had spread to 77 countries.

When the virus first emerged in China in December, the treasury saw it through the lens of the 2002-04 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) pandemic.

It was now clear COVID-19 would be different.

The impact of SARS took on a V shape, a relatively contained reduction in activity, mostly in Asia, followed by a quick bounce back.

The economic impact of COVID-19 is likely to be deeper, wider and longer when compared with SARS.

It will create more risk of a prolonged downturn, and fiscal support will be needed to accelerate the recovery of the economy, especially once the health and health management effects of COVID-19 begin to fade.

The first phase of the economic support package to be delivered next week would target assistance to the businesses and sectors most affected in order to keep people in jobs.

After that, support for aggregate demand (overall spending) would become more important.

Read more: The first economic modelling of coronavirus scenarios is grim for Australia, the world

“A very substantial part of the impact is actually confidence among consumers and the business sector because of the uncertainty,” Dr Kennedy said.

“Frankly, effective health management will be very important. The economy is actually quite solid. One of the key things will be to to explain to the community how well placed the economy is to manage such a short-term shock.”

The shock would last for some time but the economy would “recover on the other side”.

Keeping workers employed be very important.

– ref. Economic growth near an end as Treasury talks of prolonged coronavirus downturn – https://theconversation.com/economic-growth-near-an-end-as-treasury-talks-of-prolonged-coronavirus-downturn-133053

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leah Ruppanner, Associate Professor in Sociology and Co-Director of The Policy Lab, University of Melbourne

The idea of women late in pregnancy “nesting”, preparing the home for the arrival of their newborn, is ingrained in popular culture and reinforced by health-care professionals.

We’ve been led to believe women have a biological urge to tidy, clean and prepare the home for their baby, just like mice, rabbits and pigs prepare their nests to provide a safe environment for their litters.

But a UK review of the evidence finds there’s no basis to the idea that women’s hormones drive them to nest. Instead, the researchers argue this is a myth that reinforces gender inequalities of who does housework.

The myth also sets women up for a lifetime of tidying, cleaning and sorting.

Read more: Monday’s medical myth: sex induces labour

The latest myth to be busted

This is the latest study to shatter our long-held expectation that women are biologically predisposed to do more care work.

First we were told women were better multi-taskers. But this was false. Then, we were told men can’t see mess. But that wasn’t true either. Now we are told women aren’t biologically disposed to nest.

So, what is happening here? It turns out all these myths about gender are just another way to get women to do the drudgery of housework.

Read more: Sorry, men, there’s no such thing as ‘dirt blindness’ – you just need to do more housework

The history of creating more work for women

This pattern is nothing new. The advent of the multi-burner stove meant cooking moved from single pot meals cooked over an open hearth to an elaborate range of multiple-course meals.

The result? More work for women.

The innovation of a washing machine, which allowed clothes to be washed mechanically, meant people expected clean underwear and socks every single day.

The result? More work for women.

Today, more women have a university education than ever before, surpassing men for the first time in history.

More women are in paid work and hold more prestigious jobs than ever before.

Yet they still shoulder the load when it comes to housework.

Why are we stuck in the past when so much has changed?

The challenge for women is that the gender revolution in housework that started in the 1970s has at best slowed and at worst stalled.

Men have increased their housework contributions and men and women today are more egalitarian, expecting to share domestic and economic chores more equally now than in the past.

Read more: How last night’s fight affects the way couples divide housework

But even though women have made major strides in the labour force, they still can’t get their partners to share most of the household chores.

The reason: housework is drudgery. But someone has to do it to ensure the household functions. So, it gets dumped to those who have less power, have less time or are socialised into doing it.

The solution is structural

A lack of child care, parental leave and flexible work available to men freely and without consequence means these gender divisions when it comes to housework are structural.

Housework is also about time. The way global markets are structured, plus rising inequality, means investing time in employment is more highly valued than investing time at home.

So we need policy supports – parental leave that allows fathers to step in equally to mothers, childcare costs that don’t drain the family savings or flexible work and part-time work that is not relegated to mothers – to allow people more time to manage the home when the demand spikes.

Read more: We can we reduce gender inequality in housework – here’s how

In countries without these supports, like the United States and Australia, we see mothers carrying a larger share of this burden.

In countries where these policies are more generous, we see men and women sharing the domestic and economic load more equally.

So, what do we do in the meantime as we are waiting for governments and employers to catch up to the modern family?

We name and shame these myths that trap and entangle women through the guise of biology.

Read more: It’s not just the toy aisles that teach children about gender stereotypes

– ref. No, pregnant women aren’t primed to ‘nest’. It’s a myth that sets women up for a lifetime of housework – https://theconversation.com/no-pregnant-women-arent-primed-to-nest-its-a-myth-that-sets-women-up-for-a-lifetime-of-housework-132514

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Smith, Senior Lecturer in American Politics and Foreign Policy, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney

Super Tuesday has continued Joe Biden’s recovery from the brink of disaster.

After a larger-than-expected win in South Carolina, Biden became the clear alternative to Bernie Sanders in the contest to be the Democratic Party’s nominee for the US presidency. Just before Super Tuesday, his moderate rivals, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar, dropped out, giving him their endorsements. Just as in South Carolina, the African American vote in southern states proved critical for Biden. He now holds a narrow delegate lead over Sanders.

Sanders held his own on Super Tuesday, especially in California, where he stands to harvest more than 150 delegates. But his campaign will be disappointed that they couldn’t land a knockout blow, especially in Texas where Sanders led in polls but Biden won.

Read more: Biden easily wins Super Tuesday after strong comeback in past few days

It is now a two-person race, with an advantage to Biden. There have been a lot of crazy, chaotic stories over the past six months. The unlikely rise of South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg. The trials of Elizabeth Warren, widely admired but cursed by self-fulfilling prophecies about her electability. The jaw-droppingly expensive, and futile, campaign of Mike Bloomberg. The demoralising fiasco of the Iowa caucuses.

After all that, we’re back to the two men who seemed the most likely contenders before it all began.

So what can we learn from Super Tuesday in 2020?

The power of the black Southern vote

After his shockingly poor results in the Iowa and New Hampshire races, Biden warned that 99.9% of African American voters had not yet had a say in the primaries. This was Biden’s big gamble – that black voters in South Carolina would redeem him.

Biden boasts long-standing connections with African American leaders and the reflected glory of Barack Obama’s presidency when he served as vice president. But as early losses mounted, campaign money dried up and his poll lead shrank in South Carolina, his prospects looked increasingly shaky.

His saviour was the very senior and respected congressman James Clyburn, who gave Biden his endorsement days before the election. A huge 47% of South Carolina voters said Clyburn’s endorsement was important, and Biden won two-thirds of the black vote there.

African American voters powered Biden’s Super Tuesday victories in Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama and, crucially, in Texas. Overall, he won more than 60% of the black vote, which makes up a quarter or more of the Democratic Party electorate (and the majority in some southern states). It is widely believed in the Democratic Party that an energised black electorate is critical to beating Trump and winning house and senate races, and this will draw more support to Biden.

But is it important to remember that African Americans are not politically monolithic. These wins in the South reflect Biden’s strengths with older and more conservative voters. In California he won about a third of the black vote.

Don’t forget Latino voters

Bernie Sanders is winning in western states like California, Nevada and Colorado. This is partly because of the enthusiasm he has generated among working-class Latino voters, who are drawn to his economic message.

Latinos, who are about a third of the Democratic electorate in California, are younger than the rest of the population and will be increasingly important in future Democratic coalitions. Sanders won around half the Latino vote in California and 39% of it in Texas.

Read more: The US presidential primaries are arcane, complex and unrepresentative. So why do Americans still vote this way?

The great promise of Sanders is that he can reach young voters who would otherwise avoid politics. His electability against Trump hinges on large increases in youth turnout. So far, those increases haven’t transpired for him in the primaries. It may well be different in a general election, but we’ll never know if it doesn’t happen in the remaining primary races.

Money isn’t everything

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg spent an incredible half-a-billion dollars (A$768 million) on his campaign in the Super Tuesday states, and has little to show for it. He has now exited the race, but his money will stay in. He is likely to play a Clive Palmer role, unable to buy office for himself, but willing to spend hugely to get a candidate and a president who will act in his interests.

Bloomberg, who wasn’t on the first three ballots, left his run too late. He got only two debates, the first of which was a disaster. He had no chance after Biden harnessed the moderate vote with his South Carolina win.

This will be a lesson for any future candidates tempted to wait out the early races. But it is a lesson Bloomberg should already have known. The mayor of New York before him, Rudy Giuliani, also gambled everything on the fourth race of the 2008 primaries. He spent US$59 million to get a single delegate in Florida.

Whatever else he may have lost, Bloomberg has smashed the record for flushing money down the electoral toilet.

What now?

The race is now Biden’s to lose, but it is far from over. Biden has so far relied on the patronage of wealthy and powerful people. He is likely to enjoy more of that from Bloomberg, and may hope for the ultimate endorsement from Barack Obama (though it’s unclear that Obama will endorse anyone in the primaries).

But his campaign still has serious organisational weaknesses. While endorsing Biden, Clyburn took the unusual step of publicly pointing out that he lacks campaign infrastructure. Biden has been a less-than-inspirational speaker on the campaign trail. His single most powerful asset is a widespread belief that he can beat Trump.

Sanders has a genuine movement behind him, which the last two winners of the presidential election also had. His social-democratic agenda has changed the debate in the Democratic Party and the nation. Progressives have decisively chosen him over Elizabeth Warren. But Sanders has an uphill fight now that Democratic moderates have settled on a single champion.

– ref. It’s now Biden v Sanders as Super Tuesday narrows the field for the Democratic nomination – https://theconversation.com/its-now-biden-v-sanders-as-super-tuesday-narrows-the-field-for-the-democratic-nomination-131201

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Lucy, Deputy Science + Technology Editor

As coronavirus continues to spread around the world, anxiety is rising in Australia. Shoppers fearful of quarantine measures have been stocking up on supplies to last out a week or two of isolation.

Recent days have seen reports of shortages of hand sanitiser and warnings that batteries and other electronic items could be next. However, the surge in demand for one particular commodity has seen supermarket shelves stripped bare: toilet paper.

It’s not just Australians. Shops in Japan, the US and New Zealand have also run low on the precious sanitary rolls. In Hong Kong, ambitious thieves held up a supermarket to steal a delivery.

But why toilet paper? The question has been in the air for at least the past month, but it’s now become hard to avoid. We asked four experts for their thoughts.

Read more: Stocking up to prepare for a crisis isn’t ‘panic buying’. It’s actually a pretty rational choice

Niki Edwards, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology:

Toilet paper symbolises control. We use it to “tidy up” and “clean up”. It deals with a bodily function that is somewhat taboo.

When people hear about the coronavirus, they are afraid of losing control. And toilet paper feels like a way to maintain control over hygiene and cleanliness.

People don’t seem interested in substitutes. Supermarket shelves are still full of other paper towels and tissues.

The media has a lot to answer for in regards to messages around this virus and messages to the public. While honesty about threats is critical, building hysteria and promoting inappropriate behaviours is far from ideal.

Brian Cook, Community Engagement for Disaster Risk Reduction project, University of Melbourne:

It’s an interesting question. My suspicion is that it is to do with how people react to stress: they want an element of comfort and security. For many Westerners there is a “yuck factor” associated with non-toilet paper cleaning.

I expect there is also a pragmatic element. Toilet paper is a product that takes a lot of space, and is therefore not something that people have a lot of under normal circumstances.

A lot of people likely also use toilet paper as a tissue, and therefore imagine themselves needing a lot with if they have the flu or a flu-like illness.

Stocking up on toilet paper is also a relatively cheap action, and people like to think that they are “doing something” when they feel at risk.

Read more: High-tech shortages loom as coronavirus shutdowns hit manufacturers

David Savage, Newcastle Business School, University of Newcastle:

I think it is the perfect product. It is completely non-perishable and one of the few products that you can stock up on that you are guaranteed to use eventually.

I don’t know for certain but I suspect that most people only buy toilet paper when they just about run out, which could be a problem if you need to stay isolated for two weeks.

So I think this is just a preparation process, because we have seen that toilet paper has become a shortage item elsewhere.

Alex Russell, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University:

There are a few factors at play here. People aren’t only stockpiling toilet paper. All sorts of items are sold out, like face masks and hand sanitiser. Things like canned goods and other non-perishable foods are also selling well.

People are scared, and they’re bunkering down. They’re buying what they need and one of the items is toilet paper.

I think we’re noticing the toilet paper more than the other things because toilet paper packs are big items that take up a lot of shelf space. Seeing a small product sold out at the supermarket (such as hand sanitiser) is not that unusual, and it’s only a small hole in the shelf that is often temporarily filled with nearby products.

But if the toilet paper is gone, that’s a massive amount of shelf space that can’t readily be replaced with other things nearby.

A second reason we might be noticing it more is because there aren’t easy substitutions. If the supermarket is out of a particular ingredient for dinner, you can just get something else, or an entirely different dinner.

But if there’s not a roll of toilet paper, then that’s pretty frustrating for everyone. Sure, tissues or paper towels, but it’s not quite the same, is it?

– ref. Why are people stockpiling toilet paper? We asked four experts – https://theconversation.com/why-are-people-stockpiling-toilet-paper-we-asked-four-experts-132975

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Martin, Associate Professor in Criminology, Swinburne University of Technology

More than six years after the demise of Silk Road, the world’s first major drug cryptomarket, the dark web is still home to a thriving trade in illicit drugs.

These markets host hundreds, or in some cases thousands, of people who sell drugs, commonly referred to as “vendors”. The dark web offers vital anonymity for vendors and buyers, who use cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin to process transactions.

Trade is booming despite disruptions from law enforcement and particularly “exit scams”, in which market admins abruptly close down sites and take all available funds.

Read more: Explainer: what are drug cryptomarkets?

Why are these markets still seen as enticing places to sell drugs, despite the risks? To find out, our recent study surveyed 13 darknet drug vendors, via online encrypted interviews.

They gave us a range of reasons.

More profitable

First, selling drugs online is safer and more profitable than doing it offline:

Interviewer: So you still sell on DNMs [darknet marketplaces], and prefer that to offline. Correct?

Respondent: YES. Selling offline is borderline stupid. You can make so much more money online, the risks [in selling outside cryptomarkets] aren’t even remotely worth it.

Both of these claims correspond with previous research showing that the dark web is perceived to be a safer place to buy and sell drugs.

Regarding profits, darknet vendors do not have to limit their trading to face-to-face interactions, and can instead sell drugs to a potentially worldwide customer base.

Read more: Explainer: what is the dark web?

Less violent

Encryption technologies allow vendors to communicate with customers and receive payments anonymously. The drugs are delivered in the post, so vendor and customer never have to meet in person.

This protects vendors from many risks that are prevalent in other forms of drug supply, including undercover police, predatory standover tactics where suppliers may be robbed, assaulted or even killed by competitors, and customers who may inform on their supplier if caught.

Other risks, such as frauds perpetrated by customers and exit scams, were considered inevitable on the dark web, but also manageable.

Some respondents said that being protected from physical risk on the dark web is not only a benefit for existing drug suppliers, but may also make the activity attractive to people who would not otherwise be willing to sell drugs.

While some of our respondents had previously sold drugs offline, others were uniquely attracted to the perceived safety and anonymity of the dark web:

I hadn’t ever thought about selling drugs in any capacity because I dislike violence and it just seemed impossible to be involved in selling drugs in “real life” without running into some sort of confrontation pretty quickly… I was always too scared and slightly nerdy to do that and never really contemplated it seriously until the dark web.

More customer-focused

Some vendors told us the feeling of safety and control lets them focus on providing a more courteous service to their customers or “clients”:

I try to provide the best products and service I can, when someone has a problem or claims [their order was] short on pills (as long as they have ordered from me before) I usually take them at their word.

This is a stark contrast with perceptions of the street trade, which some of our respondents perceived not only as “small-time”, but also rife with danger and potential violence:

The street trade is a mess. I wanna provide labelled products, good advice and service, like a real business. Not sit in a shitty car park selling $10 bags from a car window all day.

Read more: Australia emerges as a leader in the global darknet drugs trade

Not just about profit

Dark web vendors also pointed out the various non-material benefits of their work. These included feelings of autonomy and emancipation from boring work and onerous bosses, as well as excitement and the thrill of transgression. One respondent described it as:

Exhilarating … and nerve-wracking. Seemed so alien. “Drugs? Online? In the post? Naaaah surely not.” Plus if I’m honest, my inner reprobate buzzes from it. The rush of chucking a grand’s worth of drugs into post boxes… unreal, man.

Interviewees rationalised their participation in the dark web drugs trade in a variety of ways. These included pointing out the relative safety and medicinal benefits of some illicit drugs, and the dangers associated with drug prohibition.

Let’s face it, a LOT of people like getting high… It’s human nature, but to ban it and make it criminal so that it’s hard to get, then you get poison and people die… I can tell you that the use of darknet protects users from buying products that during traditional prohibition would likely kill much more people. It also takes drugs off the street, reducing some violent crime.

These insights help us understand why the dark web is increasingly attractive, not only to consumers of illicit drugs but to the people who supply them.

For those who are averse to confrontation, and who are sufficiently tech-savvy, the dark web offers an alternative to the risk and violence of dealing drugs offline.

– ref. Dark web, not dark alley: why drug sellers see the internet as a lucrative safe haven – https://theconversation.com/dark-web-not-dark-alley-why-drug-sellers-see-the-internet-as-a-lucrative-safe-haven-132579

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Chin, Professor of Asian Studies, University of Tasmania

Muhyiddin Yassin has been sworn in as the new prime minister of Malaysia. Many people were surprised because 94-year-old Mahathir Mohammad, the oldest prime minister in the world, was widely expected to be reappointed for a third time.

Muhyiddin outfoxed the wily Mahathir, because Mahathir made two fatal errors. First, he had resigned, thus creating a vacancy. Second, he made a miscalculation about the king’s discretion. The Malaysian king appoints a person he thinks can command the majority in parliament – it has nothing to do with election results or how many MPs support you. In Australia, it’s called the “captain’s pick”.

The king picked Muhyiddin over Mahathir, and that’s that. The only way now to remove the new government is via a vote of no-confidence in parliament, which will take months.

The new ruling coalition

Muhyiddin’s new ruling coalition consists of three parties: United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), Parti Islam Malaysia (PAS) and Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (PPBM or United Indigenous Party).

UMNO and PAS were the defeated parties in the historic 2018 general elections that produced Malaysia’s first regime change since independence. UMNO had been the ruling party for nearly six decades before losing to PPBM and Pakatan Harapan (Alliance of Hope). Mahathir had established PPBM specifically to beat UMNO, and almost the entire PPBM leadership was ex-UMNO.

Read more: Mahathir Mohamad crops up again in bid to lead Malaysia – with Anwar on the same side

So now we have an interesting combination. UMNO and PPBM are essentially the same parties with similar ideologies, Malay nationalism, combined with PAS, which wants to turn Malaysia into an Islamic state.

But what about the non-Malay and non-Muslim Malaysians who make up 38% of the population? Don’t they count?

The short answer is no. While the new administration will appoint a few non-Malays to the administration, make no mistake, this is an all-Malay government and its focus is on the Malay and Muslim community.

UMNO is still sore at the Malaysian Chinese and Indian population for voting en bloc against UMNO in 2018, which led it to lose government. Now it’s payback time. Expect more Malay-centric policies that will punish the Chinese and Indians.

Why are people worried?

Many are worried about the direction Malaysia may be heading in the short term.

First, there is concern that corruption trials relating to the infamous 1MDB scandal involving ex-prime minister Najib Razak may now go nowhere. Najib’s wife is also charged with corruption in a different case, along with several other ministers in the last UMNO-led government.

In fact, the UMNO president, Zahid Hamidi, who is facing 47 charges of money-laundering (the legal term for corrupt money), is trying to get a cabinet post in the new Muhyiddin administration. The attorney-general has resigned and his replacement will probably not go after high-profile UMNO individuals now that UMNO is back in government.

High-level corruption was one of the main reasons UMNO was defeated in 2018 and UMNO has not reformed. Now it’s back in government, most people expect “business as usual”. There is credible fear that Muhyiddin cannot stand up to UMNO as UMNO is now the largest party among the three core parties. UMNO and PAS also have a political pact, which means PPBM will definitely not be able to stop the senior coalition partner if it insists on certain public policy.

Read more: What Najib Razak’s corruption trial means for Malaysia – and the region

Second, people are extremely worried about PAS. Since its founding in 1951, PAS has advocated the idea of turning Malaysia into an Islamic state. It has introduced huhud (Shariah) law at the state level in Kelantan and Terengganu, but cannot enforce the law because it conflicts with Malaysia’s federal constitution.

Now that PAS is one of the troika in power, will PAS push the new administration to amend the constitution? There is already talk that PAS will get the government to amend the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act, or RUU355. This will indirectly allow for hudud to be implemented.

Third, and perhaps most worrying, the new government has broken the political convention that it always has a significant number of non-Malay voices to represent the diverse population. This government was built purely on the concept of ketuanan Melayu Islam (Malay Islamic supremacy). Non-Malays to be appointed to the new administration will know exactly where they stand – as window dressing.

Where to now for Malaysia?

Despite its racial and religious tensions, Malaysia has always been seen by the international community as a modern, moderate Islamic country with strong Westminster institutions. It was always understood that the political elite would choose the middle path at the end of the day, no matter how heated the politics became.

This may no longer be the case.

If there is a lesson to be learnt here, it is that regime change does not guarantee progress. In May 2018, there was joy that Malaysia had finally joined the club of newly democratising countries via the ballot box. Almost two years down the road we are seeing a complete reversal via an elite game.

If there is one thing about Southeast Asia, it is that the votes of the ordinary people do not matter when it comes to power games. Power here is a zero-sum game and, in this case, the non-Malays and non-Muslims in Malaysia are the losers.

– ref. Malaysia takes a turn to the right, and many of its people are worried – https://theconversation.com/malaysia-takes-a-turn-to-the-right-and-many-of-its-people-are-worried-132865

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nham Tran, Associate Professor, Deputy Head of School Biomedical Engineering, UTS. Australia, University of Technology Sydney

Philip Morris International, one of the world’s largest tobacco companies, recently lodged an application to allow the sale of its “heat not burn” products in Australia.

This attempt to disrupt Australia’s tobacco market and make heated tobacco products legal is part of the company’s latest mission to “change society and deliver a better, smoke-free future”.

The company argues these products are a safer way to satisfy a nicotine craving than traditional cigarettes. It calls the technology IQOS, which stands for “I quit original smoking”.

Read more: It’s safest to avoid e-cigarettes altogether – unless vaping is helping you quit smoking

But what are these “heat not burn” products, and are they actually better for us than standard cigarettes?

A hybrid of traditional cigarettes and e-cigarettes

Heat not burn products are electronic devices that contain tobacco leaves. When you heat them, they produce a vapour containing nicotine, which you inhale.

They are different from conventional cigarettes in their mechanism, which heats the tobacco to considerably lower temperatures. In heat not burn devices, the tobacco is heated to 350℃, compared to traditional cigarettes that combust and burn at up to 900℃.

Despite this, the temperature in heat not burn products is still high enough for harmful chemicals to be vaporised and inhaled.

Although similar in that they’re both electronic devices, heat not burn products are also different from e-cigarettes or vaping devices. These generally use chemical liquids, and don’t necessarily contain nicotine. E-cigarettes tend to heat liquids to around 250℃ to produce their vapour.

Australian legislation

Philip Morris International’s heat not burn product IQOS is currently available in more than 50 countries, including the UK and New Zealand.

While there are no laws that specifically mention heat not burn devices in Australia, products that contain nicotine and/or tobacco are regulated under various acts.

Under the Poisons Standard, nicotine is classed as a schedule 7 substance, or “dangerous poison”, except where it occurs in tobacco products prepared and packaged for smoking, or in preparations for human therapeutic use (such as in nicotine patches).

Read more: Smallpox, seatbelts and smoking: 3 ways public health has saved lives from history to the modern day

The federal health department has advised these exceptions would not apply to devices such as IQOS, and therefore heated tobacco products remain prohibited under current legislation.

The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners last month made a submission to the federal health department strongly recommending against the approval of heat not burn products until we have more “credible and long-term evidence” on their health effects.

What the evidence says

The rationale behind heat not burn products is they allow smokers to get the same nicotine experience, but without the harmful exposure to other chemicals.

Heat not burn products do release fewer toxins and at lower concentrations than normal cigarettes because there’s no burning, or combustion, which would otherwise release toxins.

Some research has found significantly reduced levels of harmful carcinogens such as aldehydes and other volatile chemicals in heat not burn products compared to regular cigarettes. But most of these studies were funded by tobacco companies, so we need to interpret the results with caution.

There are currently no studies which have assessed the long-term health effects of these products, but several studies have evaluated short-term exposure to heat not burn products.

These independent studies have shown emissions from heat not burn products can induce levels of cytotoxicity, or cell death, in human lung cells, which can lead to inflammation.

Evidence from an animal study shows this effect is comparable to smoking a normal cigarette.

Read more: Are ‘vaping’ and ‘e-cigarettes’ the same, and should all these products be avoided?

Looking to the longer term, the fact heat not burn products release fewer toxins than normal cigarettes may have some benefits over a life history of smoking.

Researchers who used computer modelling to calculate lifetime cancer risk found a person who smokes heat not burn products may be as much as ten times less likely to develop cancer than a person who smokes cigarettes. A person who smokes e-cigarettes would have a 100 times lower risk of developing cancer than a cigarette smoker.

But we’d need well-conducted long-term studies to confirm this.

Heat not burn products are probably better than smoking cigarettes

If we were to rank the products in terms of cancer risk from highest to lowest with the evidence we currently have, it would be normal cigarettes, heat not burn products, then e-cigarettes.

Notably, the modelling study compared someone using heat not burn products to a current smoker. If we were to examine the effects of using heat not burn products compared to not smoking at all, it’s almost certain we’d see an increased health risk when using these products.

For someone who is using heat not burn products as an alternative to smoking cigarettes, there may be some merit. Otherwise, it’s best avoided.

Read more: Smoking at record low in Australia, but the grim harvest of preventable heart disease continues

– ref. What are ‘heat not burn’ products and are they any safer than traditional cigarettes? – https://theconversation.com/what-are-heat-not-burn-products-and-are-they-any-safer-than-traditional-cigarettes-132008

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Ellerton, Lecturer in Critical Thinking; Curriculum Director, UQ Critical Thinking Project, The University of Queensland

The use of the word “I” in academic writing, that is writing in the first person, has a troublesome history. Some say it makes writing too subjective, others that it’s essential for accuracy.

This is reflected in how students, particularly in secondary schools, are trained to write. Teachers I work with are often surprised that I advocate, at times, invoking the first person in essays or other assessment in their subject areas.

In academic writing the role of the author is to explain their argument dispassionately and objectively. The author’s personal opinion in such endeavours is neither here nor there.

As noted in Strunk and White’s highly influential Elements of Style – (first published in 1959) the writer is encouraged to place themselves in the background.

Write in a way that draws the reader’s attention to the sense and substance of the writing, rather than to the mood and temper of the author.

This all seems very reasonable and scholarly. The move towards including the first person perspective, however, is becoming more acceptable in academia.

There are times when invoking the first person is more meaningful and even rigorous than not. I will give three categories in which first person academic writing is more effective than using the third person.

1. Where an academic is offering their personal view or argument

Above, I could have said “there are three categories” rather than “I will give three categories”. The former makes a claim of discovering some objective fact. The latter, a more intellectually honest and accountable approach, is me offering my interpretation.

I could also say “three categories are apparent”, but that is ignoring the fact it is apparent to me. It would be an attempt to grant too much objectivity to a position than it deserves.

In a similar vein, statements such as “it can be argued” or “it was decided”, using the passive voice, avoid responsibility. It is much better to say “I will argue that” or “we decided that” and then go on to prosecute the argument or justify the decision.

Taking responsibility for our stances and reasoning is important culturally as well as academically. In a participatory democracy, we are expected to be accountable for our ideas and choices. It is also a stand against the kinds of anonymous assertions that easily proliferate via fake and unnamed social media accounts.

Read more: Post-truth politics and why the antidote isn’t simply ‘fact-checking’ and truth

It’s worth noting that Nature – arguably one of the world’s best science journals – prefers authors to selectively avoid the passive voice. Its writing guidelines note:

Nature journals prefer authors to write in the active voice (“we performed the experiment…”) as experience has shown that readers find concepts and results to be conveyed more clearly if written directly.

2. Where the author’s perspective is part of the analysis

Some disciplines, such as anthropology, recognise that who is doing the research and why they are doing it ought to be overtly present in their presentation of it.

Removing the author’s presence can allow important cultural or other perspectives held by the author to remain unexamined. This can lead to the so-called crisis of representation, in which the interpretation of texts and other cultural artefacts is removed from any interpretive stance of the author.

This gives a false impression of objectivity. As the philosopher Thomas Nagal notes, there is no “view from nowhere”.

Philosophy commonly invokes the first person position, too. Rene Descartes famously inferred “I think therefore I am” (cogito ergo sum). But his use of the first person in Meditations on First Philosophy was not simply an account of his own introspection. It was also an invitation to the reader to think for themselves.

3. Where the author wants to show their reasoning

The third case is especially interesting in education.

I tell students of science, critical thinking and philosophy that a phrase guaranteed to raise my hackles is “I strongly believe …”. In terms of being rationally persuasive, this is not relevant unless they then go on tell me why they believe it. I want to know what and how they are thinking.

To make their thinking most clearly an object of my study, I need them to make themselves the subjects of their writing.

I prefer students to write something like “I am not convinced by Dawson’s argument because…” rather than “Dawson’s argument is opposed by DeVries, who says …”. I want to understand their thinking not just use the argument of DeVries.

Read more: Thinking about thinking helps kids learn. How can we teach critical thinking?

Of course I would hope they do engage with DeVries, but then I’d want them to say which argument they find more convincing and what their own reasons were for being convinced.

Just stating Devries’ objection is good analysis, but we also need students to evaluate and justify, and it is here that the first person position is most useful.

It is not always accurate to say a piece is written in the first or third person. There are reasons to invoke the first person position at times and reasons not to. An essay in which it is used once should not mean we think of the whole essay as from the first person perspective.

We need to be more nuanced about how we approach this issue and appreciate when authors should “place themselves in the background” and when their voice matters.

– ref. We should use ‘I’ more in academic writing – there is benefit to first-person perspective – https://theconversation.com/we-should-use-i-more-in-academic-writing-there-is-benefit-to-first-person-perspective-131898

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Geoff Hanmer, Adjunct Lecturer in Architecture, UNSW

The News South Wales government is struggling to implement building industry reforms recommended by the Shergold-Weir report over two years ago.

Developers are home free in its proposed legislation; the Design and Building Practitioners Bill doesn’t even mention them. They still appear to be in a position to collect the profits and then phoenix themselves if something goes wrong.

And something is going wrong all too often. David Chandler, the NSW building commissioner appointed to oversee the reforms, said recently he was “ a bit despondent” after seeing “some really regrettable things out there” in a program of site visits.

Read more: Lack of information on apartment defects leaves whole market on shaky footings

Even though the commissioner can see how bad things are, he says it will take until 2022 for the building industry to “get people back to what they should be doing”.

The lack of progress hasn’t stopped the minister for better regulation, Kevin Anderson, claiming credit. In announcing the Design and Building Practitioners Bill 2019 last October, he said: “People should feel confident they can enter the housing market in NSW knowing their home has been designed and built in accordance with the Building Code of Australia.”

He must have forgotten to add “maybe after 2022” and “only if you are buying new”.

Read more: Would you buy a new apartment? Building confidence depends on ending the blame game

The upper house then rejected the bill. It’s now being revised.

What’s wrong with the bill?

The bill has the avowed aim of making people who design and build buildings responsible for non-compliance with the National Construction Code by getting them to sign certificates attesting that the building is built according to the code.

This is a guarantee of not very much. The code does not regulate durability or require that buildings be waterproof. Plus, of course, many people have been signing similar certificates for certifiers without it having had much impact to date.

The bill has many other faults and omissions. It does not require a principal design practitioner to be appointed to a complex project and no one is identified as the lead consultant. This means there is no person identified to coordinate design work between all disciplines (architecture and engineering) or to ensure design declarations relate to work as actually done, taking into account all engineering designs and site conditions.

The most critical problem is that the people signing the attestations are not required to actually inspect work during construction. Such a requirement was a key recommendation of the Shergold-Weir report.

The purpose of the bill, other than as political soft soap, is unclear. We already have design practitioners, called “architects”, who are registered under state law. We already have builders under state law, who are called “licensed contractors”.

We have the National Construction Code as a starting point for regulating building performance. We already have a Home Building Act. Under the Local Government Act, local councils clearly have the power to stop work on site if the builder is doing the wrong thing.

What we don’t have is a mechanism to unite these existing powers to ensure buildings are designed and documented to be durable, liveable and waterproof.

Read more: To restore public confidence in apartments, rewrite Australia’s building codes

Steps that will solve the problems

If the government is as keen to deliver certainty to the new-build market as the minister asserts, what could it do?

First up, if there are things on site of the sort the building commissioner “abhors”, these sites should be shut down under existing powers. The state government would need to negotiate with councils about implementing and funding inspections, but this could be done promptly.

Does the government need to know which buildings to target? Simply look at the qualifications and track records of the building company directors.

A developer could be compelled to use a registered architect for any building for housing over two storeys high and required to retain the architect for site inspections during construction. Amendments to the Home Building Act or its regulations could achieve this.

As architects are already registered and legally required to hold professional indemnity insurance, no new legislation would be required. The lack of registration of engineers might be an issue, but no architect who is ultimately responsible for a building will work with an engineer they regard as incompetent.

The National Construction Code is not good at requiring buildings to be waterproof, but, again, some simple changes could be made to the Home Building Act. These should include beefed-up requirements for waterproofing any balcony or planter box larger in area than about six square metres.

We know for sure any tiles directly stuck to a membrane over a large area will fail, either immediately or relatively soon. Making it compulsory to use a system that allows tiles to be removed to access the membrane is simple and will eliminate years of misery.

Read more: Housing with buyer protection and no serious faults – is that too much to ask of builders and regulators?

What’s stopping the government?

If these steps are so simple and obvious, why isn’t the NSW government doing it?

Mainly, it would appear, because it’s in thrall to the development industry, which believes reintroducing these measures will reduce its profits.

The developers are right about this; building properly is more expensive. But I think most buyers would happily pay a bit more for a safe and durable product. They do that when buying consumer durables such as cars and appliances.

Good developers would benefit as this approach would help weed out the dodgy ones.

To restore the public’s lost confidence in new multi-unit residential housing, the government should pull the levers it has to hand first and then resolve the problem of existing defective stock.

Later it can think about some of the wider issues, but how about doing something useful now? We have been waiting two years.

– ref. NSW building certification bill still lets developers off the hook – https://theconversation.com/nsw-building-certification-bill-still-lets-developers-off-the-hook-132502