Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luise Kazda, PhD candidate, University of Sydney

During my daughter’s challenging first year of school, we discovered how much effort it took her to sit and learn.

She was the youngest in her class, placing her at higher risk of being diagnosed with ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder).

While she struggled with attention and hyperactivity, her problems were always more frustrating than truly impairing. Still, constant battles over finishing tasks, the amount of time (and nerves) spent on a child that needs that extra bit of attention and the anger or sadness on her face made me wonder if we should try to get some support.

Maybe a diagnosis could be a straightforward fix to the problem?

What’s the problem?

Increasing awareness of ADHD has led to consistent rises in the number of children diagnosed with and treated for it, both internationally and in Australia. This would be good if it meant we were getting better at finding, diagnosing and helping children impaired by inattention or hyperactivity.

However, my newly published study in JAMA Network Open finds these increases in ADHD diagnoses may be largely due to children like my daughter, whose behaviours fall within a normal (but frustrating) range. I conducted this research with colleagues from the University of Sydney and Bond University.

Our study concluded these children are unlikely to benefit from being labelled with ADHD and may, in fact, be harmed by it.

This surge in diagnoses also results in limited resources being stretched thinner among more children, ultimately taking away from those with severe problems who would benefit from more support.

Read more: How do I know if my child is developing normally?

What is ADHD? And why is it so controversial?

ADHD is a “persistent pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity that interferes with functioning or development”.

It’s one of the most common childhood disorders, affecting about 5–7% of children. Over the past decades, debate on the appropriateness of diagnoses has grown in line with the rate of diagnosis.

Allen Frances, a prominent American psychiatrist, has been one of the most vocal critics of the trend. He describes it as the medicalisation of “every day experiences that are part of the human condition”.

However, others suggest the increases in diagnosed children are largely due to improved detection in previously undiagnosed children.

Both sides of the debate claim to have proof. But we were surprised to discover no-one had ever summarised the scientific evidence for the key reasons behind increasing diagnosis rates.

So we reviewed the results from over 300 studies on ADHD over the past 40 years to determine which children are being newly diagnosed and if they benefit. Our study design allowed us to summarise a huge variety of studies in a way not done before.

What we did and what we found

We found that since the 1980s, increasing numbers of school-aged children and adolescents around the world have been diagnosed with ADHD and medicated for it.

We know ADHD-related behaviours exist on a spectrum with no or minimal hyperactivity and inattention on one end and severe ADHD on the other.

Many children can get distracted easily, are forgetful, find it difficult to sit still or wait their turn. In most children, these behaviours are mild enough to not interfere with a “normal” life.

However, there is no clear biological cut-off point above which someone just “has” ADHD. Ways of diagnosing ADHD also vary between countries and change over time, with criteria generally becoming less stringent.

Together, this ensures many potentially new cases could be discovered, depending on how low the bar is set.

Read more: Five warning signs of overdiagnosis

In the US, for example, almost half of all children diagnosed with ADHD have mild symptoms, with only around 15% presenting with severe problems. Only about 1% of all children in an Italian study had severe ADHD-related behaviours. And, in general, children today are no more hyperactive or inattentive than 20 years ago.

All this led us to conclude a substantial proportion of these additional diagnoses (children who would not have been diagnosed 20 years ago) are, at best, borderline cases.

For example, one study shows while diagnoses increased more than five-fold over ten years in Sweden, there was no increase in clinical ADHD symptoms over the same time. This means that with the lowering of the diagnostic bar, children diagnosed with ADHD are, on average, less impaired and more similar to those without an ADHD diagnosis.

As a result children like my daughter, who are the youngest in their class, are at risk of being labelled with ADHD because their relative immaturity can be enough to push them over the threshold into the zone of “abnormal” behaviour.

Why it’s important to get it right

For children with mild symptoms

Children with mild ADHD symptoms are unlikely to benefit from a diagnosis. They (and their families) also incur substantial costs as well as potential harms from the diagnosis and treatment. That’s because:

• instead of drumming up extra support, an ADHD label can have negative social, psychological and academic effects, when compared to similar young people without a diagnosis

• medication reduces symptoms to a lesser extent in children with mild ADHD (however it is beneficial in many severe cases)

• medication for young people with milder symptoms also has no positive, but a potential negative, effect on academic outcomes (such as maths and reading scores) when compared to unmedicated young people with similar behaviour. Also, medication doesn’t reduce the risks of injuries, criminal behaviour and social impairment as much as in those with severe symptoms.

Read more: Weekly Dose: Ritalin, helpful for many with ADHD but dangerous if abused by those without it

For children with severe symptoms

It’s also important children with more severe ADHD symptoms are correctly diagnosed so they don’t miss out on much-needed support.

With ever-increasing diagnosis rates of ADHD, schools are increasingly struggling to adequately support every child with a diagnosis: the slice of funding and support every child can receive gets smaller and smaller, the more children are included.

In turn, this often means those with the most severe problems get left behind.

Read more: ADHD prescriptions are going up, but that doesn’t mean we’re over-medicating

What can we do?

In light of the potential risks associated with diagnosing a child with milder ADHD symptoms, we recommend doctors, parents and teachers work together following a “stepped diagnosis approach”. This ensures swift and efficient diagnosis and treatment in severe cases. For those with milder symptoms, taking some time to watch and wait may mean many of them won’t need to be labelled or treated.

Not only will this avoid potential harm for individual children, it also ensures resources are allocated where they are needed most and will be most effective.

Co-authors on this article were: Alexandra Barratt, Professor of Public Health, University of Sydney; Katy Bell, Associate Professor in Clinical Epidemiology, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney; and Rae Thomas, Associate Professor, Bond University.

– ref. More kids are being diagnosed with ADHD for borderline (yet challenging) behaviours. Our new research shows why that’s a worry – https://theconversation.com/more-kids-are-being-diagnosed-with-adhd-for-borderline-yet-challenging-behaviours-our-new-research-shows-why-thats-a-worry-156115

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cheryl Durrant, Adjunct Associate Professor, UNSW

Climate change is a hot topic in Australian security circles, as it poses an emerging threat to our national resilience and way of life. As a new report from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) last week warned, the federal government is unprepared to meet these challenges.

The report, authored by Dr Robert Glasser, said the government has largely overlooked the security threat posed by rising seas, climate-induced famine, extreme weather events, mass migrations and other climate change damage in Southeast Asia. Australia is sitting on the frontline of this vulnerable region.

Glasser’s report focuses on Southeast Asia, but in the bigger picture, climate security is an existential global risk which the Australian government is yet to fully grasp. It is this global aspect of climate and security which will be on the agenda in two weeks time at the Biden Leaders Summit in the US.

Why should we be worried?

The global risk is broader than traditional security threats, such as the rise of China, terrorism and separatist movements. As the ASPI report emphasises, there is a relationship between climate security and other sectors such as food, health and environmental security.

Unlike traditional national security threats, climate threats have no respect for national or sector borders and cannot be solved with missiles.

The threat is urgent. With the end of the Donald Trump presidency, climate change is back on regional and international security action agendas. The penny has dropped on how little time is left to take action to prepare for the worst of consequences.

This is especially the case when there are long lead times to implement action, such as infrastructure development and military capability development.

Read more: Climate change poses a ‘direct threat’ to Australia’s national security. It must be a political priority

ASPI’s key recommendations to the government include:

• improving understanding of climate change risks through a broad whole-of-government process

• building capacity in government agencies to assess ongoing risks

• identifying opportunities for regional aid and investments.

These make sense, as the first step of preparedness is understanding the risk.

Security risks go beyond natural disasters

The ASPI report notes Southeast Asia “has the world’s highest sea-level rise per kilometre of coastline and the largest coastal population affected by it”. The region is a hot spot for cyclones, with some nations vulnerable to catastrophic heat or fires.

The ASPI report notes:

Those hazards will not only exacerbate the traditional regional security threats […] but also lead to new threats and the prospect of multiple, simultaneous crises, including food insecurity, population displacement and humanitarian disasters that will greatly test our national capacities, commitments and resilience.

The report focuses on Southeast Asia and natural disasters, but the risks and the affected regions are bigger than that.

The Indo-Pacific region may see the displacement of millions of people due to climate change-related extreme weather events, heatwaves, droughts, rising seas and floods. We’re already seeing this occur in Bangladesh and small island developing states.

We could also see conflict arise as climate change affects global food or water resources. A particular concern is the potential geopolitical tensions between India and China over dwindling Tibetan water resources.

Australia is getting left behind

Urgency and risk are central to an executive order from President Joe Biden in January. The order requires a US national security estimate on the economic and national security impacts of climate change by June. The US Department of Defence must also complete an analysis of the security implications of climate change in the same timeframe.

Read more: Biden says the US will rejoin the Paris climate agreement in 77 days. Then Australia will really feel the heat

Most tellingly, the US is taking an integrated approach to climate security. Foreign policy, defence and economic risk analysis are being conducted in a joined-up, systemic way.

In contrast, the Australian Defence Strategic Update 2020 was conducted in isolation from foreign policy and economic reviews. Taking a narrow military perspective, it does mention climate change, but only once, as a subset of human security threats.

Australia risks being left behind as other countries follow the US lead. Across the Tasman, our Kiwi friends are already well advanced in turning risk awareness into action. The New Zealand government completed its first national climate risk assessment last year, with a national adaptation plan to be completed by August 2022.

What are the consequences?

Being left behind has consequences for Australia’s international standing, national resilience and economic position.

From a diplomatic perspective, Australia’s influence in the Indo-Pacific region is diminished, relative to other actors, especially in states where climate change risk is a top priority, such as Vanuatu or Kiribati.

Risks offer opportunities as well. For example, Australia has an abundance of critical minerals and rare earths needed for modern communications, space technologies, and renewable energy generation and transmission. These are key for business, as well as critical for defence forces.

Read more: Critical minerals are vital for renewable energy. We must learn to mine them responsibly

However, processing and manufacturing is largely conducted offshore — in countries vulnerable to climate risks such as Malaysia — before returning to Australia as finished products.

This puts Australian defence and space and energy sectors at risk of disruption, and Australian businesses at risks of economic loss.

What needs to happen next?

ASPI’s report echoes the earlier recommendation from a 2018 Senate inquiry into the implications of climate change for Australia’s national security. The inquiry also called for a coordinated whole-of-government response to climate change risks.

Three years later, the federal government has yet to act on its recommendations.

The Australian government now needs to have a greater sense of urgency to act on the growing national and international calls to act on climate risk. But first, our leaders need a changed mindset. They must accept that climate change is an immediate threat to Australia.

Read more: Senate report: climate change is a clear and present danger to Australia’s security

– ref. Climate change is a security threat the government keeps ignoring. We’ll show up empty handed to yet another global summit – https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-a-security-threat-the-government-keeps-ignoring-well-show-up-empty-handed-to-yet-another-global-summit-158702

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jim Stanford, Economist and Director, Centre for Future Work, Australia Institute; Honorary Professor of Political Economy, University of Sydney

Fewer than 2% of Australian employees work for the minimum wage (now $19.84 an hour). But the federal Fair Work Commission’s annual decision on how much to increase the minimum wage also helps determine pay rises for up to a third of Australian workers.

The adjustment, which comes into effect on July 1, flows through to those paid under awards, many on individual contracts and even some enterprise agreements (whose wage increases effectively track the minimum).

Last year’s increase of 1.75% was the smallest in 12 years.

That modest increase, which was delayed several months for most workers, was justified by the dramatic fall-out of the COVID pandemic. But with employment now rebounding – the jobless rate in February was 5.8%, down from its peak of 7.4% in July 2020 – we should expect a stronger “catch-up” increase.

That’s what happened after the Global Financial Crisis, with no change in the minimum wage in 2009, followed by an almost 5% increase in 2010.

But many employer groups are pushing for an outright freeze.

The federal government has implicitly sided with them. Its submission to the Fair Work Commission last week warned a higher minimum wage could “dampen employment” and impose a “major constraint” on the post-COVID recovery.

But this argument is based on outdated economic ideas. The evidence from economic research over the past few decades suggests boosting wages back to a normal trajectory would strengthen aggregate demand and consumer confidence, help keep inflation on target, and bolster government revenues at a vital moment in the post-COVID recovery.

Read more: Why kickstarting small business exports could boost stagnant wages

Consistently opposing increases

The Australian Council of Trade Unions has argued for a 3.5% increase. This is well within the normal historical range. It also aligns with the historical view of Reserve Bank of Australia governor Philip Lowe, who in 2018 said annual wage increases of about 3.5% were necessary to meet the bank’s 2.5% inflation target.

It’s not often the union movement and the central bank sing from the same hymn book.

As my colleague Alison Pennington (senior economist with the Centre for Future Work) has written, the Coalition’s position is consistent: it argues against wage increases “whether the economy is weak or strong”.

Long before COVID-19, Australia was already experiencing the weakest wage growth since the 1930s. Since end-2013, wage growth has averaged just 2.1% a year. Rosy predictions of an imminent rebound, issued with each federal budget, have never come to pass.

Read more: So much for consensus: Morrison government’s industrial relations bill is a business wish list

A redundant economic orthodoxy

The federal government seems captive to an anachronistic belief that lifting the minimum wages will undermine job creation and competitiveness. This idea has been disproven by important developments in both economic theory and international comparisons.

The old economic orthodoxy, typically conveyed via simple supply and demand charts, argued unemployment was inevitable any time governments imposed a minimum wage above the natural “market-clearing equilibrium”.

In the past two decades, however, this conventional wisdom has been turned upside down. Starting with groundbreaking US studies of minimum wages and employment in the fast food industry, studies have found higher minimum wages do not generally destroy jobs – and in certain conditions may actually boost employment.

Reasons for this include:

• higher labour force participation and productivity among low-wage workers
• better job retention and lower turnover, reducing costs of job search and training
• reducing the “monopsony” power of very large employers to suppress wages
• more money in workers’ pockets, leading to more consumer spending.

Once a leader, now a laggard

The Reserve Bank agrees recent minimum wage increases have had no visible negative effect on employment.

So the government’s submission to the Fair Work Commission is invoking a discredited shibboleth by suggesting an unavoidable trade-off between wages and employment.

It also ignores how much Australia’s minimum wage has been eroded in recent decades. Australia was once a world leader in minimum wage policy. This is no longer true.

The best way to measure the labour market impact of the minimum wage is by its “bite” – the ratio of minimum wages to overall labour compensation (best measured by the median wage).

Australia’s minimum wage is now 54% of median wages. In 1992 it was 65%.

Read more: There’s an obvious reason wages aren’t growing, but you won’t hear it from Treasury or the Reserve Bank

That decline has been accompanied by the weakening of other wage-supporting policies (including collective bargaining and awards).

It’s no accident Australia has experienced weak wage growth and a falling labour share of GDP, alongside record business profitability. That was the whole idea.

The fading ambition of Australia’s minimum wage policy is also evident internationally.

In 2002 Australia ranked third among OECD countries according to the minimum wage “bite”.

By 2019 we ranked 12th (out of 29 OECD countries with minimum wages).

As Australia treads water, other nations are acting on the new economic evidence and lifting minimum wages. In the US, the Biden administration wants to double the federal minimum wage.

The argument that lifting Australia’s minimum wage will necessarily cost jobs is outdated and unconvincing. After last year’s very modest increase, a more generous increase will strengthen Australia’s post-COVID recovery, not jeopardise it.

– ref. Resistance to raising the minimum wage reflects obsolete economic thinking – https://theconversation.com/resistance-to-raising-the-minimum-wage-reflects-obsolete-economic-thinking-158622

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrea Waling, ARC DECRA Senior Research Fellow in Sex & Sexuality, La Trobe University

The Netflix drama The One centres around a geneticist who invents a new matchmaking service. It uses DNA to help people find their romantic and sexual match: their “one”.

“A single strand of hair is all it takes to be matched with the one person you are genetically guaranteed to fall in love with”, says Dr Rebecca Webb (Hannah Ware). “The moment you meet your match, your one true love, nothing will ever be the same again.”

The One asks what would happen if we could use a DNA database to match “soulmates”. More importantly, it assumes if such technology existed it would be a wholly commercial enterprise — imagining a not-to-distant future where tech (and tech giants) mediate dating, sex and relationships.

So, is this future just around the corner?

The popularity of home DNA testing

Home DNA testing is now a massive business. It is estimated that by 2022 it will be worth over US$10 billion globally.

DNA testing companies have fuelled a cultural fascination with biology, in which genetic dispositions are conflated with identity. DNA is regarded by some as the secret to understanding who we fundamentally are as people.

DNA kits have been sold to explore genetic and cultural history, to tailor diets, and to look at genetic health risks.

Indeed, companies such as Canada’s DNA Romance and Instant Chemistry already claim to help people find love and sexual compatibility through DNA tests.

People send in saliva swaps, and their DNA is tested to genotype human leukocyte antigens, also known as the major histocompatibility complex. These are important regulators of the immune system, which also impact our body odour. Genotyping identifies which variants of these genes each of us carry – which supposedly determine who we are attracted to.

Companies claim to match people on the basis of this test for the best genetic love match.

There is no compelling evidence as to whether or not DNA matching can support a more fulfilling love life. These current tests on major histocompatability complex are based on limited experiments with mixed results.

Read more: Does Singld Out, a gene-based dating service, pass the sniff test?

Indeed for most things, home DNA testing isn’t scientifically advanced enough to give us true insights. It also comes with ethical concerns such as fears over data hacking, bodily autonomy in relation to who owns DNA data, and the accuracy of the data provided.

Nature versus nurture

The One reflects society’s current interest in understanding our DNA as essential to our social and cultural practices. This has significant implications for diversity and acceptance. The TV series relies on the idea that romantic and sexual destiny is predetermined by biological makeup.

Characters in The One feel intense attraction to their match. While it pokes fun at this idea — one character continues extramarital affairs despite being married to their match, another has multiple matches — the romantic ideal of The One is still committed to the possibility of “soulmates”.

This imagined possibility helps to entrench the notion that monogamy is the most “natural” human relationship and human sexuality is pre-determined, fixed and rigid. But human sexuality is fluid, influenced by our culture and society.

Read more: Explainer: what is sexual fluidity?

Similar to the controversial search for “The Gay Gene”, the world envisaged by The One takes politics out of human relationships and sex.

Social norms restrict and shape how we engage with sex and relationships: slut-shaming for women may mean women are reluctant to seek out pleasure and connections; sexual aggressions may mean reproduction of gender inequalities and intimate partner violence. Alternate relationship styles, such as polyamory, or the choice to remain partner-free, are positioned as “unnatural” or less valid.

We still live in an age where LGBTIQA+ rights are contested, and non-monogamous relationship styles or asexuality remain stigmatised.

It is dangerous to assume DNA matching holds the key to romantic and sexual success — our genes alone cannot account for these diverse life experiences.

Anxieties of dating may not be solved through DNA

The dating app industry alone is projected to grow to 3.925 billion users worldwide by 2025.

However apps have been blamed by some for facilitating superficial attitudes to sex and dating, such as fostering infidelity; the phenomena of ghosting and catfishing; and the paralysis of too much choice.

New technologies, like apps, can reshape romance. The One largely envisages DNA matching would reaffirm old moral standards and expectations for the ideal relationship: monogamous, lifelong, intense and perfect.

Humans tend to presume DNA and genetic testing can provide us with irrefutable certainty. But relying on DNA ignores the role society and politics have in shaping our lives. Who we choose to have a relationship with may be influenced by our life goals and experiences, personal desires, morals and values, cultures and heritages.

The idea you can meet a DNA-certified companion to avoid heartbreak is seductive and comforting — but the truth is life and relationships are just too messy.

– ref. The One: could DNA tests find our soulmate? We study sex and sexuality — and think the idea is ridiculous – https://theconversation.com/the-one-could-dna-tests-find-our-soulmate-we-study-sex-and-sexuality-and-think-the-idea-is-ridiculous-158533

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Duffy, Lecturer in Applied Geoscience, The University of Melbourne

Most people know that Mount Everest is the tallest mountain but I want to know for how long it has been the tallest, and for how long in the future it will remain so (…) Which range preceded it? (…) When will something else overtake it? — Nigel, age 14, Christchurch

Nigel, thank you for this wonderful and insightful question. The answer is actually quite complex, since the height (or elevation) of mountain ranges in the past can be difficult to know.

However, it is a very important question as mountains have a huge role in the environment. They can disturb air flow, affect global and regional climate and provide opportunities for plants and animals to evolve.

Understanding the history of mountain ranges

Geoscientists address questions about ancient mountain heights by looking at sedimentary basins within mountain ranges. These are low areas where sediment materials such as pollen and plant leaves collect and minerals form in the soil.

A basin today may be much higher or lower than it was when sediment entered it. The fossilised pollen, leaves and minerals that date back to the time when the sediment was deposited can reveal how the landscape’s elevation changed over time.

If we look at fossilised pollen, we may find it comes from plants which likely grew in a particular range of elevation, and we may also notice the absence of certain other plants. (We can figure out where ancient plants likely grew by looking at their modern relatives.)

So by dating the pollen we find, we can calculate the landscape’s possible range of elevation in the past. We can conclude the landscape was too high for plant A, high enough for plant B (which gave us the pollen), but not high enough for plant C.

That is a pretty powerful capability, especially if the elevation of the landscape has changed significantly since the sediment was first deposited.

We can also look at the different kinds (or isotopes) of certain elements (particularly oxygen) contained in plant waxes, clays and carbonate minerals that form by chemical reactions in the soil. These plants and minerals incorporate rainwater.

As a band of rain reaches a mountain range, water with heavier oxygen isotopes falls out first. This means rainwater at higher elevations contains lighter oxygen isotopes, which then pass into the plants and minerals there.

If we find sediment that was deposited into a low basin 30 million years ago, but is now much higher, it will still contain oxygen isotopes that reveal the elevation at which it first formed. We can measure these isotopes to estimate how much higher the landscape has become.

How long has Everest been the tallest?

Everest is part of the Himalayas, a mountain range that stands at the southern edge of the vast Tibetan Plateau which is around 4-5km above sea level. Scientists have used the methods described above to understand the history of the plateau, which evolved as a result of several ancestral mountain ranges joining up.

Parts of the modern plateau were already higher than 3.5km by 26 million years ago. The southernmost of those ranges was a great, Andes-like mountain range called the Gangdese mountains.

These seem to have existed for more than 50 million years at elevations similar to those of the Andes today (about 4.5km).

However, south of the Gangdese, where we have today’s highest mountains, geologists found 34.5-million-year-old sediments from a shallow sea only a few dozen kilometres east of Mount Everest (locally called Qomolangma).

This tells us the part of the Himalayas that includes Everest, which now dominates the skyline, was not a mountain range back then. In fact, it was at sea level. It has grown more than 8km in the last 30 million years.

Everest, now the big kid on the block, is currently more than 100 metres higher than its closest rival. But a new victor will emerge with time.

What happens next?

To understand how Everest might lose its highest mountain status, we need to understand how mountain ranges are built. The largest mountain belts today were built from collisions between blocks of continental crust in Earth’s outer layer, the lithosphere.

As these blocks collide, they crumple and slices of rocky crust get stacked on one another, as seen in the right half of the cross section below. This gives birth to high mountains, which continuously rise and shift and change as the collision continues.

The video below helps visualise this process. It simulates the squeezing of a block of lithosphere in the Himalayas. You can refer to the “Sandbox Video” part of the cross section above to see where this process would occur.

You’ll notice the mountains begin to rise as soon as the collision begins. The arm pushing the sand represents the already thickened crust of the high Himalayas and the sand pile being pushed represents the Indian upper crust which lies below the mountain range.

The thickening moves to different spots over time. While the youngest and smallest mountain is furthest from the collision itself, the highest peak isn’t always in the oldest part of the range (where the collision began).

Eroding and growing

Large mountain ranges “erode” when changes in temperature, wind and water break down the rock and ultimately carry it away. Interestingly, erosion actually causes mountains to slowly grow over time.

This is a fascinating process geoscientists call “isostasy” which can be measured using GPS. The diagram below shows how the process is comparable to blocks of wood floating in water.

If intact blocks of a certain type of wood float in a pool, the same percentage of the overall volume will always protrude above the surface. So, if material is removed from one block, that block will rise.

We can compare these columns of wood to lithospheric blocks. As more erosion occurs, the mountain’s surface increases in elevation. This gives a way for deeply buried rocks to rise within the mountain range.

Hard to beat

Despite having 82,350km of convergent boundaries on Earth (where two plates meet and push together), it’s unlikely other mountain ranges will surpass the height of the Himalayas anytime soon.

This is because the Himalayas were built by the collision of two large continents composed of rocks with lower than average density. They therefore sit higher than the oceanic lithosphere.

One day in the distant future a new boundary will form somewhere and the forces creating the Himalayas will be removed.

The range will then collapse and eventually erode to become like the modern-day Appalachians in North America, which was an active mountain belt from between 325 and 260 million years ago.

Read more: Curious Kids: how do mountains form?

Hello, curious kids! Have you got a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to us. You can:

* Email your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au
* Tell us on Twitter by tagging @ConversationEDU with the hashtag #curiouskids, or
* Tell us on Facebook

Please tell us your name, age and which city you live in. You can send an audio recording of your question too, if you want. Send as many questions as you like! We won’t be able to answer every question but we will do our best.

– ref. Curious Kids: how and when did Mount Everest become the tallest mountain? And will it remain so? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-how-and-when-did-mount-everest-become-the-tallest-mountain-and-will-it-remain-so-157509

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

Recent media coverage of women not being able to get treatment for birth injuries highlights yet another example of gender bias in healthcare in New Zealand.

Following a policy review, the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), which covers accidental injuries, has restricted access to compensation for women who suffer perineal tears during birth.

ACC’s policy appears gender neutral as it focuses on injuries caused by treatment. It states that most perineal tears are caused by the birthing process itself, and are therefore not covered.

In 2020, the Ministry of Health, drawing from overseas research, noted that 60-85% of women suffer some form of perineal tearing while giving birth. Overseas research also shows the number of women experiencing the most severe tears is small but growing.

The debate is multi-faceted, but there are domestic and international legal obligations ACC should take into account.

Equal rights to health

In terms of international law, the United Nations Charter 1945 reaffirms the equal rights of men and women. So, too, does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966 (CESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (CCPR) both affirm the equal rights of men and women.

The declaration and both covenants also prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. Rights to equality and non-discrimination are also the subject of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women 1979 (CEDAW).

The right to the highest attainable standard of health is underpinned by the rights to equality and non-discrimination. The right to health is a human right and extends to reproductive and sexual health, a right that women should enjoy without discrimination.

Read more: Gender bias in medicine and medical research is still putting women’s health at risk

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 stipulates that everyone has the right to be free from discrimination, and that any limitations on this right must be reasonable and justifiable. The Human Rights Act 1993 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex, which includes pregnancy and childbirth. This law also prohibits indirect discrimination, meaning laws or policies that appear not to discriminate, but in practice do, are unlawful unless there is a good reason for them.

This legal framework must form part of the reasoning for ACC’s policy towards women (and babies) who suffer birth injuries. The current view is that only those who suffer birth injuries as a result of treatment, or failure to provide treatment, are covered.

ACC’s justification is that it is a more accurate interpretation of the compensation scheme, and that it provides certainty to decision makers.

Accident compensation favours male-dominated professions

ACC’s approach may be driven by the understandable desire to provide certainty, but the policy change has led to a drastic drop in the number of eligible women.

Women whose birth injuries do not meet ACC’s requirements can access treatment through the public health system, which satisfies New Zealand’s obligations around the right to health. But availability of such treatment does not fully address the problem of inequality.

A successful ACC claim may mean that a woman can get physiotherapy or even surgery in the private sector. More broadly, a woman may also receive home help and wage support. All of this assistance can be overseen by a dedicated case manager.

Although a woman can still access surgery and physiotherapy through the public health system, the waiting times can be weeks or months, and these women will neither receive home help nor wage subsidies.

Read more: Endometriosis: three reasons care still hasn’t improved

This situation is a manifestation of a wider problem. ACC’s system has been described as “sexist” as its focus on injury and cause tends to exclude occupations where women dominate, including care jobs, teaching and government employment.

ACC is also earnings-related, which is another way in which men are treated more favourably than women, in an approach that mirrors the gender pay gap.

Out of date and discriminatory

One of the reasons given for this overall state of affairs is that the ACC legislation is still primarily designed for the accidents that occurred in 20th century workplaces such as factories, mines and workshops.

More generally, ACC has been criticised for being discriminatory and promoting serious inequalities. Former prime minister and lawyer Sir Geoffrey Palmer has called for an overhaul, arguing that to achieve social justice, New Zealand needs to replace ACC with a system that covers people incapacitated by accidents as well as those incapacitated by sickness or disability.

Under the current ACC regime, arguably, this lack of social justice affects women more significantly. Should the government decide to examine the specific issue of maternal health or engage in a complete overhaul of the ACC system, it must give effect to its legal obligations to the women of Aotearoa New Zealand. Surely, the labour of women is worth this?

– ref. ACC’s policy of not covering birth injuries is one more sign the system is overdue for reform – https://theconversation.com/accs-policy-of-not-covering-birth-injuries-is-one-more-sign-the-system-is-overdue-for-reform-158618

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Nott, Professor of Physical Geography, James Cook University

Tropical Cyclone Seroja battered parts of Western Australia’s coast on Sunday night, badly damaging buildings and leaving thousands of people without power. While the full extent of the damage caused by the Category 3 system is not yet known, the event was unusual.

I specialise in reconstructing long-term natural records of extreme events, and my historic and prehistoric data show cyclones of this intensity rarely travel as far south as this one did. In fact, it has happened only 26 times in the past 5,000 years.

Severe wind gusts hit the towns of Geraldton and Kalbarri – towns not built to withstand such conditions.

Unfortunately, climate change is likely to mean disasters such as Cyclone Seroja will become more intense, and will be seen further south in Australia more often. In this regard, Seroja may be a timely wake-up call.

Seroja: bucking the cyclone trend

Cyclone Seroja initially piqued interest because as it developed off WA, it interacted with another tropical low, Cyclone Odette. This rare phenomenon is known as the Fujiwhara Effect.

Cyclone Seroja hit the WA coast between the towns of Kalbarri and Gregory at about 8pm local time on Sunday. According to the Bureau of Meteorology it produced wind gusts up to 170 km/hour.

Seroja then moved inland north of Geraldton, weakening to a category 2 system with wind gusts up to 120 km/hour. It then tracked further east and has since been downgraded to a tropical low.

The cyclone’s southward track was historically unusual. For Geraldton, it was the first Category 2 cyclone impact since 1956. Cyclones that make landfall so far south on the WA coast are usually less intense, for several reasons.

First, intense cyclones draw their energy from warm sea surface temperatures. These temperatures typically become cooler the further south of the tropics you go, depleting a cyclone of its power.

Second, cyclones need relatively low speed winds in the middle to upper troposphere – the part of the atmosphere closest to Earth, where the weather occurs. Higher-speed winds there cause the cyclone to tilt and weaken. In the Australian region, these higher wind speeds are more likely the further south a cyclone travels.

Third, most cyclones make landfall in the northern half of WA where the coast protrudes far into the Indian Ocean. Cyclones here typically form in the Timor Sea and move southward or south-west away from WA before curving southeast, towards the landmass.

For a cyclone to cross the coast south of about Carnarvon, it must travel a considerable distance towards the south-west into the Indian Ocean. This was the case with Seroja – winds steered it away from the WA coast before they weakened, allowing the cyclone to curve back towards land.

Reading the ridges

My colleagues and I have devised a method to estimate how often and where cyclones make landfall in Australia.

As cyclones approach the coast, they generate storm surge – abnormal sea level rise – and large waves. The surge and waves pick up sand and shells from the beaches and transport them inland, sometimes for several hundred metres.

These materials are deposited into ridges which stand many metres above sea level. By examining these ridges and geologically dating the materials within them, we can determine how often and intense the cyclones have been over thousands of years.

Read more: Our new model shows Australia can expect 11 tropical cyclones this season

At Shark Bay, just north of where Seroja hit the coast, a series of 26 ridges form a “ridge plain” made entirely of one species of a marine cockle shell (Fragum eragatum). The sand at beaches near the plain are also made entirely of this shell.

The ridge record shows over the past 5,000 years, cyclones of Seroja’s intensity, or higher, have crossed the coast in this region about every 190 years – so about 26 times. Some 14 of these cyclones were more intense than Seroja.

The record shows no Category 5 cyclones have made landfall here over this time. The ridge record prevents us from knowing the frequency of less intense storms. But Bureau of Meteorology cyclone records since the early 1970s shows only a few crossed the coast in this region, and all appear weaker than Seroja.

Cyclones under climate change

So why does all this matter? Cyclones can kill and injure people, damage homes and infrastructure, cause power and communication outages, contaminate water supplies and more. Often, the most disadvantaged populations are worst affected. It’s important to understand past and future cyclone behaviour, so communities can prepare.

Climate change is expected to alter cyclone patterns. The overall number of tropical cyclones in the Australian region is expected to decrease. But their intensity will likely increase, bringing stronger wind and heavier rain. And they may form further south as the Earth warms and the tropical zone expands poleward.

This may mean cyclones of Seroja’s intensity are likely to become frequent, and communities further south on the WA coast may become more prone to cyclone damage. This has big implications for coastal planning, engineering and disaster management planning.

In particular, it may mean homes further south must be built to cope with stronger winds. Storm surge may also worsen, inundating low-lying coastal land.

Global climate models are developing all the time. As they improve, we will gain a more certain picture of how tropical cyclones will change as the planet warms. But for now, Seroja may be a sign of things to come.

Read more: Wetlands have saved Australia $27 billion in storm damage over the past five decades

This article is part of Conversation series on the nexus between disaster, disadvantage and resilience. Read the rest of the stories here.

– ref. Cyclone Seroja just demolished parts of WA – and our warming world will bring more of the same – https://theconversation.com/cyclone-seroja-just-demolished-parts-of-wa-and-our-warming-world-will-bring-more-of-the-same-158769

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tamasailau Suaalii Sauni, Associate Professor in Criminology Programme, University of Auckland

Samoan politics is on a knife edge. After the country voted in general elections on April 9, counting so far has resulted in a dead heat between the two major parties.

This is a stunning and unexpected electoral rebuke of the ruling party, the Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP), which has dominated Samoa for four decades.

What are the results so far?

Coming into the election, HRPP held 47 of the 51 seats and Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi predicted his party would win 42 of the 51 seats. It only won 25.

The nine-month-old opposition, Fa’atuatua i le Atua Samoa ua Tasi (FAST) party, also won 25 seats, just shy of the 26 needed to form government outright.

FAST’s leader, former Deputy Prime Minister Sa’o Faapito Fiame Naomi Mata’afa, says her party will consider a coalition deal with the winner of the 51st seat, independent Tuala Tevaga Iosefo Ponifasio.

Tuala has indicated he favours change. But Tuilaepa – a formidable and longstanding leader of 23 years — has not yet conceded defeat. Meanwhile, recounts and potential challenges to results will also slow a final outcome.

Why did we get this result?

The Samoan public was becoming increasingly dissatisfied with its government. This situation then quickly deteriorated when three controversial bills were passed last year, thanks to the government’s huge majority. These bills fundamentally altered the operations of the Lands and Titles Court, giving it additional powers over the bestowal of lands and titles within families and villages.

As Samoa-based lawyer Fiona Ey wrote last year, they also

undermine judicial independence and the rule of law, with significant implications for human rights.

In protest, Fiame – who had been Tuilaepa’s right-hand person — resigned as deputy prime minister in late 2020. In March, she joined FAST as its new leader.

Support for HRPP was also damaged by claims the government badly mishandled the 2019 measles epidemic.

On top of this, despite having no active COVID-19 cases in Samoa, the country is still under state of emergency restrictions. So there are increasing frustrations over continued border closures, which are straining the economy and preventing family reunifications.

But even with all these indications the government was out of favour, few predicted the weekend’s result.

Where did FAST come from?

Fiame’s move to FAST and appointment as leader was both politically astute and perfectly timed.

Fiame would give FAST what they needed to ultimately unseat the HRPP from its 40-year hold over Samoa’s governing systems. Her value was, and is, twofold. First, her chiefly and political lineage gives her significant domestic appeal. Second, her already established profile and experience on the world stage is invaluable should FAST become Samoa’s next ruling party.

Read more: Devastated by disease in the past, Samoa is on high alert after recent coronavirus scares

FAST was formed in July 2020 in reaction to the three bills. It began employing savvy tactics, attracting notable candidates and carrying out extensive social media outreach.

Through social media, FAST was able to reach across Samoa and beyond, connecting particularly with the substantial Samoan communities in Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia and the United States (many of whom donated significant amounts of money and time towards its election campaign). Due to the border closures, the large numbers of eligible voters residing outside Samoa could not return, as required, to cast ballots.

FAST’s success can be attributed to the combined leadership of Fiame and deputy leader La’auli Polataivao Leuatea Schmidt and their ability to capitalise on HRPP’s clear underestimation of the national mood, both against the three bills and for appropriate access to clear and robust policy information.

HRPP, on the other hand, relied heavily on its “business as usual” approach. The party’s underestimation of both the mood – and FAST — has cost it dearly.

What does this mean?

For Samoans, the election outcome is less about launching an attack against the prime minister and HRPP, and more about making an unequivocal point about Samoa’s commitment to protecting its two core “independence institutions”. These are the Samoan aiga (family) and the Samoan rule of law.

In voting for a non-HRPP majority, Samoa’s voters have signalled loud and clear they are prepared to step up to protect their “faasinomaga”, or their Samoan values, identity and heritage.

If the post-election negotiations go FAST’s way, Fiame is poised to be Samoa’s next prime minister. Although she would be the first woman in the position, pre-colonial Samoa has a strong tradition of national female leaders.

Read more: Traditional skills help people on the tourism-deprived Pacific Islands survive the pandemic

A transformed political landscape energised by new leadership promises renewed approaches to the many challenges facing the nation, including climate change and economic development.

Samoa has a rich history as a pioneer of political independence in the Pacific. It’s protest movements against colonial ruler Germany and New Zealand eventually led to Samoa becoming the first independent nation in the region in 1962.

With this election, Samoa resumes its place as one of the Pacific’s most innovative homes for Indigenous self-determination and democracy.

– ref. Samoa’s stunning election result: on the verge of a new ruling party for the first time in 40 years – https://theconversation.com/samoas-stunning-election-result-on-the-verge-of-a-new-ruling-party-for-the-first-time-in-40-years-158608

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Wellington, Senior Lecturer, Art History and Visual Culture, 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.

If you are a country house fanatic like me, and you’ve been lucky enough to spend time travelling around Britain to seek them out, you might have visited some of the greats: Petworth, Blenheim, Chatsworth.

But have you heard of Boughton House, the “English Versailles”?

As an art historian born in England who works on the art and culture of Louis XIV’s France, I’m a little embarrassed to admit I only learnt about Boughton very recently.

Now, I yearn to book a flight to England to visit the house rebuilt by Ralph Montagu (1638–1709), the first Duke of Montagu, in the flashy new French style back in the 17th century.

Montagu inherited his family’s country seat in Northamptonshire when his father died in 1684. A monastic building was converted into a manor house by Sir Edward Montagu in 1528, following the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII. The younger Montagu’s renovations began upon his inheritence and continued well into the 1690s.

Montagu’s contemporaries knew Louis XIV’s palace was the inspiration for Boughton.

The “Sun King” had transformed his father’s modest hunting lodge at Versailles into the most magnificent palace of the age. By 1680, it was the French king’s principal residence and the centre of government.

According to one account written shortly after Montagu’s death, Boughton was:

contrived after the Model of Versailles, with extending Wings, excellent Avenues, Vistas and Prospects; for Rich Furniture, Exquisite Gardens, Beauty of Building, and advantageous Situation, scare to be equalled in Britain.

Boughton House may not be well know today, but it was famous when it was built.

Dreams of France

Montagu was a greedy and ambitious fellow. He married twice for money and to advance his social status. He first went to France as an ambassador of King Charles II of England in 1669.

Although he was a minor noble, as the representative of the King of England his official entry into Paris was of unequalled magnificence. He developed a taste for the finest things at the time France was fast becoming the centre for luxury in Europe.

He travelled to France again in 1678, and returned to England with more than 200 trunks filled with works of art and furniture.

To live in the magnificent way he did in France, Montagu needed a house to display his treasures. With aid of his first wife’s dowry, he built Montagu House in London – which would become the site of the first British Museum in 1755, before being demolished to make way for a new grand museum in 1850.

Montagu employed all manner of French architects, painters, sculptors, wood engravers, furniture makers and silversmiths to decorate his London house and country seat. He commissioned artists like Jacques Rousseau and Charles de la Fosse who had worked for Louis XIV at Versailles.

Montagu was a Francophile through and through. His household staff were nearly all French — everyone from his housekeeper to his wigmaker — and the entertainments he gave were in the French style, with French dancing and music.

Treasures in situ

The main building of Boughton House is much as it was in Ralph Montagu’s time. The mansard roof and plain white stone of the façade lend the building a distinctly French feel.

Despite what Montagu’s contemporaries thought, it is not that similar to the Château at Versailles. It looks more like the lost Château of Saint-Cloud, where Montagu spent time in the circle of the English princess, Henrietta Maria, who married Louis XIV’s only brother Philippe.

I don’t want to visit just to see its lovely Frenchified exterior. Boughton is one of those rare country houses still in the hands of the family that built it.

Today, it is one of the ancestral homes of the Duke of Buccleuch, passed on by marriage in the 18th century.

Boughton is not the largest, nor the fanciest, of the Buccleuch seats. This is probably why it remains intact, full of the treasures collected and commissioned by the first Duke of Montagu.

Among the hundreds of trunks of objects Montagu brought back with him from France was a desk attributed to Pierre Gole, furniture maker to Louis XIV. According to family tradition, this was one of the personal gifts the French king gave to Montagu. The Gole desk is an exquisite treasure shimmering in the gold and silver tones of its pewter and brass inlay.

Objects have lives, too.

Just as the first Duke of Montagu was an English ambassador to France, this desk became a French ambassador to England. But where Montagu only played the role of ambassador for a few years, the desk has been in ambassadorial service for centuries, sitting at Boughton waiting for an audience.

Houses like Boughton delight me more than any museum. There is something so special about seeing works of art where they have remained for centuries.

Objects in museums are a little like birds in cages. By contrast, when you glimpse an exquisite object like that shimmering desk in a country house it’s like spying a rare bird in its natural habitat.

– ref. If I could go anywhere: Boughton House, ‘the English Versailles’ and its shimmering treasures – https://theconversation.com/if-i-could-go-anywhere-boughton-house-the-english-versailles-and-its-shimmering-treasures-157598

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane E Frawley, NHMRC Research Fellow, University of Technology Sydney

The federal government’s recommendation last week that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is now the preferred vaccine for adults under 50 has shaken public confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) advised the AstraZeneca vaccine, previously planned as Australia’s main vaccine, will no longer be the preferred vaccine for adults under 50. It came after an extensive review of data from the United Kingdom and Europe which found an association between a very rare type of blood clot and the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Public confusion has already resulted in mass cancellations of vaccine appointments at GP clinics, by adults both over and under 50.

It’s important to remember the Australian government can afford to choose a safer path because we are not in the midst of a large COVID-19 outbreak.

But a decrease in vaccine confidence may be an unintended consequence of this path.

Now, the federal government must urgently restore public confidence in the vaccine rollout. It needs to quickly reassure adults aged over 50 the AstraZeneca vaccine is safe.

It’s essential the government gets this right. Concerns about one vaccine can damage public trust in other vaccines.

Why has a safer approach decreased confidence?

Vaccine confidence can be fickle. There are many recent examples of established vaccine programs that have been undermined by unrelated events or errors. This has led to mass disease outbreak and preventable death. For example, in the Philippines, a new measles outbreak that infected 47,871 people in 2019 and killed 632, mostly children, was fuelled by a drop in measles vaccination spurred by concerns about a dengue fever vaccine.

Vaccine program resilience is an even bigger ask during a new vaccine rollout where rare effects are expected once the vaccine is given to hundreds of millions of people.

Research from the Australian National University published last week found young women are the most likely to avoid vaccination. Women who did not approve of the government’s handling of recent sexual harassment scandals were less likely to accept a COVID vaccine. This demonstrates the importance of trust, and shows a lack of trust in one area of the government’s remit can spill into other areas.

Because the risk of catching COVID-19 is currently so low in Australia, many people are feeling less interested in being vaccinated.

One Australian study, published in September last year, found fewer people were willing to accept a COVID-19 vaccine compared to a similar study done two months earlier. This decrease was evident following a decreased number of new COVID-19 cases in Australia in the time between these two studies. People can change their intention to be vaccinated when they fear the effects from the vaccine more than the disease.

On top of all of this, some members of the community are still concerned COVID-19 vaccines were developed too quickly and without appropriate checks and balances — even though this isn’t true.

Changing recommendations during a vaccine program rollout can compound these concerns.

Read more: Less than a year to develop a COVID vaccine – here’s why you shouldn’t be alarmed

How can confidence be restored?

While the federal government was quick to accept the recommendation from ATAGI, the confusion has added to the rollout chaos. Public confidence has been damaged, and further vaccine delays are imminent across the board, including for younger health and aged-care workers.

Read more: 4 ways Australia’s COVID vaccine rollout has been bungled

Vaccine program resilience is essential to survive the bumps along the way and the government has not invested enough in understanding public sentiment and developing plain language information resources.

The challenge for public health and the federal government now is to address the understandable concerns and prevent them from contaminating the broader public dialog on COVID-19 vaccination.

With high numbers of Australians needing to be vaccinated to prevent further COVID-19 outbreaks, there’s very little room for vaccine rejection.

The government urgently needs to use clear messaging for all communities and health professionals. This includes communities with diverse cultural and language requirements

These efforts will greatly benefit from multidisciplinary teams of infectious disease, vaccine, social science and communication experts.

We need a compensation scheme

During Australia’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout, so far one man in his 40s has developed blood clots following vaccination with the AstraZeneca vaccine. There’s a 25% death rate following a vaccine-related clot according to ATAGI. Four to six clots are expected per million doses of AstraZeneca vaccine (first dose) and while this reaction is exceedingly rare, it is severe.

This also highlights the importance of a no-fault vaccine injury compensation scheme.

Such a scheme recognises that if the government promotes whole of community vaccination for collective good, then it also accepts the ethical and financial burden for the few people who will sustain a serious injury. The federal government should implement one as a matter of priority.

Read more: Bad reactions to the COVID vaccine will be rare, but Australians deserve a proper compensation scheme

– ref. New AstraZeneca advice is a safer path, but it’s damaged vaccine confidence. The government must urgently restore it – https://theconversation.com/new-astrazeneca-advice-is-a-safer-path-but-its-damaged-vaccine-confidence-the-government-must-urgently-restore-it-158763

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bela Stantic, Professor, Director of Big data and smart analytics lab – IIIS, Griffith University

Australia’s COVID-19 vaccination rollout has hit yet another crossroads. Public confidence has wavered following the federal government’s announcement last week that the Pfizer vaccine was the preferred choice for people under age 50.

The advice was based on an extremely low risk of severe blood clots forming in younger recipients of the AstraZeneca vaccine. Many patients under 50 have since cancelled or been turned away from their vaccine appointments, according to reports.

Our Griffith University team is monitoring vaccine support levels among Australians. We’re doing this by analysing “big data” gleaned from social media platforms.

According to our analysis, the biggest drop in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates in Australia happened when blood clotting incidents were reported in some European countries, prompting rollouts to be stopped.

An evolving debate

Our team trawled through social media feeds for two months, collecting data on public attitudes towards the vaccine. We also watched these opinions change and evolve in response to important media announcements.

We found the Australian public cares about the vaccine’s effectiveness, side effects and roll-out process. Social media sentiment in particular is helping us identify misinformation in a way more traditional survey methods can’t.

Our findings, which have been provided to Queensland Health, are aiding decision makers in devising the best strategies to provide vaccine information to the public.

Read more: Why telling stories could be a more powerful way of convincing some people to take a COVID vaccine than just the facts

Standard survey approaches

Carrying out surveys can be costly and time-consuming. It’s hard to get large samples because many people approached won’t participate. It’s also difficult to return to survey respondents later, to understand how their beliefs may be changing over time.

Between October last year and February this year, the Gold Coast Public Health Unit ran a survey asking people if they intended to get the COVID-19 vaccine.

Almost 19,000 survey invitations were given to people who visited fever clinics at the Gold Coast University Hospital and Robina Health Precinct. From these, 2,706 responses came back.

Results showed just over 50% of respondents “definitely intended” to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Around 15% said they “probably” or “definitely” would not receive the vaccine.

Similarly, a study conducted by researchers at the Australian National University showed one in five (21.7%) respondents would “probably” or “definitely” not receive a vaccine.

While such surveys provide a “snapshot” from one point in time, big data analytics can examine social media data (such as from Twitter) in real time and therefore provide ongoing insight.

Nearly 100,000 posts from 42,000 accounts

These posts attracted a further 49,642 comments from another 15,648 unique accounts. This sample size is much bigger than the surveys mentioned above. Notably, the data we collected showed us how vaccine hesitancy had changed during that time.

We used techniques called “sentiment polarity” calculations and “topic modelling analysis” and also looked at the number of likes received by posts for and against the vaccine.

During the two months, we were able to identify links between changes in sentiment and specific media announcements from trusted news sources. The announcements had an obvious impact on people’s opinions.

Negative reporting had a direct impact

Vaccine support started at around 80% in January. With fewer COVID cases in Australia at the end of 2020 and in January this year, we saw declining support for the vaccine. But when the media showed people receiving the Pfizer vaccine in February, support grew.

Negative stories started to appear mid-to-late February, and support levels expressed on social media feeds dropped. In late February, the media told us about a poorly trained doctor who gave higher than recommended vaccine doses to two elderly people.

We then received reports of multiple European Union countries banning the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, due to concerns of blood clotting as a potential side effect. This marked the biggest drop in support, from more than 80% to below 60%.

In late March, support bounced back when the same countries resumed rolling out the AstraZeneca vaccine, and news emerged that GP clinics in Australia were gearing up to do the same.

There are some limitations to this research method. For instance, the views of Twitter users don’t necessarily represent the general population. That said, our data pool does seem to reflect a fairly diverse group of users sharing opinions by posting, re-tweeting and liking posts.

All of these opinions are captured and incorporated into our analysis. Considering the large volume of data used, as well as insights from other correct predictions, we are confident in our ability to provide an accurate near real-time analysis.

Addressing what the public wants addressed

Big data analysis can deliver fast results that show not just the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy but also help us understand the factors that drive it.

Further, by focusing on the regions or demographics which have the most doubts — whether this is certain age groups, or people with a given level of education — big data analysis can keep high-level decision makers informed about how the public feels.

This in turn assists them with pointing out the key issues and vulnerable areas to which they can direct targeted messages. In this way, the news sources which the public respects and trusts can (and must) be used to improve health outcomes for all.

Read more: Just the facts, or more detail? To battle vaccine hesitancy, the messaging has to be just right

– ref. The ebb and flow of COVID-19 vaccine support: what social media tells us about Australians and the jab – https://theconversation.com/the-ebb-and-flow-of-covid-19-vaccine-support-what-social-media-tells-us-about-australians-and-the-jab-157874

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Nott, Professor of Physical Geography, James Cook University

Tropical Cyclone Seroja battered parts of Western Australia’s coast on Sunday night, badly damaging buildings and leaving thousands of people without power. While the full extent of the damage caused by the Category 3 system is not yet known, the event was unusual.

I specialise in reconstructing long-term natural records of extreme events, and my historic and prehistoric data show cyclones of this intensity rarely travel as far south as this one did. In fact, it has happened only 26 times in the past 5,000 years.

Severe wind gusts hit the towns of Geraldton and Kalbarri – towns not built to withstand such conditions.

Unfortunately, climate change is likely to mean disasters such as Cyclone Seroja will become more intense, and will be seen further south in Australia more often. In this regard, Seroja may be a timely wake-up call.

Seroja: bucking the cyclone trend

Cyclone Seroja initially piqued interest because as it developed off WA, it interacted with another tropical low, Cyclone Odette. This rare phenomenon is known as the Fujiwhara Effect.

Cyclone Seroja hit the WA coast between the towns of Kalbarri and Gregory at about 8pm local time on Sunday. According to the Bureau of Meteorology it produced wind gusts up to 170 km/hour.

Seroja then moved inland north of Geraldton, weakening to a category 2 system with wind gusts up to 120 km/hour. It then tracked further east and has since been downgraded to a tropical low.

The cyclone’s southward track was historically unusual. For Geraldton, it was the first Category 2 cyclone impact since 1956. Cyclones that make landfall so far south on the WA coast are usually less intense, for several reasons.

First, intense cyclones draw their energy from warm sea surface temperatures. These temperatures typically become cooler the further south of the tropics you go, depleting a cyclone of its power.

Second, cyclones need relatively low speed winds in the middle to upper troposphere – the part of the atmosphere closest to Earth, where the weather occurs. Higher-speed winds there cause the cyclone to tilt and weaken. In the Australian region, these higher wind speeds are more likely the further south a cyclone travels.

Third, most cyclones make landfall in the northern half of WA where the coast protrudes far into the Indian Ocean. Cyclones here typically form in the Timor Sea and move southward or south-west away from WA before curving southeast, towards the landmass.

For a cyclone to cross the coast south of about Carnarvon, it must travel a considerable distance towards the south-west into the Indian Ocean. This was the case with Seroja – winds steered it away from the WA coast before they weakened, allowing the cyclone to curve back towards land.

Reading the ridges

My colleagues and I have devised a method to estimate how often and where cyclones make landfall in Australia.

As cyclones approach the coast, they generate storm surge – abnormal sea level rise – and large waves. The surge and waves pick up sand and shells from the beaches and transport them inland, sometimes for several hundred metres.

These materials are deposited into ridges which stand many metres above sea level. By examining these ridges and geologically dating the materials within them, we can determine how often and intense the cyclones have been over thousands of years.

Read more: Our new model shows Australia can expect 11 tropical cyclones this season

At Shark Bay, just north of where Seroja hit the coast, a series of 26 ridges form a “ridge plain” made entirely of one species of a marine cockle shell (Fragum eragatum). The sand at beaches near the plain are made up entirely of this shell.

The ridge record shows over the past 5,000 years, cyclones of Seroja’s intensity, or higher, have crossed the coast in this region about every 190 years – so about 26 times. Some 14 of these cyclones were more intense than Seroja.

The record shows no Category 5 cyclones have made landfall here over this time. The ridge record prevents us from knowing the frequency of less intense storms. But Bureau of Meteorology cyclone records since the early 1970s shows only a few crossed the coast in this region, and all appear weaker than Seroja.

Cyclones under climate change

So why does all this matter? Cyclones can kill and injure people, damage homes and infrastructure, cause power and communication outages, contaminate water supplies and more. Often, the most disadvantaged populations are worst affected. It’s important to understand past and future cyclone behaviour, so communities can prepare.

Climate change is expected to alter cyclone patterns. The overall number of tropical cyclones in the Australian region is expected to decrease. But their intensity will likely increase, bringing stronger wind and heavier rain. And they may form further south as the Earth warms and the tropical zone expands poleward.

This may mean cyclones of Seroja’s intensity are likely to become frequent, and communities further south on the WA coast may become more prone to cyclone damage. This has big implications for coastal planning, engineering and disaster management planning.

In particular, it may mean homes further south must be built to cope with stronger winds. Storm surge may also worsen, inundating low-lying coastal land.

Global climate models are developing all the time. As they improve, we will gain a more certain picture of how tropical cyclones will change as the planet warms. But for now, Seroja may be a sign of things to come.

Read more: Wetlands have saved Australia $27 billion in storm damage over the past five decades

This article is part of Conversation series on the nexus between disaster, disadvantage and resilience. Read the rest of the stories here.

– ref. Cyclone Seroja last night demolished parts of WA – and our warming world will bring more of the same – https://theconversation.com/cyclone-seroja-last-night-demolished-parts-of-wa-and-our-warming-world-will-bring-more-of-the-same-158769

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Norman Gemmell, Chair in Public Finance, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Economists like to talk about “optimal policy instruments” — essentially, policies that achieve their objectives more effectively or efficiently than the alternatives, and have minimal unintended consequences.

Judged by those criteria, the New Zealand government’s recently announced package of housing policy instruments is a long way from optimal. You might even call it a shambles.

How so? To the uninformed, the package’s main elements may seem to address the housing affordability crisis by doing several things:

• removing tax deductibility of interest on loans for residential property investments

• extending the bright-line test — the period after which the property sale attracts a capital gains tax (CGT) liability — from five to ten years

• favouring new builds in these tax changes

• introducing a “changes of use” rule that effectively makes family homes liable to CGT if sold within ten years and rented out for more than one year

• and raising income and house price caps for the government’s First Home Grant scheme.

If we examine the package in light of the three optimal policy requirements, however, we can see the problems.

Achieving the policy’s objective

Economists have a policy “rule” that to achieve various policy objectives, you need at least as many policy instruments. The housing package is a hodgepodge of inter-related measures, but it has several explicit objectives:

• stabilising house prices

• facilitating home ownership

• discouraging (ill-defined) speculative investment

• increasing the housing stock with mainly (undefined) “affordable homes”

• closing what the government claims is a housing “tax loophole”.

To these, add implicit objectives of tackling perceived income and wealth inequalities between tenants, landlords and homeowners.

Overall, this is quite a task, and it would be remarkable if any set of housing policies could achieve such wide-ranging objectives.

Arguably, the primary target of this policy package is stopping the inexorable upward march of (mainly Auckland) house prices. Failing to achieve that would simply put it among a long line of attempts by previous governments (National and Labour) over the past 20 years at least.

In all cases, the biggest problem has been insufficient political commitment to boosting housing supply.

Read more: With house prices soaring again the government must get ahead of the market and become a ‘customer of first resort’

Unintended consequences

All taxes cause “distortions”, mostly unintended, which need to be mitigated. Furthermore, policies that have conflicting objectives are “incoherent” and typically among the most distorting. This applies to the housing package’s removal of interest deductibility.

Previously, in New Zealand and almost every other country, interest on business loans is treated as a legitimate expense and therefore tax deductible, regardless of the nature of that business.

With that coherent principle now not applying to housing, then, what about other types of business loans the government thinks it should favour or disfavour? No doubt arguments could be made for such policies, but the result is an ad hoc tax system that generates multiple undesirable distortions and perverse incentives.

Read more: Wellington’s older houses don’t deserve blanket protection — but 6-storey buildings aren’t always the answer

It could be argued the “new build” aspect of the housing package gets some incentives right by directing rental housing investment toward increasing the housing stock.

But with already existing constraints on new house building — such as planning regulations and availability of suitable land — the policy is likely to have little impact. It will simply shift housing investors from competing with first-time buyers for existing properties to competing with them for new properties.

Over time the rental housing stock becomes a patchwork of homes that do or don’t qualify for tax exemptions. Exploiting these new loopholes and assorted distortions to property prices will likely provide plenty of employment for tax accountants.

A back door capital gains tax

It would be rare to find a liability based on transactions and timing among the principles of a good tax policy. But the bright-line test manages both — it incentivises delaying property sales to avoid the tax even when selling would otherwise be in the taxpayer’s best interest.

It was originally introduced in 2010 with a two year threshold, without supporting evidence, supposedly to stop so-called speculators from flipping properties for quick profits. A ten year threshold cannot be branded an anti-speculation policy, it is simply a back-door CGT.

As with most back-door policies, this CGT is inevitably less transparent and coherent than a policy designed to tackle the problem head-on would be.

Read more: NZ student accommodation is expensive and under-regulated — here are 10 ways to fix it

Consider the hypothetical case of an Auckland homeowner relocating to Sydney to work for two years. It wouldn’t be sensible to sell the Auckland house due to high transaction costs and the risk of slipping on the property ladder when trying to buy back later. Much better to rent in Sydney while also renting out the Auckland home.

But this would now generate a potentially substantial tax bill on the family home. Indeed, one calculation showed just such a plausible scenario could generate a CGT liability of almost a year’s salary — simply to move to a similarly priced house.

Alternative policy instruments

If there are better alternatives, they do not lie in even more ad hoc fiddling with a coherent tax regime.

Instead, like the famous real estate mantra of “location, location, location”, the mantra for New Zealand housing policy should be “supply, supply, supply”. Specifically, supply in Auckland.

Successive governments have aimed policies nationwide when rapid house price inflation is almost exclusively urban and essentially an Auckland phenomenon.

Without policies that reform construction sector regulations and open up more land for urban housing, there is little prospect of Auckland house prices stabilising while current demand-driven trends persist. To make matters worse, the government’s first-home buyer schemes will merely raise demand without incentivising supply.

With too many objectives and the probability of numerous unintended consequences, the government’s housing policies risk being seriously incoherent.

– ref. New Zealand’s new housing policy is really just a new tax package — and it’s a shambles – https://theconversation.com/new-zealands-new-housing-policy-is-really-just-a-new-tax-package-and-its-a-shambles-158768

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yun Jiang, Managing Editor, Australian National University

A powerful and assertive China poses significant policy challenges for Australia. Many of our most pressing policy issues have crucially important China angles, from freedom of speech on university campuses to scientific research collaboration and supply chain management.

Yet, there is a dire lack of policy expertise on China in the public service and few signs this is improving.

The Australian Public Service (APS) has long recognised the importance of Asia expertise generally. However, an independent review in 2019 noted that while Asia proficiency was a core focus of the 2012 Asian Century White Paper,

coordinated and sustained action to deepen Asia-relevant capabilities was not taken then, and it remains a skills gap across the public service.

For example, Asian language skills remain poor in Australia, and the number of people fluent in Mandarin is dismally low, especially among Australians without a Chinese background.

One estimate has put the number of fluent Mandarin speakers of non-Chinese background at just 130 across the entire country. And with a decreasing number of year 12 students without Chinese background studying Mandarin, the prospects of this situation improving are low.

Read more: Australia has too few home-grown experts on the Chinese Communist Party. That’s a problem

Too few Chinese-Australians in the public service

Recruiting, retaining and promoting more Chinese-Australians with China capability should be of the utmost importance for the public service.

Yet, Australians of Chinese heritage are significantly under-represented in the public service, at just 2.6% of the total workforce based on the latest available internal figures.

This is despite Mandarin and Cantonese being two of the most common foreign languages spoken at home in Australia at 2.5% and 1.2% of the total population, respectively, according to the last census.

Read more: Why the Australia-China relationship is unravelling faster than we could have imagined

This is not simply a problem of workplace composition lagging demographic changes. The numbers of new Chinese-Australians being recruited into the public service are also significantly lower than they should be.

This demographic group has an enormous amount to contribute to Australia’s China literacy and policy-making capabilities. Yet, in the public service, Chinese-Australians are more likely to be found in accounting and IT roles, rather than policy-making roles.

The under-representation problem is especially acute in senior management, with only two Chinese-Australian “first assistant secretaries” out of a total of 577 across the entire Australian Public Service. This is just 0.3% of people in this key senior executive role.

Why this is happening

In a report published today for the Lowy Institute, I have identified some of the major causes of under-representation of Chinese-Australians in the public service. Workplace culture, management systems and recruitment processes are among the principal challenges holding back this important source of talent.

When Chinese-Australians with deep knowledge of China are recruited to the public service, management preconceptions may hinder their placement in China-related roles. There is a tendency to perceive their ethnic and cultural background as an impediment or “conflict of interest” to work on issues related to China, even after they have successfully completed the exhaustive security clearance process.

The result is that government departments may spend substantial resources training public servants to speak a Chinese language and improve their expertise on Chinese society and culture, while those with existing Chinese language skills, knowledge and experience are side-lined.

Another pervasive problem in some bureaucratic systems is that staff are constrained by their formal role definition or official rank in how they can contribute their knowledge and expertise.

The Australian Public Service recruitment and promotion systems also tend to value “generic” public policy skills rather than “specialised” knowledge, such as country or regional expertise. This further contributes to a mismatch of skills and expertise with roles and positions.

What can be done to fix the situation

While the public service has taken steps towards addressing diversity and inclusion issues (and there has been notable work done by some government agencies), there is a sense some of these efforts are merely superficial.

Agencies may hold feel-good Harmony Day morning teas, while ignoring systemic workplace culture issues. Other initiatives are treated as “extra-curricular”, to be done outside working hours rather than as a core component of an employee’s work.

To fix the situation, the Australian Public Service needs to target culturally and linguistically diverse communities for recruitment, as well as support their retention and promotion. This is similar to what it is currently doing to progress women through the ranks.

Read more: Australia has a great chance to engage in trade diplomacy with China, and it must take it

The public service should also collect and publish better data on the representation of different culturally and linguistically diverse groups. However, the public service is doing the reverse: it removed ethnic diversity questions from last year’s APS employee census.

The irony is that despite the urgent demand within the Australian Public Service for Chinese language and cultural skills, the existing skills of many public servants are being overlooked or not used at all.

Australia has a large, diverse and growing population of Chinese-Australians, but the APS is failing to take advantage of this. And those who are in the service are often undervalued or underutilised.

A better harnessing of the skills and knowledge of this community would have substantial benefits for Australian policy-making in one of its most important bilateral relationships.

– ref. Australia is failing to recognise an urgent need: recruiting more Chinese-Australians into public service – https://theconversation.com/australia-is-failing-to-recognise-an-urgent-need-recruiting-more-chinese-australians-into-public-service-158528

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

Sixty years ago, Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human to travel in space when he completed his historic orbit of Earth on April 12, 1961.

It was an extraordinary achievement, but created a dilemma for a world embroiled in the Cold War. Gagarin’s spaceflight heralded a vision of a unified planet.

However, in the battle between communism and capitalism, space technology was also a weapon to demonstrate the superiority of one political system over the other.

The Soviet Union was winning the battle. In 1957, it orbited the first satellite with Sputnik 1. Two years later, the Luna 2 probe was the first human artefact to make contact with the Moon. In February 1961 the Russians launched the Venera 1 probe towards Venus.

As congratulations for Gagarin’s feat poured in from around the world, the vehemently anti-communist Australian prime minister Robert Menzies stayed silent.

His views were echoed by members of the Australian scientific establishment. Sir John Eccles, president of the Australian Academy of Science, said the flight was of little value to humanity. Nuclear scientist Sir Mark Oliphant described it as a stunt.

Physicist Harry Messel said:

scientifically I am happy, but from the cold-war perspective I am sad […] it could very well threaten the freedom of the world if Russia continues to triumph in space.

Sputniks and vodka at the Sydney Trade Fair

The Australian public had other ideas. In August 1961, Sydney hosted an international trade fair with a large Russian pavilion.

Such was the buzz that Henry F. Jensen, the Labor Lord Mayor of Sydney, invited Gagarin to visit as part of his post-flight world tour. A request was sent through the Soviet embassy in Canberra, which passed it on to Moscow. Jensen said:

I am certain Sydney citizens will give him a very warm welcome if he comes here.

Throughout July and August, newspapers reported on whether the invitation had been answered. Anticipation was building.

The Russian pavilion had two life sized replicas of Soviet spacecraft and the public flocked to see them. It was the most popular pavilion at the trade fair (although the mini-bottles of vodka that were given away may have helped too).

Not everyone was happy about it. On August 12, an anonymous caller told police there was a bomb in the Russian pavilion. After evacuation, the bomb threat was proven to be a hoax.

It’s not known if the Lord Mayor’s invitation ever reached Gagarin. Over the next year the cosmonaut visited more than 25 countries on his world tour, but Australia was not among them.

The space boomerang

That said, Gagarin still had a close encounter with Australian culture. Australian journalist Wilfred Burchett and his British colleague Anthony Purdy were the first Western journalists invited to interview him privately.

Burchett was the first foreign war correspondent to enter Hiroshima in 1945, and had been hounded out of Australia by the government for his communist sympathies.

Burchett and Purdy met with Gagarin and his interpreters at the State Committee of Foreign Cultural Relations in Moscow, on July 9 1961. They wrote a book about it, contextualising the interview within the broader Soviet space program.

Burchett’s father George was on holidays in Moscow at the time. Just as Gagarin was leaving, George walked in with a boomerang he had in his luggage. He offered it to the cosmonaut, saying “please take this as a symbol of safe return”.

“It always comes back, and I hope you and your colleagues do too.”

Gagarin was delighted, examining the boomerang closely while the interpreters explained its use. They returned his thanks to George Burchett: “I shall treasure it. It’s a nice sort of symbol to have”.

The label on the back of the photograph, now in the National Library of Australia, says:

In January this year, nearly 60 years after Gagarin’s epic flight, a boomerang carved by Kaurna and Narungga man Jack Buckskin was taken onto the International Space Station by astronaut Shannon Walker.

Space politics in the global south

On one hand, Gagarin’s spaceflight was a symbol of unity and peace. On the other, it fostered the fear of Soviet aggression from space that started with Sputnik 1. The US also had to obscure its military objectives in space to create a public perception of peaceful intent.

The world tour was an important exercise in soft diplomacy, particularly when Gagarin visited countries such as Ghana and Brazil, which were not aligned with either the US or USSR.

Soviet technology’s promise of modernisation, as seen at the Sydney Trade Fair, was a powerful lure for nations in Africa, Latin America and Asia.

But many rejected the premise of the Cold War. In May 1961, a newspaper in Uruguay asked readers to imagine

the benefits to be gained if the American and Soviet scientists were to unite their efforts […] if these feats were intended to unite rather than divide.

The paradox is captured in one of the most famous photographs of Yuri Gagarin, where he holds a dove, an international symbol of peace, while wearing his military uniform and decorations.

This image is frequently displayed in the Russian segment of the International Space Station.

Gagarin never flew in space again. He was tragically killed in a jet crash in 1968. Around the world civil, revolutionary and international wars were being waged, the most well-known being the American War (also called the Vietnam War) which continued until 1975.

Perhaps no space traveller has ever returned to a world at peace.

– ref. Yuri Gagarin’s boomerang: the tale of the first person to return from space, and his brief encounter with Aussie culture – https://theconversation.com/yuri-gagarins-boomerang-the-tale-of-the-first-person-to-return-from-space-and-his-brief-encounter-with-aussie-culture-157043

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Kenny, Professor, Australian Studies Institute, Australian National University

Among many surprising things about 2020 was how a novel coronavirus drove an equally novel upending of Australia’s political orthodoxy.

The hackneyed election straightener, “it’s the economy, stupid”, got shoved aside for a refreshing new imperative, “it’s the community, stupid”. Australians unhesitatingly turned to government, embraced expertise, and willingly abided by society-wide deprivations in the interests of the whole.

Read more: Australian vaccine rollout needs all hands on deck after the latest AstraZeneca news, mass vaccination hubs included

Reluctantly at first, centre-right politicians fell into line. Those who had built their careers on the virtues of small-government and gruff fiscal discipline, flipped to become big spending hyper-Keynesians.

Necessarily, political combat took a back seat to problem-solving. In an atmosphere of policy-not-politics, voters backed incumbent governments, marking them favourably for doing their jobs. Every election since the crisis began has returned the incumbents: in the Northern Territory, ACT, Queensland, and Western Australia. In the latter case, Labor’s Mark McGowan — arguably the country’s most aggressively parochial premier — was endorsed so strongly in March that the Liberal opposition officially ceased to exist.

Federally, Prime Minister Scott Morrison reaped the dividends of Australia’s tandem run of good management and good luck. While our closest allies, the United States and United Kingdom, descended into death and division, Australia closed its international borders early. It then compartmentalised further with the states episodically insulating their own populations and their own hospital systems.

Of course, there were mistakes. But the aggregate impact of these measures, high public trust, and the deliberately consensual mechanism of Morrison’s national cabinet has served the country well.

2021 brings new pressures

But 2021 has been a whole new ball game, and one for which a prime minister not accustomed to pressure, has proved far less equipped.

The vaccine rollout — which remember, started stubbornly late — is in disarray. A promised four million inoculations by the end of March and completion by the end of October proved wildly unrealistic.

As of Sunday, the government says it hopes all Australians could receive at least one dose of vaccine by the end of the year. But as Morrison posted on Facebook, the government has no plans for any new targets because

it is not possible to set such targets given the many uncertainties involved.

Through the second half of last year, as it became clear there would be effective vaccines, Morrison, Health Minister Greg Hunt, and health authorities assured worried Australians the government was up to the global competition. And that Canberra was being sufficiently front-footed about procuring vaccines.

As Morrison boasted in a press statement on August 19,

Australians will be among the first in the world to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, if it proves successful, through an agreement between the Australian Government and UK-based drug company AstraZeneca.

In November, he also said,

Our strategy puts Australia at the head of the queue.

This was always unconvincing. That claimed “agreement” turned out to have been an over-egged letter of intent. Even ordinary observers could see demand from wealthy countries would be strong, and binding contracts would need to be signed quickly if Australia was to secure early adequate supplies.

It is now clear Australia’s risk-averse pandemic management — much of which was driven by premiers — has been followed by an insufficiently risk-aware vaccine contingency, controlled by the Commonwealth. And so we see another bizarre inversion: Australia being trounced by Britain and America, countries that had persistently botched their infection response.

Post-Trump America is now vaccinating three million people a day, and has gone above four million at least once. Covid-ravaged Britain is also roaring ahead. More than half of adults have had their first jab.

Textbook vaccination program?

What is not clear is why Morrison et al insisted the absence of urgency was an advantage because — combined with our judicious “portfolio” approach to multiple acquisitions — our health authorities could plan and execute a textbook public vaccination program.

Trouble is, the states have complained about a lack of genuine cooperation in the rollout, critical supply problems have been obscured, and the much vaunted broad “portfolio” approach has had its narrowness exposed.

Read more: Blood clot risks: comparing the AstraZeneca vaccine and the contraceptive pill

Clearly, the slow and steady approach failed to build in redundancy for the wholly imaginable interruptions to supply from international competition and technical limitations in production and transporting. Then there is straight-out vaccine nationalism, as has been the cause of a blocked shipment from Italy.

Australia’s approach rather relied initially on two locally producible vaccines primarily with Pfizer (and later Novavax) as a back-up — the University of Queensland one which fell over in December, and AstraZeneca which is now “not preferred” for under 50s. While the AstraZeneca clotting risk is hardly a public health disaster — it has been compared to that of long-haul flights — it is certainly a disaster for an already fractious vaccine confidence.

Morrison now faces multiple, serious threats

Coupled with a poorly managed political crisis over the treatment of women, Morrison’s 2021 has been tin-eared. A sharp decline of public trust in government, in expertise, and in institutional competence looms as a clear and present danger for Morrison’s popularity.

Business-as-usual politics is already making a comeback with Labor’s Mark Butler toughening up of criticism of the rollout and calling for more transparency and a greater sense of urgency. Labor has little choice. Voters themselves see other countries are surging ahead while Australia inches along, tempting the fate of another outbreak, and delaying the economic recovery dependent on vaccination.

And that’s the next inversion we’re likely to see. Business and Coalition hardliners were outspoken last year against state border closures, lockdowns, and other restrictions, on economic grounds.

Expect to hear those voices too in coming weeks as the penny drops about a whole extra year lost to the pandemic.

– ref. As Australia’s vaccination bungle becomes clear, Morrison’s political pain is only just beginning – https://theconversation.com/as-australias-vaccination-bungle-becomes-clear-morrisons-political-pain-is-only-just-beginning-158704

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

Last week’s Essential poll, conducted March 24-28 from a sample of 1,100, showed a striking difference by gender over approval of Scott Morrison. With men, Morrison’s approval since February was steady at 65%, and his disapproval up just two points to 30%, for a net approval of +35.

With women, Morrison’s approval had slumped 16 points from February, to 49%, with ten points of that drop coming between the mid-March and late March polls. Morrison’s disapproval with women had increased 12 points since February to 40%, and his net approval was +9, down 28 points since February.

Read more: Morrison’s ratings take a hit in Newspoll as Coalition notionally loses a seat in redistribution

Katharine Murphy wrote in The Guardian on April 3 that Morrison’s approval was actually up 11 points with both young men (18-34) and rural/regional men. These findings would be based on small subsamples, so are not reliable.

A striking pattern is emerging: women are turning off Morrison while men are staying loyal. With so many terrible stories about the treatment of women coming out of Parliament House in recent weeks, why should this be so?

Newspoll has released aggregate data for its four federal polls taken between February and March. As noted by The Poll Bludger, these data fail to follow the script, with Labor ahead by 51-49 with both men and women, a four-point gain for Labor with men since the October to December Newspoll aggregate, and no change with women. There is little difference in Morrison’s ratings with men or women.

The Newspoll aggregate data used four polls from early February to late March, while Essential’s findings are based on just the late March poll. In my previous article, I implied Newspoll’s mid-March poll may have been affected by the WA election; it’s possible that election had a bigger swing to Labor among men than women.

International polling on political correctness and sex

In a mid-March article, CNN analyst Harry Enten cited an American National Election Studies’ survey before the 2020 US elections. This was an academic survey of over 8,000 respondents that asked a large number of questions.

In one question, respondents were asked to choose between whether they thought people needed to change the way they talk to fit with the times, or whether that movement — often disparagingly referred to as “political correctness” — had gone too far and people were too easily offended.

By 53-46, respondents said people were too easily offended. In this same poll, Joe Biden led Donald Trump by a 53-42 margin, so the seven-point margin in favour of too much political correctness (PC) shows it is a strong issue for Republicans. As Biden actually won the national popular vote by 4.5%, not 11%, it is likely opposition to PC is stronger than this poll implies.

Furthermore, respondents under 30 were split at 50-50 on this PC question, even though they supported Biden by 30 points over Trump. So the fight over PC is something that could push more young people into supporting conservatives.

I analysed the ANES data on the degree of agreement on the statement “many women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist”. The response options were strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree and strongly disagree.

For the overall sample, 32% agreed and 31% disagreed that innocent remarks were interpreted as sexist. For men, it was 33% agree and 26% disagree, though for men under 35 it was 35% disagree and 28% agree. An issue is whether the neutral option is hiding some respondents who agree with the statement, but ironically choose a more PC response.

Polling for The Economist taken in 2018 shows young men (18-29) in four countries (Britain, France, Germany and the US) were less likely to say sexually inappropriate behaviour was sexual harassment than they were in 2017. This polling was taken a year into the #MeToo movement.

US elections involving sex-compromised candidates

In Australia, candidates who do something that embarrasses their party will usually be disendorsed by their party before the election. It is unlikely a major party candidate accused of very sexist remarks would be allowed to face the voters as an endorsed candidate. However, sometimes scandals occur too late to remove candidates from the ballot paper.

In the US, major party candidates are selected by primaries, with the primary election held months before the general election. Once a candidate wins a primary, they cannot be forced to step aside by their party. So there are far more cases of sexually compromised major party candidates in the US contesting general elections.

In presidential election years, Congressional elections are held concurrently with the presidential election, in early November. With one extreme exception, Missouri’s 2012 Senate election is the last time a sexually compromised candidate performed far worse than the presidential ticket.

Republican Todd Akin made remarks in August 2012 implying women would not become pregnant from a “legitimate rape”. Incumbent Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill crushed him by nearly 16 points, even though Republican Mitt Romney won Missouri by over nine points in the presidential election.

Since that election, the only sexually compromised candidate who has underperformed is Republican Roy Moore at the December 2017 Alabama Senate byelection. Moore was accused of sexual assaults of girls who were below the legal age (the youngest alleged victim was 14).

Moore lost to Democrat Doug Jones by two points in a state Trump won by 28 points in 2016 and 25 in 2020. In 2020, Alabama reverted to type when Republican Tommy Tuberville crushed Jones by 20 points. As well as the accusations of child sex assault, Moore was hurt by Trump being near the worst popularity nationally of his term.

Owing to the alleged child sex assaults, Moore is an extreme case. As I have previously written, the Access Hollywood tape featured Trump himself making crude sexual comments, and that tape was released a month before the 2016 election. But it had little impact in the polls, and Trump won the 2016 election in the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote by 2.1%.

In October 2018, Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed as a Supreme Court justice by a 50-48 Senate vote, despite allegations of sexual misconduct and assault. All except one Republican voted for him, and all bar one Democrat voted against.

Although Democrats won the House easily at the November 2018 midterms, Republicans extended their margin in the Senate from 51-49 to 53-47, mostly because the last time those senators had been up was in 2012, a very good election for Democrats. Only one Republican who voted to confirm was defeated in 2018 — Nevada’s Dean Heller — while four Democrats who voted against were defeated, including McCaskill.

The 2020 Senate elections were largely dictated by the presidential candidate’s support in a given state. The one significant difference from presidential results was Republican Susan Collins in Maine, who won by about nine points even as Trump lost Maine by the same margin. Collins had supported Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

In early October 2020, North Carolina Democratic Senate candidate Cal Cunningham was revealed to have engaged in sexting with a woman who was not his wife. This has been blamed for Cunningham’s narrow defeat, but he lost by 1.8% while Biden lost North Carolina by 1.3% — hardly a big difference.

To sum up, since the Missouri Senate election in 2012, the only candidate accused of sexual misbehaviour who has performed very badly considering the presidential results in his state is Moore in Alabama, and he was accused of child sex offences. Trump won despite the Access Hollywood tape and Senate Republicans who voted for Kavanaugh did not suffer electorally.

Read more: Morrison still enjoys strong ratings in separate polls, indicating Labor’s gains may be short-lived

In this article, I have explored three categories: recent Australian polling showing a large difference in Morrison’s ratings among men and women; international polling showing that conservatives can benefit from an anti-PC sentiment and young men becoming less likely to view sexual misbehaviour as harassment; and US elections that suggest there is little penalty for sexual misbehaviour anymore.

Having looked at all the data, I believe there is a backlash against political correctness that is making sexual misbehaviour more acceptable.

– ref. Has a backlash against political correctness made sexual misbehaviour more acceptable? – https://theconversation.com/has-a-backlash-against-political-correctness-made-sexual-misbehaviour-more-acceptable-158428

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Ha, Associate, Grattan Institute

The big question facing Australia’s National Electricity Market is how to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 without disrupted energy supplies or skyrocketing prices.

Some say coal-fired power will be needed. Others say 100% renewable electricity is the way to go. But our new report released today argues neither path is wise in the medium term.

It shows renewable energy – particularly wind and solar – can get us most of the way to net-zero. But as the renewable share approaches 100%, maintaining reliable supply will become very expensive.

The best approach for now is to target net-zero emissions. This will involve retaining a small proportion of fossil-fuel generation – namely gas – in the electricity mix over the next couple of decades. But it does not mean extending the life of existing coal-fired power stations, or building new ones.

A fork in the road

All state and territory governments have committed to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Prime Minister Scott Morrison says achieving that goal is his preference, too.

That means the electricity sector needs to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases it releases to the atmosphere.

Most electricity customers in Australia, except those in Western Australia and the Northern Territory, are supplied by the National Electricity Market (NEM). It comprises electricity generators, transmission lines and other infrastructure to deliver electricity to customers, and a wholesale market where electricity is bought and sold.

The market’s coal-fired power stations are ageing. As the below graph shows, virtually all are scheduled to be retired in the next three decades.

Renewable energy is now the cheapest source of electricity, but it’s an intermittent form of supply – generated only when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.

The question now is what technology mix – including fossil fuels, renewable energy sources and energy storage systems – the NEM should adopt.

‘Good news for Australia’

The Grattan Institute developed a sophisticated economic model of the NEM to answer this question. We investigated the emissions, reliability and affordability implications of different future technology mixes.

We compared three scenarios:

1. the NEM continues to rely on coal, with new coal-fired power stations replacing old ones as they are retired

2. 70% of the NEM’s electricity comes from renewables, with two-thirds less coal capacity than today

3. 90% or more electricity comes from renewables, with no coal-fired generation at all.

The model tested each technology mix against nine years of hourly weather and electricity demand data across the NEM, adjusted for projected changes in future demand. It then computed the cost of supplying electricity with each mix.

The results are good news for Australia. A 70% renewable system looks to be about as affordable as maintaining a coal-based system over the long run, but with 70 million fewer tonnes of emissions each year.

The cost of doing this is extremely low – about A$7 for each tonne of emissions abated. This is less than the A$16/t the federal government pays for emissions reduction now via its Climate Solutions Fund.

Moving from 70% to 90% renewables would trim another 35 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions for less than A$40/t. This is still low-cost abatement. By comparison, the European Union’s carbon price rose to about A$67/t in March 2021, while Canada plans to raise its carbon tax to about A$181/t by 2030.

Let’s get connected

Transmission infrastructure is key to decarbonising the electricity sector.

High-voltage transmission lines carry electricity over the long distances from where it’s produced to where it’s needed. They also connect the states of the NEM, enabling electricity to be traded between regions. The below graph shows the transmission network today.

To get to higher renewable shares, more transmission infrastructure is needed, for two reasons:

Read more: Explainer: what is the electricity transmission system, and why does it need fixing?

First, many sunny and windy places are located at the edges of the NEM states. If wind and solar plants were built there, transmission would be needed to connect them to the network.

Second, more transmission between NEM states would allow each state to export renewable energy when it has too much, and import when it needs more.

There are costs and benefits to weigh up here. Extra transmission infrastructure requires significant investment. However it would mean less generation infrastructure is needed in each state, reducing overall costs.

Our report shows at 90% renewables, the benefits of a more-interconnected NEM outweigh the costs to the tune of A$800 million or more each year.

Net-zero is more affordable than 100% renewables

The best information available today indicates climbing from 90% to 100% renewables will be expensive. This is mainly due to the challenge of balancing demand and supply during rare, sustained periods of low wind, low solar and high demand.

Gas is an ideal backstop for this challenge. Gas-fired generators are cheap to build but costly to run. These economics suit this problem nicely because they will be needed only infrequently.

Alternatives look more expensive. Hydrogen could very well replace gas as a backstop, but only if the cost of producing and storing it falls significantly. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) can work only in certain locations, and is much less economic if used infrequently. Batteries and even pumped hydro will struggle over rare, multi-day challenges.

Of course, gas is not a zero-emissions solution. To reach net zero efficiently, the lowest-cost option in the medium term is most likely to rely on 90% or more renewables and offset the remaining pollution with negative-emissions technologies.

So it looks likely gas will play an important but not expanded role over the next few decades. And if zero-emissions alternatives fall in cost faster than current projections suggest, the role for gas will shrink faster.

Read more: Australia is at a crossroads in the global hydrogen race – and one path looks risky

The way forward

Three recommendations flow from these conclusions.

First, governments should have confidence in planning for a net-zero emissions future for the NEM by the 2040s. We’ve shown emissions can be reduced while maintaining reliable and affordable electricity supply.

Governments should not try to extend the life of existing coal-fired power stations, let alone subsidise new ones.

Second, net-zero emissions – not 100% renewables – is the appropriate target to be setting today.

Third, more transmissison infrastructure will help achieve higher renewable shares at lower cost. State governments should work together to resolve disputes about who should pay for interstate transmission upgrades.

And the states should not try to go it alone. Australia’s great energy transition will be most affordable if the states stick together.

Read more: Against the odds, South Australia is a renewable energy powerhouse. How on Earth did they do it?

– ref. More coal-fired power or 100% renewables? For the next few decades, both paths are wrong – https://theconversation.com/more-coal-fired-power-or-100-renewables-for-the-next-few-decades-both-paths-are-wrong-158529

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Apisalome Movono, Senior Lecturer in Development Studies, Massey University

In the world of research and scholarship, being published in academic journals is crucial to both the advancement of knowledge and the careers of those involved.

In particular, the peer review process that determines who and what is published is integral to ensuring reliability and quality in academic research. As the University of British Columbia’s Professor Sarah Hunt (from the Kwakwaka’wakw nation) has said, “It’s really about who we cite in our work, whose work we hold up, which really validates and legitimises that as knowledge”.

Unfortunately, for many Indigenous scholars, academic publishing and peer review present more of an uphill battle than for academics in general, in part due to the attitudes and practices of some reviewers.

It’s true that strides have been made towards decolonising academia in some places. Universities in Aotearoa New Zealand, the Pacific, Australia and Scandinavia, for example, have sought to increase the number of Indigenous academics they employ and to support their research work.

But despite strong Indigenous cohorts within our southern hemisphere universities, Indigenous academics are still a minority. These universities also have poor retention rates for Indigenous scholars.

Read more: Traditional knowledge helps Indigenous people adapt to climate crisis, research shows

The recent publication Ngā Kete Mātauranga: Māori scholars at the research interface highlighted numerous constraints facing Māori scholars, who comprise only 5% of academic staff at Aotearoa New Zealand’s universities despite representing 17% of the general population.

As one of the editors, Professor Jacinta Ruru, lamented, “Māori academics are lonely, isolated and struggling to be heard.”

The problem with publishing

While issues of racism and unconscious bias within some of our higher learning institutions are gradually being addressed, there has been little attention given to decolonising academic publishing.

There are excellent journals, such as MAI and AlterNative, specifically focusing on Indigenous scholarship. But Indigenous scholars are working in a range of academic disciplines where there are strong pressures to publish in highly ranked “mainstream” journals.

Certainly, some mainstream journal editors actively solicit and support the publication of work by Indigenous scholars, persons of colour, those from the global south or others marginalised in the academy.

Read more: Indigenous community research partnerships can help address health inequities

Yet there are still signs of various forms of discrimination in the reviewing process, some of which might go unnoticed or unaddressed because editors are overworked and stretched by the volume of submissions they must process.

In turn, editors rely on an overtaxed army of volunteer reviewers who take on what is often a thankless task. Moreover, staff at mainstream journals and publishing companies often lack Indigenous representation.

These reviewers hold immense power but are shielded from accountability by their anonymity. Editors themselves may lack insight into unconscious bias, unwittingly sweeping prejudice under carpets and inhibiting the potential of Indigenous scholars.

Our own experiences

We are academics based at Aotearoa New Zealand and Australian Universities, and represent a mix of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous ancestry. Some of us collaborate on researching tourism as a means for sustainable development and social justice for Indigenous peoples, and others work on Indigenous sport as a tool for social development.

Our experiences and those of Indigenous colleagues we consulted exemplify the barriers often faced by researchers in the margins wanting to publish in mainstream journals.

Read more: How sport for development and peace can transform the lives of youth

In collecting these experiences of peer review from researchers in the fields of social science, health, business, social work and sport, we have identified a number of major areas of contention for Indigenous scholarship:

Lack of Indigenous content: in subject-specific mainstream journals this can make it difficult to see research published. When two of the authors submitted an article for publication in one journal, for example, it was not possible to select “Indigenous” or “post-colonial” as keywords. Further investigation revealed only a handful of authors had actually mentioned “Indigenous” in their writing.

Quality of Indigenous scholarship being questioned: When those scholars suggested a special issue on Indigenous issues in the field it was rejected by the editorial board due to concerns it would not attract enough articles of sufficient quality to be worthy of publication in the journal.

Questioning legitimacy of Indigenous knowledge: Another group of scholars was criticised by a reviewer for seeking lessons learned only from successful Indigenous enterprises, when the point had been to avoid the familiar negative framing of Indigenous experience. Reviewers regularly ask Indigenous scholars to cite other sources, often written by white male academics not directly relevant to the topic at hand but whose work is seen as authoritative — a practice dubbed “citational politics”.

Read more: Three ways to increase the number of Indigenous academics in Australian universities

Stifling critiques of mainstream systems: the Palestinian Arab scholar Ismael Abu-Saad describes having an article rejected for apparently challenging the Israeli mainstream education system, which two of his reviewers supported. Noting that “indigenous standpoints are in many cases still being excluded, ignored and usurped”, he concluded:

The purportedly objective, blinded peer review process of manuscript submissions to scholarly journals may become a tool for maintaining Western dominance over the mainstream body of international academic literature and suppressing the emergence of oppositional viewpoints.

Questioning the value of Indigenous methodologies: As one colleague explained, when you represent “the other” you spend a lot of time explaining context and justifying your methodological approach. Applying Indigenous knowledge and methodology to mainstream academic work creates many points of tension.

Questioning the identity of Indigenous scholars: Reviewers have questioned the ability of Indigenous scholars to be “authentically Indigenous” when working within the academic mainstream, and queried their ability to remain true to their roots when collaborating with non-Indigenous scholars.

When this happened to the tourism authors of this article (despite having explained how we developed a balanced approach to working collaboratively on the research project), one of our Indigenous collaborators wrote:

The reviewer’s somewhat demeaning comments about our Indigenous heritage made me feel quite tired — another nudge towards leaving academia — especially the comment that we ‘are assimilated into Western ways and dominated by the non-Indigenous persons on the team’.

Sadly, the questions raised in 1999 by Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith about “what counts as legitimate research and who counts as legitimate researchers” are still relevant. As another team of researchers (collaborating on Arctic issues) found, there was “little space within the standard peer review and editorial processes for Indigenous Peoples, their perspectives and knowledge”.

Finding a way forward

International codes already exist in a number of disciplinary fields that encourage the academy to be more ethical, respectful, inclusive and responsive to Indigenous peoples.

For example, the Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research is an excellent tool for change, as is Te Ara Tika — guidelines for Māori research ethics.

These codes outline guidelines to inform practice, underpinned by the principles expressed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. But what are publishing companies, journal boards, editors and reviewers doing to honour such international conventions, codes and guidelines?

Read more: Indigenous youth are playing a key role in solving urgent water issues

Here are some suggestions for editors and peer reviewers who want to support Indigenous scholarship and ensure Indigenous researchers are mentored or recognised as legitimate contributors within academia:

• recruit Indigenous and other marginalised scholars to the editorial boards and leadership of journals

• recruit Indigenous scholars as peer reviewers

• offer professional development throughout the academy on ethical and fair research involving Indigenous communities and knowledge, and encourage or require engagement from all staff

• practice a duty of care when selecting peer reviewers for manuscripts authored by Indigenous scholars, manage peer review feedback and support manuscript authors

• to grow and retain Indigenous scholars, actively recruit manuscripts from them, offer professional development opportunities specifically for their needs, and support their research career development

• ensure criticism is constructive, relevant to the academic issues under review and not biased by personalised comments or judgements (for all scholars under review, regardless of background)

• be aware of how unconscious bias can have a negative impact on any scholar and be prepared to be challenged.

The value of Indigenous scholarship and knowledge is increasingly being recognised around the world, including the insight offered into climate change and human adaptation.

If we want to share in this knowledge, as well as uphold individual mana and collective equity, supporting Indigenous scholars and Indigenous scholarship is essential. The suggested approaches here would go some way to supporting this.

– ref. Indigenous scholars struggle to be heard in the mainstream. Here’s how journal editors and reviewers can help – https://theconversation.com/indigenous-scholars-struggle-to-be-heard-in-the-mainstream-heres-how-journal-editors-and-reviewers-can-help-157860

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Barbara Spears, Director: Wellbeing Research Group, Centre for Research in Education School of Education, University of South Australia

In an online petition launched by Chanel Contos in February, thousands of women have now disclosed instances of sexual harrassment and assault when at school parties. The petition’s author was calling for sexual consent to be taught better, and earlier, in schools.

But the petition was quickly swamped with personal testimonies, feeding into the broader national discussion about sexism and misogyny that had emerged after former government staffer Brittany Higgins alleged she had been sexually assaulted by another staff member at parliament house.

In an opinion piece in The Guardian, Contos wrote that everyone contributes to rape culture, including herself. She said:

Of course I called girls sluts […] of course I called people frigid and of course I made my friends feel insecure about their level of sexual activity. Of course I did, because everyone I knew did.

Such behaviour among girls can often be dismissed or trivialised as “just being bitchy”. But it is also a sub-type of bullying — what some researchers refer to as “sexual bullying”.

Sexual bullying is not something we can ignore. It is an aggressive behaviour and overlaps with sexual harassment, which we often hear of as being perpetrated by men against women. But as Contos pointed out, women and girls may also perpetuate unhealthy sexual attitudes. This may especially be the case among teenage girls, who are just discovering their sexual identity and place within peer groups.

What is sexual bullying?

Bullying happens when a person abuses their power in a relationship to aggressively and repeatedly hurt another person.

Sexualised bullying is not recognised officially in Australia. But in the United Kingdom, it’s defined as:

any behaviour which degrades someone, singles someone out by the use of sexual language, gestures or violence, and victimising someone for their appearance. Sexual bullying is also pressure to act promiscuously and to act in a way that makes others uncomfortable.

Examples include

• abusive, sexualised name calling and insults (such as calling someone a slut, or frigid)

• spreading rumours of a sexual nature online or in person. This includes using homophobic language and insults

• unwelcome looks and comments about someone’s appearance or looks, either face-to-face or to someone else

• inappropriate and uninvited touching

• pressuring someone to sext and using emotional blackmail, such as threatening to end a relationship if they don’t send an image. Sending the image to others without consent

• inappropriate sexual innuendo that is persistent and unwelcome

• its most extreme form, sexual assault or rape.

In Australia, the above behaviours reflect our understanding of sexual harassment. We usually understand most of the above as harassment in the context of a workplace, and most often as males directing it toward females.

Read more: ‘He had hundreds of pictures of me’: tales of sexism from female teachers in elite boys’ schools

But the gender of the perpetrator and target is not so relevant if the behaviour is weaponised and the impact is deliberately destructive.

In this way, sexual harassment may shift to become ongoing sexual bullying. And while we most often hear about this being perpetrated by boys, it happens among girls too.

What we know about it

Most studies on sexual bullying among young people have explored sexual harassment.

In 2019, an Australian study aimed to provide the first estimates of the prevalence of sexual harassment among teenagers. It involved more than 4,000 teenagers aged 11-19. Around 42% of boys and 40% of girls reported having experienced some form of sexual harassment in the previous school term.

The authors wrote sexual harassment was a pervasive problem in Australian high schools. They suggested teenagers seemed to use sexual harassment to enforce their learned cultures of masculinity and femininity, to police heterosexuality conformity and to establish power in peer groups.

An Australian study in 1994-5 collected data on the bullying behaviours of nearly 1,000 girls aged 10-15. They wanted to see whether girls could sexually harass each other and if they did so as a form of bullying.

Around 72% of girls said verbal sexual harassment was bullying, around 24% were unsure and only 4% said it wasn’t bullying.

The survey also invited girls to anonymously record the name-calling they used when bullying each other and the types of rumours they would spread.

Read more: Nearly a third of early adulthood depression linked to bullying in teenage years

The analyses showed girls made crude statements about people’s sexual status, sexuality and about other girls’ bodies as part of their bullying.

The authors suggested girls denigrated other girls to elevate their own status in the group. They did so by making other girls look bad, as either promiscuous (slut shaming), frigid, or through saying they were gay.

A 2007 survey by the UK National Union of Teachers (NUT) suggested sexual bullying is most often carried out by boys against girls. But they also noted girls were increasingly harassing girls and boys in a sexual manner.

The survey’s findings showed:

• 45% of teenage girls have had their bottom or breasts groped against their will

• 38% of young people have received unwanted sexual images

• 37% of young people hear “slag” used often or all the time

• 65% of gay or bisexual young people experience homophobic bullying in school

• 48% of teachers have witnessed sexist language from one peer to another

• 66% of LGBT young people suffer from bullying at school. 58% of them never report it and half of them skip school as a result.

Sexual bullying is serious

Sexually derogatory behaviours among girls are not always deemed as sexual harassment in the school context. Nor are they explicitly recognised as contributing to the larger cultures of misogyny and sexism.

But if we do not tolerate such behaviours from boys towards girls, we should not be ignoring it if girls use the same sexual put downs.

Read more: Let’s make it mandatory to teach respectful relationships in every Australian school

If schools are mandated to have policies in place to protect young people from bullying, then the role sexualised forms of aggression play in the peer dynamic must be highlighted and explicitly addressed.

Sexual bullying is serious. It forms part of the continuum of aggression, power and violence. Schools need to acknowledge sexual bullying exists within and across gender and that it hits at the time when young people are their most vulnerable: as they are developing their sexual identity and orientation.

– ref. ‘She’s a slut’: sexual bullying among girls contributes to cultural misogyny. We need to take it seriously – https://theconversation.com/shes-a-slut-sexual-bullying-among-girls-contributes-to-cultural-misogyny-we-need-to-take-it-seriously-157421

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julian Meyrick, Professor of Creative Arts, Griffith University

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

The Chichu Art Museum is located on the tiny island of Naoshima, off the southern coast of Japan, in the Kagawa district, reachable only by ferry.

A cross between Buddhist simplicity and Modernist brutalism, from an aerial view Chichu looks like a series of weirdly-shaped concrete pits cut into a gently sloping, grassy hill.

The architect, Tadao Ando, is known for his masterful control of natural light, and to walk through Chichu is to embark on a journey of discovery in which that most ignored element — daylight — is both a mode of transformation and an object of wonder in its own right.

Even before social distancing, Chichu limited the number of tickets sold. Once inside, there are restrictions on how many people can be inside certain rooms and sometimes, how long you can spend there. No photographs are permitted, and quietness is encouraged.

Read more: Great time to try: travel writing from the home

An epic canvas

There are three artists on display at Chichu, the best-known being Claude Monet and his epic canvas, Water Lilies. The acquisition of this “grand decoration” painted, incredibly, when Monet was in his 70s and suffering from cataracts, was the prime catalyst for establishing the museum.

I had seen paintings from this series years before, in Britain’s morgue-like National Gallery. But in the warm, rounded rooms of Chichu, daylight spilling in from high, oblong windows, the paintings are a miraculous blending of form, colour and reverence for nature. They come alive in ways no viewing technology, however sophisticated, can enhance or emulate.

Ando’s building organically relates to the artworks in every way — the colour of the walls, the tiles on the floor, the dark corridors that link rooms where each visual experience is unique not because it is “world class” but because the relationship being cultivated with visitors is a personal one. The Chichu Handbook reads:

To provide a better understanding of Monet’s large decorative work from a contemporary perspective, we selected artists Walter De Maria and James Turrell. Both have been referred to as ‘land artists’ for the work they created in vast desert regions and desolate natural settings … Whether outside, inside a room, or in the surrounding environment, all the works are specifically intended for these spaces … The spatial boundary between the real world and contemporary art is indistinct.

Galleries are gatherings of art organised according to the principles of the people who set them up. More than theatres or concert halls, where rapid changes in repertoire create a spirit of flux, they rarely lose a connection with their founders’ underlying philosophy.

All art is reflective of the moment in which it occurs. But galleries are compass points from which, as a society, we take our bearings. MOMA, GOMA, the Guggenheim, Bilbao, the Powerhouse, the Pompidou Centre, the Hermitage. The meaning of these collections is larger than their real estate.

Read more: Hikikomori artists – how Japan’s extreme recluses find creativity and self-discovery in isolation

Art amid nature

What has given rise to Chichu’s powerful vision of art? The answer is, of course, a powerful vision of life; of what our lives could be. Ando writes:

Chichu … opened as a museum in pursuit of ‘a site to rethink the relationship between nature and people’ in July 2004. The establishment of the museum was a personal way of answering and realising a question that I withheld myself for many years — ‘what does it mean to live well?’

As suggested by its name, chichu (underground), this museum is built below a slightly elevated hill that was once developed as a saltpan facing the Seto Inland Sea. Without destroying the beautiful natural scenery of the Island and seeking to create a site for dialogues of the mind, the museum is an expression of my belief that ‘art must exist amid nature’.

A visit to Chichu is not a prescriptive experience. There is no overriding message, as there is with MONA or the Tate Modern, for which visitors must brace. Instead, there is light, space, and quiet.

There is scope to let the senses unfold, and an expansion of self that permits the mind to occupy a zone of potentially greater understanding. There is nothing clever about Chichu, and a tertiary degree in art history is not required to appreciate what it offers. To walk through the building is education enough.

Minus commentary and cameras, asked to buy a modestly priced ticket ahead of time, to wait, to be silent, the resulting “dialogue of the mind” is structured but open-ended. This is perhaps what artists mean when they talk about “freedom within the form”.

Truth, value and alternative ways of life are related concepts, reliant on each other. There is a truth to visiting the Chichu collection that is expressed also in its wooden furniture made from shioji, a variety of Japanese ash, its strange triangular courtyards, and its breathtaking view of the Seto Inland Sea.

Read more: Why philosophy is an ideal travel companion for adventurous minds

“To get the most enjoyment out of the works, the viewer should take a moment between each gallery to reflect on the lingering sensation before moving on to the next group of works”, says the handbook.

Zen Buddhist awareness of the transience of existence marries with a large scale public building in the Western democratic tradition to produce a purposeful, spiritual encounter not filled with dogmatic content.

If there was a preciousness to the Chichu Art Museum I didn’t feel it. It was a relaxed, well-appointed and functional place, rather like the Japanese Shinkansen train that brought me to the ferry terminal. Leaving, I felt lighter, as if something I did not need had been discretely removed.

– ref. If I could go anywhere: Japanese art island Chichu, a meditation and an education – https://theconversation.com/if-i-could-go-anywhere-japanese-art-island-chichu-a-meditation-and-an-education-133439

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

The idea that young Australians should be able to dip into their super to help buy their first home keeps going round and round. The most recent iteration put forward by the Coalition’s Tim Wilson and a clutch of other backbenchers has the catchy slogan Home First, Super Second.

Wilson and co. are right in their diagnosis: Australia has a housing affordability problem. But they are wrong in their prescription: their proposal could actually make housing less affordable.

There are several much-better ways to revive the great Australian dream for young Australians.

Home ownership is plummeting

Home ownership rates are falling fast, especially among the young and poor.

In Australia today, fewer than half of 25-34 year-olds own their home.

Home ownership among the poorest fifth of that age group has fallen from 63% in 1981 to 23% today.

Today’s younger Australians are tomorrow’s retirees.

These trends suggest that by 2056 just two-thirds of retirees will own their homes, down from nearly 80% today.

The government’s Retirement Income Review showed most homeowners on track for a comfortable retirement. But Australians who rent are facing an increasingly bleak future.

Senior Australians who rent in the private market are much more likely to suffer financial stress than homeowners or renters in public housing.

Nearly one half of all retired renters are in poverty — with incomes below half the median — when housing costs are taken into account. Their numbers will only grow as fewer retirees in future own their homes.

Super can’t much help

Saving for a deposit is the biggest hurdle to home ownership. In the early 1990s it took six years to save a 20% deposit on an average home. Today it takes 10 years.

That’s why the Home First Super Second campaign is superficially attractive. It seems obvious that compulsory superannuation – forcing workers to save almost 10% of their wages for retirement – stops many from buying a home, especially poorer younger Australians without access to the Bank of Mum and Dad.

And it’s true that allowing people to dip into their super to help buy a house would certainly not leave Australians impoverished in retirement.

Read more: What matters is the home: most retirees well off, some very badly off

Grattan Institute research finds that most Australians would have a comfortable retirement even if they withdrew $20,000 early – because whatever they lost in super would largely be made up by a greater entitlement to the age pension.

But the problem for the Home First Super Second campaign is that allowing Australians to use their super to buy a home would do little if anything to increase home ownership rates.

The younger, poorer Australians who are increasingly being priced out of home ownership don’t have much in the way of superannuation.

Read more: Early access to super doesn’t justify higher compulsory contributions

The poorest 20% of households headed by a 35-44 year old – precisely the group for whom home ownership is falling fast – typically have no superannuation.

The next poorest 20% typically have only $15,000 in super.

It means allowing Australians to use their super for housing would mainly help wealthier people buy more expensive homes.

And there’s another problem: the more people you allow to use money from their super to buy a home, the more demand there is for housing.

Higher demand means higher prices, meaning the biggest winners would be the people who own homes already.

What can help is more homes

If Tim Wilson and the Morrison government really want to make housing affordable, they need to get more houses built.

Recent Grattan Institute research finds that relaxing planning rules to allow more homes to be built near the centres of Australia’s major cities would help.

Read more: RBA research shows that zoning restrictions are driving up housing prices

The federal government has no direct control over planning rules, but it can provide incentives for state and local governments to relax planning rules, similar to those put forward by President Joe Biden in the United States.

As hard as it is, increasing the supply of housing — rather than pumping money from super into an already rising market — is the smartest way to make housing more affordable. Maybe Tim Wilson could start a campaign.

– ref. Housing affordability is a problem. Here’s why super-for-housing isn’t a solution – https://theconversation.com/housing-affordability-is-a-problem-heres-why-super-for-housing-isnt-a-solution-158699

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Quilty, Senior Staff Specialist, Alice Springs Hospital. Honorary, Australian National University

A sizeable chunk of Northern Territory’s doctors are thinking about leaving the territory because of climate change, our new research shows.

Our study, just published in The Lancet Planetary Health, shows for 34% of doctors in our survey, climate change is already, or is likely to, make them consider leaving the NT.

If they do, this would leave a large gap in the territory’s health-care system, which already suffers from a fast turnover of staff. These doctors would leave behind communities already suffering from the effects of climate change.

Read more: As heatwaves become more extreme, which jobs are riskiest?

Extreme heat and getting worse

The two summers of 2018-20 were the hottest ever recorded in the NT.

From December 2019 to January 2020, temperatures were about 4℃ above the long-term average. And in late 2019, it was so hot, remote kidney dialysis centres struggled to cool water for their life-saving dialysis machines.

Some of the hottest conditions in 2019 were in the Katherine region, which shattered previous records. However, this shouldn’t have been a surprise.

In 2004 the CSIRO reported the average number of days over 40℃ in the Katherine region would increase by up to 35 days a year by 2030, due to climate change.

In 2019 there were 54 days of 40℃ or above in Katherine. This surpassed CSIRO’s predictions more than a decade earlier than projected.

Climate change is predicted to affect the NT in other ways. According to the territory government’s own report, the NT can expect warmer spells to last longer, more frequent fire weather, to have more intense/heavy rainfall, more intense tropical cyclones, and rising sea levels.

NT has enough trouble retaining health workers anyway

Even without the effects of climate change, health workforce shortages in the NT have been significant challenges. The persistent challenges of attracting and retaining staff leads to high rates of churn. An entire clinic’s staff can turn over in just months, and the impacts can be shattering.

When Katherine’s only GP clinic closed last year, many people were forced to travel more than 300 kilometres to Darwin to see a family doctor.

For us doctors in the NT, knowing how hard it can be to recruit other doctors, summers like that of 2019-20 have raised the stakes. I’ve heard colleagues lament the impact of climate change and talk of moving south. Now we have the data to show how real this threat is.

We found out exactly the extent of the problem

We surveyed doctors working in the NT, with 362 responses, representing over 25% of the workforce.

Our study showed NT doctors believe climate change is a serious public health issue. A total of 85% indicated climate change is already or is likely to negatively impact their patients’ health; 74% believed climate change is already causing or likely to cause parts of the NT to become uninhabitable. And for 34%, climate change is already, or likely to, make them consider leaving the NT.

Read more: Climate change is resulting in profound, immediate and worsening health impacts, over 120 researchers say

Extreme heat poses real risks, especially to the elderly and those with chronic conditions. Extreme heat is associated with increased rates of illness and death. Hot weather exacerbates existing heart, lung and kidney disease, and compounds mental illness.

For people living in the NT, the reality of this new and predictably worsening heat is tangible. Weekend sports are being affected, the period of relief in the cooler months is becoming shorter, and it’s uncomfortable simply going outside on very hot days. It is hard to contemplate living in a future NT hotter than it already is.

Read more: How a rethink of emergency care is closing the gap, one person at a time

Why not move south?

One means of adapting to climate change is to move to cooler climates. But such migration is an option only for people with the means to move. People without such means will have no choice but to stay.

It is unlikely our findings about climate change affecting migration plans are confined to doctors, or to the NT. In Australia and globally, many regions are facing the dual burden of health workforce shortages and increasing exposure to climate risks.

Read more: ‘Climigration’: when communities must move because of climate change

In many of these regions, even small increases of out-migration could have significant impacts on health care.

It’s true most doctors in our survey did not think climate change would make them leave the NT, thought this unlikely, or were undecided. However, the 34% of our respondents who thought climate change might affect their plans represent 115 doctors, who we can’t afford to lose.

To address these issues, we need to urgently consider climate change when planning future health workforce needs. And we need to include health workers when Australia assesses the risk of climate change impacts.

These are vital if we are to ensure rural communities, in particular, have secure access to health care in the face of rapidly emerging climate threats.

– ref. Too hot, heading south: how climate change may drive one-third of doctors out of the NT – https://theconversation.com/too-hot-heading-south-how-climate-change-may-drive-one-third-of-doctors-out-of-the-nt-156959

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luke Jeffrey, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Southern Cross University

Trees are the Earth’s lungs – it’s well understood they drawdown and lock up vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But emerging research is showing trees can also emit methane, and it’s currently unknown just how much.

This could be a major problem, given methane is a greenhouse gas about 45 times more potent than carbon dioxide at warming our planet.

However, in a world-first discovery published in Nature Communications, we found unique methane-eating communities of bacteria living within the bark of a common Australian tree species: paperbark (Melaleuca quinquenervia). These microbial communities were abundant, thriving, and mitigated about one third of the substantial methane emissions from paperbark that would have otherwise ended up in the atmosphere.

Because research on tree methane (“treethane”) is still in its relative infancy, there are many questions that need to be resolved. Our discovery helps fill these critical gaps, and will change the way we view the role of trees within the global methane cycle.

Wait, trees emit methane?

Yes, you read that right! Methane gas within cottonwood trees was first reported in 1907, but has been largely overlooked for almost a century.

Only in 2018 was a tree methane review published and then a research blueprint put forward, labelling this as “a new frontier of the global carbon cycle”. It has since been gaining rapid momentum, with studies now spanning the forests of Japan, UK, Germany, Panama, Finland, China, Australia, US, Canada, France and Borneo just to name a few.

In some cases, treethane emissions are significant. For example, the tropical Amazon basin is the world largest natural source of methane. Trees account for around 50% of its methane emissions.

Likewise, research from 2020 found low-lying subtropical Melaleuca forests in Australia emit methane at similar rates to trees in the Amazon.

Dead trees can emit methane, too. At the site of a catastrophic climate-related mangrove forest dieback in the Gulf of Carpentaria, dead mangrove trees were discovered to emit eight times more methane than living ones. This poses new questions for how climate change may induce positive feedbacks, triggering potent greenhouse gas release from dead and dying trees.

Treethane emissions most likely account for some of the large uncertainties within the most recent global methane budget, which tries to determine where all the methane in the atmosphere comes from. But we’re still a long way from refining an answer to this question. Currently, trees are not yet included as a distinct emissions category.

So where exactly is the treethane coming from?

Within wetland forests, scientists assumed most treethane emissions originate from the underlying soils. The methane is transported upwards via the tree roots and stems, then through to the atmosphere via their bark.

We confirmed, in other recent research, that wetland soils were indeed the source of methane emissions in lowland forest trees. But this wasn’t always the case.

Some lowland forest trees such as cottonwood can emit flammable methane directly from their stems, which is likely produced by microbes living within the moist trees themselves. Dry upland forest trees are also emerging as methane emitters too — albeit at much lower rates.

Discovering methane-eating bacteria

For our latest research, we used microbiological extraction techniques to sample the diverse microbial communities that live within trees.

We discovered the bark of paperbark trees provide a unique home for methane-oxidizing bacteria — bacteria that “consumes” methane and turns it into carbon dioxide, a far less potent greenhouse gas.

Remarkably, these bacteria made up to 25% of total microbial communities living in the bark, and were consuming around 36% of the tree’s methane. It appears these microbes make an easy living in the dark, moist and methane-rich environments.

Read more: Emissions of methane – a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide – are rising dangerously

This discovery will revolutionise the way in which we view methane emitting trees and the novel microbes living within them.

Only through understanding why, how, which, when and where trees emit the most methane, may we more effectively plant forests that effectively draw down carbon dioxide while avoiding unwanted methane emissions.

Our discovery that bark-dwelling microbes can mitigate substantial treethane emissions complicates this equation, but provides some reassurance that microbiomes have evolved within trees to consume methane as well.

Future work will undoubtedly look further afield, exploring the microbial communities of other methane-emitting forests.

A trillion trees to combat climate change

We must be clear: trees are in no way shape or form bad for our climate and provide a swath of other priceless ecosystem benefits. And the amount of methane emitted from trees is generally dwarfed by the amount of carbon dioxide they will take in over their lifetime.

However, there are currently 3.04 trillion trees on Earth. With both upland and lowland forests capable of emitting methane, mere trace amounts of methane on a global scale may amount to a substantial methane source.

As we now have a global movement aiming to reforest large swaths of the Earth with 1 trillion trees, knowledge surrounding methane emitting trees is critical.

Read more: Half of global methane emissions come from aquatic ecosystems – much of this is human-made

– ref. We found methane-eating bacteria living in a common Australian tree. It could be a game changer for curbing greenhouse gases – https://theconversation.com/we-found-methane-eating-bacteria-living-in-a-common-australian-tree-it-could-be-a-game-changer-for-curbing-greenhouse-gases-158430

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

Last week, people were falling over themselves to get vaccination appointments and had to be told, by their doctors and their government, to be patient.

Patience is still needed — indeed, more than ever — but now there’s rising vaccination hesitation and the message from the government is people should remain eager for the jab.

Conservative advice from the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI), recommending against the AstraZeneca vaccine for the under 50s (because of the very small danger of blood clots), has alarmed many people.

The danger is the advice has a knock-on effect, spooking people to whom it doesn’t apply.

Apart from younger frontline workers in health and aged care, those with underlying health conditions, and certain others, under 50s are not presently being vaccinated.

But with changing messages, some of the over 70s — the cohort now at the head of the vaccination queue — might start to have second thoughts, despite being told they shouldn’t.

They may or may not be reassured by Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Friday declaring his mother is lining up for her AstraZeneca shot soon. Or Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly sharing the fact he’s urging his 86-year-old father to do so.

Thursday’s unwelcome medical advice was just the latest setback to the rollout and the Morrison government.

There have been the blocks and delays imposed on supplies from Europe and CSL production (of AstraZeneca) has been slower than anticipated.

The logistics haven’t all gone smoothly. Despite protestations to the contrary, the Commonwealth’s distribution has been sub-optimal.

Some doctors have complained of getting inadequate supplies; the arrangements for nursing homes have had glitches.

The whole program is running massively behind the original schedule. The government on Friday was celebrating passing one million doses administered, when we should have been well past four million.

We’re marching at a much slower pace than the United States or the United Kingdom. In the UK, incidentally, the authorities are being less conservative about AstraZeneca — it’s the under 30s who are being offered an alternative.

One can only imagine Morrison’s reaction when he was delivered the ATAGI advice, which of course he had to follow (even though some experts disagree with it). As he said, “You don’t get to choose the medical advice that’s provided by the medical experts”.

One guide to the prime ministerial mood is the fact he stresses it’s only advice to avoid AstraZeneca if you are under 50. The decision is up to you, and your doctor (though you will be signing a rigorous consent form if you ignore it).

But that line just contributes to the muddled messaging many people will feel they’re receiving.

With an already disorderly program thrown into further disarray by the medical advice, the government on Thursday night and Friday went into overdrive.

Another 20 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine — now the one for the under 50s — were instantly procured (this is on top of the 20 million already purchased). This is good news, if you are patient. They are not due to land until the last quarter of the year.

Health Minister Greg Hunt says Pfizer doses scheduled to arrive in coming days will ramp up, but details are sketchy.

The government is anxious to say the immediate stage of the vaccination schedule should not be much delayed.

The elderly who are being vaccinated now are good to get AstraZeneca.

As for the health and aged care workers? Determinedly looking on the bright side, Morrison noted many are over 50. Pfizer vaccines will have to be arranged for the younger ones, however, which could involve some scrambling.

But the rollout generally has to be recalibrated and delays are expected to hit in coming months when the program gets to the younger section of the general population.

For these people, vaccination is not as critical in health terms as it is for those older. But for the economy, vaccinating them as soon as can be done is vital.

At one level, Australia is being protected by our previous (and continued) success on the health front, which has left us with little or no community transmission. The rollout problems would be a disaster if we had COVID raging.

But we are riding on our luck. There are no guarantees against serious outbreaks.

Even without those, the longer the rollout drags on, the more we have the disruption of small lockdowns, and the slower the re-opening of Australia’s international border, with all the consequences that brings.

Morrison, who recently talked so confidently about everyone who was eligible and willing receiving one vaccine shot by October, now won’t commit to any date.

It would be a nightmare for him if the rollout wasn’t finished by year’s end, and the international border remained substantially shut.

He’d be only months from an election campaign, and Australians would probably be suffering a bad dose of cabin fever.

Politically, state and territory leaders have reaped rewards in elections from being seen to handle COVID well. A few months ago the pundits predicted Morrison would do the same.

But if they come to believe he has comprehensively mishandled the vaccine rollout, the voters could wreak vengeance.

– ref. View from The Hill: Voters could wreak vengeance if Scott Morrison can’t get rollout back on track – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-voters-could-wreak-vengeance-if-scott-morrison-cant-get-rollout-back-on-track-158720

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

A week ago, people were falling over themselves to get vaccination appointments and had to be told, by their doctors and their government, to be patient.

Patience is still needed — indeed, more than ever — but now there’s rising vaccination hesitation and the message from the government is people should remain eager for the jab.

Conservative advice from the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI), recommending against the AstraZeneca vaccine for the under 50s (because of the very small danger of blood clots), has alarmed many people.

The danger is the advice has a knock-on effect, spooking people to whom it doesn’t apply.

Apart from younger frontline workers in health and aged care, those with underlying health conditions, and certain others, under 50s are not presently being vaccinated.

But with changing messages, some of the over 70s — the cohort now at the head of the vaccination queue — might start to have second thoughts, despite being told they shouldn’t.

They may or may not be reassured by Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Friday declaring his mother is lining up for her AstraZeneca shot soon. Or Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly sharing the fact he’s urging his 86-year old father to do so.

Thursday’s unwelcome medical advice was just the latest setback to the rollout and the Morrison government.

There have been the blocks and delays imposed on supplies from Europe and CSL production (of AstraZeneca) has been slower than anticipated.

The logistics haven’t all gone smoothly. Despite protestations to the contrary, the Commonwealth’s distribution has been sub-optimal.

Some doctors have complained of getting inadequate supplies; the arrangements for nursing homes have had glitches.

The whole program is running massively behind the original schedule. The government on Friday was celebrating passing one million doses administered, when we should have been well past four million.

We’re marching at a much slower pace than the United States or the United Kingdom. In the UK, incidentally, the authorities are being less conservative about AstraZeneca — it’s the under 30s who are being offered an alternative.

One can only imagine Morrison’s reaction when he was delivered ATAGI’s advice, which of course he had to follow (even though some experts disagree with it). As he said, “You don’t get to choose the medical advice that’s provided by the medical experts”.

One guide to the prime ministerial mood is the fact he stresses it’s only advice to avoid AstraZeneca if you are under 50. The decision is up to you, and your doctor (though you will be signing a rigorous consent form if you ignore it).

But that line just contributes to the muddled messaging many people will feel they’re receiving.

With an already disorderly program thrown into further disarray by the medical advice, the government on Thursday night and Friday went into overdrive.

Another 20 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine — now the one for the under 50s — were instantly procured (this is on top of the 20 million already purchased). This is good news, if you are patient. They are not due to land until the last quarter of the year.

Health Minister Greg Hunt says Pfizer doses scheduled to arrive in coming days will ramp up, but details are sketchy.

The government is anxious to say the immediate stage of the vaccination schedule should not be much delayed.

The elderly who are being vaccinated now are good to get AstraZeneca.

As for the health and aged care workers? Determinedly looking on the bright side, Morrison noted many are over 50. Pfizer vaccines will have to be arranged for the younger ones, however, which could involve some scrambling.

But the rollout generally has to be recalibrated and delays are expected to hit in coming months when the program gets to the younger section of the general population.

For these people, vaccination is not as critical in health terms as it is for those older. But for the economy, vaccinating them as soon as can be done is vital.

At one level, Australia is being protected by our previous (and continued) success on the health front, which has left us with little or no community transmission. The rollout problems would be a disaster if we had COVID raging.

But we are riding on our luck. There are no guarantees against serious outbreaks.

Even without those, the longer the rollout drags on, the more we have the disruption of small lockdowns, and the slower the re-opening of Australia’s international border, with all the consequences that brings.

Morrison, who recently talked so confidently about everyone who was eligible and willing receiving one vaccine shot by October, now won’t commit to any date.

It would be a nightmare for him if the rollout wasn’t finished by year’s end, and the international border remained substantially shut.

He’d be only months from an election campaign, and Australians would probably be suffering a bad dose of cabin fever.

Politically, state and territory leaders have reaped rewards in elections from being seen to handle COVID well. A few months ago the pundits predicted Morrison would do the same.

But if they come to believe he has comprehensively mishandled the vaccine rollout, the voters could extract vengeance.

– ref. View from The Hill: Voters could extract vengeance if Scott Morrison can’t get rollout back on track – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-voters-could-extract-vengeance-if-scott-morrison-cant-get-rollout-back-on-track-158720

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

Last night, the federal government announced substantially revised plans for the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in Australia.

Due to concerns about the vaccine’s possible links to a rare blood-clotting disorder, and following advice from the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI), the Pfizer vaccine is now preferred for people under 50.

These developments raise questions about how authorities and individuals assess risk, and respond. Let’s try to make some sense of it.

Read more: New setback for vaccine rollout, with AstraZeneca not advised for people under 50

What’s happened?

Reports about rare blood clots possibly associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine have been floating around for a few weeks now.

So why has it taken so long for the government to clarify this relationship and make the recommendations? Authorities haven’t been keeping us in the dark.

When you have a new condition like this, and experts are examining data in real time, it takes a while to understand exactly what’s going on: to develop a clear case definition, to be confident what you’re seeing is a real phenomenon, and importantly, whether it’s likely to be caused by something in particular (in this case, the vaccine). It’s made more difficult when the event is very rare.

After reviewing a wide range of data relating to cases of this rare blood-clotting syndrome predominantly in the United Kingdom and Europe, Australian experts have now reached the threshold of evidence they needed to be satisfied there may well be a causal link between the AstraZeneca vaccine and this condition.

Understanding risk

It’s important to note every therapeutic agent (a drug or a vaccine, for example) carries the risk of unintended consequences. For most of us, most of the time, this will be minimal. This is a biological reality reflecting the interconnectedness and complexity of the human body.

So like for any other therapeutic agents, there are risks as well as benefits we have to accept in taking COVID vaccines. What we need to do is to weigh up these risks against the benefits.

We make these sorts of calculations every day in all aspects of our lives. When we decide to get in the car, we know there’s a risk associated with driving. But we assess the risks are worth taking as the benefits of getting where we want to go quickly are worth it.

Mostly, we make these calculations without being consciously aware we’re doing it. Sometimes the parameters underlying these calculations are easy to grapple with — but sometimes they’re more nebulous.

Read more: Australia’s bungled COVID vaccine rollout suffers another setback. Here’s how we can get it back on track

Weighing up the risks and benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine

We know the vaccine offers near-complete protection against severe disease and death from COVID-19.

We also know severe side effects from the vaccine, in particular vaccine induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (VIPIT, the blood-clotting disorder in question), are extremely rare. But the condition is serious and around 25% of people have died after developing VIPIT.

There are a range of estimates of how often this syndrome occurs. But it’s generally accepted its incidence is about 4-6 cases per million doses of vaccine.

To put it in perspective, this puts the risk in the same order of magnitude to the average risk of dying if you complete a marathon, go scuba diving, or rock climbing.

It’s also important to note that we’ve started to see a pattern in that those who are at higher risk of this syndrome tend to be younger and tend to be women. We don’t have a clear understanding of why this is, but recognising this is really helpful in terms of making decisions about how to mitigate this risk.

Why the balancing act isn’t so easy

Although we have a pretty good understanding of the rate of severe outcomes from COVID-19, since we have over 12 months’ experience now of this illness, context is important. There are different levels of risk depending on where you live and what the rate of transmission in the community is.

While it’s all well and good in some countries to say you’re more likely to get very sick with or die from COVID than experience a complication from the vaccine, in Australia we have next to no COVID, so the risk of adverse outcomes from COVID is much lower. This needs to be factored into the equation.

We also have different strains of the virus, which can vary in how infectious they are and how sick they might make you. This also needs to be added to the mix.

In acknowledging the difficulty in completing these risk-benefit analyses, it’s really helpful to use a visualisation the University of Cambridge has put together based on UK data, which we’ve adapted here, comparing the risks and benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine.

It depicts the risk of adverse effects from COVID (being in ICU) against adverse outcomes from the vaccine, based on an assumed incidence of COVID in the community of two in 10,000 people. Although the incidence rate in Australia is lower than this, this visual is extremely useful in conveying the nature of the relationship between the risks and benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine in Australia.

What this visual shows clearly is that the benefits of the vaccine increase the older you are, because the risk of severe disease is higher the older you get.

It also shows that although the risks of side effects from the vaccine are relatively small regardless of age, the gap between risks and benefits narrows the younger you are. This is in part due to the reduced benefit of the vaccine for younger people who are less likely to have severe symptoms from COVID, and in part due to the increased risk of serious side effects, such as blood clots, for younger adults.

This visual clearly communicates the rationale for the changes announced yesterday. Where the risk-benefit becomes marginal, it makes sense to use other vaccines for younger adults — the Pfizer vaccine and possibly the Novavax vaccine down the track. The recommendations are both cautious and sensible.

Read more: What you need to know to understand risk estimates

– ref. A balancing act between benefits and risks: making sense of the latest vaccine news – https://theconversation.com/a-balancing-act-between-benefits-and-risks-making-sense-of-the-latest-vaccine-news-158634

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katherine Aigner, PhD candidate Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy, Australian National University

On Saturday at the Adelaide Festival there will a public showing of Australian Atomic Confessions, a documentary I co-directed about the tragic and long-lasting effects of the atomic weapons testing carried out by Britain in South Australia in the 1950s.

Amid works from 20 artists reflecting on nuclear trauma as experienced by Indigenous peoples, the discussion that follows will focus on the ways in which attempts at nuclear colonisation have continued in South Australia, and are continuing right now.

For the fourth time in 23 years South Australia is being targeted for a nuclear waste dump — this time at Napandee, a property near Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula.

The plan is likely to require the use of a port, most probably Whyalla, to receive reprocessed nuclear fuel waste by sea from France, the United Kingdom and the Lucas Heights reactor in NSW via Port Kembla.

The waste will be stored above ground in concrete vaults which will be filled for 100 years and monitored for a further 200-300 years.

Nuclear waste can remain hazardous for thousands of years.

The Barngarla people hold cultural rights and responsibilities for the region but were excluded from a government poll about the proposal because they were not deemed to be local residents.

The 734 locals who took part backed the proposal 61.6%

The Barngarla people are far from the first in South Australia to be excluded from a say about proposals to spread nuclear materials over their land.

It’s not the first such proposal

Australian Atomic Confessions explores the legacy of the nine British atomic bombs dropped on Maralinga and Emu Field in the 1950s, and the “minor trials” that continued into the 1960s.

After failed clean-ups by the British in the 1960s followed by a Royal Commission in the 1980s, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency conducted a cleanup between 1995 and 2000 it assures us was successful to the point where most of the contaminated areas at Maralinga fall well within the clean-up standards applied for unrestricted land use.

But experts remain sceptical, given the near-surface burial of plutonium and contamination remaining across a wide area.

The Tjarutja people are allowed to move through and hunt at the Maralinga site with their radiation levels monitored but are not permitted to camp there permanently.

We are told that what happened in the 1950s wouldn’t happen today, in relation to the proposed nuclear waste dump. But it wasn’t our enemies who bombed us at Maralinga and Emu Field, it was an ally.

In exchange for allowing 12 British atomic bombs tests (including those at the Monte Bello Islands off the northern coast of Western Australia), the Australian government got access to nuclear technology which it used to build the Lucas Heights reactor.

It is primarily the nuclear waste produced from six decades of operations at Lucas Heights that would be dumped onto Barngarla country in South Australia, closing the links in this nuclear trauma chain.

Read more: Sixty years on, Maralinga reminds us not to put security over safety

Nuclear bombs and nuclear waste disproportionately impact Indigenous peoples, yet Australia still has not signed up to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The declaration requires states to ensure there is no storage or disposal of hazardous materials on the lands of Indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.

Nor has Australia shown any willingness to sign up to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons which came into force on January 22 this year after a lobbying campaign that began in Australia and was endorsed by Indigenous leaders worldwide.

Aboriginal people have long known the dangers of uranium on their country.

Water from the Great Artesian Basin has been extracted by the Olympic Dam copper-uranium mine for decades. Fragile mound springs of spiritual significance to the Arabunna People are disappearing, posing questions for the mining giant BHP to answer.

Australian uranium from BHP Olympic Dam and the now-closed Rio Tinto Ranger mine fuelled the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.

Senior traditional custodian of the Mirrar people, Yvonne Margarula, wrote to the United Nations in 2013 saying her people feel responsible for what happened.

It is likely that the radiation problems at Fukushima are, at least in part, fuelled by uranium derived from our traditional lands. This makes us feel very sad.

The Irati Wanti (The Poison, Leave It!) campaign led by a council of senior Aboriginal women helped defeat earlier proposals for nuclear waste dumps between 1998 and 2004.

There remains strong Indigenous opposition to the current nuclear waste proposal.

Over the past five years, farmers have joined with the Barngarla People to protect their communities and the health of the land.

Read more: Friday essay: the silence of Ediacara, the shadow of uranium

In 2020 the government introduced into the Senate a bill that would do away with traditional owners’ and farmers’ rights to judicial reviews and procedural fairness in regard to the use of land for the facility.

Resources Minister Keith Pitt is deciding how to proceed.

– ref. There’s a long and devastating history behind the proposal for a nuclear waste dump in South Australia – https://theconversation.com/theres-a-long-and-devastating-history-behind-the-proposal-for-a-nuclear-waste-dump-in-south-australia-158615

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Hanly, Research Fellow, UNSW

Australia’s vaccine rollout is due to be reset after the news last night the AstraZeneca vaccine would not be recommended for people under 50. Instead, this age group will be offered the Pfizer vaccine, with the federal government today announcing it had secured an additional 20 million doses.

Although details of the redesigned rollout have yet to be released, our new modelling, which has yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, shows how this might work under a range of scenarios, including the logistical requirements of different vaccines, and different vaccination venues.

Once a steady stream of locally manufactured AstraZeneca vaccine is available in Australia, the bottleneck in the vaccine rollout will shift from supply to administration. That’s when expanded GP vaccination clinics and mass vaccination hubs will be needed to deliver these jabs to nine million people over 50 in phases 1b and 2a of the rollout.

Read more: New setback for vaccine rollout, with AstraZeneca not advised for people under 50

Here’s what we did and what we found

We used mathematical simulations of waiting in line, known as stochastic queue network models, to model the process of running a vaccination clinic.

Queue models allow us to assess the daily vaccination capacity for different venues, taking into account available staff numbers and estimated times to complete each stage of the vaccination process.

The two key venues we looked at were mass vaccination hubs — which could be large venues such as halls, parks or stadiums — and GP clinics.

Mass vaccination hubs and GP clinics lay out their vaccine clinics differently. Hubs with larger premises and more staff can adopt an assembly line approach to vaccination. They can divide the tasks of registration, clinical assessment, vaccine preparation and administration across a series of stations. Smaller clinics are likely to have fewer people available, each performing multiple tasks. We developed two distinct models to reflect these different set-ups.

Read more: Australia urgently needs mass COVID vaccination hubs. But we need more vaccines first

We used these models to estimate how many vaccines could be delivered in an eight-hour clinic based on a range of staffing levels, within an average overall waiting time of under an hour.

We estimate a small general practice could administer 100 doses, rising to 300 doses for a large practice. Mass vaccination clinics could deliver 500-1,400 doses in the same period, depending on staff numbers.

We also used our models to test how clinics would perform under service pressures, including increased vaccine availability and staff shortages.

For both delivery modes, sites with more staff were better able to keep waiting times under control as system pressures increased. Unsurprisingly, mass vaccination hubs were more robust compared to GP clinics.

Read more: 4 ways Australia’s COVID vaccine rollout has been bungled

We can test different scenarios

Our models rely on subjective assumptions about the time needed to complete different stages in the vaccination process. In reality, these timings will vary in different contexts.

For instance, the Pfizer vaccine takes longer to prepare than the AstraZeneca vaccine. Our models can account for this by increasing the expected preparation time and seeing how many extra staff would be needed to run a vaccine clinic with the same number of appointments. When the Novavax or other vaccines come on board, we can re-run the model with updated preparation times.

In fact, we have developed an an app that allows anyone to re-run our simulations based on their own assumptions about service times, appointment schedules and staffing availability.

This can support policymakers, individual GPs and community pharmacies to plan vaccination delivery, as the quantity and type of available vaccine varies throughout the rollout.

However, there are some aspects of vaccine rollout our models do not account for. This includes essential support staff, such as administrators, cleaners and marshals.

Neither do our models address the logistics of distributing vaccines to vaccination centres, which is a separate challenge.

Read more: How the Pfizer COVID vaccine gets from the freezer into your arm

One isn’t ‘better’ than the other. We need both

Our models suggest mass vaccination hubs and GP clinics are equally efficient in terms of the number of doses delivered per staff member. This supports distribution through both modes, provided GPs are enabled to vaccinate at their peak capacity.

These two approaches offer distinct advantages. Older people or clinically vulnerable patients may benefit from attending their local GP, who will be familiar with their medical history.

Younger males, busy working people and marginalised populations are less likely to have a regular GP and may be easier to reach through mass vaccination hubs. The rollout of phase 2 to adults under 50 may require expansion of the hubs, as not all GPs may be able to store the Pfizer vaccine.

A diverse profile of vaccination sites, drawing on the benefits of different distribution modes, will help maximise the daily vaccination rate and vaccinate the Australian population against COVID-19 as quickly as possible.

– ref. Australian vaccine rollout needs all hands on deck after the latest AstraZeneca news, mass vaccination hubs included – https://theconversation.com/australian-vaccine-rollout-needs-all-hands-on-deck-after-the-latest-astrazeneca-news-mass-vaccination-hubs-included-158519

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Esterman, Professor of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of South Australia

Australia’s vaccine rollout is in chaos. The news last night the AstraZeneca vaccine, the only one Australia has guaranteed supply of, would not be recommended for people under 50 due to safety concerns has prompted an urgent rethink of how we get vaccines into people’s arms.

Rather than the AstraZeneca vaccine being the mainstay of our vaccination effort, as planned, the preferred shot for the under 50s will now be the Pfizer vaccine. People under 50 can still choose to receive the AstraZeneca vaccine when the benefits clearly outweigh the risks, and if they have already safely had their first dose.

After the announcement I was initially concerned there wouldn’t be enough Pfizer doses for everyone that needs one. But today Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced Australia has secured an extra 20 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine, bringing the total number of doses expected to arrive in the country to 40 million.

This is enough to vaccinate 20 million people, which is more than enough to cover the around 11 million Australians aged between 18 and 50.

The prime minister said the extra 20 million would arrive in the fourth quarter of this year. Only around one million Pfizer shots are currently in the country.

This latest news follows analysis by the European Medicines Agency concluding there was a “possible link” between receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine and very rare but serious blood clots.

Read more: New setback for vaccine rollout, with AstraZeneca not advised for people under 50

This shift in focus, away from the AstraZeneca vaccine that biotech company CSL can make in Australia, to the Pfizer vaccine which has to be imported, has serious impacts on the timing of the rollout and public confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine.

So, what can the federal government do?

Many people over 50 will now be concerned about the safety of the AstraZeneca vaccine and may be more hesitant to get vaccinated without an alternative. Therefore, the government needs to reinstate confidence and convince over 50s the AstraZeneca vaccine is safe. This will require a major effort using Australia’s best marketing brains.

The government also needs to facilitate the approval and rollout of the Novavax vaccine. Australia has a signed deal for 51 million doses of Novavax. An application for provisional approval is currently under evaluation by our drug regulator the TGA, and it’s estimated to be available within months. This would safeguard us against any further issues with the AstraZeneca vaccine, and the Novavax could eventually replace AstraZeneca because of its much higher efficacy.

Phase 3 trials are showing the Novavax shot has 96% efficacy against the original virus and 86.4% against the UK variant. By contrast, AstraZeneca’s vaccine has an efficacy somewhere between 63%, with a standard two dose schedule according to the World Health Organisation, and 76% according to phase 3 trials in the United States, Chile and Peru. Longer intervals between AstraZeneca’s doses, up to 12 weeks, seems to be linked with increased efficacy.

Although the federal government had no way of predicting these problems with the AstraZeneca vaccine, they have been too reliant on it, especially after the University of Queensland vaccine had to be abandoned last year.

Eventually, Australia may have several times our requirement for vaccines. We should think about donating vaccines to our close Pacific and Asian neighbours who have much more difficulty in purchasing vaccines.

Read more: 3 ways to vaccinate the world and make sure everyone benefits, rich and poor

Finally, Australia really must develop our own capacity to manufacture mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna — not just for SARS-CoV-2, but to future-proof us against the next pandemic.

How did we get here?

It was all going so well. Australia, along with only a handful of other countries, was the envy of the rest of the world in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

But Australia didn’t feel in a particular rush to roll out the vaccination program, and didn’t start vaccinating until the end of February. To date, Australia has vaccinated only around one million people, about 5% of our adult population, with their first dose.

Read more: 4 ways Australia’s COVID vaccine rollout has been bungled

The rollout has nowhere near achieved the federal government’s own stated targets, with problems emerging due to interrupted supply, logistical issues, poor communication between the federal government and GPs, and a booking system that is just not working.

By contrast, some countries were very quick off the mark in their purchase and rollout of vaccines. Israel started its vaccination program in December, and has now given at least one dose of a COVID vaccine to 61% of its population, leading the world. The UK, which has been severely affected by COVID-19, also acted very quickly, and has now given at least one dose to 46% of its population.

Unfortunately, Australia’s slow and problematic vaccine rollout has somewhat taken the shine off our enviable reputation for managing COVID-19.

Read more: Vital Signs: Israel shows how to do vaccinations right. It’s a race, and we’re behind

– ref. Australia’s bungled COVID vaccine rollout suffers another setback. Here’s how we can get it back on track – https://theconversation.com/australias-bungled-covid-vaccine-rollout-suffers-another-setback-heres-how-we-can-get-it-back-on-track-158656

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jan Golembiewski, Researcher, University of Technology Sydney

The Royal Commission into Aged Care left organisations that provide housing for aged care wondering how they will put its recommendations into effect. Most of these recommendations relate to the models of care and levels of staffing in homes. Put simply, in the architectural rabbit warrens that typify aged-care facilities, there can never be enough staff to manage every nook.

Models of care are also difficult to change when the architecture is obsolete. Yet these difficulties aren’t detailed in the report. It barely mentions architecture. Only two of the 148 recommendations relate specifically to architecture, numbers 45 and 46: to improve the design of residential care accommodation; and to provide “small household” models of accommodation.

But don’t be mistaken. Architecture has a profound impact on how we live our lives, work and respond socially.

Read more: 4 key takeaways from the aged care royal commission’s final report

If architects are able to work with some basic design rules – to design to a vision, with simplicity and a non-institutional design language – architecture can play a role in implementing the bulk of the recommendations. But, if the importance of design is neglected, obsolete architectural models will undermine the best efforts to reform the models of care.

We can design to remove restraint

Architecture is a critical element of “embedding a human rights-based and human-centred approach to care”, the focus of chapter 3 of the royal commission’s report. To understand the relationship between architecture and human rights, consider how human rights are taken away: look at prisons, detention centres, mental health facilities and even the residences where we care for our elderly citizens. Invariably, it’s architecture that stifles the freedom of movement, the dignity, the freedom of association, choice and other rights.

Read more: The bad buildings scream – lessons from Don Dale and other failed institutions

The commission estimates architectural solutions to seclusion and other forms of physical restraint are used on 25-50% of all residents of high-care residences. These restraints can look innocuous – including “seating residents in chairs with deep seats, or rockers and recliners, that the resident cannot stand up from”. But for residents who can’t get up on their own, deep seats restrict their freedom of movement and ability to make their own choices about as much as handcuffs do.

The forms of restraint (including in high-care aged-care residences) are increasingly disguised, but a locked door remains impenetrable even if it’s made of clear glass. Along with fences and high walls, such features are designed to keep some people in and others out.

Read more: Retire the retirement village – the wall and what’s behind it is so 2020

Or we can design for quality of life

If people fail to see how the design of a prison is the primary instrument for imprisonment, then it’s also hard to comprehend just how much good architecture improves people’s circumstances and well-being. But a well-designed aged-care building is replete with wholesome invitations to do such things as explore gardens without putting residents at undue risk.

In turn, spending time outdoors helps prevent “sundowning” – people with dementia may become more confused, restless or insecure late in the afternoon or early evening. It also improves the resident’s experience (personal well-being and satisfaction). Recent unpublished data (in review) shows time outdoors even protects against viral flu-like infections.

And that’s just one example of the benefits of good design. All good architectural choices have similarly positive effects.

3 principles for human-centred design in aged care

Principle 1: projects are driven by a vision that maintains and enables human dignity, even for people with cognitive impairment.

A vision includes a single, well-articulated concept that cannot be dismissed or ignored. The vision creates a hierarchy in which important things are valued more than anything else. A vision that makes human dignity a priority ensures other functional or pragmatic concerns do not lead to human rights being deprioritised.

A good vision isn’t just words or intentions. It involves concrete decisions that are armed with bravery and honesty. Bravery because a good vision always aspires beyond known benchmarks and guidelines. Honesty, because a good vision isn’t shy about speaking the truth.

The diagram below shows an example of a vision in which high-care aged-care residences were to be incorporated into a new precinct for the University of Woolongong. The vision prioritised human centredness – a human-centred workplace, a student-centred learning environment, patient-centred aged-care residences and a person-centred environment overall.

The above vision led to this conceptual diagram.

The conceptual diagram was developed as a masterplan.

In this concept, the educational, residential (non-aged-care) and health facilities make natural walls around a shared village. Car-free streets, cafes, shops, parklands and a distributed residential aged-care facility create a pleasant and safe environment for everybody. The exterior buildings are accessible from both sides for students and staff, but not for high-care residents unless they are accompanied.

Read more: Aged care isn’t working, but we can create neighbourhoods to support healthy ageing in place

Principle 2: keep it simple.

As cognitive abilities decline, this reduces people’s capacity to deal with complexity. So keep design simple, with destinations that are visible and clear.

Think about turning all bedrooms inwards to provide immediate access to common spaces, activities and gardens. The reception, all offices and commercial facilities can face outwards, and be invisible to residents.

Simplifying the layout also aids staff. Hidden spaces and doors to unsafe places cause anxiety for residents and staff alike, adding to the staffing burden.

Simple design doesn’t mean plain. It means keeping plans simple – especially for the residents, who have all they might need (and all they want) immediately visible. All no-go areas are hidden.

Principle 3: Residential means non-institutional.

Much as they assist with routines of care, residences are residences. They are ruined by staff stations and institutional touches like vinyl flooring, strip lighting and furniture lined up against the walls.

Residents’ bedrooms must be customisable – meaning people should be able to hang their own art, listen to their own music, and have their own furniture and belongings. After all, these rooms are where people live. And how can people feel at home, unless they are allowed to feel at home with their surroundings?

The left image shows a relatively typical scene in an Australian residential-care facility. The details are institutional – the windows, the lighting, the residents lined up along a wall. The opposite (right) is a residential milieu. Which one would you choose?

– ref. Design makes a place a prison or a home. Turning ‘human-centred’ vision for aged care into reality – https://theconversation.com/design-makes-a-place-a-prison-or-a-home-turning-human-centred-vision-for-aged-care-into-reality-156937

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nikki Turner, Professor, University of Auckland

From next week, unvaccinated staff working at managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities will be moved to low-risk jobs, following a case of a worker who missed vaccination appointments and then tested positive for COVID-19.

The recently announced ban on arrivals from India underscores an important point: even once all border and health staff have been vaccinated, vaccination does not provide 100% protection.

Last month, a MIQ worker tested positive almost a week after receiving their second vaccine dose. This case shows that, occasionally, even fully vaccinated people can still carry the virus in their throats and therefore potentially spread it.

Small risk of infection remains

Clinical trials of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine show 90-97% efficacy which means most fully vaccinated people will not get sick, and the small number who do are very unlikely to develop serious disease.

The vaccine reduces the ability to contract and pass on the virus, but not always completely. It takes the sting out of COVID-19’s tail, because it particularly reduces its ability to cause serious illness or death.

In last month’s case, the vaccinated worker remained asymptomatic, which likely reduced the spread of the virus to others. The risk of spread is higher from sick people because they have a higher load of the virus, and therefore more to spread, and they are more likely to spread it, particularly with coughing.

Data from use in several countries suggests the vaccine has some effect in reducing an infected person’s ability to pass the virus on to others, but as this example shows, vaccinated people can still carry and spread the virus, albeit at much lower rates.

Herd immunity feasible, but challenging

The combination of a vaccine’s ability to reduce illness — and therefore spread of the disease — is good news, but it’s not fool proof. Should New Zealand consider opening its borders beyond the current travel bubble with Austalia (due to start on April 19), it’s likely this would allow people with COVID-19 into the country.

Read more: A quarantine-free trans-Tasman bubble opens on April 19, but ‘flyer beware’ remains the reality of pandemic travel

If the majority of New Zealanders are vaccinated, we can be confident that very few people will get sick. But whether this would be enough to stop spread through the community remains unclear.

New Zealand could aim for herd immunity, which would mean vaccinating enough of the population to stop the virus from spreading, should it enter a community. The ability to stop spread would depend on the proportion of the population that is immune (either following infection or through vaccination), whether immunity is spread evenly across the population, and the infectivity of the virus.

With measles, for example, a population requires up to 95% immunity before the virus can stop spreading. But measles is more highly infectious compared to COVID-19 so the level of immunity required to achieve herd immunity would likely be lower.

New variants complicate the picture

While it is possible to calculate a magic number needed for herd immunity for COVID-19, there are several variables that prevent us from doing so accurately. These include the recent more contagious mutations and the lack of data on precisely how effective the vaccine is against asymptomatic spread.

Also unhelpful in a quest for herd immunity is that we cannot yet vaccinate children under 16. Clinical trials are underway to determine the efficacy of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine for children and preliminary results are promising. But until trials are completed and the data scientifically reviewed, New Zealand’s vaccination programme excludes just under a quarter of New Zealand’s population.

Even with an excellent vaccination programme, vaccination is not evenly distributed. There are groups and communities with lower coverage, which means there will be gaps across the population.

We have seen this with the 2019 measles outbreak in New Zealand. Even with high vaccination rates of over 90% across most of the population, and a highly effective vaccine, the disease affected communities or age groups with lower immunisation coverage.

Disease control instead of elimination

As long as COVID-19 continues to spread internationally, further border openings would import new cases and challenge New Zealand’s ability to maintain its elimination status.

A partial response may lie in aiming for the highest possible rates of immunisation, alongside ongoing public health measures that have worked well so far, including contact tracing.

One possible option would be to only allow vaccinated people into the country, because they are less likely to be carrying disease. But are we going to wait until vaccination gets to all countries, and to all age groups, before opening our borders?

Another option is to open the borders and support the vaccination of any unvaccinated people on arrival in New Zealand. This could be a feasible strategy once children are able to be vaccinated.

Another path is to let go of the concept of elimination and focus instead on disease control. We know with great confidence that this vaccine is effective at stopping severe disease and death.

I recommend we put all our efforts into vaccinating everyone we possibly can, particularly more vulnerable individuals and communities. Then, when we do open the borders and the disease comes into New Zealand, we will see predominantly mild and asymptomatic disease. This will be manageable.

This strategy will require an effective vaccination coverage that doesn’t leave out those most in need. We must offer the vaccine equitably to everyone, with the best possible informed consent approaches, care and thought. There will still be those who choose not to vaccinate, but with a well communicated immunisation programme, this group should be a very small percentage of the population.

If we have a high rate of immunisation coverage, alongside traditional contact tracing, we can minimise the risk to these individuals and maintain an approach that relies on education and support rather that the heavy hand of mandatory vaccination.

– ref. Vaccination alone will not provide full protection. When borders open, NZ will still be managing COVID-19 – https://theconversation.com/vaccination-alone-will-not-provide-full-protection-when-borders-open-nz-will-still-be-managing-covid-19-158414

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin Reilly, Professor, University of Western Australia

Could a change be afoot in the way Australians vote in federal elections?

The Coalition government may be eyeing a shift to optional preferential voting — as used in New South Wales — which allows voters to simply vote “1” or allocate only a partial list of preferences on their ballot, instead of a full ordering of preferences for every candidate.

The proposal was included in a series of potentially revolutionary changes to our electoral system that were quietly released by a parliamentary committee in December, when few people were paying attention.

The joint standing committee on electoral matters claimed a shift to optional preferential voting would help address rising rates of “informal voting” in NSW caused by the differences between the state and federal systems. The reason: a valid vote at the state level with less than a full list of preferences would be invalid if repeated at a federal election.

What the committee did not say is that based on current voting patterns, a shift to optional preferencing could also cement the Coalition in government.

As a follow-up to a newly published study, we have modelled how recent federal elections would have changed if an optional preferential system had been used. We found the results would have been devastating for Labor.

Read more: Parliamentary electoral committee floats bigger parliament, longer terms and no byelections

Labor supported by Greens preferences

The reason the Coalition would benefit from an optional preferential voting system is simple.

In recent decades, Labor’s primary vote has slumped in federal elections, but full preferential voting has kept its two-party preferred vote high.

This is because LaborL benefits from consistent preference flows from parties to the left, in particular the Greens. Approximately 80% of Greens preferences at federal elections go to the ALP at present.

A significant proportion of this preference flow is the result of Greens voters being forced to choose between Labor and the Coalition at some point – even in their final preference markings on the ballot – so their votes are valid.

Labor and the Greens oppose changing the current voting system, but the proposal from the joint standing committee reportedly has support from some Senate cross-benchers.

Read more: With One Nation on the march, a change to compulsory voting might backfire on Labor

How Labor would have fared under optional preferences

Data collected by the ABC’s election analyst, Antony Green, at the 2015 NSW election shows the rate of Greens preferences transferring to Labor declines precipitously from 82.7% under full preferential voting to just 37.4% under optional preferential voting.

In our study, we extrapolated how past election outcomes would have been affected if this was repeated nationally. We were conscious of the challenges that come with generalising in this way, and comparing one state’s data to the country as a whole.

We found that in most seats, switching to optional preferential voting would have partisan effects that are sharply skewed to the right.

This is best illustrated by looking at the seats Labor has won in recent elections by overtaking the Coalition after trailing on first preferences. These would be the seats most affected by a shift from full to optional preferential voting.

These “come-from-behind” victories would become much rarer under optional preferential voting. By our calculations, Labor would have won somewhere between five and eight fewer seats at each recent federal election, as the graph below shows.

This means Labor would have lost the 2010 election outright and suffered heavier defeats in the 2013, 2016 and 2019 elections if optional preferences had been in use. Labor would also have lost the byelections in 2018 and 2020.

In 2010, the fragile Labor minority government would have likely won independent Andrew Wilkie’s and The Greens’ Adam Bandt’s seats under optional preferential voting, but would have lost four others to the Liberals, including Treasurer Wayne Swan’s seat of Lilley. Labor would not have had enough seats to form government.

Labor won a total of 36 come-from-behind seats in the 2013, 2016 and 2019 elections. Our analysis suggests Labor would have won less than half (17) of these seats under optional preferencing.

Minor parties and independents would also be shut out

Our model also suggests minor parties and independents would struggle to win under optional preferential voting.

As mentioned before, Labor would have won the seats of Melbourne and Dension from Bandt and Wilkie in 2010.

And the Liberals would have triumphed over Cathy McGowan (independent), Clive Palmer (Palmer United Party) and Bob Katter (Katter’s Australian Party) in 2013; Rebekha Sharkie (Nick Xenophon Team/Centre Alliance) in 2016 and 2019; Kerryn Phelps (independent) in 2018 and Helen Haines (independent) in 2019.

With fewer independents and minor parties, the House of Representatives would be a less diverse and colourful place, and the crossbench less politically influential.

Given this, it is striking that both Centre Alliance and One Nation will reportedly back the government in the Senate if it decides to push for a change to optional preferential voting.

Read more: Explainer: how does preferential voting work in the House of Representatives?

Whether the government pursues reform before the next election probably comes down to the Senate numbers, given Labor and the Greens will bitterly oppose any change.

It will also depend on internal Coalition management considerations, with the National Party traditionally opposed to optional preferences, and the government’s more precarious numbers in the House since Craig Kelly’s move to the crossbench.

The government response to the joint standing committee’s report is currently being prepared by the assistant minister for electoral matters, Ben Morton, a former party secretary.

While tightly guarded, we can say with confidence that the reason advanced by the committee for the change – that it will reduce informal voting – is unlikely to feature highly in his calculations. Instead, raw political calculations must make this a highly tempting reform for the government.

Jack Stewart, a Bachelor of Philosophy (Hons) student at the University of Western Australia, compiled the data for this study.

– ref. Here’s why the Coalition favours optional preferential voting: it would devastate Labor – https://theconversation.com/heres-why-the-coalition-favours-optional-preferential-voting-it-would-devastate-labor-155640

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ritesh Chugh, Senior Lecturer – Information Systems and Analysis, CQUniversity Australia

If you’ve ever gotten your phone wet in the rain, dropped it in water or spilt liquid over it, you’re not alone. One study suggests 25% of smartphone users have damaged their smartphone with water or some other kind of liquid.

Liquid penetrating a smartphone can affect the device in several ways. It could lead to:

• blurry photos, if moisture gets trapped in the camera lens
• ruffled audio, or no audio
• liquid droplets under the screen
• an inability to charge
• the rusting of internal parts, or
• a total end to all functionality.

While new phones are advertised as “water resistant”, this doesn’t mean they are waterproof, or totally immune to water. Water resistance just implies the device can handle some exposure to water before substantial damage occurs.

Samsung Australia has long-defended itself against claims it misrepresents the water resistance of its smartphones.

In 2019, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) took Samsung to Federal Court, alleging false and misleading advertisements had led customers to believe their Galaxy phones would be suitable for:

use in, or exposure to, all types of water (including, for example, oceans and swimming pools).

Samsung Australia subsequently denied warranty claims from customers for damage caused to phones by use in, or exposure to, liquid.

Similarly, last year Apple was fined €10 million (about A$15.5 million) by Italy’s antitrust authority for misleading claims about the water resistance of its phones, and for not covering liquid damage under warranty, despite these claims.

How resistant is your phone?

The water resistance of phones is rated by an “Ingress Protection” code, commonly called an IP rating. Simply, an electrical device’s IP rating refers to its effectiveness against intrusions from solids and liquids.

The rating includes two numbers. The first demonstrates protection against solids such as dust, while the second indicates resistance to liquids, specifically water.

A phone that has a rating of IP68 has a solid object protection of 6 (full protection from dust, dirt and sand) and a liquid protection of 8 (protected from immersion in water to a depth of more than one metre).

Although, for the latter, manufacturers are responsible for defining the exact depth and time.

The popular iPhone 12 and Samsung Galaxy S21 phones both have a rating of IP68. However, regarding exposure to water, the iPhone 12 has a permissible immersion depth of a maximum of 6m for 30 minutes, whereas the Galaxy 21’s immersion limit is up to 1.5m, also for 30 minutes.

While IP ratings indicate the water-repellent nature of phones, taking most phones for a swim will land you in deep trouble. The salt content in oceans and swimming pools can corrode your device and cost you a hefty replacement.

Moreover, phone manufacturers carry out their IP testing in fresh water and Apple recommends devices not be submerged in liquids of any kind.

Luckily, water resistant phones are generally able to survive smaller liquid volumes, such as from a glass tipping over.

Read more: Screwed over: how Apple and others are making it impossible to get a cheap and easy phone repair

Checking for liquid damage

Exposure to water is something manufacturers have in mind when designing phones. Most Apple and Samsung phones come with a liquid contact/damage indicator strip located inside the SIM card tray.

This is used to check for liquid damage that may be causing a device to malfunction. An indicator strip that comes in contact with liquid loses its usual colour and becomes discoloured and smudgy.

A discoloured strip usually renders your phone ineligible for a standard manufacturer warranty.

If you have any of the more recent smartphones from Apple or Samsung, then your device will be able to detect liquid or moisture in its charging port and will warn you with an alert. This notification only goes away once the port is dry.

But what should you do if this dreadful pop-up presents itself?

Fixing a water-logged phone

Firstly, do not put your phone in a container of rice. It’s a myth that rice helps in drying out your phone. Instead, follow these steps:

1. Turn off the device immediately and don’t press any buttons.

2. If your phone is water resistant and you’ve spilt or submerged it in a liquid other than water, both Apple and Samsung recommend rinsing it off by submerging it in still tap water (but not under a running tap, which could cause damage).

3. Wipe the phone dry with paper towels or a soft cloth.

4. Gently shake the device to remove water from the charging ports, but avoid vigorous shaking as this could further spread the liquid inside.

5. Remove the SIM card.

6. Use a compressed aerosol air duster to blow the water out if you have one. Avoid using a hot blow dryer as the heat can wreck the rubber seals and damage the screen.

7. Dry out the phone (and especially the ports) in front of a fan.

8. Leave your phone in an airtight container full of silica gel packets (those small packets you get inside new shoes and bags), or another drying agent. These help absorb the moisture.

9. Do not charge the phone until you are certain it’s dry. Charging a device with liquid still inside it, or in the ports, can cause further damage. Apple suggests waiting at least five hours once a phone appears dry before charging it (or until the alert disappears).

If the above steps don’t help and you’re still stuck with a seemingly dead device, don’t try opening the phone yourself. You’re better off taking it to a professional.

Read more: Upgrade rage: why you may have to buy a new device whether you want to or not

– ref. Phone wet and won’t turn on? Here’s how to deal with water damage (hint: soaking it in rice won’t work) – https://theconversation.com/phone-wet-and-wont-turn-on-heres-how-to-deal-with-water-damage-hint-soaking-it-in-rice-wont-work-158633

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Macaulay, Professor of Public Administration, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Following a number of high-profile inquiries into workplace misconduct — including within parliament, the police and fire service — it became clear people who report such behaviour in the first place need greater legal protection.

The commonly used term “whistleblower” is simplistic and emotive, but it remains true that speaking up can cause enormous emotional strain, as well as legitimate fear of retaliation or reprisal.

Unfortunately, based on the recently released report from the Education and Workforce Select Committee on the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill, attempts to strengthen the current law do not look promising.

While the report does recommend ways to strengthen the bill, it fails to endorse some of the more far-reaching suggestions from a public consultation process earlier this year.

The bill itself is partly a response to the case of Joanne Harrison, jailed in 2017 for defrauding the Ministry of Transport of over NZ$700,000.

Colleagues who had reported their suspicions about her behaviour later lost their own jobs. And while a subsequent inquiry concluded this wasn’t a direct result of their reporting, they were still paid undisclosed sums in compensation.

If nothing else, however, the case forced the issue of reporting workplace misconduct into the open.

It is a shame, therefore, that the select committee report doesn’t go further towards creating a more robust piece of legislation, one that significantly increases the protections for people reporting misconduct.

Not enough protection

In the past few years Aotearoa New Zealand has been at the centre of research into workplace misconduct and organisational reporting. This has included our own research project, the biggest of its kind across public, private and not-for-profit sectors in New Zealand and Australia.

This was more than just an academic exercise. We partnered with the Public Service Commission and Ombudsman in New Zealand, as well as numerous central, state and local agencies in Australia. We investigated who comes forward with reports, what happens to those reports, what support people needed and received, and what processes achieve the most positive results for reporters and organisations.

Largely because of this research we can say with confidence that, despite some strengths, this bill does not go far enough to protect people who speak up.

Read more: Whistleblowing: athletes shouldn’t have to choose between their careers and the truth

To be fair, it does clarify how people can be expected to report their concerns, and when they qualify for a protected disclosure. The select committee’s recommendations also appear more respectful towards [tikanga Māori]organisations(https://maoridictionary.co.nz/search?keywords=tikanga) and alternative processes.

But the proposed bill still lacks clarity in its definitions of what constitutes “serious wrongdoing” and the actions or omissions that pose a “serious risk”.

Determining just how “serious” something is might be difficult for someone wishing to make a protected disclosure. The final legislation should offer specific examples in a schedule to its main provisions.

A best practice checklist

The select committee report also proposes section 12 of the bill, covering what should happen when an allegation is reported, be flagged as “guidance” only. At the same time, section 26 of the proposed bill requires all agencies to have internal processes for reporting that correspond to section 12.

But if section 12 is now a guide rather than a full legal requirement, there is a potential loophole: an organisation could argue its systems relate only to this guidance, rather than concrete legal obligations.

Read more: Intelligence whistleblowers often pay a severe price

Even more importantly, section 26 ignores years of research into good practice for internal reporting. The bill makes no statements about what kinds of processes are required, even though these are well understood and were shared with the select committee. At the very least, organisations should have:

• dedicated support persons for all people making reports

• risk assessment practices (which should also be specified in section 12) to help protect the reporter and ensure natural justice

• appropriate triage for reports so they are processed fairly and efficiently

• consistent investigative protocols

• a communication strategy that helps build transparency and accountability: how many reports have been offered, what have they been about, how many have led to investigations, and so on

• mandatory education and training for all staff

• an appropriate and transparent remediation strategy so people are not only protected, but may be rewarded for identifying serious misconduct in the workplace.

Read more: Troublemakers and traitors – it’s no fun being a whistleblower

Firmer foundations needed

The Green Party, which supported a number of these provisions, also proposes another major improvement: an independent body to oversee the new regime.

This need not necessarily be an investigatory body. It could provide strategic direction, promote good practice, develop consistent training and development for organisations, act as a store of information, and collate and publish data.

It may, under certain circumstances, take on an investigative role to protect independence and mitigate possible conflicts of interest in internal processes.

Similar bodies worked in English and Welsh local government, where a national oversight body was established to end the kind of serious corruption and fraud scandals prevalent in the 1980s and 1990s.

Since the agency was abolished by the Conservative-led coalition government in 2014 we’ve seen more scandals, including a massive corruption case in Liverpool right now.

It’s clear people who want to report misconduct need better protection. And while legislation cannot be the only solution, it acts as a foundation for organisational and cultural change.

The current Protected Disclosure Bill, even following the select committee’s report, does not yet provide that firm foundation.

– ref. Workplace whistleblowers deserve more protection than NZ’s new law will deliver – https://theconversation.com/workplace-whistleblowers-deserve-more-protection-than-nzs-new-law-will-deliver-158207

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacob Deem, Lecturer – Law, CQUniversity Australia

The deaths in custody of five Indigenous Australians since March highlight the treatment of First Nations peoples as one of the most pressing policy issues facing the Australian government.

They also come at a time when recognition of First Nations peoples in the Constitution faces many barriers, including diminishing support from within the government.

Despite this, our research reveals substantial public support for a First Nations Voice to parliament, pressing the case for action.

A First Nations Voice to parliament has been the focus of the push for constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians since 2015. After being endorsed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders in the Uluru Statement from the Heart in 2017, the proposed Voice has also become the centre of efforts to give Indigenous Australians a permanent say in decisions affecting them, and progress meaningful reconciliation.

There are two different ideas for a Voice. The first is to enshrine it in the Constitution, as outlined in the Uluru Statement; the second is simply to legislate it.

Our research shows greater support for the former, which would require a national referendum. It would also require a change in the government’s current preference for a legislated Voice.

Politically, there is a long history of resistance to First Nations people having a voice in parliament. Recently, there has also been debate over whether enough Australians would support this reform.

Read more: Indigenous recognition is more than a Voice to Government – it’s a matter of political equality

Substantial support for a First Nations Voice

In 2017, Griffith University’s Australian Constitutional Values Survey showed solid public support from the start, contrary to the fears of many leaders.

Now, the 2021 Australian Constitutional Values Survey by CQUniversity and Griffith University shows over 60% of Australians remain in favour of a First Nations Voice to parliament in some form.

The nationally representative online survey of over 1,500 Australians was conducted in February. While a quarter of Australians remain undecided, most of those had not heard of the proposal. Only one in eight respondents (12%) was opposed to the idea of a First Nations Voice.

The feedback on why Australians do or don’t value the reform comes at a crucial time, as submissions are being gathered by the federal government’s co-design process on what the Voice should look like.

Asked why they were in favour, most respondents said establishing a First Nations Voice would be the “right thing to do”, including as a step towards reconciliation. Many respondents also acknowledged the Voice’s role in addressing the ongoing effects of European colonisation.

Respondents also viewed the Voice as an important way of listening to First Nations peoples, improving policies and making a practical difference. Others saw the Voice as a way to recognise the special status of First Nations peoples as the country’s traditional owners.

These objectives and principles also have an impact on the form most Australians think the Voice should take.

Read more: Proposed Indigenous ‘voice’ will be to government rather than to parliament

Preference for constitutional rather than legislated Voice

Voice proposals began as the pathway to meaningful recognition of Indigenous peoples in Australia’s Constitution, described by Indigenous leader Noel Pearson as our “longest standing and unresolved project for justice”.

However, some leaders still question the constitutional goal, fearing a lack of public support.

Constitutional recognition would require a strong vote in a national referendum, similar to the historic result in 1967 that allowed government to make laws for Aboriginal people and include them in the census.

A predictable “fallback” is to simply legislate the Voice rather than enshrine it in the Constitution. This strategy was reinforced by Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s insistence that constitutional change is not on the agenda, claiming a lack of any

clear consensus proposal at this stage, which would suggest mainstream support in the Indigenous community or elsewhere.

But our survey indicates this fallback option would fall short of public expectations. Over half of all respondents (51.3%) said they would be in favour of enshrining the Voice via constitutional change. Only a quarter (26.3%) said they would still be in favour of the Voice as only a legislated reform, with no constitutional recognition.

Read more: Lessons of 1967 referendum still apply to debates on constitutional recognition

Many Australians are still undecided, but the results show that if the plan is said to be supported by Indigenous Australians, this would make a difference for many of those on the fence.

The scope for a positive 1967-style result, therefore, remains substantial and real.

Compared to a legislated Voice, a constitutional Voice would benefit from greater stability because its existence would be guaranteed. A constitutional Voice would also deliver recognition called for by many Indigenous Australians.

The low public support for a legislated option also reinforces arguments that successful constitutional change would give more popular legitimacy than a legislated Voice, directly engaging the entire community and making the reform part of Australian history.

The results also indicate Australians see the practical value of making the Voice permanent by putting it in Australia’s founding document. This means it could not be simply abolished by future parliaments.

With only 21% of Australians against a constitutional Voice – as opposed to 34% against a purely legislated one – there is wide opportunity to pave the way to successful constitutional recognition once the co-design process has resolved questions of the Voice’s functions and form.

Creating a First Nations Voice to parliament is now the obvious way forward. The government is committed to establishing it, and general public support is solidifying. This is a remarkable testament to how the idea has resonated with people.

But the important lesson to consider is that the core of public support lies in establishing the Voice in the Constitution as a step on the journey towards reconciliation.

– ref. Most Australians support First Nations Voice to parliament: survey – https://theconversation.com/most-australians-support-first-nations-voice-to-parliament-survey-157964

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Holly Seale, Associate professor, UNSW

This year is shaping up as the year of the COVID-19 vaccination photo, with the pandemic providing seemingly endless photo opportunities. We’ve seen stock photos of people getting vaccinated in news reports, images of the prime minister receiving his shot and health workers posting #vaxxies on social media.

But evidence shows the wrong images can make some people reluctant to get vaccinated. So our well-meaning efforts to use images to help demystify the vaccination process or share our pride in getting a COVID-19 vaccine can backfire.

Here’s what we can all do to choose and share vaccination images responsibly.

Read more: Posting COVID-19 vaccine selfies on social media can cause anger, frustration

Images are powerful

Communicating public health strategies like vaccination can be challenging. There can be complex and unfamiliar technical terms and health concepts, and not everyone can understand them. So pictures play an essential role.

Pictures can draw attention to the message, help people relate to and remember what is being said, and may nudge people to act on a health recommendation. People also rate brochures with pictures more positively than ones with just text.

Pictures not only provide meaning, they have an emotional impact. Images we see on social media can also shape our perception of social norms (what we believe others are thinking or doing) and our behaviour.

Read more: Friday essay: COVID in ten photos

But what happens when the picture is a giant needle, or a needle poked into someone’s arm? We have all seen these images to illustrate media articles about COVID-19 vaccination.

In addition to being a bit gruesome, stock photos commonly used in stories about vaccination are often inaccurate. The needle might be in the wrong position, the health worker may be wearing gloves when they are not needed or the liquid inside the needle seems coloured rather then clear.

Do vaccination images really matter?

Yes, vaccination images matter. A study looking at vaccine-related news coverage found nearly one in eight images contained something negative, such as the classic “crying baby”.

This may lead new parents, who have yet to really experience the vaccination process, to become anxious. And this negative photo may override any positive vaccination messages accompanying it.

This issue is especially important because when a photo is of someone’s face, it can trigger an emotional response, making it easier for someone to have a strong reaction to that communication.

We know images can help people remember health messages. But if we use an inappropriate photo, such as the wrong needle size or someone looking anxious, this is the image that can stick with us, not the public health messages or statistics we intended to convey.

For some people, photos of needles are so scary this might put them off vaccination. While we don’t know precisely which types of needle imagery could stimulate such a response, we know needle phobia is a real issue. In fact, one survey found 23% of adults have avoided influenza vaccines due to fear of needles. And we don’t want to risk this happening with COVID-19 vaccines.

Read more: Fear of needles could be a hurdle to COVID-19 vaccination, but here are ways to overcome it

What can we do about it?

Whether we are choosing images for news articles or for our personal social media, it is important we consider the potential impact of the photos we use. Here are some tips for choosing the right image:

• focus on positive outcomes. Consider showing a smiling person with a plaster on their arm or someone holding a vaccination card or sticker. Flickr provides free photos that reflect the reality of immunisation and are medically accurate

• humanise the process. People develop, deliver and receive vaccines. Show these people where possible, instead of disembodied needles

• depict diversity. Ensure images of vaccination show diversity of ethnicity, gender, age and disability

• imply rather than illustrate vaccination. Why do we need the needle in the photo? We do not illustrate articles about urinary tract infections in children with photos of urine samples or invasive medical treatments. An image of a health worker speaking to someone with their sleeve rolled up is enough to evoke a mental image of the vaccination process, particularly when it accompanies a story about vaccines

• highlight the vial not the needle. For stories about vaccine production or rollout with no personal or emotive element, showing the vaccine vial is a neutral option

• avoid inaccurate images. The emoji of a needle full of blood? Not a great choice to tell your friends and family you have been vaccinated. The plaster emoji is a good alternative. Publications should check any vaccine images with medical professionals for accuracy.

Read more: 5 ways we can prepare the public to accept a COVID-19 vaccine (saying it will be ‘mandatory’ isn’t one)

– ref. Pictures of COVID injections can scare the pants off people with needle phobias. Use these instead – https://theconversation.com/pictures-of-covid-injections-can-scare-the-pants-off-people-with-needle-phobias-use-these-instead-157963