Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexandra Hansen, Deputy Editor and Chief of Staff, The Conversation

After twenty years of rhetoric from both sides of politics focusing on getting back to surplus, this year’s budget continues pandemic spending in the hope of getting the economy back on track as the pandemic starts to settle.

The projected deficit is $161 billion for 2021-22, but rather than tackling this in the next four years, the government’s focus is instead on payments and long-term serviceable debt.

The government is projecting a bump in real GDP growth in the next financial year, before growth settles again over the near future.

Part of the reason the government can afford to keep spending high is the low cost of international debt. This means that while net debt will continue to increase beyond the next four years the budget estimates cover, net interest payments should remain low.

And another major factor in the budget’s performance – despite the big spending – is the impact of a very high iron ore price, in the midst of a global pandemic.

The chart below shows the difference between policy decisions and other factors, generally beyond its control.

With a major focus on business and infrastructure spending to revive the economy, extensions to tax benefits and announced packages for childcare, there are many spending announcements in this year’s budget and very few cuts or savings.

Read more: Frydenberg spends the budget bounty to drive unemployment down to new lows

The difference is so great that we have drawn out some of the major spending announcements and included all significant cuts in our headline figures for this year’s budget.

– ref. Cuts, spending, debt: what you need to know about the budget at a glance – https://theconversation.com/cuts-spending-debt-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-budget-at-a-glance-159226

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Lavender, Senior Lecturer, School of Science, Psychology and Sport, Federation University Australia

Many people have become more sedentary in recent times with lockdowns and working from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

If you’re moving less, this may have impacted your core strength. Or, you may just be thinking you need to improve it.

So, what exactly is the core? And why is it important to have good core strength?

Read more: Health Check: what’s the best way to sit?

What is the core?

The core consists of the muscles in your midsection, or torso, surrounding the spine and pelvis. This includes the abdominal muscles at the front, but also muscles within the lower back, and around your sides.

The core muscles are not considered powerful, but they play a fundamental role in stabilising the spine and pelvis. They’re also key to maintaining good posture.

These functions are important to ensure you can move your limbs easily. Your core also protects you against injury — people with a weaker core are more likely to sustain a back injury. Core muscle strengthening is often an important part of rehabilitation after a back injury.

We use our core muscles while performing daily tasks like getting up from a chair, standing, walking, vacuuming and lifting things.

The core muscles are also important for athletic activities like running, jumping, tackling and lifting weights.

Some signs you might need to work on your core

As with other muscles, if we don’t use our core muscles enough, they become weak. When our core becomes weak, our movements are less supported, which can put pressure on other parts of our bodies.

Weakness in the core muscles can be associated with lower back pain, particularly among older people.

Knee pain is another possible sign the core muscles are too weak. Research has shown a core strength training program with physiotherapy has a greater effect on reducing knee pain than standard physiotherapy alone.

If you haven’t been exercising for a while, and you’re experiencing lower back pain or knee pain, it may be a sign your core muscles have become too weak and it’s time to do some work on strengthening them.

The good news is, we can improve core strength with exercise. And there’s no one exercise that is best — you can choose which approach works best for you.

If you do have back or knee pain, or have recently had a baby, consult your doctor or physiotherapist before getting started.

Read more: Thinking about working from home long-term? 3 ways it could be good or bad for your health

How to strengthen your core: some exercises you can do at home

While walking and running do involve activating the core muscles to some degree, to really target the core we can look to some specific exercises like the traditional sit-up or stomach crunch. These exercises work well to strengthen the muscles on the front of the torso and carry a very low risk of injury.

Modified versions can enhance the effects. For example, exercising on an unstable surface like a Swiss ball can increase the demands on the muscles.

Think of how much your ankle moves when you stand on one leg, for example. Being in this unstable position forces the muscles of your lower leg to work harder to keep your balance. It’s similar to the way your muscles tighten up when you’re walking on a slippery surface.

So, when you do sit-ups while sitting on a Swiss ball or a BOSU ball (the shape of a half sphere, like in the picture below) you find you must engage your core muscles to stay on the device. This increases the intensity of the exercise.

The traditional crunch or sit-up predominantly work the muscles at the front of the torso, the rectus abdominis, commonly known as the abs.

A standard plank is also good for your abs, and engages other muscles of the torso as well. And you can engage the core muscles at the side of the torso, called the obliques, even further with a side plank.

You can also try getting into a push up position and raising one leg at a time from the hip while keeping the knee straight.

You can make this more challenging by raising the opposite arm at the same time, so your only points of contact are the ball of one foot and the other hand.

This is a good workout for your core, which is working hard to keep you in position. You can make it easier by doing this on hands and knees.

Any exercise that activates the core muscles more than usual will help improve core strength. Sit-ups, crunches and planks will target these muscles directly, and adding unstable surfaces like Swiss balls can enhance the activation.

But remember, other types of physical activity, like going for a jog or doing squats, can help your core strength too.

Read more: How much do sedentary people really need to move? It’s less than you think

– ref. Core strength: why is it important and how do you maintain it? – https://theconversation.com/core-strength-why-is-it-important-and-how-do-you-maintain-it-160358

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mingming Cheng, Senior Lecturer, School of Management and Marketing, Curtin University

In its 13 years of existence, Airbnb has grown from a minnow to a whale in holiday accommodation. Today, it offers more than 5.6 million active listings across 220 countries and regions. In Australia, Airbnb lists 346,581 spaces — that’s 4% of Australia’s total housing stock.

Tourists often perceive Airbnb as having a relatively small environmental footprint compared with other forms of holiday accommodation. Airbnb reinforces this view, saying “home sharing promotes more efficient use of existing resources and is a more environmentally sustainable way to travel”.

But our study, published in the Journal of Sustainable Tourism, suggests Airbnb has a bigger carbon footprint than many realise.

Assessing Airbnb’s direct, indirect and induced carbon footprint in Sydney

We focused our study on the Sydney Airbnb market. Our calculations factored in things like electricity, household equipment, water and other energy, transport, communications, goods and services and so on.

In Sydney, we calculated Airbnb.com and its hosts generate direct and indirect carbon emissions of between 7.27 and 9.39 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) per room and night – about the same as an economy hotel.

The carbon footprint increases when we include what’s called “induced carbon emissions”. They result from Airbnb hosts spending their extra Airbnb income on purchasing additional goods and services to improve customer service for their guests, and to improve their own living standards.

Our study modelled various induced carbon emissions scenarios.

If Airbnb hosts put all their extra income into a savings account rather than spending it on goods and services, the carbon footprint of Airbnb ranges from 11 to 13 kg CO₂e per room per night.

But if hosts spend all their extra income from Airbnb, the total carbon emissions can reach 602 kg CO₂e per room and night – as much as is generated by taking a flight in economy class from Sydney to Auckland.

When you include direct, indirect and induced carbon footprint, the average carbon footprint for an Airbnb room is 44-46kg CO₂e per room and night – about as much as is generated by driving a large petrol car from Sydney to Wollongong.

Global environmental impacts

This analysis shows most tourist accommodation — be it Airbnb or traditional hotel accommodation — comes with sizeable greenhouse emissions. Collectively, accommodation accounts for about 1% of global emissions and 20% of tourism emissions.

The Sustainable Hospitality Alliance suggests hotels reduce their carbon emissions by 90% per room to be consistent with the 2℃ threshold under the Paris Agreement.

Read more: How Airbnb and Uber use activist tactics that disguise their corporate lobbying as grassroots campaigns

The impact of COVID-19

COVID-19 has been the single most effective “intervention” in terms of reducing tourism-related carbon emissions: aviation-related emissions alone dropped by 60%.

COVID-19 resulted in a 90% income loss for Airbnb hosts in Sydney between January and August last year. Airbnb listings dropped from 12,067 to 2,196.

To cover their ongoing expenses, many Airbnb hosts sought shelter in the long-term rental market. Investor hosts, who purchased or were renting a property to make money in the short-term rental market, were particularly hard-hit.

In some areas, many are now slowly returning to hosting. As nations around the world achieve high population vaccination rates, travel restrictions will eventually be lifted and travel will boom again. So it’s important to think carefully about the environmental impact of the tourism sector.

A sustainable tourism future

There’s no obvious pathway to a truly environmentally sustainable future for tourism in general, and peer-to-peer accommodation specifically. Airbnb is here to stay. For its part, Airbnb has vowed to “set a new standard for sustainable travel”, saying:

We are measuring the carbon footprint of both Airbnb’s corporate operations and the carbon footprint of travel facilitated by the Airbnb platform. Measuring our impact informs our efforts to reduce our carbon footprint and set a new standard for sustainable travel.

Carbon emissions are an inevitable consequence of the Airbnb industry, but there’s a lot Airbnb hosts can do, including:

• investing their income into sustainability measures in their property, such as rainwater tanks, solar panels, solar batteries and composting systems

• opting into carbon neutral certified electricity or gas

• providing small appliances such as toasters, sandwich makers or air fryers and a meal ideas book to entice people to make waste-free food instead of ordering take-away

• encouraging their guests to reduce, reuse and recycle.

And if you’re a holidaymaker, consider ways to make your own tourism more sustainable. Camping makes an excellent lower emissions alternative to staying in a hotel or Airbnb, and holidaying closer to home also lowers your carbon footprint.

Airbnb has 5.6 million active listings worldwide. That’s 5.6 million opportunities to reduce carbon emissions. It’s also worth noting Airbnb.com is a highly effective communication platform. Airbnb could use it to give hosts simple ideas on how to reduce their carbon emissions, many of which would likely save hosts money in the long run.

Read more: What did COVID do to rental markets? Rents fell as owners switched from Airbnb

– ref. The carbon footprint of Airbnb is likely bigger than you think – https://theconversation.com/the-carbon-footprint-of-airbnb-is-likely-bigger-than-you-think-159544

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chari Larsson, Lecturer of art history, Griffith University

The new $60.5 million HOTA Gallery opened its doors on the weekend, updating ageing infrastructure and marking an exciting chapter for the Gold Coast.

HOTA, or Home of the Arts, has been developed as part of a masterplan begun almost a decade ago by the Gold Coast Council to rework a 17-hectare site into a vibrant arts and entertainment precinct. Nestled just in front of the gallery is a $37.5 million outdoor stage.

Designed by Melbourne-based architects ARM, the HOTA Gallery signals a democratic and inclusive vision for both residents and visiting tourists.

The architecture firm used the cellular structure of the Voronoi diagram as an organisational and visual metaphor for the precinct. Voronoi tessellations occur throughout nature and are a puzzle-like collection of cells fitting together: imagine honeycomb; veins on a dragonfly’s wings and the natural patterns of a giraffe’s fur.

Eschewing the vertical lines of nearby apartment buildings and hotels — the popular images of the Gold Coast — HOTA’s facade instead resembles a colourful clumping of organic cells.

It is welcoming and playful, reflecting the relaxed ethos of inclusivity underpinning the council’s vision for the precinct.

The gallery itself is six floors high, and the top floor flaunts views to the east of the Gold Coast skyline. To the west is the dramatic hinterland and scenic rim; with riverside parklands below. Cleverly, the cell-like windows yield an abundance of natural light without compromising the exhibition spaces.

Walking around the gallery, I am reminded of the critical role local councils play in creating arts spaces for their communities.

Read more: Federal arts funding in Australia is falling, and local governments are picking up the slack

Looking beneath the surface

The inaugural exhibition, SOLID GOLD: Artists from Paradise, is a testament to this role, with a diverse selection of new works commissioned from both emerging and established artists who share a connection to the Gold Coast.

The Gold Coast is often perceived with a flashy, and slightly tawdry, image. This show happily refutes this stereotype. What emerges is a rich and diverse exhibition deeply engaged at both local and national levels with themes pertaining to place, space and environment.

Quandamooka artist Libby Harward’s BLOODLETTING (water-ways) (2021) is a three-channel video installation lying horizontally on the floor. In an extraordinary self-portrait, Harward is lying in a life-sized trench (or shallow grave) and surrounded by PVC plumbing pipes.

The work is vaguely menacing: it is not clear to the spectator looking down at her how Harward is breathing through the apparatus duct taped to her mouth.

Harward’s work is both a timely and necessary contribution to a national conversation on First Nations’ water sovereignty.

Michael Candy’s Steal the Sunshine (2021) is a testament to the artist’s skills in mechanical engineering, manufacturing and programming. Candy converts the sun’s natural light to artificial LED by simulating the sun’s daily path across a towering grid of lights.

The lights behave akin to a time-lapse video as the work responds to the changing light conditions outside the gallery.

Ali Bezer’s commanding floor sculpture, I Can Hear Water (2021), is formed by ripples and folds of aluminium and bitumen. Simultaneously a nod back to 1960s minimalist sculptures by artists such Carl Andre, as well as evoking the sights and sound of the Gold Coast’s beaches, Bezer’s work is both global in outlook while resolutely committed to its local environment.

An ambitious space

The gallery is the new home to the Gold Coast council’s $32 million art collection. This permanent collection, on display in the upper levels, showcases key works by leading Australian artists. It reveals a variety of surprises and underscores a decades-long ambitious and forward-looking acquisition strategy.

Read more: Home of the Arts – inside an arts centre keeping body and soul together

Early, hard-edged abstractions by Michael Johnson from the 1970s are juxtaposed with feminist artist Julie Rrap’s Persona and Shadow: Virago (1984).

Tracey Moffatt’s important series Pet Thang (1991) is brought into dialogue with William Robinson’s The Rainforest (1990). Landscapes by Albert Tucker and Fred Williams are combined with Vernon Ah Kee’s wegrewhere (2009) series.

These conversations feel fresh and highlight the depth in the gallery’s collection — offering visitors new and unexpected connections, without feeling remotely regional or nostalgic.

For a city under constant renewal, from the new HOTA Gallery emerges a complex and dynamic negotiation of place.

SOLID GOLD: Artists from Paradise is showing at HOTA until 4 July.

– ref. Inspired by organic cells, with some marvellous art on show, the Gold Coast’s new HOTA Gallery is a triumph – https://theconversation.com/inspired-by-organic-cells-with-some-marvellous-art-on-show-the-gold-coasts-new-hota-gallery-is-a-triumph-160087

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexandra Hansen, Deputy Editor and Chief of Staff, The Conversation

After twenty years of rhetoric from both sides of politics focusing on getting back to surplus, this year’s budget continues pandemic spending in the hope of getting the economy back on track as the pandemic starts to settle.

The projected deficit is $161 billion for 2021-22, but rather than tackling this in the next four years, the government’s focus is instead on payments and long-term serviceable debt.

The government is projecting a bump in real GDP growth in the next financial year, before growth settles again over the near future.

Part of the reason the government can afford to keep spending high is the low cost of international debt. This means that while net debt will continue to increase beyond the next four years the budget estimates cover, net interest payments should remain low.

And another major factor in the budget’s performance – despite the big spending – is the impact of a very high iron ore price, in the midst of a global pandemic.

The chart below shows the difference between policy decisions and other factors, generally beyond its control.

With a major focus on business and infrastructure spending to revive the economy, extensions to tax benefits and announced packages for childcare, there are many spending announcements in this year’s budget and very few cuts or savings.

Read more: Frydenberg spends the budget bounty to drive unemployment down to new lows

The difference is so great that we have drawn out some of the major spending announcements and included all significant cuts in our headline figures for this year’s budget.

– ref. Cuts, spends, debt: what you need to know about the budget at a glance – https://theconversation.com/cuts-spends-debt-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-budget-at-a-glance-159226

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Wood, Chief executive officer, Grattan Institute

Last year’s post-budget photo ops were all heavy machinery and hard hats. But this year we can expect soft-focus shots with children and the elderly.

The big story of the budget is not just that the government is spending tens of billions more as we emerge from the recession; it is also the major shift in what the money will be spent on.

The change in fiscal strategy – from a “construction-led recovery” last year to a concerted emphasis on women and the care sector this year – is based on solid economic advice.

It has also come at the best possible time for a government that has been in the spotlight for underfunding aged care and mental health, and under pressure to do more to support women’s economic participation.

The treasurer was understandably eager to emphasise the Government’s new spending initiatives. And the shift is notable.

But while there is welcome progress, the budget falls short of delivering big structural reforms that are needed for childcare, aged care, and mental health.

Budget delivers on social spending

For childcare, the government has announced an extra $1.7 billion over three years starting from July 2022, a modest boost to the $9 billion the government spent last financial year.

We proposed a more ambitious package, which would have spurred big economic gains from higher female workforce participation.

The budget falls short of that, but it is still well targeted at the families that face the most crippling out-of-pocket childcare costs: those with two or more children under six in care.

For aged care, there is an extra $17.7 billion over four years, a significant increase to the $22.5 billion the government spent last financial year.

While not enough to deliver the Aged Care Royal Commission’s vision of a full rights-based model – where every Australian is entitled to the care they need – it still offers improvements.

Read more: Budget splashes cash, with $17.7 billion for aged care and a pitch to women

The 80,000 new home care packages will help to reduce waiting times, and the boost to front line care minutes and the Basic Daily Fee provides additional support to those in residential care.

The accompanying focus on attracting, training, and up-skilling staff is particularly welcome given that the Royal Commission anticipates future staff shortages, although the Budget doesn’t have much specific to say about pay in the sector.

Read more: View from The Hill: Frydenberg finds the money tree

For mental health, a sector whose problems have been laid bare by increased demand for services during the pandemic, there is an extra $2.3 billion over four years.

Funding is targeted towards expanding access to mental health services and bolstering suicide prevention, but it falls short of the system reform required.

A women-centric makeover

The budget flags $3.4 billion over four years for women’s measures (including childcare). Outside of childcare, the biggest are for women’s health ($365 million) and spending on women’s safety including and violence prevention ($1.1 billion).

These measures, particularly the increased spend on front line and response services for family violence are important and significant.

But the more significant shift for women comes with the recognition that job-creating budgets need to invest in a broader range of jobs including in services sectors. About 80% of Australians work in services (and 90% of working women), so investing in these jobs ensures a broader recovery than the previous hard-hat focus.

Read more: Frydenberg spends the budget bounty to drive unemployment down to new lows

While last year’s Budget ran hard on infrastructure and investment tax breaks that favour capital-intensive sectors, this time around there is a stronger focus on care economy jobs through the spend on aged care, childcare and mental health.

Even the extended JobTrainer scheme receives a care-centred makeover, with an additional 33,800 low fee and free training places set aside to support future aged care workers.

Services sectors hit hard by COVID also receive some cash including the already announced $1.2 billion support package for the aviation and tourism sector and $300 million for the creative and cultural sector. Universities again miss out but private education providers also receive additional supports.

The long-term challenge

Other major measures in the Budget include the rollover of the Low and Middle Tax Offset (the ‘lamington’) for another year – delivering up to $1080 into the hands of low- and middle-income taxpayers next year – and extension of two key business tax measures: instant expensing and loss carry backs – focused on bringing forward business investment.

The challenge is that much of this increased spending is permanent.

And when combined with the impact of COVID on migration and on the size of the economy, this leaves the medium-term forecasts looking markedly different to the (probably unrealistic) ones that voters were served up before the 2019 election.

But, as the Parliamentary Budget Office suggested a fortnight ago, even with this shift, Australia’s debt levels are sustainable and are likely to remain so. Net debt is forecast to stabilise and then fall over the medium term, even with continuing deficits.

This doesn’t mean that long-term structural challenges disappear, but it does mean that there is more breathing space for the government to let voters see its softer side. As an economic as well as political strategy, it makes a lot of sense.

– ref. Less hard hats, more soft hearts: budget pivots to women and care – https://theconversation.com/less-hard-hats-more-soft-hearts-budget-pivots-to-women-and-care-159332

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexandra Hansen, Deputy Editor and Chief of Staff, The Conversation

After twenty years of rhetoric from both sides of politics focusing on getting back to surplus, this year’s budget continues pandemic spending in the hope of getting the economy back on track as the pandemic starts to settle.

The projected deficit is $161 billion for 2021-22, but rather than tackling this in the next four years, the government’s focus is instead on payments and long-term serviceable debt.

The government is projecting a bump in real GDP growth in the next financial year, before growth settles again over the near future.

Part of the reason the government can afford to keep spending high is the low cost of international debt. This means that while net debt will continue to increase beyond the next four years the budget estimates cover, net interest payments should remain low.

And another major factor in the budget’s performance – despite the big spending – is the impact of a very high iron ore price, in the midst of a global pandemic.

The chart below shows the difference between policy decisions and other factors, generally beyond its control.

With a major focus on business and infrastructure spending to revive the economy, extensions to tax benefits and announced packages for childcare, there are many spending announcements in this year’s budget and very few cuts or savings.

The difference is so great that we have drawn out some of the major spending announcements and included all significant cuts in our headline figures for this year’s budget.

– ref. Cuts, spends, debt: everything you need to know about the budget at a glance – https://theconversation.com/cuts-spends-debt-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-budget-at-a-glance-159226

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Wood, Chief executive officer, Grattan Institute

Last year’s post-bBudget photo ops were all heavy machinery and hard hats. But this year we can expect soft-focus shots with children and the elderly.

The big story of the Budget is not just that the government is spending tens of billions more as we emerge from the recession; it is also the major shift in what the money will be spent on.

The change in fiscal strategy – from a “construction-led recovery” last year to a concerted emphasis on women and the care sector this year – is based on solid economic advice.

It has also come at the best possible time for a Government that has been in the spotlight for underfunding aged care and mental health, and under pressure to do more to support women’s economic participation.

The treasurer was understandably eager to emphasise the Government’s new spending initiatives. And the shift is notable.

But while there is welcome progress, the budget falls short of delivering big structural reforms that are needed for child care, aged care and mental health.

Budget delivers on social spending

For childcare, the government has announced an extra $1.7 billion over three years starting from July 2022, a modest boost to the $9 billion the government spent last financial year.

We proposed a more ambitious package, which would have spurred big economic gains from higher female workforce participation.

The budget falls short of that, but it is still well targeted at the families that face the most crippling out-of-pocket childcare costs: those with two or more children under six in care.

For aged care, there is an extra $17.7 billion over four years, a significant increase to the $22.5 billion the government spent last financial year.

While not enough to deliver the Aged Care Royal Commission’s vision of a full rights-based model – where every Australian is entitled to the care they need – it still offers improvements.

Read more: Budget splashes cash, with $17.7 billion for aged care and a pitch to women

The 80,000 new home care packages will help to reduce waiting times, and the boost to front line care minutes and the Basic Daily Fee provides additional support to those in residential care.

The accompanying focus on attracting, training, and up-skilling staff is particularly welcome given that the Royal Commission anticipates future staff shortages, although the Budget doesn’t have much specific to say about pay in the sector.

Read more: View from The Hill: Frydenberg finds the money tree

For mental health, a sector whose problems have been laid bare by increased demand for services during the pandemic, there is an extra $2.3 billion over four years. Funding is targeted towards expanding access to mental health services and bolstering suicide prevention, but it falls short of the system reform required.

A women-centric makeover

The budget flags $3.4 billion over four years for women’s measures (including childcare). Outside of childcare, the biggest are for women’s health ($365 million) and spending on women’s safety including and violence prevention ($1.1 billion).

These measures, particularly the increased spend on frontline and response services for family violence are important and significant.

But the more significant shift for women comes with the recognition that job-creating budgets need to invest in a broader range of jobs including in services sectors. About 80% of Australians work in services (and 90% of working women), so investing in these jobs ensures a broader recovery than the previous hard-hat focus.

Read more: Frydenberg spends the budget bounty to drive unemployment down to new lows

While last year’s Budget ran hard on infrastructure and investment tax breaks that favour capital-intensive sectors, this time around there is a stronger focus on care economy jobs through the spend on aged care, childcare and mental health.

Even the extended JobTrainer scheme receives a care-centred makeover, with an additional 33,800 low fee and free training places set aside to support future aged care workers.

Services sectors hit hard by COVID also receive some cash including the already announced $1.2 billion support package for the aviation and tourism sector and $300 million for the creative and cultural sector. Universities again miss out but private education providers also receive additional supports.

The long-term challenge

Other major measures in the Budget include the rollover of the Low and Middle Tax Offset (the ‘lamington’) for another year – delivering up to $1080 into the hands of low- and middle-income taxpayers next year – and extension of two key business tax measures: instant expensing and loss carry backs – focussed on bringing forward business investment.

The challenge is that much of this increased spending is permanent.

And when combined with the impact of COVID on migration and on the size of the economy, this leaves the medium-term forecasts looking markedly different to the (probably unrealistic) ones that voters were served up before the 2019 election.

But, as the Parliamentary Budget Office suggested a fortnight ago even with this shift, Australia’s debt levels are sustainable and are likely to remain so. Net debt is forecast to stabilise and then fall over the medium term, even with continuing deficits.

This doesn’t mean that long-term structural challenges disappear, but it does mean that there is more breathing space for the Government to let voters see its softer side. As an economic as well as political strategy, it makes a lot of sense.

– ref. Less hard hats, more soft hearts: Budget pivots to women and the care sector – https://theconversation.com/less-hard-hats-more-soft-hearts-budget-pivots-to-women-and-the-care-sector-159332

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

Josh Frydenberg’s third budget aims to give Australia a post-pandemic soft landing, using revenue windfalls for spending and tax cuts rather than for slashing the deficit.

Its philosophy is very much gain, not pain, for a population that has endured the stress of the pandemic, albeit not the devastation experienced by so many other countries.

There are plenty of winners, and minimal direct losers in a budget that lays the ground work for an election that is still expected next year rather than this.

Hard decisions have been eschewed. Prime Minister Scott Morrison is trying to avoid offending voters.

The political prism of this budget is very much in the moment. As such, it leaves Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese little room. Excessive criticism, and he risks sounding carping. Demands for too much more, and he might be accused of irresponsibility.

The budget dodges major reform, with the notable exception of aged care, which the royal commission’s scathing findings made unavoidable.

Read more: Budget splashes cash, with $17.7 billion for aged care and a pitch to women

The deficit for the coming financial year is forecast to be $106.6 billion, only marginally below the December budget update forecast of about $108 billion.

Tens of billions of dollars in windfall revenue (from the faster-than-expected economic recovery, and high iron ore prices) have been distributed, rather than going to the bottom line.

At the end of the budget period, in 2024-25, the deficit will be an estimated $57 billion. Indeed, there is no surplus in sight in a decade.

Without a policy U-turn, Frydenberg as treasurer will likely never deliver that “back in black” budget. Indeed, by the time there is a surplus, he might have served as prime minister, been in opposition, and departed politics.

But of course, after the next election, at some point there will be a change of policy, towards fiscal consolidation.

Frydenberg presents an optimistic picture for the economy in the coming financial year, with the caveat that the pandemic lurks and therefore so does uncertainty.

The budget forecasts unemployment falling to 5% next year and dropping to 4.5% by June 2024. Growth peaks at 4.25% next financial year, but slows after that.

Critics will say that given the state of the economy, and the amount of revenue, budget repair is being delayed too long. That won’t, of course, be the judgement of the public.

We can apply many measuring sticks to the budget, beyond the spending-versus-repair one.

The most obvious is its response to the aged care royal commission. The government is putting some $17.7 billion into the system over the forward estimates, and there will be 80,000 additional home care packages (the waiting list is 100,000).

The experts will argue over the money and probably conclude it is not enough. Equally, the test must be whether the initiatives adequately address improving regulation and achieving a larger, better trained and remunerated workforce. The government makes the right noises but the judgement can only come later. The workforce issues are particularly challenging.

Read more: Frydenberg spends the budget bounty to drive unemployment down to new lows

The size of the task is enormous, with a planned new funding model to improve quality and a goal of cultural reform. Health Minister Greg Hunt on Tuesday described it as a “once in a generation” reform. The program will take five years.

As foreshadowed, there are many initiatives for women – on safety, health and economic security. Reforms to child care benefit families, but women especially will be making comparisons with the more generous, less targeted Labor scheme.

Many individuals and businesses will be scrutinising the budget for what it says about opening Australia back to the world.

The message is that it will be a slow path.

Migrants, temporary and permanent, will gradually start to come from mid next year.

Late this year, “small phased programs” of international students will start.

Inbound and outbound travels will remain low for the next year.

But hey – it’s assumed “a population-wide vaccination program is likely to be in place by the end of 2021”. Let’s hope this is so – but it’s only an assumption.

By the end of next year, barring a fresh assault by the pandemic, we might – just might – be looking at more normality. And then we will soon be facing a more “normal” budget too, with its share of nasties.

– ref. View from The Hill: Frydenberg finds the money tree – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-frydenberg-finds-the-money-tree-159225

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

I don’t often feel sorry for politicians. But having to manage a process that produces forecasts about the next four years of an economy still clawing its way out of a pandemic, and then having to publicly defend those forecasts, is no easy task.

That said, our compassion for the plight of Treasurer Josh Frydenberg shouldn’t stop us judging his budget forecasts. And, like all forecasts, those rest heavily on the assumptions that underpin them.

Read more: Budget splashes cash, with $17.7 billion for aged care and a pitch to women

Core budget assumptions

The core budget assumptions about unemployment and economic growth are relatively rosy. Unemployment is forecast to be down to 4.75% by 2023-23 and 4.5% the year after – both well below pre-pandemic levels. Real GDP growth is expected to rebound to 4.25% in 2021-22 and then settle down to about 2.5% thereafter. Given we are unlikely to have the population growth of the pre-COVID era, that’s a pretty high rate.

Taking a look graphically at actual and forecast GDP makes it clear why folks are talking about a “V-shaped recovery”. But even the fairly bullish assumptions reveal a recovery where the V isn’t really sharp enough. Call it a “floppy-V-shaped recovery.”

That’s rather disappointing, especially given Frydenberg has fundamentally shifted Liberal party fiscal strategy away from “debt and deficits” and dalliances with austerity, to one that sees government spending at more than 26% of GDP in steady state.

But what is more disappointing is that this increased spending isn’t forecast to translate into stronger employment and wages growth.

The budget forecasts an unemployment rate of 4.5% in 2023-24 and 2024-25. That’s better than pre-pandemic levels, but not all that close to the 4%-or-lower number many economists (including RBA governor Philip Lowe) think might be required to get wages growing meaningfully for the first time since 2013.

The budget forecasts reflect this, with wages growth of 2.25% in 2022-23 and 2.5% in 2023-24 both equal to forecast inflation in those years. That is, real wages growth is not even forecast to begin again until 2024-25—and even then, only barely.

Non-mining business investment is forecast to grow by 1.5% in 2021-22 and then jump by a massive 12.5% in 2022-23. That might reflect a post-COVID investment boom driven by a widely mRNA-vaccinated nation and a raft of government incentives. Or it might just be wishful thinking.

As to immigration, we can expect our borders to be largely shut for the foreseeable future. This is reflected in the budget’s forecast population growth of “around 0.1% in 2020-21, 0.2% in 2021-22 and 0.8% in 2022-23.”

Whether immigration does actually pick up significantly in 2022-23 depends crucially on our vaccination rollout. If we can reverse the bungled execution to date, overcome vaccine hesitancy, and secure enough Pfizer and Moderna doses (including for boosters) immigration might grow strongly again. But there are a number of things that have to go right for that to happen. And the government has a poor track record to date on those things.

And then there’s one notable assumption that makes news in every budget: the iron-ore price. The budget papers themselves highlight the importance of it, noting:

“The recent strength in key commodity prices, particularly iron ore, has seen a significant resurgence in Australia’s terms of trade […] As a result, nominal GDP is expected to grow by 3¾% in 2020-21, by a further 3½% in 2021-22 and by 2% in 2022-23.”

The budget assumes the iron-ore price will decline from its current level of over US$200 a tonne, to US$55 a tonne by March 2022. This incredibly pessimistic assumption basically gives the government a buffer on the headline deficit figure. If the forecast of a $99.3 billion deficit in 2022-23 is beaten significantly, it will likely be due to iron ore prices staying high.

The biggest assumption of all

The core economic assumptions discussed above underpin the budget bottom line – a number that used to receive considerably more attention when there was a question of “when” the budget might be back in surplus.

Those days are gone.

Frydenberg has engineered a remarkable shift in Liberal party economic philosophy. While maintaining their brand as “the party of lower taxes, not higher taxes”, they have jettisoned budget-balance fetishism.

Good. It’s about time.

But the biggest assumption of all in the out years of the budget is that the government – should it be reelected – sticks to this new strategy. If they do it holds the promise of being transformative.

It would represent a modest but welcome transformation of the economy, and a dramatic transformation of the Liberal Party brand.

Read more: Frydenberg spends the budget bounty to drive unemployment down to new lows

– ref. Budget 2021: the floppy-V-shaped recovery – https://theconversation.com/budget-2021-the-floppy-v-shaped-recovery-159230

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

Never before has a budget spent so much to supercharge the economy after the worst of a recession has already passed.

The economy bounced back from last year’s COVID recession far more sharply than the treasury (or just about anyone else) expected.

The bounty from the higher-than-expected tax collections that flowed from more people than expected in work, a much higher-than-expected iron ore price, and lower than expected unemployment benefits, should amount to A$26.8 billion this financial year, $15.5 billion the next, and $18.6 billion the year after that.

But rather than bank those riches and improve the budget bottom line, as the Coalition’s budget strategy used to require it to do, the government has instead decided to spend the lot.

It will spend $21 billion of this year’s $26.8 billion; it will spend or give up in new tax concessions $26.9 billion — far more than next year’s $15.5 billion bounty, and so on.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has come good on his historic promise to keep spending way beyond the crisis, to drive the unemployment rate down below where it was when the pandemic started.

Read more: Budget splashes cash, with $17.7 billion for aged care and a pitch to women

The budget predicts an unemployment rate of 4.75% by mid-2023 and 4.5% by mid-2024.

If delivered (and the treasurer’s revised strategy published in the budget requires him to keep spending until it is), it will mark what the budget papers describe as, “the first sustained period of unemployment below 5% since before the global financial crisis, and only the second time since the early 1970s”.

In the same way as Australia emerged from the early-1990s recession with a dramatically lower inflation rate because the Reserve Bank was determined to salvage something from the carnage, Frydenberg has decided to exit the COVID recession with an ongoing lower floor under unemployment.

Both the treasury and Reserve Bank believe Australia can sustain much lower unemployment than the 5-6% it has grown used to. The treasury’s estimate is 4.5%; the Reserve Bank’s is nearer 4%. Before COVID, the United States managed 3.5%.

If achieved, it will mean hundreds of thousands more Australians providing services, drawing paycheques, and paying tax. And no longer on benefits.

A dramatic budget graph tracking the fortunes of every Australian whose payroll was reported to the tax office throughout 2020 shows the biggest victims of the COVID recession — by far — were those without post-school education. At the deepest point of the COVID recession in May, they were almost three times as likely to have lost their jobs as Australians with degrees.

The budget provides an extra $400 million for low-fee or no-cost training for jobseekers, to be matched by the states; an extra $481 million for the transition to work employment service directed at Australians aged 24 and under; and a further $2.4 billion to the Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements program.

But most of what it intends to do for jobs is the indirect result of a barely precedented expansion in spending and tax concessions in all sorts of areas.

The extra $17.7 billion it is spending on aged care over four years ought to create many jobs, as should the extra $13.2 billion it is spending on the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

The $1.7 billion it is spending on making childcare more affordable should both create jobs in the sector and free up more parents to return to work.

An extra $20 billion in business tax concessions should help as well.

The budget’s break with the past isn’t its dramatic expansion of discretionary spending. That’s common in recessions. What’s unusual is that spending is being ramped up when we are not in recession.

In the words beloved of economists, the spending is “pro-cyclical” rather than “counter-cyclical”. It is designed to supercharge our exit from recession rather than merely bring it about.

And there’s little sign of the spending stopping. If this government or the next achieves success in driving the unemployment rate down to 4.5%, it will want to go further. It will keep going further right up until we get inflation near the top of the Reserve Bank’s 2-3% target band and wage growth in excess of 3%, neither of which this budget foresees in forecasts going out four years.

Government debt, anathema to the Coalition when Labor ran it up during and after the global financial crisis, isn’t much of a constraint.

The Reserve Bank holds much of the government’s debt (it didn’t during Labor’s time) and is buying as much as it needs to to keep interest rates low. Recently, interest rates have been rising, but not for most of the government’s borrowings, which are long-term.

The budget papers show that even with net government debt at 34% of GDP and heading to 44%, interest payments on that debt are much less of a drain on the budget than they were back in the mid 1990s when net debt hit 18% of GDP.

And the times have changed. Worldwide, few nations have an aversion to government debt, especially not the United States. In Australia, the only side of politics that used to complain about debt is in currently in office.

Before COVID, the fiscal strategy spelled out in the budget as part of the Charter of Budget Honesty required the government to eliminate net debt.

Frydenberg’s revised strategy merely requires him to stabilise and then reduce net debt “as a share of the economy”.

His priority is driving down unemployment. If that helps expand the economy and so drives down net debt as a share of the economy so much the better. But he wants to do it regardless.

– ref. Frydenberg spends the budget bounty to drive unemployment down to new lows – https://theconversation.com/frydenberg-spends-the-budget-bounty-to-drive-unemployment-down-to-new-lows-159229

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

The Morrison government has brought down a big-spending, expansionary budget that forecasts Australia’s unemployment rate will fall to 4.75% in two years time.

But Australia’s international borders won’t be properly open for at least a year, according to the budget’s assumptions.

“Australia is coming back,” Treasurer Josh Frydenberg told parliament on Tuesday night.“

Employment is at a record high, with 75,000 more Australians in jobs than before the pandemic.

“This budget will help to create more than 250,000 jobs by the end of 2022-23,” Frydenberg said.

“This budget secures the recovery and sets Australia up for the future.”

The deficit for next financial year is expected to be A$106.6 billion, with cumulative deficits of $342.4 billion over the forward estimates.

As the government continues to spend to underpin the recovery, net debt will increase to 30% of GDP at the end of June, before peaking at 40.9% at June 30, 2025.

The centrepiece of Frydenberg’s third budget – which had been largely pre-announced by the government – is a $17.7 billion aged care package, spent over five years and including 80,000 extra home care packages.

Frydenberg said this would make a total of 275,000 packages available. The present waiting list is 100,000.

The aged care package is designed as long term structural reform after the royal commission found the system in a parlous state and needing a comprehensive overhaul.

“We will increase the time nurses and carers are required to spend with their patients,” Frydenberg said.

“We will make an additional payment of $10 per resident per day to enhance the viability and sustainability of the residential aged care sector.

“We will support over 33,000 new training places for personal carers, and a new Indigenous workforce.

“We will increase access for respite services for carers.

“We will strengthen the regulatory regime to monitor to monitor and enforce standards of care.”

In other major initiatives, there is $2.3 billion for mental health, while the earlier-announced adjustment to the JobSeeker rate will cost nearly $9.5 billion over the budget period.

Some 10.2 million low and medium income earners will benefit from the extension of the tax offset for another year, at a cost of $7.8 billion.

As Morrison seeks to repair his image with women, there is a range of measures on women’s safety, economic security, health and wellbeing totalling $3.4 billion.

This includes $1.7 billion for changes to child care, $351.6 million for women’s health, and $1.1 billion for women’s safety.

There will be another $1.9 billion for the rollout of COVID vaccines.

Quizzed at his news conference on the future of Australia’s closed border, Frydenberg hedged his bets. “When it comes to international borders, it’s an imprecise business.”

The budget papers assume a gradual return of temporary and permanent migrants from mid-2022, and small arrivals of international students, starting late this year and increasing from next year.

“The rate of international arrivals will continue to be constrained by state and territory quarantine caps over 2021 and the first half of 2022, with the exception of passengers from Safe Travel Zones.

“Inbound and outbound international travel is expected to remain low through to mid-2022, after which a gradual recovery in international tourism is assumed to occur,” the papers say.

The budget is heavy on continued help for business, with more than $20 billion extra in support.

With the country facing a skill shortage and skilled workers not able to enter, Frydenberg said the government would create more than 170,000 new apprenticeships at a cost of $2.7 billion.

“We will help more women break into non-traditional trades, with training support for 5,000 places,” he said

There will be 2,700 places in Indigenous girls academies to help them finish school and enter the workforce.

More STEM scholarships will be provided for women. Another 5,000 places are being made available in higher education short courses.

The budget’s housing package includes another 10,000 places under the New Home Guarantee for first home buyers who build or buy a newly built home. It will also increase the amount that can be released under the First Home Super Saver Scheme.

From July 1, 10,000 guarantees will be provided over four years to single parents with dependents to build or buy a home with a deposit as low as 2%.

Retirees will benefit from a measure to encourage them to downsize.

Older people will no longer have to meet a work test before they can make voluntary contributions to superannuation. People aged over 60 will be able to contribute up to $300,000 into their superannuation if they downsize.

Given the housing shortage, this is aimed at freeing up more housing for younger people.

The government will also enhance the Pension Loan Scheme by providing immediate access to lump sums of $12,000 for single people and $18,000 for couples.

Although modest, one measure that will help women, who retire on average with much less superannuation than men, is that the government will remove the $450-a-month minimum income threshold for the superannuation guarantee.

Frydenberg said the government was committing another $15 billion over a decade to infrastructure, including roads, airports and light rail.

There is also $1.2 billion for multiple measures to promote the digital economy.

– ref. Budget splashes cash, with $17.7 billion for aged care and a pitch to women – https://theconversation.com/budget-splashes-cash-with-17-7-billion-for-aged-care-and-a-pitch-to-women-159227

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Farmer, Researcher, The University of Melbourne

Why does the sun’s bright light make me sneeze? — Orlo, age 5

Dear Orlo,

Thanks for your lovely question. Very smart people have been wondering about this very question for thousands of years.

To tell you the truth, Orlo, nobody knows for sure why this happens. But it’s probably got to do with the fact that signals from your eyes and your nose go to the same part of your brain.

Let me explain.

The sneeze centre

Your nose can be used to smell and breathe. But sometimes, things get into our nose that shouldn’t be there. The list of things that should not be in our nose is very long, so I will not include all of them here. But it includes things like peas, sweetcorn and Lego, as well as viruses and bacteria, which are tiny germs that sometimes make us sick.

Read more: Curious Kids: How do we smell?

When you have something in your nose that shouldn’t be there, it’s best to call on the “sneeze centre”. The sneeze centre is the place in your brain that makes sneezes. It’s in your brainstem, which is at the bottom of your brain.

It can do this because it contains instructions on how to switch your breathing muscles on in just the right order to produce a sneeze.

So, while you might think of sneezing as something that happens inside your nose, a lot of it happens inside your brain.

Switching on the sneeze centre

When you have things inside your nose that shouldn’t be there, they will switch on nerve cells on the inside of your nose. These nerve cells send a signal to the brain, which is conveniently located just inside your head and not very far away from your nose.

When the brain gets this signal, it is relayed to the sneeze centre inside your brain so as to say “we could really use a sneeze now”. The sneeze centre will then produce a sneeze that pushes the unwelcome things out of your nose.

The sun

While the nose is very important, it’s not the only part of your body that has nerve cells which talk to the brain. Another part is your eyes.

Let’s imagine you look at something very bright, which can be the sun but doesn’t have to be the sun. When you do, nerve cells in the eye send this information to the brain which tells your eyes to blink or squint in order to deal with the light.

Orlo, for some reason, in about a quarter of people (including you!) the bright light can also produce a sneeze.

Why?

Well, scientists disagree about this, but I will tell you what I think is the most likely explanation.

Some of the nerve cells in your nose and in you your eye talk to the same region of the brain: a place called “the trigeminal nucleus”.

This means the signals from the nose (the ones that would usually produce a sneeze) and the signals from the eye (the ones that would usually produce squinting or blinking) arrive into the same part of the brain.

If the number of signals coming in from the eye is very high (like it might be if you happen to look at the sun), they can end up switching on the sneeze centre as well as the parts of the brain that cause blinking. This makes you sneeze, even without you having put something up your nose!

Read more: Curious kids: do whales fart and sneeze?

Hello, Curious Kids! Have you got a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au

– ref. Curious Kids: why does the sun’s bright light make me sneeze? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-does-the-suns-bright-light-make-me-sneeze-158133

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Boddy, PhD Candidate in History, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Singer Billie Eilish’s new look for British Vogue, in which she trades her baggy clothes for lingerie — most notably a series of corsets — has sparked much debate.

Eilish has previously spoken of her choice to hide her body shape, and some saw the Vogue photo shoot as a sell-out or succumbing to patriarchal beauty standards.

In the article accompanying her Vogue cover, Eilish predicted such criticism, suggesting people would say: “If you’re about body positivity, why would you wear a corset? Why wouldn’t you show your actual body?”

But, she continued: “My thing is that I can do whatever I want.”

Corsets have long sparked debate. First worn by women in the 17th century, their form has changed over centuries. Throughout the 18th century, most stays (as they were then known) were in the shape of an inverted triangle — wider around the chest and narrowing in to the natural waist. Corsets were typically made of cotton, sometimes covered in a fabric like silk, and in the 19th century, whalebone inserts were popular to create structure.

As the waistline of dresses rose through the Regency period, corsets changed to a straighter silhouette. When 19th century dresses were designed to highlight women’s natural curves, corsets changed also.

In the first half of the 20th century, corsets were largely phased out as new styles of dress emerged, requiring less structure, and as new forms of undergarments became available. In her photo shoot, Eilish references mid century pin-ups; corsets are now having a fashion moment, with a reported surge in online searches for them after the Vogue cover appeared.

The most enduring image of a corset-wearer is of an upper-class lady having the laces pulled tighter and tighter to appear beautiful and waifish for a ball. Given this, corsets are often viewed as a patriarchal symbol of female oppression and restriction, forced upon women to contort their body into aesthetically pleasing shapes – whether Kardashian curves or the “S” shape desired in the Edwardian era.

But women wore corsets while doing their daily chores: going to the market or helping with cooking or cleaning. Corsets had to be functional rather than restrictive.

Corsets are perhaps best thought of as a long-line bra. An everyday corset provided breast and back support. Rather than restricting women into certain forms, it provided support and the freedom to go about their day.

There were more structured corsets designed to be worn for balls and soirées. A little fancier, perhaps made of nicer material, and designed to be laced slightly tighter. But the lacing was not intended to cut off breath, and instead to create a pleasing silhouette.

While in a few cases, corsets could have an effect on rib structure, these were extreme, and a minority. Research has refuted “the longstanding medical belief that corseting was responsible for early death.” Most corsets were worn without incident.

Just as women today might wear shape wear for a night out, women of the past used corsets to make themselves feel more beautiful.

But interpreting this as women playing into patriarchal beauty standards strips these women of their agency. Women chose their own dresses, and the undergarments that went with them, and they decided how tight their corsets were laced.

Spreading misconceptions

Some of our misconceptions around corsets come from museums and television.

Corsets shown in museums are often laced to their tightest, and therefore smallest possible circumference, but they were more likely to be worn with space between the lacings.

Additionally, those corsets in museums are the ones that survived. Everyday corsets, suffering from normal wear and tear and were unlikely to last, so those still around today might be the fancier corsets, designed to look beautiful and thus smaller than average.

Television has also done us a disservice when it comes to corsets.

We have numerous scenes of women being laced far too tightly into their corsets, complaining of being unable to breathe, or even fainting from lack of breath (think of the Featheringtons in Bridgerton or Elizabeth Swann in Pirates of the Caribbean).

Often, actors are interviewed after taking part in a period piece and protest about how uncomfortable corsets were to wear and act in.

This discomfort was likely true, but not because the corset itself is the problem. Historically, corsets were individualised pieces of clothing, whereas corsets used for period dramas are less likely to be made specifically for an actress.

Describing corsets as “controversial” or “restrictive” reveals our modern views on items of the past.

It also points to much wider tensions in society – who do we dress for? How do we interpret body positivity?

At the end of the day, Billie Eilish is a young woman, experimenting with a new style, and that’s wholly her choice. And the corsets she wears have a long, expressive history.

– ref. Long before Billie Eilish, women wore corsets for form, function and support – https://theconversation.com/long-before-billie-eilish-women-wore-corsets-for-form-function-and-support-160598

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Peterie, Research Fellow, University of Wollongong

Around Australia, Muslims are preparing to celebrate Eid al-Fitr – “the feast of breaking the fast” that marks the end of Ramadan.

Eid usually involves dawn prayers and gatherings to share food and gifts. Family and community are central to these celebrations. This Eid will be particularly significant for many in the Islamic faith, as COVID-19 curtailed last year’s festivities.

Yet for Muslim refugees and asylum seekers in Australian immigration detention facilities, observances will be muted.

Escalating restrictions on visitors

This is not a new phenomenon. Since 2015, I have conducted over 70 interviews with regular visitors to Australian detention facilities. Long before COVID-19, restrictive visiting rules were separating detainees from their communities of support.

Visitors have been required to submit complex online applications at least one week before each visit. Group visits have required additional approvals and taken weeks to organise. Friends and family members with unpredictable work schedules, poor digital literacy or limited English have struggled to visit detention at all.

Blanket bans on fresh food have also been enforced, and detainees and visitors have been required to sit in assigned chairs under constant surveillance.

Read more: Refugees need protection from coronavirus too, and must be released

These restrictions were introduced years before the pandemic – purportedly to ensure the safety and security of detention spaces by minimising risks such as food poisoning.

During the pandemic, detainee isolation has become even more pronounced. Visits were banned altogether for much of last year, and detainees went months without seeing friends and family members.

Complete visitor bans have now been lifted, but strict COVID-19 rules remain in place.

Group visits are still prohibited and overall visitor numbers are capped. Once these spaces fill up, all other visitation requests are rejected. Food of all kinds is banned, and visitors must sit in designated seats and remain physically distanced from their loved ones.

For Muslim detainees, these restrictions will make for a sombre Eid. Christian detainees faced similar constraints this Easter, as did families wishing to celebrate Mother’s Day last weekend.

A celebratory atmosphere

Australia’s detention system has not always been this way. As recently as the mid-2010s, communal celebrations were a regular occurrence in detention. Visitors were permitted to bring fresh food to their visits and would often prepare special meals to mark important occasions.

Moina*, one of my interviewees in Melbourne, for example, would bake Women’s Weekly-style cakes for detained children’s birthdays and make homemade meals from the detainees’ countries of origin.

During visits, detainees and visitors would share food and laughter. Detainees were free to move between tables, making their “guests” feel welcome and offering tea and coffee.

Larger festivities organised by community volunteers were sometimes permitted. As Melbourne volunteer Hannah* explained:

We would organise Christmas, Eid parties, circus performances, bands. There was a kind of community liaison person. I used to manage an annual Christmas shoebox appeal […] I’d get kids in our community to decorate shoeboxes and then adults would buy gifts and we would fill them all and then go in there with the Sisters of Brigidine who would do the food for lunch.

Darwin interviewees recalled visiting detention centres on Mother’s Day with armfuls of flowers for the female detainees.

These celebrations served myriad functions. They brought an element of normality to visits, allowing detainees to maintain relationships with their community-based family and friends. They also allowed members of the Australian community to show their support to people who were seeking protection here. And they helped detainees mark important religious, cultural and personal events.

Read more: ‘People are crying and begging’: the human cost of forced relocations in immigration detention

Perhaps most importantly, these occasions provided a brief respite from the anguish and isolation of detention life.

Mental illness and self-harm are endemic in detention. Measures that build connections and combat despair are of critical importance.

As ex-detainee Farhad Bandesh shared on Facebook, refugees find hope and strength in “their families, friends and the people in community”.

The way forward

Decades of research attests that immigration detention causes profound harm. Limiting access to culture and community only compounds people’s anguish.

Stories like Moina’s show immigration detention does not have to be as harsh as it has become. Turning these centres into quasi-prisons has been a choice: one that could and should be unmade.

If authorities are sincere that they want to make detention safer, a dual approach is necessary.

First, refugees and asylum seekers can — and should — be released into the community immediately. Detention should only be used as a short-term measure and last resort.

Second, restrictions that have increased the isolation of detention need to be reversed. Incarceration is inherently distressing; it should not be made more painful by harsh institutional rules.

This is not to suggest reversing these escalations would make detention humane. It would not. Restrictions on visitors are just one of many deprivations that detainees experience.

But these refugees and asylum seekers have committed no crime. At the very least, they deserve to celebrate special occasions like the rest of us: in freedom and safety, surrounded by the people they love.

The names of interviewees have been changed to protect their identities.

– ref. For Muslim refugees in immigration detention, another sombre, isolated Eid holiday – https://theconversation.com/for-muslim-refugees-in-immigration-detention-another-sombre-isolated-eid-holiday-159994

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Kosovac, Research Fellow in Water Policy, The University of Melbourne

In Australia over recent months, the fury of women has been hard to ignore. The anger, much of it directed at the toxic masculine culture of Parliament House, has sparked a national conversation about how these attitudes harm women.

The movement has led me to think about how masculine cultures pervade our relationship with water. I worked as a civil engineer in the water industry for nine years, managing projects from planning through to construction. I’m now a water policy researcher, and in a recent paper I explored how dominant masculinity is limiting our response to dire water problems.

Overly masculine environments affect the way decisions are made. In particular, a reliance on technological and infrastructure “fixes” to solve problems is linked to masculine ideas of power.

Under this way of thinking, water is to be controlled, re-purposed and rerouted as needed. I believe we must reassess these old methods. Does it really need to be all about control and power? Managing water in tandem with nature may be more prudent.

Hiring women is not enough

In the case of federal parliament, the toxic masculinity problem has partly been blamed on a lack of women in senior roles. Similarly, in the area of water supply, sewerage and drainage services, only 19.8% of the workforce comprises people who identify as women (compared to 50.5% across all industries). The sector include state government departments, water authorities and consultancies.

Globally, the lack of women in water engineering has primarily been addressed by increasing the representation of women in the field, on boards and in management.

However creating a more diverse workforce does not automatically lead to a diversity of thinking. In the case of water management, hiring women, or others such as LGBTI and Indigenous employees, does not necessarily mean their contributions are valued. Very often, a masculine culture prevails.

Read more: Our national water policy is outdated, unfair and not fit for climate challenges: major new report

Pipelines and gadgets aren’t always the answer

Toxic masculinity doesn’t just refer to overtly sexist cultures or allegations of sexual assault. It can also refer to male-dominated decision making where other ideas are undervalued.

Take, for example, the dominant “technocracy” approach to water management, in which infrastructure and technology is relied on to solve problems.

In Australia as elsewhere, this can perhaps be seen in the emergence of “smart water management” which uses gadgets such as smart meters and other technology to gather and communicate real-time data to help address water management challenges.

As other researchers have argued, this “boys and their toys” approach perpetuates a mindset that sustainability problems – often caused by deep-seated structural and behaviour faults such as over-consumption – can be solved with engineering and technology.

Read more: We can’t drought-proof Australia, and trying is a fool’s errand

The idea that technology is a symbol of masculinity has been explored by many feminist theorists.

Technical prowess, being “in control” and rationality have historically been seen as typically male characteristics. And senior technological roles are usually occupied by men.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with using technology to solve water issues. But when technocratic thinking is “monolithic” and ignores wider societal issues, it can become a problem.

Take, for example, Victoria’s North-South pipeline built during the Millennium Drought. This A$750 million piece of infrastructure connected to Melbourne in 2010 but has lain idle ever since – largely due to fears from farmers that taking water from rural areas will hurt agricultural output.

Similarly, desalination plants in many parts of Australia are an expensive technological approach that solve one problem, yet can create many others. They use a lot of energy, which contributes to climate change if drawn from fossil fuels, and can damage marine life.

Finding another way

Global water scarcity is inescapable. Water use is growing at a rate faster than population growth while climate change is diminishing clean water suppies in many areas.

We need look no further than Australia’s trouble-plagued Murray Darling Basin to know it’s time to reassess the old methods and explore new ways in our relationship with water.

Exerting control over water – say, building an extensive sewer network and water supply system – may have been needed when Australia was modernising. But now it’s time to take a more humble approach that works in tandem with the environment.

A different approach would incorporate valuable knowledge in the social sciences, such as recognising the politics and social issues at play in how we manage water.

For example, in 2006 residents in the Queensland town of Toowoomba rejected the prospect of drinking recycled wastewater after a highly politicised referendum campaign. Residents had just three months to consider the proposal, which divided the community. A non-masculine approach might involve better public consultation and an effort by authorities to understand community attitudes prior to planning.

Read more: Water injustice runs deep in Australia. Fixing it means handing control to First Nations

Australians are the world’s greatest per capita consumers of water. A new approach might also involve questioning this consumptive behaviour and reducing our water use, rather than relying on technological fixes.

Such approaches are likely to require giving up some control. And it may require working closely with traditional owners to incorporate Indigenous understandings of water.

In 2017 for example, the New Zealand government passed legislation that recognised the Whanganui River catchment as a legal person. The reform formally acknowledged the special relationship local Māori have with the river.

This different approach may also mean moving to community decision making models or even programs to increase youth involvement in water management.

An over-reliance on technology and infrastructure papers over the need to understand the behaviours that lead to water problems. We must seek new, sustainable approaches that recognise the role of water in our social, political and cultural lives.

– ref. ‘Boys and their toys’: how overt masculinity dominates Australia’s relationship with water – https://theconversation.com/boys-and-their-toys-how-overt-masculinity-dominates-australias-relationship-with-water-158772

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

With the government facing a serious backlash over its public sector wage freeze policy, that sound you hear could be the ghost of Rob Muldoon chuckling.

As finance minister in the Holyoake government (1960-72) and later as prime minister (1975-81), he knew how tempting – and difficult – pay freezes could be.

That didn’t stop him using them, but not even he would have contemplated what the current Labour government has announced.

Targeting only public servants earning over NZ$60,000, for three years and with no apparent provision for inflation or cost of living increases, would have been anathema to Muldoon.

He wouldn’t have fancied the odds on inflation and the consumer price index staying stable for that long — or the risk of political blow-back if he got it wrong. But that’s the bet today’s government has made.

Command and control

In fact, there’s no consensus on how inflation, interest rates and capital movements will evolve over the next three years. No one wants inflation to take off, but rocketing house prices, rent increases and rising construction costs are already eroding real incomes.

Of course, Muldoon was operating in a very different economic era. He had inherited post-war legislative machinery that allowed for strict command and control of the economy — although it wasn’t popular even then.

In the late 1960s, when the then powerful Arbitration Court issued a “nil general wage order” – that is, a pay freeze – there was resistance and upheaval. Muldoon crafted legislation to make the controls more palatable.

It was a tool he would resort to again, near the end of his time as prime minister, when he introduced price and wage freezes in 1982, 1983 and 1984. Given they were one of the reasons he lost his grip on power, perhaps we should ask what other lessons might be learned from the relatively recent past.

What about other options?

Like Jacinda Ardern, Muldoon mastered the media. When challenged politically, he would take his case to the country and argue for what he said were the necessary actions.

Something similar should be easy these days, given the world is in unprecedented economic times and public debt close to 100% of global GDP. By comparison, New Zealand’s situation is relatively good. But public debt is still running at $103.3 billion, or 32.6% of GDP — an annual increase of 73%. Also thanks to COVID-19, the economy shrank by 2.9%.

Most people understand why the debt increase has been necessary, they generally don’t begrudge it, and can see the point of reducing it over time. They might also know short term pay freezes have been introduced in Britain and parts of Australia.

Read more: If New Zealand can radically reform its health system, why not do the same for welfare?

But they will also know that, compared to others, New Zealand is well placed to bounce back — at 4.7%, unemployment is relatively low, and the economy is performing better than expected.

All of which raises some obvious questions about the public sector pay freeze. Why isn’t growing our way out of debt enough? Why is New Zealand seemingly the only country locking in such long term pay-freeze plans? And why wouldn’t a small tax increase, shared equitably among all citizens for a short period, be a better option?

No safety net

Great fanfare has been made out of the “team of five million”, but only one part of the team is being asked to endure a long term pay freeze.

When Muldoon applied his controls to the economy they applied, more or less, to everyone. The 1968 general wage order covered all workers linked to union awards — at that time the vast majority.

Similarly, the wage and price freeze in the early 1980s covered everyone. Being in the public or private sector did not matter. So why the discriminatory focus in 2021?

Read more: Why now would be a good time for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand to publish stress test results for individual banks

Muldoon also used safety nets with his wage freezes. First, the restrictions were short-term measures, more like six months than three years, and he revisited and adjusted them as required.

Second, to ensure frozen wages weren’t trumped by inflation, he controlled prices, either freezing them too, or ensuring wages could rise if inflation did.

For example, the General Wage Orders Act of the late 1960s allowed the Arbitration Court to consider “living standards, so far as it is within the capacity of the economy to sustain such an adjustment”.

Lessons of history

By the early 1980s, price controls had become so extensive they included interest rates and rents. Businesses could only raise prices in exceptional circumstances.

Trouble was, it couldn’t be contained. As pressure built in different parts of the economy, controls had to be expanded in all directions.

The government should know a wage freeze – even a limited one like this – is a high risk strategy. It can go badly for those who implement it, just as much as it hurts those on the receiving end.

Furthermore, it can fail politically as much as economically. In both the historical examples used here, there were too many forces at work beyond the government’s control for a freeze to work.

Despite the best of intentions, those blunt command and control policies were ultimately washed out with the governments that introduced them.

– ref. Why NZ’s public sector wage freeze ignores the lessons of history – https://theconversation.com/why-nzs-public-sector-wage-freeze-ignores-the-lessons-of-history-160607

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paulo de Souza, Professor, Griffith University

China’s space program is making impressive progress. The country only launched its first crewed flight in 2003, more than 40 years after the Soviet Union’s Yuri Gagarin became the first human in space. China’s first Mars mission was in 2020, half a century after the US Mariner 9 probe flew past the red planet.

But the rising Asian superpower is catching up fast: flying missions to the Moon and Mars; launching heavy-lift rockets; building a new space telescope set to fly in 2024; and, most recently, putting the first piece of the Tiangong space station (the name means Heavenly Palace) into orbit.

What is the Tiangong space station?

Tiangong is the successor to China’s Tiangong-1 and Tiangong-2 space laboratories, launched in 2011 and 2016, respectively. It will be built on a modular design, similar to the International Space Station operated by the United States, Russia, Japan, Canada and the European Space Agency. When complete, Tiangong will consist of a core module attached to two laboratories with a combined weight of nearly 70 tonnes.

The core capsule, named Tianhe (Harmony of Heavens), is about the size of a bus. Containing life support and control systems, this core will be the station’s living quarters. At 22.5 tonnes, the Tianhe capsule is the biggest and heaviest spacecraft China has ever constructed.

The capsule will be central to the space station’s future operations. In 2022, two slightly smaller modules are expected to join Tianhe to extend the space station and make it possible to carry out various scientific and technological experiments. Ultimately, the station will include 14 internal experiment racks and 50 external ports for studies of the space environment.

Tianhe will be just one-fifth the size of the International Space Station, and will host up to three crew members at a time. The first three “taikonauts” (as Chinese astronauts are often known) are expected to take up residence in June.

Read more: How to live in space: what we’ve learned from 20 years of the International Space Station

A troubled launch

Tianhe was launched from China’s Hainan island on April 29 aboard a Long March 5B rocket.

These rockets have one core stage and four boosters, each of which is nearly 28 metres tall － the height of a nine-storey building － and more than 3 metres wide. The Long March 5B weighs about 850 tonnes when fully fuelled, and can lift a 25-tonne payload into low Earth orbit.

During the Tianhe launch, the gigantic core stage of the rocket – weighing around 20 tonnes – spun out of control, eventually splashing down more than a week later in the Indian Ocean. The absence of a control system for the return of the rocket to Earth has raised criticism from the international community.

Read more: A giant piece of space junk is hurtling towards Earth. Here’s how worried you should be

However, these rockets are a key element of China’s short-term ambitions in space. They are planned to be used to deliver modules and crew to Tiangong, as well as launching exploratory probes to the Moon and eventually Mars.

Despite leaving behind an enormous hunk of space junk, Tianhe made it safely to orbit. An hour and 13 minutes after launch, its solar panels started operating and the module powered up.

Completion and future

Tianhe is now sitting in low-Earth orbit (about 400km above the ground), waiting for the first of the ten scheduled supply flights over the next 18 months that it will take to complete the Tiangong station.

A pair of experiment modules named Wentian (Quest for Heavens) and Mengtian (Dreaming of Heavens) are planned for launch in 2022. Although the station is being built by China alone, nine other nations have already signed on to fly experiments aboard Tiangong.

How to see the Tiangong space station

Tianhe is already visible with the naked eye, if you know where and when to look.

To find out when the space station might be visible from where you are, you can check websites such as n2yo.com, which show you the station’s current location and its predicted path for the next 10 days. Note that these predictions are based on models that can change quite quickly, because the space station is slowly falling in its orbit and periodically boosts itself back up to higher altitudes.

The station orbits Earth every 91 minutes. Once you find the time of the station’s next pass over your location (at night – you won’t be able to see it in the daytime), check the direction it will be coming from, find yourself a dark spot away from bright lights, and look out for a tiny, fast-moving spark of light trailing across the heavens.

– ref. China’s Tiangong space station: what it is, what it’s for, and how to see it – https://theconversation.com/chinas-tiangong-space-station-what-it-is-what-its-for-and-how-to-see-it-160456

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

Australia’s vaccine rollout is moving far more slowly than the government had hoped, and there is evidence of vaccine hesitancy in a significant part of the population.

Some governments and media outlets are already considering whether mandates will be needed to reach sufficient vaccine coverage.

Last year, Prime Minister Scott Morrison briefly suggested a vaccine would be mandatory before walking it back hours later.

Supply and rollout problems must clearly be solved first. But if mandates do come back on the table in the face of vaccine hesitancy, our research sheds light on how widely supported they would be.

Last year, with our research partner Pureprofile, we surveyed 1,200 Australians about whether they would take a COVID-19 vaccine when it became available. We also asked if they thought the government should make the vaccine a requirement for work, travel and study.

Our sample included 898 respondents we had previously surveyed in 2017. Back then, we asked their opinions about the safety and necessity of vaccines and whether they supported the federal government’s “No Jab, No Pay” policy, which takes away financial entitlements from vaccine refusers.

Read more: Should a COVID-19 vaccine be compulsory — and what would this mean for anti-vaxxers?

Of those who participated in both the 2017 and 2020 surveys, 88% agreed in 2017 with the statement that “vaccines are safe, necessary and effective”. Yet 30% gave a hesitant response (“maybe” or “no”) when asked in 2020 if they would take the coronavirus vaccine.

We asked all hesitant respondents why they were hesitant. Just 8% of them were “against vaccines”. Another 16% indicated they weren’t personally concerned about the coronavirus. But an overwhelming 70% had safety concerns about the vaccine because of how quickly it was being developed.

This level of vaccine hesitancy is very high by Australian standards, but it is unfortunately normal for COVID-19. Other local and international studies have also found much higher than normal hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccines, driven by a variety of factors. Despite this higher-than-usual hesitancy, a comfortable majority of Australians still want the vaccine.

Moreover, large majorities of Australians are in favour of government mandates for COVID-19 vaccines. Surprisingly, more respondents in our survey said they favoured the government making the vaccine a requirement (73%) than said they would definitely take it themselves (66%).

This is the opposite of what vaccination mandate studies usually find in the US, where there is less support for government mandates than there is for personally taking vaccines. However, it is in line with what other researchers have found about Australians during the pandemic. We have generally been highly accepting of strict government measures to control it, even if we don’t agree with them. This may also be evidence of a broader culture of rule-following.

Another crucial difference between Australians and Americans is in the political makeup of support for COVID-19 vaccines. While vaccine hesitancy in the US previously didn’t map onto party-political affiliation, it has very much done so for COVID-19.

Donald Trump’s opposition to other measures to fight the pandemic, his scepticism about the pandemic itself, and perhaps even his earlier statements about childhood vaccines seem to have caused widespread rejection of the COVID-19 vaccine among Republicans. This is in spite of the Trump administration’s significant support of vaccine development, and Trump’s own claim that he is the “father of the vaccine”.

Making vaccinations mandatory is even less popular with Republicans, and threatens to become a significant culture war issue.

Read more: Can the government, or my employer, force me to get a COVID-19 vaccine under the law?

However, in Australia, the COVID-19 vaccine and the prospect of government requirements are popular. Supporters of both the Coalition parties and Labor, which between them form every state and federal government in the country, embrace both: 72% of these major party voters say they would definitely take the vaccine, while 79% of them support requirements for it. There is no statistically significant difference between supporters of the different parties.

On the other hand, voters whose first preference would go to another party or independent were more hesitant about the vaccine and requiring it. Only 56% of them said they would definitely take the vaccine, while 61% said they would support a mandate.

Politicians from the Coalition and Labor have led Australia’s response to COVID-19, appearing alongside each other in a sometimes fractious but generally co-operative national cabinet. So perhaps it isn’t surprising that supporters of these parties also support vaccination in large numbers.

The biggest pockets of opposition are found in supporters of parties that usually don’t form government, and which challenge the major party consensus from both the left and right. It is important to emphasise that even a majority of these minor party voters would definitely take the vaccine, and would also support government requirements to do so. But we must keep in mind that vaccine hesitancy may well have an “anti-establishment” character in Australia, found among those who are less satisfied with the major parties.

We conducted our survey before any vaccine had been developed, let alone rolled out. Now that Australians have seen both the spectacular successes and rare but worrying adverse events following some brands of vaccination, should we expect them to have different views?

The market research company Ipsos undertook the only other national study we know of on attitudes to making COVID-19 vaccinations mandatory. In January, Ipsos asked whether this should be the case for those over 18, and found 54% of Australians said yes, 35% said no and 10% were unsure.

The stronger language of “mandates” and less clarity about what mandatory means in practice may have prompted less support than in our study. Comparisons to 13 other countries put Australians somewhere in the middle in terms of acceptance of mandates. The Ipsos survey, like ours, was conducted prior to the recent pivot away from AstraZeneca vaccination for under 50s.

However, a recent survey of Western Australians found much higher support when respondents were asked about a specific requirement. Some 86% of respondents said they would favour making a vaccine mandatory for anyone who wanted to travel overseas.

The authors of this piece are neither anti- nor pro- vaccine mandates. We believe in certain circumstances it is appropriate for governments to require people to be vaccinated, and we prefer this to leaving vaccine mandates to the private sector. The development of any mandatory vaccination policies should involve robust and transparent engagement with the public.

However, we believe mandates should be a policy of last resort. Well-funded and targeted public communications, easy access and incentives should come first. We are still waiting for our own eligibility to be vaccinated, so there is a long way to go.

– ref. Would Australians support mandates for the COVID-19 vaccine? Our research suggests most would – https://theconversation.com/would-australians-support-mandates-for-the-covid-19-vaccine-our-research-suggests-most-would-159919

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Fancourt, Paediatrician & Research Fellow, Menzies School of Health Research

Last week the Northern Territory (NT) government proposed legislative changes to youth justice, including tightening access to bail and diversion, particularly for re-offenders.

We expect the legislation could go through as early as today. But this tough-on-crime approach runs contrary to what we know works to reduce youth offending and keep children healthy.

Nine national and local health organisations have written an open letter to NT government ministers warning the reforms “pose a significant threat to the health and wellbeing of an already vulnerable cohort of young people”.

Evidence-based solutions recognise youth crime is not solely a justice issue: it’s also health and disability issue. If we want to reduce youth offending, there are better alternatives to this punitive approach.

The proposed changes are regressive

If passed, the legislation would reverse changes implemented following the Royal Commission into the Detention and Protection of Children in the Northern Territory, particularly around bail.

The presumption of bail will be removed for an expanded list of offences, including unlawful entry and assault of a worker (such as a support worker). There will be automatic revocation of bail for breaches, such as breaking curfew and re-offending. Police will also be able to apply electronic monitoring to children alleged to have committed a crime.

This means, for example, a child running late for curfew, or who forgot to charge an electronic monitoring device, could automatically lose bail.

Diversion, which uses community programs instead of traditional criminal justice mechanisms, will be available to a young person only once (previously, this could be used twice).

Read more: Why are so many Indigenous kids in detention in the NT in the first place?

Importantly, these changes will increase the number of youth in detention in the NT. The average rate of young people aged 10-17 in detention in the NT is 7.9 per 10,000 — already more than three times the national average.

Well over 90% of young people in detention in the NT are Indigenous Australians.

Punishment and deterrence are not effective

Evidence tells us solely punitive responses in youth justice are largely ineffective in preventing repeat offending. Military-style boot camps and “scared straight” programs (where, for example, youth are taken to prisons to see the possible consequences of their behaviour) don’t work.

Even short periods of detention, with the associated separation from culture and community, can affect a child’s psychological and physical well-being and compromise cognitive development.

Compounding the problem, detention with other young people can exacerbate bad behaviour.

Figures provided to us by the NT government show 77% of young people released from detention return within 12 months, but 64% of those who complete a diversion program do not reoffend in the same timeframe.

Trauma and neurodevelopmental disability are common

Adolescence is a period of significant development, with changes in brain structure and function. A growing body of evidence shows many young people in the justice system have experienced significant interruptions to healthy brain development.

Childhood abuse or neglect, exposure to domestic violence, or parental mental illness, can induce “toxic stress”. This affects the development of skills such as emotional regulation, reward-seeking, executive function (including flexible thinking and self-control) and threat perception.

Children exposed to multiple stressors are 20 times more likely to be imprisoned in their lifetime. Mental illness and substance use are also common issues for young offenders in Australia.

Read more: Almost every young person in WA detention has a severe brain impairment

Foetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) is brain damage caused by exposure to alcohol before birth. A study from the Banksia Hill Detention Centre in Western Australia found 36% of 99 young people evaluated had FASD.

Some 89% of all participants had severe impairment in at least one area, such as academic achievement, attention, or language. As care providers at Don Dale Youth Detention Centre, we see this frequently in the young people we meet.

As a result of such trauma and disability, young people often have a restricted range of responses to emotional and stressful situations. They’re more likely to resort to aggression, violence, and impulsive behaviour.

So what works?

We need effective interventions that recognise the developmental stage of adolescence and respond to individual needs.

First, the system needs to promote resolution outside a formal criminal justice process. One method is Family Group Conferences, which have been successful in New Zealand.

The conferences bring together the offender, their family, the victim, police and others to discuss and make recommendations for the young person. They’re more likely to be culturally appropriate and empower families and communities, and can also benefit the victim. The Australian Law Reform Commission has recommended expanding the use of this program in Australia.

Second, we need an evidence-based, therapeutic approach to rehabilitation that recognises an individual offender’s risk factors and disability. This may mean interventions at home and school, supporting peer relationships or reducing substance use. These approaches are targeted at the child’s developmental level and address how they respond to challenges.

One such program is the Yiriman Project, which operates in the Kimberley. It uses on-country trips focused on cultural pride, safety, and regeneration for Indigenous young people.

In Spain, the Diagrama Foundation model, which provides a range of rehabilitative programs in detention, has seen repeat offending fall as low as 14%.

Read more: Don Dale royal commission demands sweeping change – is there political will to make it happen?

Punitive approaches do not address the issues driving bad behaviour. We need to see prompt assessment of all young offenders for FASD and other disabilities, ideally as soon as they enter the youth justice system. We also need to expand best-practice diversion programs. These were key findings from a recent senate inquiry into FASD and will allow responses to improve skills many of us take for granted, such as emotional regulation, developing strong relationships, and an ability to organise daily tasks.

The NT government’s regressive policies will not reduce youth crime. And instead of addressing the poor health of most youth offenders, they will expose some of the most vulnerable and marginalised young people in our society to further trauma and disadvantage.

– ref. The NT’s tough-on-crime approach won’t reduce youth offending. This is what we know works – https://theconversation.com/the-nts-tough-on-crime-approach-wont-reduce-youth-offending-this-is-what-we-know-works-160361

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Bowman, Professor of Pyrogeography and Fire Science, University of Tasmania

The Black Summer bushfires shocked the world and generated enormous global media interest. Fire scientists like myself found themselves filling a role not unlike sport commentators, explaining the unfolding drama in real time.

Scientists who engaged with the media during the crisis straddled two competing imperatives. First was their duty to share their knowledge with the community while knowing their understanding is imperfect. Second was the ethical obligation to rigorously test hypotheses against data analysis and peer review – the results of which could only be known long after the fires were out.

One area where this tension emerged was around the influential idea that logging exacerbated the bushfire disaster. During the fire crisis and in the months afterwards, some scientists suggested logging profoundly affected the fires’ severity and frequency. There were associated calls to cease native forestry and shift wood production to plantations.

But there is no scientific consensus about the possible effects of logging on fire risk. In fact, research by myself and colleagues, published in Nature Ecology and Evolution today, shows logging had little if any effect on the Black Summer bushfires. Rather, the disaster’s huge extent and severity were more likely due to unprecedented drought and sustained hot, windy weather.

These findings are significant for several reasons. Getting to the bottom of the bushfires’ cause is essential for sustainable forest management. And, more importantly, our research confirms the devastating role climate change played in the Black Summer fires.

Looking for patterns

Our research focused on 7 million hectares of mostly eucalyptus forests, from the subtropics to temperate zones, which burned between August 2019 and March 2020.

There is some evidence to suggest logged areas are more flammable that unlogged forests. Proponents of this view say logging regimes make the remaining forests hotter and drier, and leave debris on the ground that increases the fuel load.

In our research, we wanted to determine:

• the relative roles logging and other factors such as climate played in fires that destroyed or completely scorched forest canopies

• whether plantations are more vulnerable to canopy scorch than native forests.

To do so, we used landscape ecology techniques that could compare very large areas with different patterns of land use and fire severity. We sampled 32% of the area burnt in three regions spanning the geographic range of the fires.

Read more: The government has pledged over $800m to fight natural disasters. It could be revolutionary — if done right

What we found

Fire intensity is classified according to the vertical layer of vegetation burnt. A scorched tree canopy suggests the most intense type of fire, where the heat extended from the ground to the treetops.

We found several predictors of canopy damage. First, completely scorched canopy, or canopy consumed by fire, typically occurred across connected swathes of bushland. This most likely reflected instances where the fire made a “run”, driven by localised winds.

Extreme weather fire conditions were the next most important predictor of canopy damage. The drought had created vast areas of tinder-dry forests. Temperatures during the fire season were hot and westerly winds were strong.

Southeast Australia’s climate has changed, making such extreme fire weather more frequent, prolonged and severe.

Logging activity in the last 25 years consistently ranked “low” as a driver of fire severity. This makes sense for several reasons.

As noted above, fire conditions were extraordinarily extreme. And there was mismatch between the massive area burnt and the comparatively small areas commercially logged in the last 25 years (4.5% in eastern Victoria, 5.3% in southern NSW and 7.8% in northern NSW).

Fire severity is also related to landscape features: fire on ridges is generally worse than in sheltered valleys.

Our research also found timber plantations were as prone to severe fire as native forestry areas. In NSW (the worst-affected state) one-quarter of plantations burned – than 70% severely. This counteracts the suggestion using plantations, rather than logging native forest, can avoid purported fire hazards.

Read more: Australia, you have unfinished business. It’s time to let our ‘fire people’ care for this land

A challenge awaits

Our findings are deeply concerning. They signal there is no quick fix to the ongoing fire crisis afflicting Australia and other flammable landscapes.

The crisis is being driven by relentless climate change. Terrifyingly, it has the potential to turn forests from critical stores of carbon into volatile sources of carbon emissions released when vegetation burns.

Under a rapidly warming and drying climate, fuel loads are likely to become less important in determining fire extent and severity. This will make it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to lower fuel loads in a way that will limit bushfire severity.

A massive challenge awaits. We must find socially and environmentally acceptable ways to make forests more resilient to fire while the also produce sustainable timber products, store carbon, provide water and protect biodiversity.

The next step is a real-world evaluation of management options. One idea worth exploring is whether the fire resistance of native forests can be improved in specific areas by altering tree density, vegetation structure or fuel loads, while sustaining biodiversity and amenity.

Commercial forestry could potentially do this, with significant innovation and willingness to let go of current practices.

Through collective effort, I’m confident we can sustainably manage of forests and fire. Our study is but a small step in a much bigger, zig-zagging journey of discovery.

Read more: As bushfire and holiday seasons converge, it may be time to say goodbye to the typical Australian summer holiday

– ref. New research finds native forest logging did not worsen the Black Summer bushfires – https://theconversation.com/new-research-finds-native-forest-logging-did-not-worsen-the-black-summer-bushfires-160600

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher Cornwall, Rutherford Discovery Fellow, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

The twin stress factors of ocean warming and acidification increasingly threaten coral reefs worldwide, but relatively little is known about how various climate scenarios will affect coral reef growth rates.

Our research, published today, paints a grim picture. We estimate that even under the most optimistic emissions scenarios, we’ll see dramatic reductions in coral reef growth globally. The good news is that 63% of all reefs in this emissions scenario will still be able to grow by 2100.

But if emissions continue to rise unabated, we predict 94% of coral reefs globally will be eroding by 2050. Even under an intermediate emissions scenario, we project a worst-case outcome in which coral reefs on average will no longer be able to grow vertically by 2100.

The latter scenarios would have dramatic consequences for marine biodiversity and the millions of people who depend on healthy, actively growing coral reefs for livelihoods and shoreline protection. This highlights the urgency and importance of acting now to drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Coral reefs are home to more than 830,000 species and provide coastal communities with food and income through fisheries and tourism.

The Great Barrier Reef alone contributes A$6.4 billion to the Australian economy. Critically, coral reefs also protect coastlines from storm surges and create land for many low-lying Indo-Pacific island nations.

Marine heatwaves, caused by ongoing ocean warming, have already had a severe impact on coral reef ecosystems by triggering mass bleaching events. These events are becoming more frequent and intense, and cause mass die-offs across large areas.

Ocean acidification also reduces the growth of corals by limiting their ability to build their skeletons from calcium carbonate. Together, these stressors threaten the ability of coral reefs to grow and keep up with sea level rise.

Complex impacts from ocean warming and acidification

Our understanding of how ocean warming and acidification threaten reef-forming species has improved considerably over the past decade. However, understanding how coral reef growth will be altered by climate change is more complex than simply measuring rates of change from individual taxonomic groups of corals.

Our study of 183 reefs worldwide provides the first quantitative estimate of how most of the processes that control reef growth respond to climate change and affect carbonate accumulation and growth rates.

Reefs grow by layering calcium carbonate, produced either by corals and coralline algae. The amount of calcium carbonate built by these reefs depends on many factors.

Cyclones, waves and currents can flush parts of the reef away. Acidifying ocean water means more dissolves chemically. And there is a biological carbonate exchange, known as bio-erosion. Sponges, parrotfish, sea urchins and algae can all eat it, but then return some as defecated sand.

Depending on which of these processes dominates, coral reefs either grow and accrete vertically, or they start to erode. Most of these processes vary for each reef, and almost all are affected by climate change.

Read more: The Great Barrier Reef outlook is ‘very poor’. We have one last chance to save it

To complicate matters, the frequency and intensity of marine heatwaves will vary geographically, making it difficult to estimate to what degree coral mass bleaching events will reduce coral cover.

In our research, we applied these local and global processes to 233 locations on 183 distinct coral reefs that vary in their species compositions and physical complexity. We found significant variability in responses to ocean acidification and warming.

Geographical and species variability

We predict coral mass bleaching events will have the largest impact on carbonate production across all sites. The world’s coral reefs have already been transformed dramatically by these events over the past few decades.

Read more: We just spent two weeks surveying the Great Barrier Reef. What we saw was an utter tragedy

We used the documented impacts of the 2016 mass bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef, which affected a large range of reefs with different species compositions, depths and latitudes. During this event, each reef experienced varying heat stress, which manifested in different levels of coral cover loss.

This information helped us to calibrate models to predict heat-stress events globally between now and 2100 and to gauge the future magnitudes of heat stress and their impact on our study sites.

We found currently degraded reefs fared poorly in our model, even under lower emissions scenarios. Reefs whose carbonate production was more robust against the effects of climate change tended to be those with high present-day carbonate production rates, higher contributions from coralline algae (which are also vulnerbable, but comparatively more resistant to warming than corals) and low rates of bio-erosion.

Hope for coral reefs

In higher emissions scenarios, even reefs dominated by coralline algae began to suffer as ocean acidification and warming intensified. It is also important to note that such reefs will provide different, and perhaps reduced, services compared to coral-dominated reefs because they are structurally less complex.

We did not explore in depth whether remaining coral reef communities could gain tolerance to rising temperatures over time. This could manifest as an increase in the proportional abundance of heat-tolerant species as more heat-sensitive corals die during mass bleaching events.

Surviving corals could acclimatise or even adapt. But whether these mechanisms could provide hope for the continued growth of coral reefs in the future — and if so, to what extent — is largely unknown. Nor can we say if more heat-tolerant corals could sustain similar rates of reef growth and structural complexity.

The best hope to save coral reefs and their ecological, societal and economic benefits is to reduce our carbon emissions dramatically, and quickly. Even under our projected intermediate scenarios we expect mean global erosion of coral reefs.

Under the lowest emissions scenario we examined, we expect profound changes in coral reef growth rates and their ability to provide ecosystem services. In this scenario, only some reefs will be able to keep pace with rising sea levels.

We owe it to our children and grandchildren to reduce emissions now, if we have any hope of them witnessing the majestic nature of coral reef ecosystems.

– ref. The outlook for coral reefs remains grim unless we cut emissions fast — new research – https://theconversation.com/the-outlook-for-coral-reefs-remains-grim-unless-we-cut-emissions-fast-new-research-160251

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kingsley Dixon, John Curtin Distinguished Professor, Curtin University

We all love gardens with beautiful flowers and leafy plants, choosing colourful species to plant in and around our homes. Plant scientists, however, may have fallen for the same trick in what they choose to research.

Our research, published today in Nature Plants, found there’s a clear bias among scientists toward visually striking plants. This means they’re more likely chosen for scientific study and conservation efforts, regardless of their ecological or evolutionary significance.

To our surprise, colour played a major role skewing researcher bias. White, red and pink flowers were more likely to feature in research literature than those with dull, or green and brown flowers. Blue plants — the rarest colour in nature — received most research attention.

But does this bias matter? Plants worldwide are facing mass extinction due to environmental threats such as climate change. Now, more than ever, the human-induced tide of extinction means scientists need to be more fair-handed in ensuring all species have a fighting chance at survival.

Hidden plants in carpets of wildflowers

I was part of an international team that sifted through 280 research papers from 1975 to 2020, and analysed 113 plant species found in the southwestern Alps in Europe.

The Alps is a global biodiversity hotspot and the subject of almost 200 years of intensive plant science. But climate change is now creating hotter conditions, threatening many of its rarest species.

Carpeted in snow for much of the year, the brief yet explosive flowering of Europe’s alpine flora following the thaw is a joy to behold. Who was not bewitched when Julie Andrews danced in an alpine meadow in its full spring wildflower livery in The Sound of Music? Or when she sung “edelweiss”, one of the charismatic plants of the Alps that heralds spring?

Read more: People are ‘blind’ to plants, and that’s bad news for conservation

Hidden in these carpets of bright blue gentians and Delphiniums, vibrant daisies and orchids, are tiny or dull plants. This includes small sedges (Carex species), lady’s mantle (Alchemilla species) or the snake lily (Fritillaria) with its sanguine drooping flowers on thin stems.

Many of these “uncharismatic plants” are also rare or important ecological species, yet garner little attention from scientists and the public.

The plants scientists prefer

The study asked if scientists were impartial to good-looking plants. We tested whether there was a relationship between research focus on plant species and characteristics, such as the colour, shape and prominence of species.

Along with a bias towards colourful flowers, we found accessible and conspicuous flowers were among those most studied (outside of plants required for human food or medicine).

This includes tall, prominent Delphinium and larkspurs, both well-known garden delights with well-displayed, vibrant flowers that often verge on fluorescent. Stem height also contributed to how readily a plant was researched, as it determines a plant’s ability to stand out among others. This includes tall bellflowers (Campanula species) and orchids.

But interestingly, a plant’s rarity didn’t significantly influence research attention. Charismatic orchids, for example, figured prominently despite rarer, less obvious species growing nearby, such as tiny sedges (Cypreaceae) and grass species.

The consequences of plant favouritism

This bias may steer conservation efforts away from plants that, while less visually pleasing, are more important to the health of the overall ecosystem or in need of urgent conservation.

In this time of urgent conservation, controlling our bias in plant science is critical. While the world list of threatened species (the IUCN RED List) should be the basis for guiding global plant conservation, the practice is often far from science based.

We often don’t know how important a species is until it’s thoroughly researched, and losing an unnoticed species could mean the loss of a keystone plant.

In Australia, for example, milkweeds (Asclepiadaceae) are an important food source for butterflies and caterpillars, while grassy mat rushes (dull-flowered Lomandra species) are now known to be the home for rare native sun moths. From habitats to food, these plants provide foundational ecological services, yet many milkweed and mat rush species are rare, and largely neglected in conservation research.

Read more: ‘Majestic, stunning, intriguing and bizarre’: New Guinea has 13,634 species of plants, and these are some of our favourites

Likewise, we can count on one hand the number of scientists who work on creepy fungal-like organisms called “slime molds”, compared to the platoons of scientists who work on the most glamorous of plants: the orchids.

Yet, slime molds, with their extraordinary ability to live without cell walls and to float their nuclei in a pulsating jelly of cytoplasm, could hold keys to all sorts of remarkable scientific discoveries.

We need to love our boring plants

Our study shows the need to take aesthetic biases more explicitly into consideration in science and in the choice of species studied, for the best conservation and ecological outcomes.

While our study didn’t venture into Australia, the principle holds true: we should be more vigilant in all parts of the conservation process, from the science to listing species for protection under the law. (Attractiveness bias may affect public interest here, too.)

So next time you go for a bushwalk, think about the plants you may have trodden on because they weren’t worth a second glance. They may be important to native insects, improve soil health or critical for a healthy bushland.

Read more: These 3 tips will help you create a thriving pollinator-friendly garden this winter

– ref. Nobody cares about fugly flowers. Scientists pay more attention to pretty plants – https://theconversation.com/nobody-cares-about-fugly-flowers-scientists-pay-more-attention-to-pretty-plants-160601

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scott Davie, Lecturer in Piano, School of Music, Australian National University

In this series we pay tribute to the art we wish could visit — and hope to see once travel restrictions are lifted.

The appreciation of art is enriched through experience, and there is perhaps no greater experience than travel. But while landmark destinations, such as Carnegie Hall or Glyndebourne, are wonderful to visit, it can be paradoxical to travel for music.

Music is less tangible than other art-forms — like architecture or painting — and is often hard to pin down. Where exactly “is” music? Can it be embodied within one place? If one searches for it, where exactly does one end up?

As a classical pianist, I’ve been searching for Polish composer and piano virtuoso Frédéric Chopin since my early teens.

Read more: Performing Beethoven – what it feels like to embody a master on today’s stage

Delacroix’s portrait of Chopin

The journey began after inheriting a dog-eared volume of piano pieces which featured Eugène Delacroix’s well-known portrait of the composer on the cover. I later learned that the painting hung on the walls of the Musée de Louvre, so when I first visited Paris I searched for it.

Chopin had arrived in Paris after leaving Poland in 1830. A fierce nationalist, the failure of the November Uprising against Russian occupation meant he was unable to return. Subsequently, he made Paris his home, dying there at the tragically young age of 39.

Today, it is a challenge to see Paris as he would have known it. Some of the half-dozen homes where he lived no longer exist. This is also true of the original Salle Pleyel, where Chopin gave rare public performances. While the grand boulevards seem quintessentially Parisian, the construction of Georges-Eugène Haussmann’s elegant urban design post-dates the composer’s death.

Yet, in Chopin’s day the Louvre was already established as a museum. When I visited, I fairly much ignored the great masterpieces by Titian, Caravaggio, Vermeer, and da Vinci. At last, I found the room in which the Delacroix portrait was hung. But I was, sadly, disappointed: it had been removed for repair. My search would continue.

Winter in Majorca

Delacroix’s portrait has another story to tell. It is cut from a larger, unfinished canvas, which depicted Chopin with George Sand (the pen name of Aurore Dupin), a novelist as famed for her literary works as for wearing men’s clothing and smoking cigars. For eight years Chopin and Sand were romantically linked, yet their relationship ended acrimoniously. (Perhaps fittingly, Sand’s portion of the painting now hangs in Copenhagen.)

From Sand’s autobiographical Winter in Majorca, we have a chronicle of their four-month stay on the island of Majorca in Spain, among many valuable glimpses of the composer at the beginning of their romance. The trip to warmer climes was for Chopin’s “delicate” health, yet an unseasonably cold and wet winter likely exacerbated the tuberculosis that later killed him.

At first, the setting was idyllic, with Chopin writing joyfully in letters home about the “palms, cedars, cacti, olives, and pomegranates”. Yet the unmarried couple grew frustrated with the religious conservatism of locals and, when the composer’s ill health was assumed to be contagious, they retreated to the Carthusian Monastery at Valldemosa.

The imposing stone building is today about 25 minutes’ drive from Palma, yet in Chopin’s time the journey north through mountainous terrain was taken perilously by carriage. He described his room there as being like a cell “in the shape of a tall coffin”. According to Sand, he also believed it was haunted.

Read more: The original Love Island: how George Sand and Fryderyk Chopin put Mallorca on the romance map

Yet some of his most inspired pieces appear to have been created there, like the so-called “raindrop” prelude. Sand recounted returning to the monastery late at night, finding Chopin “pale, at the piano, wild-eyed, his hair standing almost straight up”. He imagined that he had been drowned in a lake, with the repetitive notes of the piece representing “heavy and icy raindrops” falling on his chest.

My own journey resumed when I had the opportunity to visit Majorca in my late 20s. I enjoyed better weather, with winter sunshine bringing warmth and colour. Chopin’s room itself is now a museum, and in a corner stands the fine Pleyel piano which arrived, with cruel timing, only shortly before he left.

Off his room is a long terrace which overlooks a deep valley. While imagining Chopin enjoying the view, I watched as a bank of dense mist rolled incongruously up the slope. A minute later it had enclosed me, and the place was grey and silent.

Final resting place

The relationship between Chopin and Sand dissolved after an argument over her daughter, Solange. While the couple would never again speak, Solange remained loyal until his death in 1849. Years later she recounted his final moments:

We wanted to give him a drink, but death prevented us. He passed away with his gaze fixed on me […] I could see the tarnishing in his eyes in the darkness. Oh, the soul had died too!

Appropriately, my search for Chopin concludes with a visit to the cemetery of Père Lachaise, where artist Delacroix had been among the composer’s pallbearers. After looking at the graves of Rossini, Oscar Wilde, and Jim Morrison, my companions and I looked for the final resting place of Chopin.

We walked in silence, but on finding the place — marked by a statue of the muse Euterpe weeping over a broken lyre — I asked what they’d thought of the piano music that had played in the distance. I thought that it seemed like a composition by Chopin, but couldn’t place it.

Yet they hadn’t heard a thing, and to this day I can’t account for the strange occurrence. In such a place, perhaps the mind plays tricks.

Audiences expect performers to do more than play the notes; they expect insight and personal conviction. For me, tracing Chopin’s footsteps has contributed to that conviction and, certainly, these experiences have enriched his music to me.

But, as with all travel, the urge continues. And if I could go anywhere now, I’d keep on searching.

Read more: Four Indigenous composers and a piano from colonial times — making passionate, layered, honest music together

– ref. If I could go anywhere: searching for music in the places where Chopin lived and died – https://theconversation.com/if-i-could-go-anywhere-searching-for-music-in-the-places-where-chopin-lived-and-died-157862

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anne Twomey, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Sydney

One part of a legal challenge to the Commonwealth’s India travel ban was comprehensively defeated in the Federal Court on Monday evening.

Justice Thawley rejected all the arguments made by the applicant, Gary Newman, a 73-year-old Australian citizen who has been in India since March 2020.

Newman’s challenge was divided into two stages.

The first stage was heard and dismissed by the Federal Court on Monday. This leaves open the possibility Newman will proceed with the second stage, which is a constitutional challenge. However, there may be no time to do so, assuming that the ban is lifted on Friday 15 May, as proposed.

What arguments did Newman make and on what grounds did the judge find that they failed?

Did the minister fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act?

Newman’s first argument was the health minister (in this case, Greg Hunt) had failed to satisfy the conditions imposed in section 477 of the Biosecurity Act on the exercise of his power. It was argued Hunt had failed to consider the impact of the potential spread of COVID throughout prisons if people breached the travel ban and returned from India with COVID and were immediately placed in prison, without bail or quarantine.

Read more: Is Australia’s India travel ban legal? A citizenship law expert explains

Justice Thawley was quite dismissive of this argument suggesting there was no serious possibility this would occur.

Newman also argued the minister had not considered other less intrusive and restrictive measures. However, Justice Thawley pointed out the minister had set out some exceptions to the ban in his determination, including for medical evacuation flights and for members of Australian medical assistance teams. The minister had therefore turned his mind to how he could reduce the intrusive effect of the ban.

Another technical argument was that the law was “extraterritorial” in its application because it operated outside Australia and this was not permitted under the Biosecurity Act. But Justice Thawley rejected this, noting no offence occurred under the minister’s determination until a person actually entered into Australian territory. So it was not extraterritorial in its application.

Was there a breach of a fundamental common law right?

The second main argument by Newman was that the right of an Australian citizen to enter Australia is a fundamental common law right. This was accepted by the Commonwealth government.

It was also accepted that fundamental common law rights cannot be limited by legislation unless the parliament does so with “irresistible clearness”. This is known as the “principle of legality”. It means parliament has to take full responsibility for any restriction on fundamental common law rights, and this can only be done if it acknowledges clearly in its legislation what it is doing.

While Justice Thawley agreed this was the relevant principle, he thought it was clear the Biosecurity Act was intended to permit the restriction of fundamental common law rights, including the movement of citizens in and out of Australia. He reached this conclusion by looking at various other provisions in the Act which showed an intention to limit the movement of people into and out of Australia.

Justice Thawley also noted section 477 of the Act is deliberately drafted broadly because it was intended to deal with emergencies which could not be anticipated in their scale and effect. He noted that even though it gave a very broad power to the health minister, it could only be exercised when certain conditions were satisfied.

First, there needed to be a “human biosecurity emergency” — which requires an assessment of a severe and immediate threat or harm to human health on a nationally significant scale.

Second, section 477 includes detailed matters of which the minister must be satisfied before making a determination. This includes that it is no more restrictive or intrusive than necessary. These limitations were included to ensure that the minister’s very broad power, which included the potential to limit fundamental common law rights, is not exercised in an abusive manner.

Newman’s argument therefore failed.

What happens now?

The failure of Newman’s arguments means there are really only two practical courses left. First, there could be a separate hearing of the constitutional points. They are that (a) there is an implied constitutional right of a citizen to enter Australia; and (b) there was no constitutional power to enact section 477.

Second, there could be an appeal from Justice Thawley’s judgment on the first part of the case to the Full Federal Court.

Read more: It’s not surprising Indian-Australians feel singled out. They have long been subjected to racism

The difficulty, however, is timing. If the minister’s determination ceases to operate on May 15, as planned, then there would be no “matter” to be determined by a court, leaving the issue moot.

So it is unlikely, at this stage, that the proceedings will continue, unless the travel ban affecting citizens is extended, or a new travel ban is implemented.

– ref. Part of the legal challenge to the India travel ban has been comprehensively defeated — here’s why – https://theconversation.com/part-of-the-legal-challenge-to-the-india-travel-ban-has-been-comprehensively-defeated-heres-why-160624

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By R. Ramakumar, Professor of Economics, Tata Institute of Social Sciences

Countries around the world are racing against time to vaccinate their populations against the coronavirus.

But India has thus far been a poor performer, with only 9.6% of its population receiving a vaccine so far (compared to 51.8% in the UK, 45% in the US, 32.1% in Germany and 14.9% in Brazil).

While there are a few issues plaguing the vaccine roll out, the most egregious is the fact most Indians, many of whom live in poverty, are being made to pay for their shots. And the government is allowing vaccine producers to charge whatever they like.

Read more: After early success, India’s daily COVID infections have surpassed the US and Brazil. Why?

Not enough jabs

To cover its entire adult (over 18 years) population, India needs 1.9 billion doses of vaccines. If these vaccines were to be administered over the next 12 months, India would need 161 million doses each month, or 5.4 million doses each day.

At present, India produces only about 2.5 million doses per day, which may rise at best to three million doses per day over the next few months. At the present rate, India would be able to cover only 30% of its population by early 2022.

Only by 2023 would it be able to administer the shot to everyone above 18, which would be late, given the pace and spread of the pandemic.

How did it come to this?

There are three major reasons for this issue.

First, while many countries permitted a diverse basket of vaccines for domestic use, India limited its emergency approvals to just two — Covishield and Covaxin.

Covishield is the Indian name for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, produced by the Serum Institute of India. Covaxin, on the other hand, was developed jointly by India’s public sector and a private company named Bharat Biotech.

The reason appears to be a belief – based on zero evidence – that the two “Made in India” vaccines would be sufficient to meet India’s domestic needs and international commitments.

Read more: India’s staggering COVID crisis could have been avoided. But the government dropped its guard too soon

For example, India could have granted emergency approval to the Russian vaccine Sputnik V, and the US-based Pfizer vaccine, in February 2021. Sputnik V was refused approval in February on the grounds that it had not supplied data on immunogenicity (immune response).

However, the same standards did not appear to have been applied to the other two vaccines – Covishield was given approval in January, even though its immunogenicity data were not yet available. Trial data from the UK, South Africa and Brazil published in The Lancet was considered adequate at the time.

Similarly, Pfizer was compelled to withdraw its application for emergency approval because the drug regulator insisted conducting a local bridging study would be necessary. However, Covaxin was given approval in January even when its Phase 3 data on efficacy were not available.

Second, the vaccine business is risky, given the amount of money that has to go into research, development, and testing, and many won’t end up being effective. Early public investments reduce risk exposure for vaccine companies and help raise their production capacities. Countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany made large at-risk investments in vaccine companies for research and capacity expansion. India failed to do so.

Third, India failed to place advance purchase orders for adequate quantities of vaccines. The first purchase order wasn’t placed until January this year. By this time, capacities of vaccine producers were already locked into other supply commitments elsewhere.

As a result, vaccination centres are being closed, and people are being turned away. In most cities, the mobile application – CoWin – used to book appointments for vaccination, isn’t allowing people to register. And even if people manage to register, appointments are not available for many months.

There is enormous public anger against the government of India for this, as well as for the serious flaws in its public health system which have been exposed by the sharp rise of infections in the second wave. This includes a lack of oxygen in hospitals and even a lack of space for funerals in crematoriums.

Read more: Why variants are most likely to blame for India’s COVID surge

Vaccine price deregulation

In April the government of India undertook a curious policy shift in its vaccine policy. It deregulated vaccine prices. Vaccine producers could “self-set” the price for their vaccines. Consequently, the two vaccine producers steeply raised the prices of vaccines by two to six times in just a week.

For the same vaccine, the government of India, state governments and private hospitals have different price tags. And the only people in India who receive the vaccine for free are healthcare and frontline workers, and those aged over 45.

The vaccine prices are now so unaffordable that informal workers are forced to spend about half of the household’s monthly salary on vaccinating all the adult members of their households. While it may only be about 800 Rupees for both doses (A$14), when a person at the poverty line may only earn around 50 Rupees (A$0.87) a day on average, this is a large portion of their monthly income. Depending on the definition, one-quarter to one-third of the Indian population is below the poverty line.

The vaccine producers lobbied hard to “free” vaccine prices. One producer said in a television interview he was hoping for “super profits”, and another said he wished the “maximum price” for his vaccine.

The government’s decision to deregulate the vaccine prices allowed “super profits” for private companies, even as an economic and humanitarian crisis was building and unemployment was rising.

Read more: As pressure builds on India’s Narendra Modi, is his government trying to silence its critics?

Predatory capitalism during human tragedy

Many commentators welcomed the new vaccine policy in the hopes increased prices would incentivise producers to increase supply. But they fail to see that vaccines are global public goods. They impart not just private benefits, but also social benefits, and so every barrier to vaccination must be minimised.

This is why most other nations, including Australia, the US, UK, Germany, France and China, are providing vaccines free of cost to all. India is an unfortunate exception to this global trend, and vaccines are now unaffordable to many.

Poor and faulty planning by the government of India has led to an acute shortage of vaccines. In the midst of the vaccine shortage, the government has effectively withdrawn from the social responsibilities of a welfare state. It has also opened the flood gates for a vulgar form of predatory capitalism to take the stage amid a raging human tragedy.

– ref. Charging Indians for COVID vaccines is bad, letting vaccine producers charge what they like is unconscionable – https://theconversation.com/charging-indians-for-covid-vaccines-is-bad-letting-vaccine-producers-charge-what-they-like-is-unconscionable-160529

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Natasha Kassam, Director, Lowy Institute’s Public Opinion and Foreign Policy Program, and Fellow, National Security College’s Futures Council, Australian National University

Prime Minister Scott Morrison said on the weekend Australia’s borders will remain closed for the foreseeable future, only reopening “when it is safe to do so”. He told the Daily Telegraph:

We sit here as an island that’s living like few countries in the world are at the moment. We have to be careful not to exchange that way of life for what everyone else has.

It is true life in Australia has been unlike most places in the world for the past few months, even the past year. But what are the costs of becoming “Fortress Australia”?

As border closures have remained in effect for 15 months and counting, there are mounting concerns this is having implications for Australia’s national character. And serious questions need to be asked about the message Australia is sending to the rest of the world by shutting everyone out.

Only half of Australians say the country is more united now

There has been broad acceptance in the Australian community of stringent public health measures — including restrictions on outbound travel — as the price to pay for beating COVID-19. And almost all Australians (95%) say Australia has done a good job handling the pandemic. This stands in contrast to Australians’ view of how most other countries have handled the pandemic, especially the United States and United Kingdom.

And Australians have generally been patient about closed borders. Four in ten say they support the government’s current policies, though the same number say vaccinated Australians should be able to leave the country. Only 18% say all Australians should be able to leave the country now.

Australians have been similarly pragmatic about their fellow citizens being stranded overseas. The majority of Australians (59%) say the government has done the right amount in getting Australians home. Only a third say Australia has not done enough.

But we are split as to whether the pandemic has been a boon for national unity and social cohesion. Half of Australians say the country is more united than before the outbreak, while four in ten say the country is more divided.

For much of the world, COVID-19 may have marked the end of peak globalisation. Domestic politics around the world have centred on a growing hostility to global institutions and trade competition, which were beginning to be evident long before the pandemic.

Yet, even a pandemic borne in part by international connections hasn’t shaken Australia’s belief in globalisation. During the national lockdown in 2020, seven in ten Australians said they believed globalisation is mostly good for the country.

In addition, Australians have historically been supportive of free trade and immigration. Even during the pandemic, the vast majority of people agreed that accepting immigrants from many countries makes Australia stronger, and that multiculturalism has been good for the country.

Read more: Australia’s mishmash of COVID border closures is confusing, inconsistent and counterproductive

Duelling images of Australia

At the same time, tough borders have always been good politics. In part, this plays off the anti-migration sentiment that exists within a minority of the country, and a bipartisan need to demonstrate national security credentials.

When WA Premier Mark McGowan said early in the pandemic, “we will be turning Western Australia into its own island, within an island – our own country”, he was rewarded mightily with some of the highest approval ratings in Australia.

So, what does it tell the world as Australia proudly projects its image as quite literally that of an island? Or is this outweighed by the soft power advantage of telling the world that we have, for all intents and purposes, defeated COVID-19?

Perhaps the answer is somewhere in between: it is a sign something has gone awry that these two propositions have become mutually exclusive.

Australians have been told by their leaders they can have safety and security from the virus while being closed off from the world, or they can open up to the world and face the same risks everyone else does.

But this stands in contrast to the open trading nation we have always portrayed ourselves to be.

Read more: Border closures, identity and political tensions: how Australia’s past pandemics shape our COVID-19 response

There are concerns Australia is also at risk of being left behind as the rest of the world gets vaccinated and back to normal.

A recent McKell Institute report says Australia’s current vaccination rate will see international border restrictions remain in place for an additional 81 days, at a cost of A$16.44 billion to the economy.

Countries that have struggled through the pandemic, meanwhile, are on track to reopen their borders thanks to their vaccination rollouts. The United Kingdom, for instance, has introduced a traffic light system for international travel and the European Union expects to resume leisure travel by June.

Isolation not the only path to success

Australians’ views on “Fortress Australia” may well have shifted in the past month. The decision to lock out Australian citizens from India as the nation was engulfed in a tragic second wave drew criticism from all sides of the political landscape. It was a rare moment of unity for both the left and the right.

These concerns have only grown as the country has learned that 9,000 Australians are stuck in India, 173 of them unaccompanied children. An Australian permanent resident has already died in India during the crisis.

Read more: It’s not surprising Indian-Australians feel singled out. They have long been subjected to racism

Isolationism is not the only pathway to pandemic success. Take Taiwan for example. It is very similar to Australia: it has a population of 24 million on an island and it has had similar success combating COVID-19, in part through strict border controls and a hotel quarantine system.

While Australia announced criminal penalties could be enforced on Australians attempting to return home from India, however, Taiwan sent a plane to New Delhi to retrieve its citizens.

And at no point have the Taiwanese been prevented from leaving their own country, or returning to it.

Australians have been vigilant for over a year and have complained little about being trapped inside the country. For their efforts, they have been able to live close to a pre-pandemic life. But with no end in sight for border closures and restrictions, that patience may be wearing thin.

– ref. ‘Fortress Australia’: what are the costs of closing ourselves off to the world? – https://theconversation.com/fortress-australia-what-are-the-costs-of-closing-ourselves-off-to-the-world-160612

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Alexander, Adjunct Reseach Fellow (Supply Chains), Curtin University

“This is the one thing we didn’t want to happen.”

That line – from the satirical British current affairs television program BrassEye – could easily be reverberating through federal government offices this week.

Yesterday the news dropped that Christine Holgate, the Australia Post chief executive pushed so roughly from her job by the Morrison government, has a new job with a rival delivery company.

Holgate resigned last November, after Prime Mnister Scott Morrison told parliament she been told to stand aside over the “optics” of rewarding four senior managers with luxury watches, worth about $20,000 – and “if she doesn’t wish to do that, she can go”.

Now Holgate has gone to a new role as chief executive of parcel-delivery competitor Global Express.

Her appointment, just a week after the expiry of her non-compete clause with Australia Post, is a gift for the new owners of Global Express, a former division of well-known Australian transport company Toll Holdings that has been struggling to find profitability.

If anyone can help turn around Global Express’s fortunes in Australia’s parcel-delivery market, Holgate can. Doing so will cost Australia Post, and Australian taxpayers.

A direct competitor

Until last month Global Express was one of three divisions of Toll Group, the Australian transport company that began in Newcastle in 1888. Its business has involved express parcel, freight delivery and domestic forwarding services in Australia, and transport and contract logistics services in New Zealand.

Toll Group was taken over in 2015 by Japan Post Holdings, the publicly traded company that runs Japan’s postal service. The acquisition was part of Japan Post’s strategy to diversify into global parcel deliveries. It proved less successful than the owner hoped, however, and in April the sale of Global Express to Australian private equity company Allegro Funds was announced.

Private equity firms have a reputation for quickly improving company bottom lines by ruthlessly cutting costs and focusing on the most profitable parts of the market.

In the case of Global Express – which has trucks, planes, depots and other infrastructure worth an estimated A$1 billion – this will almost certainly mean identifying the most lucrative parts of the parcel delivery market.

This is a market in which it competes head-on with Australia Post, relying on similar logistics and delivery infrastructures. It is a market Holgate knows very well. Arguably no one in Australia knows it better.

Cherry-picking parcels

Parcel delivery was a key area of concern for Holgate after she became Australia Post’s first female chief executive in 2017. It became even more crucial in 2020, as the COVID pandemic and lockdowns led to massive surges in online shopping and thus parcel deliveries.

Holgate saw the opportunity to pivot more of Australia Post’s massive logistics processes – tied up with delivering dwindling numbers of letters – to the surging parcel delivery game.

Read more: COVID hands Australia Post opportunity to end daily delivery

All seemed on track for Australia Post to grow and prosper with Holgate at its head. Then it came unstuck due to the federal government’s political reaction to the news Holgate in 2018 authorised the luxury watches gifts as a reward to four senior executives who secured a deal worth a reported A$220 million.

The view widely held in the industry is that the bonuses were within the normal operation practices of a commercial enterprise. Indeed, if the executives rewarded the watches had been given a cash bonus instead, it probably would never have become an issue and Holgate would still be Australia Post’s chief executive.

Now Holgate takes everything she knows about parcel delivery market, and her demonstrable ability in growing businesses, to Global Express.

Read more: Vital Signs: Christine Holgate’s ‘principal’ error was applying corporate logic to Australia Post

Bad news for taxpayers

At Global Express, Holgate won’t have have to worry about a public service obligation to deliver mail to every postal address in Australia. She can say “no” to any unprofitable market segment. She can cherry-pick the most desirable business from Australia Post.

Nor will she have to worry about her board chairman taking her to task over luxury watches, or being excoriated in parliament.

It’s “game on” in the parcels business. Which is bad news for Australia Post, and ultimately Australian taxpayers.

– ref. Australia Post’s worst nightmare: Christine Holgate to head delivery rival Global Express – https://theconversation.com/australia-posts-worst-nightmare-christine-holgate-to-head-delivery-rival-global-express-160606

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cassandra Steer, Senior Lecturer, ANU College of Law; Mission Specialist, ANU Institute for Space, Australian National University

Billionaire Jeff Bezos’s space launch company Blue Origin has announced it will sell its first flights into microgravity to the highest bidder.

Blue Origin and its two greatest competitors in the “space tourism” field, SpaceX and Virgin Galactic, claim to be advancing humanity through the “democratisation” of space. But these joyrides aren’t opening up access to space for all.

A changing landscape

At face value, the prospect of a space tourism industry is exciting.

It promises an easier path to space than the one followed by astronauts, who must go through higher education, intense training and extremely competitive selection processes. Astronauts must also have the right nationality, because few countries have access to human spaceflight programs.

In theory, the opening up of a commercial spaceflight industry should make space more accessible and democratic. But this is only partly the case; what was once the domain of only the richest countries is now an industry headed predominantly by commercial entities.

Adding to this, these companies are prepared to take more risks than government programs because they don’t have to justify their spending — or failures — to the public. Blue Origin and SpaceX have seen many explosions in past tests, yet fans watch with excitement rather than dismay.

This has pushed the rapid development of space technologies. Reusable rockets — particularly SpaceX’s Falcon 9, which just made its tenth successful launch — have reduced the cost of launching tenfold.

Besides driving down costs, reusable technology is also working to solve the problem of sustainability.

Considering sustainability

There have been thousands of launches since 1957, when the first human-made object (Sputnik I) was launched by the Soviets. Apart from Falcon 9, however, every single launch vehicle has been used once and disposed of immediately — akin to throwing away an aeroplane after one flight.

Launch numbers are increasing each year, with 114 carried out in 2020 alone. Over the weekend, the uncontrolled reentry of debris from China’s Long March 5B rocket made world news because of its sheer size and the risk of damage. It is just one example of the problems of space debris and traffic management.

Safety is a key issue for human spaceflight. Currently, there are about 3,400 operational satellites in orbit and about 128 million pieces of debris. There are are hundreds of collision risks each day, avoided by expensive and difficult manoeuvres or, if the risk is low enough, operators wait and hope for the best.

If we add more human spaceflight to this traffic, countries will need to adopt stricter requirements to de-orbit satellites at the end of their lives, so they burn up on reentry. Currently, it’s acceptable to de-orbit after 25 years, or to put a satellite into an unused orbit. But this only delays the problem for the future.

Nations will also need to implement the 2019 United Nations guidelines on the Long-term Sustainability of Activities in Outer Space.

Read more: Space can solve our looming resource crisis – but the space industry itself must be sustainable

The environmental impact of launches are another important factor. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 burns as much fuel as an average car would over 200 years, for a single launch.

On the ground there are impacts on terrain and waterways, which we have to keep in mind when building future launch sites in Australia. Launch permits currently require environmental impact statements, but these should include long-term effects and carbon footprints as well.

Keeping billionaires in check

In the coming years, it will be crucial for independent spaceflight companies to be tightly regulated.

Virgin Galactic has long advocated a “shirtsleeve” environment wherein customers can experience the luxury of spaceflight unhindered by awkward spacesuits. But the death of one of its test pilots in 2014 is evidence spaceflight remains dangerous. High altitudes and pressure require more precaution and less concern for comfort.

Although regulators such as the US Federal Aviation Administration have strict safety requirements for space tourism, pressurised spacesuits are not among them — but they should be. Also, space tourism operators can require passengers to sign legal waivers of liability, in case of accident.

And while it’s laudable SpaceX and Blue Origin are making technological leaps, there is little in their business plans that speaks to diversity, inclusivity and global accessibility. The first space tourists were all wealthy entrepreneurs.

In 2001 Dennis Tito paid his way to a seat on a Russian Soyuz rocket to visit the International Space Station (ISS). Since then, there have been eight more space tourists, each paying between US$20 million and US$30 million to fly through the Russian program.

In 2022, the Axiom crew is scheduled to fly on a SpaceX Dragon flight to the ISS. Each of the three wealthy, white, male passengers will have paid US$55 million for the privilege. Meanwhile, Blue Origin’s upcoming auction will last five weeks, the highest bidder winning a seat for a few minutes of microgravity.

Virgin Galactic’s 90-minute joyrides, also scheduled to fly as early as 2022, have already sold for US$250,000. Future tickets are expected to cost more.

A matter of time?

Of course, conventional recreational air travel was also originally for the wealthy. Early cross-continental flights in the United States costed about half the price of a new car. But technological advances and commercial competition meant by 2019 (pre-COVID) there were nearly five million people flying daily.

Perhaps it’s only a matter of time before space tourism becomes similarly accessible. Ideally, this would mean being able to fly from Sydney to London in a matter of hours.

Then again, spaceflight carries much greater risks and much greater costs than airflight, even with reusable rockets. It’s going to be a long time before these costs are driven down enough to allow the “democratisation” of space.

This is a compelling narrative which commercial spaceflight companies are eager to adopt. But there will always be a portion of society that won’t have access to this future. Indeed, as many science-fiction stories predict, human spaceflight or habitation in space may only ever be accessible to the very wealthy.

We know there are benefits to space-based technologies — from tracking climate change, to enabling global communications and health services, to learning from scientific experiments on the ISS. But when it comes to space tourism, the payback for the average person is less clear.

Read more: Yuri Gagarin’s boomerang: the tale of the first person to return from space, and his brief encounter with Aussie culture

– ref. Want to become a space tourist? You finally can — if you have $250,000 and a will to sign your life away – https://theconversation.com/want-to-become-a-space-tourist-you-finally-can-if-you-have-250-000-and-a-will-to-sign-your-life-away-160543

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexandra Baxter, PhD Candidate in Criminology/Law, researching human trafficking and modern slavery in Australia, Flinders University

Millions of kidnapped children are imprisoned in underground tunnels, being sexually abused and tortured by a shadowy global cabal of paedophiles.

That, at least, is some of the misinformation about child sex trafficking being spread on social media. You’ll also see such ideas being promoted at protests from Los Angeles to London, with hashtags such as #saveourchildren and #endchildtrafficking emblazoned on shirts and placards.

The thought of a child being abused, exploited or trafficked for sex elicits a powerful emotional response. These lurid tales have proven to be a potent gateway for mothers (and others) to “go down the rabbithole”.

The tragedy is that misinformation is turning well-intentioned people into “digital soldiers” unwittingly working against genuine efforts to eliminate child sexual abuse and human trafficking.

Let’s try to untangle the misconceptions.

The truth about child sexual abuse

Statistics on child sexual abuse are never exact. Less than 40% of victims report being abused when children. The average time before disclosure, according to Australia’s Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, is about 20 years for women and 25 years for men. Some never disclose.

There are enough robust studies, however, to suggest about one in ten children are sexually abused before age 18 – one in seven girls (14%) and one in 25 boys (4%).

Most typically the abuser is an adult known and trusted by the child and their parents. Then by a non-biological relative or in-law. In fewer than 15% of cases is the perpetrator a stranger.

A 2000 study for the US Bureau of Justice Statistics found 7.5% of all known female victims under the age of 17, and 5% of male victims, were abused by a stranger. More recent data published in 2016 by the Australian Bureau of Statistics found strangers accounted for 11.5% of sexual abuse of girls under the age of 16, and 15% of boys.

The differences between these findings are most likely due to greater awareness reducing opportunities for abuse by “acquaintances” such as clergy, teachers and coaches. In the 2000 data, to illustrate, 69% of molested boys were abused by an acquaintance; in the 2016 data it was about 47%.

Exaggerating stranger dangers

Media coverage tends to distort understanding of child sexual abuse. It focuses on “stranger danger” and amplifies the threat of children being molested at the park or shopping centre.

Even more intense coverage goes to the rarer cases where children are abducted or murdered. Think of the fascination with cases such as the 2007 disappearance of three-year-old Madeleine McCann. But such cases are memorable because they are so rare.

The so-called “Pastel-Q” conspiracy theory, however, asserts millions of children a year are being kidnapped and trafficked for sex.

Read more: How QAnon uses satanic rhetoric to set up a narrative of ‘good vs. evil’

This claim rests on misrepresented numbers from missing persons reports. In the case of the US, for example, the claim is that 800,000 children disappear each year. (A similar rate applied globally would mean about 19 million children disappear every year.)

In fact, the FBI’s data shows the number of people under the age of 17 reported missing in the US in 2020 was about 365,000. In most cases (based on the several decades’ of data) these missing reports involve a child running away from home or being taken by a custodial parent. Almost half are found within three hours, and more than 99% are found alive. Since 2010, in the US fewer than 350 people a year under the age of 21 have been abducted by strangers.

Sex trafficking in reality

So no, there’s no evidence millions of children in wealthy nations are being kidnapped by paedophiles.

This is not to say child sex trafficking isn’t a serious concern. But it is a different problem to the Pastel-Q portrayal.

The United Nations’ Trafficking in Persons Protocol defines human trafficking as:

“the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation”

This means human trafficking doesn’t necessarily require moving a person from one place to another, in the way we think of weapons and drugs being trafficked. It’s not the same as people smuggling. Nor is it exactly the same of modern slavery, although there is broad crossover in definitions.

Read more: How trafficked children are being hidden behind a focus on modern slavery

The crucial point of trafficking is the abuse of power to exploit another human being. It thrives in conditions of poverty, economic and gender inequality, corruption and instability. It requires systemic solutions, which the cartoonish constructions of Pastel-Q distract attention from.

Trafficking and modern slavery

Accurately estimating the true scale of child sex trafficking is, like child sexual abuse, complicated. There is the hidden nature of these crimes, differences in policing and reporting between nations, and little uniformity in how statistics are compiled.

The United Nations’ Global Report on Trafficking in Persons only reports on “detected” cases. There are no more than 25,000 cases each year.

But researchers have good reasons to believe this is just the tip of the iceberg. The most commonly accepted estimates of the true number of trafficking victims in the world is about 21 million. About 16 million have been trafficked for labour; about 3 million of these are aged under 18.

About 5 million are trafficked for sex – most typically by being coerced into sex work. More than 99% of sex-trafficking victims are women. More than 70% are in Asia, followed by Europe and Central Asia (14%), Africa (8%), the Americas (4%), and the Arab States (1%). About a million are aged under 18.

We must be cautious about these total estimates. Nonetheless there is sufficient research to be confident only a very small percentage of cases involve scenarios like that in the movie Taken, where Liam Neeson’s character uses his “very particular set of skills” to rescue his kidnapped 17-year-old American daughter from sex slavery.

More often, traffickers approach families living in poverty or socially and economically vulnerable girls – such as runaways – offering false promises of affection, work and a better life. Instead the girls find themselves being pressured or coerced into sex work.

This was the case with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, whose intermediaries lured girls aged 14 to 18 with cash to perform massages, then nude massages, then sex.

Read more: Jeffrey Epstein’s arrest is the tip of the iceberg: human trafficking is the world’s fastest growing crime

How do we address this?

Child sexual abuse and child sex trafficking are both serious global problems. We should all be concerned about them.

But they can’t be divorced from the broader conditions that allow many more millions of children and adults to be trafficked and exploited as modern slaves.

They require sophisticated, holistic and broad-based legal and policy responses. They will not be tackled by misunderstanding their reality and complexity, and indulging in false narratives that divert attention from the real issues.

Which is why more than 130 anti-trafficking organisations have said anybody who lends credibility to these false claims “actively harms the fight against human trafficking”.

– ref. Want to save the children? How child sexual abuse and human trafficking really work – https://theconversation.com/want-to-save-the-children-how-child-sexual-abuse-and-human-trafficking-really-work-153288