Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael J. I. Brown, Associate professor in astronomy, Monash University

Dark matter, by its very nature, is unseen. We cannot observe it with telescopes, and nor have particle physicists had any luck detecting it via experiments.

So why do I and thousands of my colleagues believe most of the universe’s mass is made up of dark matter, rather than the conventional matter that comprises stars, planets, and all the other visible objects in our skies?

To answer that question you need to appreciate what dark matter can and cannot do, understand where in the universe it lurks, and realise that “dark” is just the start of the puzzle.

Unseen influence

Our dark matter story starts with speed and gravity. Throughout the cosmos we see objects travelling in orbits under the influence of gravity. Just as Earth orbits the Sun, the Sun orbits the centre of our galaxy.

The speed required to keep a celestial body in orbit is a function of mass and distance. For example, in our Solar System, Earth moves at 30km per second, whereas the most distant planets dawdle at several kilometres per second.

Our galaxy is incredibly massive, so the Sun orbits at 230km per second despite being 26,700 light years away from our galaxy’s centre. However, as we move further from the centre of the galaxy, the orbital speeds of the stars remains roughly constant. Why?

Read more: What a new map of the universe tells us about dark matter

Unlike our Solar System, whose mass is dominated by the Sun, mass in our galaxy is spread across thousands of light years. As one moves to larger distances from the galactic centre, the stars and gas enclosed within this radius increases. Can this additional mass explain the vast speeds of the most distant stars in our galaxy? Not quite.

In the 1960s, the pioneering US astronomer Vera Rubin measured the orbital speeds in the Andromeda galaxy (the galaxy next to the Milky Way) to distances of 70,000 light years from that galaxy’s core. Remarkably, despite this distance being well beyond the bulk of Andromeda’s stars and gas, the orbital speed remained near 250km/s.

This phenomenon isn’t unique to individual galaxies either. Back in the 1930s, Swiss-American astronomer Fritz Zwicky found that galaxies orbiting within galaxy clusters were moving far faster than expected.

What’s going on? One possibility is that a vast amount of unseen mass extends beyond the stars and gas. This is dark matter.

Indeed, the work of Zwicky, Rubin and subsequent generations of astronomers indicate there’s more dark matter in the universe than conventional matter. (As for dark energy, that’s a whole other story.)

Remarkably, our inability to see or detect dark matter provides clues as to how it behaves. It must have few interactions with itself and conventional matter apart from the force of gravity – otherwise we would have detected it emitting light and interacting with other particles.

As dark matter mostly interacts via gravity alone, it has some curious properties. A cloud of hot gas in space can lose energy by emitting light, and thus cool down. A sufficiently massive and cold gas cloud can collapse under its own gravity to form stars.

By contrast, dark matter cannot lose energy by emitting light. Thus, while conventional matter can collapse into dense objects like stars and planets, dark matter remains more diffuse.

This explains an apparent contradiction. While dark matter may dominate the mass of the universe, we don’t think there is much of it in our Solar System.

Simulation success

As the motion of dark matter is dominated solely by gravity, it is also comparatively easy to model analytically and in simulations.

Since the 1970s we have had formulae for the number of dark matter structures, which also happen to predict the number of massive galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Furthermore, simulations can model the buildup of structures through the history of the universe. The dark matter paradigm doesn’t just fit data, it has predictive power.

Is there an alternative to dark matter? We infer its presence using gravity, but what if our understanding of gravity is wrong? Perhaps gravity is stronger at large distances than we think.

There are several alternative gravity theories, with Mordehai Milgrom’s Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MoND) being the best-known example.

How do we distinguish dark matter from modified gravity? Well, in most theories gravity pulls towards the mass. Thus, if there’s no dark matter, gravity pulls towards the conventional matter, whereas if dark matter dominates then gravity will predominantly pull towards dark matter.

So it should be easy to tell which theory is right, right? Not exactly, as dark matter and conventional matter roughly follow each other around. But there are some useful exceptions.

Smash clouds of gas and dark matter together and something wonderful happens. The gas collides to form a single cloud, while the dark matter particles just keep moving along under the influence of gravity. This happens when clusters of galaxies collide with each other at vast speeds.

How do we measure gravity’s pull in colliding galaxy clusters? Well, gravity pulls not just on mass but on light too, so distorted images of galaxies can trace gravitational pull. And in colliding galaxy clusters, gravity pulls towards where the dark matter should be, not towards the conventional matter.

Ripples in time

We can see the influence of dark matter not just today but in the distant past, right back to the Big Bang.

The Cosmic Microwave Background, the afterglow of the Big Bang, can be seen in all directions. And in this fireball we can see ripples, the result of sound waves travelling through ionised gas.

These sound waves result from the interplay of gravity, pressure and temperature in the early universe. Dark matter contributes to the gravity, but doesn’t respond to temperature and pressure like conventional matter, so the strength of the sound waves depends on the ratio of conventional matter to dark matter.

As expected, measurements of these ripples taken by satellites and ground-based observatories reveal there’s more dark matter than conventional matter in our universe.

So is the case closed? Is dark matter definitely the answer? Most astronomers would say dark matter is the simplest and best explanation for many of the phenomena we see in the universe. While there are potential issues for simplest dark matter models, such as the number of small satellite galaxies, they are interesting problems rather than compelling flaws.

But the fact remains that we are yet to detect dark matter directly. This doesn’t particularly bother me, as physics has a history of particles that have taken decades to directly detect. If we haven’t detected it 20 years from now I may be concerned, but for now I’m betting that dark matter is the real deal.

Read more: Digging for cosmic gold: the hunt for dark matter at the bottom of a gold mine

– ref. Why do astronomers believe in dark matter? – http://theconversation.com/why-do-astronomers-believe-in-dark-matter-122864

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Evangeline Mantzioris, Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences, University of South Australia

Research Checks interrogate newly published studies and how they’re reported in the media. The analysis is undertaken by one or more academics not involved with the study, and reviewed by another, to make sure it’s accurate.

A UK study finding vegetarianism is associated with a higher risk of stroke than a meat-eating diet has made headlines around the world.

The study, published in the British Medical Journal last week, found people who followed vegetarian or vegan diets had a 20% higher risk of having a stroke compared to those who ate meat.

But if you’re a vegetarian, there’s no need to panic. And if you’re a meat eater, these results don’t suggest you should eat more meat.

While we don’t fully understand why these results occurred, it’s important to note the study only showed an association between a vegetarian diet and increased stroke risk – not direct cause and effect.

Read more: Clearing up confusion between correlation and causation

What the study did and found

The researchers looked at 48,188 men and women living in Oxford, following what they ate, and whether they had heart disease or a stroke, over 18 years. The researchers grouped the participants according to their diets: meat eaters, fish eaters (pescatarians) and vegetarians (including vegans).

While vegan diets are quite different to vegetarian diets, the investigators combined these two groups as there were very small numbers of vegans in the study.

In their analysis, the researchers accounted for variables which are known risk factors for heart disease and stroke, including education level, smoking status, alcohol consumption, and physical activity.

Read more: Is vegetarianism healthier? We asked five experts

They found vegetarians had a 22% lower risk of heart disease than meat eaters. This is equivalent to ten fewer cases of heart disease per 1,000 vegetarians than in meat eaters over ten years.

Yet the vegetarians had a 20% higher rate of stroke, equivalent to three more strokes per 1,000 vegetarians compared to the meat eaters over ten years.

The decrease in heart disease risk seemed to be linked to lower body mass index (BMI), cholesterol levels, incidence of diabetes, and blood pressure. These benefits are all known to be associated with a healthy vegetarian diet, and are protective factors against heart disease.

This study showed fish eaters (who did not consume meat) had a 13% lower risk of heart disease, but no significant increase in the rate of stroke when compared to meat eaters.

As with any study, there are strengths and weaknesses

The main strength of this study is that it closely followed a very large group of people over a long period of time.

The major weakness is that being an observational study, the researchers were not able to determine a cause and effect relationship.

So this study is not showing us vegetarian diets lead to increased risk of stroke; it simply tells us vegetarians have an increased risk of stroke. This means the association may be linked to other factors, aside from diet, which may be related to the lifestyle of a vegetarian.

And while vegetarian and vegan diets may be seen as generally healthier, vegetarians still may be eating processed and ultra-processed foods. These foods can contain high levels of added salt, trans fat and saturated fats. This study did not report on the whole dietary pattern – just the major food groups.

Another major weakness of this study is that vegans and vegetarians were grouped together. Vegetarian and vegan diets can vary considerably in nutrient levels.

So why would the vegetarian group have a higher stroke risk?

These kind of observational studies are unable to provide what scientists call “a mechanism” – that is, a biological explanation as to why this association may exist.

But researchers will sometimes offer a potential biological explanation. In this case, they suggest the differences in nutrient intakes between the different diets may go some way to explaining the increased risk of stroke in the vegetarian group.

They cite a number of Japanese studies which have shown links between a very low intake of animal products and an increased risk of stroke.

Read more: Eat your vegetables – studies show plant-based diets are good for immunity

One nutrient they mention is vitamin B12, as it’s found only in animal products (meat, fish, dairy products and eggs). Vegan sources are limited, though some mushroom varieties and fermented beans may contain vitamin B12.

Vitamin B12 deficiency can lead to anaemia and neurological issues, including numbness and tingling, and cognitive difficulties.

The authors suggest a lack of vitamin B12 may be linked to the increased risk of stroke among the vegetarian group. This deficiency could be present in vegetarians, and even more pronounced in vegans.

But this is largely speculative, and any associations between a low intake of animal products and an increased risk of stroke remain to be founded in a strong body of evidence. More research is needed before any recommendations are made.

What does this mean for vegetarians and vegans?

Vegetarians and vegans shouldn’t see this study as a reason to change their diets. This is the only study to date to have shown an increased risk of stroke with vegetarian or vegan diets.

Further, this study has shown overall greater benefits are gained by being vegetarian or vegan in its association with reduced risk of heart disease.

Meanwhile, other studies have shown meat eaters – particularly people who eat large amounts of red and processed meats – have higher risk of certain cancers.

Read more: Are there any health implications for raising your child as a vegetarian, vegan or pescatarian?

Whether you’re an omnivore, pescatarian, vegetarian or vegan, it’s important to consider the quality of your diet. Focus on eating whole foods, and including lots of vegetables, fruits, cereals and grains.

It’s equally important to minimise the intake of processed foods high in added sugars, salt, saturated and trans fats. Diets high in these sorts of foods have well-established links to increased risk of heart disease and stroke. –Evangeline Mantzioris

Blind peer review

The analysis presents a fair and balanced assessment of the study, accurately pointing out that no meaningful recommendations can be drawn from the results. This is particularly so since the majority of the data was collected via self-reported questionnaires, which reduces the reliability of the results.

While in many cases the media has reported an increased stroke risk in vegetarians, total stroke risk was not actually statistically different between the groups. The researchers looked at two types of stroke: ischaemic stroke (where a blood vessel supplying blood to the brain is obstructed) and haemorrhagic stroke (where a blood vessel leaks or breaks).

A statistically significant increased risk in the vegetarian group was only seen in haemorrhagic stroke – and even there it’s marginal. Statistically, and in total numbers of people affected, the reduced heart disease risk in the vegetarian group is more convincing. –Andrew Carey

– ref. Will a vegetarian diet increase your risk of stroke? – http://theconversation.com/will-a-vegetarian-diet-increase-your-risk-of-stroke-123083

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Clive Hamilton, Professor of Public Ethics, Centre for Public and Contextual Theology, Charles Sturt University

Around 2005, the Chinese government began pushing its policy of huaren canzheng, or “ethnic Chinese participation in politics overseas”. It was a new tactic in the Chinese Communist Party’s “united front” strategy to gain political influence abroad by helping trusted members of the Chinese diaspora gain political influence.

Since then, ethnic Chinese people supported by Beijing have begun joining political parties and running for office in Canada, New Zealand, Britain and Australia. The strategy is most advanced in Canada, but it’s been building in Australia, too.

The baleful consequence of this new situation is that Chinese communities, already seriously under-represented in parliaments, now find themselves represented by people whose loyalties are in doubt. The CCP has poisoned the well.

Read more: Politics with Michelle Grattan: Clive Hamilton and Richard Rigby on Chinese influence in Australia

Liu’s links with various organisations

It’s with these developments in mind that questions have been raised about the alleged links of the newly elected Liberal member for Chisholm, Gladys Liu, to organisations associated with the Chinese Communist Party.

Investigations by the ABC and Nine newspapers have revealed that Liu has been closely connected with a number of organisations in Australia and China that are directed by or closely linked to the CCP’s powerful United Front Work Department.

One of the department’s tasks is to co-opt and guide ethnic Chinese people living abroad so they act in the interests of the Communist Party. Its size and importance have increased sharply under President Xi Jinping, who has described United Front as one of the party’s “magic weapons”.

Read more: Inside China’s vast influence network – how it works, and the extent of its reach in Australia

One prominent United Front organisation is the Guangdong provincial branch of the China Overseas Exchange Association, an overseas propaganda and influence outfit headed by high-ranking party officials. Documents show that Liu has been a council member of this organisation.

She has also confirmed she has been an honorary president of the United Chinese Commerce Association of Australia.

There is strong evidence that this body is part of the CCP’s United Front network for exerting political influence in Australia. For example, the current president, Huang Zhuang, has close links with party organisations in China. And its permanent honorary president, Lo Man-tuen, is a member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, a top-level patriotic advisory body.

In September 2018, Liu was also appointed honorary president of the Australia Jiangmen General Commercial Association, an investment promotion body whose senior officers, including its president Wilson Cui, hold positions in CCP United Front organisations.

The Jiangmen association was one of the organisations that backed a protest on the streets of Melbourne in 2016 against a ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, rejecting China’s claims to much of the South China Sea.

Liu said she “cannot recall” being a member of the China Overseas Exchange Association. And she has previously said she is unaware of any Communist Party links with the other organisations that she participates in and that she has only joined them to promote trade and community activities.

Questionable donors

Liu has been an energetic supporter of the Liberal cause. She has run for office in Victoria a number of times and was once employed as an adviser to Liberal leader Ted Baillieu.

But she is perhaps most admired in the Liberal Party for her fundraising ability. Her claim to be “one of the most effective fundraisers in the Victorian division” of the party is almost certainly true.

Read more: The world has a hard time trusting China. But does it really care?

However, her fundraising came under a cloud last month when it was reported by the Herald Sun that the Liberal Party had been forced to return A$300,000 to dodgy donors that she had brought to an event in 2015. (Liu has denied that any funds were returned to donors).

Then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull refused to have dinner with the donors because he had been warned off by our intelligence services due to “security concerns”. Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and opposition leader Matthew Guy did likewise.

Why Liu must answer to parliament

Even though Liu has denied having links with the Chinese Communist Party, there are now serious questions swirling around her and legitimate doubts about whether she owes “allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power”.

Those words are taken from section 44 of the Constitution. While many federal politicians have been disqualified from parliament because they have turned out to be citizens of another country, the question of allegiance to a foreign power is a far weightier reason for disqualification.

Parliament must now grapple with Liu’s case. If there is enough evidence to indicate she may owe allegiance to a foreign power, then parliament ought to refer her to the High Court, where the claims can be tested.

Otherwise, a dark cloud will hang over her as long as she sits in the House of Representatives. And a dark cloud will overshadow the Liberal Party, because more and more people will want to know why it stuck with Liu when it knew that intelligence agencies had concerns strong enough to deter the prime minister from meeting with her donors.

– ref. Why Gladys Liu must answer to parliament about alleged links to the Chinese government – http://theconversation.com/why-gladys-liu-must-answer-to-parliament-about-alleged-links-to-the-chinese-government-123339

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liam Elphick, Adjunct Research Fellow, Law School, University of Western Australia

Two weeks ago, Victorian Reason Party MP Fiona Patten introduced a new anti-vilification bill to the state parliament.

In the midst of heated public debate over the federal government’s draft Religious Discrimination Bill, Patten’s bill has been given far less attention.

The Racial and Religious Tolerance Amendment Bill is described by Patten as an “Australia-first” attempt to target hate speech and trolling on social media, particularly against women.

Read more: Why Australia’s anti-vilification laws matter

Others have warned of unintended consequences that may arise related to free speech, likening the bill to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

But in reality, Patten’s bill provides a common sense approach to protecting Victorians from harmful verbal abuse at a time when such protections are being eroded at the federal level.

Parliamentary debate on the bill continues this week.

What is the current Victorian law?

Victoria currently prohibits vilification through the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.

This prohibits a person from engaging in conduct against another person or group in public that incites:

• hatred
• serious contempt
• revulsion, or
• severe ridicule

Any of these four standards can be used to meet the threshold test for vilification. If this is met, a claimant can lodge a complaint through the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC) or the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

However, this conduct is only prohibited when it is on the basis of another person or group’s race or religion.

Read more: #MeToo must also tackle online abuse

There are some exceptions where reasonable statements made in good faith are rendered lawful. This includes artistic works, academic and scientific works, fair media reporting, and statements made “in the public interest”.

These exceptions ensure that the right to freedom from discrimination and vilification is balanced with the right to free speech. If anything, the exceptions err on the side of protecting free speech.

It is also considered a more serious criminal offence when a person “intentionally” engages in conduct that the person “knows” is likely to vilify.

What does the Patten bill do?

The Patten bill seeks to extend vilification protections to other attributes, namely gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex characteristics and disability.

The bill also grants new powers to the VEOHRC to be able to request information from any relevant person or business to identify online “trolls” after a vilification complaint has been made.

Such requests could require, for instance, social media companies to hand over information on individuals who engage in online abuse through “anonymous” accounts. This request only applies to existing complaints, though. It does not provide a carte blanche right for authorities to search through social media to identify offenders, and is subject to VCAT approval.

The bill also contains appropriate confidentiality and privacy controls to prevent unreasonable disclosure of this information.

The bill also does not change the threshold test for vilification, except that “incitement” is replaced with “likely to incite”. As such, conduct would be prohibited if it was “likely to” incite hatred, serious contempt, revulsion, or severe ridicule on the basis of the above attributes (including race or religion).

Further, consistent with other Australian jurisdictions, the bill would deem “reckless” vilification a criminal offence. This would cover dangerous acts of vilification in which an offender has wilfully disregarded the harm caused to other people, even if they may not have “intended” the outcome.

It would also change the subjective test for criminal vilification – that an offender “knows” their conduct is vilification – to an objective test.

This ensures judges do not have to subjectively “go inside” the heads of offenders to ascertain their knowledge at the time of an offence, which can lead to unpredictable results.

Why are the changes needed?

The Patten bill would ensure that women, the LGBTI+ community and people with disabilities are afforded the same protections from harmful abuse as those granted for race and religion.

Over 64% of LGBTI+ people between the ages of 16 and 27 have been subject to verbal abuse on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. Thoughts of self-harm are almost twice as likely to occur for LGBTI+ young people after they have been subject to such abuse.

Read more: Marriage equality was momentous, but there is still much to do to progress LGBTI+ rights in Australia

Thirty percent of all women have experienced online abuse or harassment, with a third of these reporting fears for their physical safety as a result.

Further, a significant proportion of complaints under Tasmania’s strong anti-vilification laws are from people with disabilities.

All of these groups deserve protection.

The Patten bill would also modernise a nearly 20-year-old law that is largely ill-equipped to deal with online abuse.

The bill would particularly help the VEOHRC in responding to complaints over online gendered hate speech and bullying, such as that directed at AFLW player Tayla Harris earlier this year.

What about concerns about the bill’s reach?

Despite reports to the contrary, the bill is not “section 18C on steroids”.

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act prohibits acts that are “reasonably likely” to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” a person or group. These standards are lower than the threshold test for racial and religious vilification under Victorian law.

The Victorian test would be largely unchanged by the Patten bill. As such, even with the Patten bill changes, it would be harder to prove vilification under Victorian law than under section 18C.

Indeed, complaints under the current Victorian law are hardly voluminous; only 26 were lodged in the past two years.

Read more: Section 18C is an important part of a civilised society and no threat to free speech

Suggestions that the bill reaches far beyond other Australian anti-vilification laws and uniquely restricts free speech are also blatantly incorrect.

Tasmania provides far stronger protection for vilification, prohibiting conduct that a reasonable person would anticipate would offend, insult, ridicule, humiliate or intimidate another person. It also protects a more expansive range of attributes that include age, relationship status and pregnancy.

Existing laws in Queensland, NSW and ACT contain almost identical provisions to the Patten bill.

The main difference is that those three jurisdictions do not protect gender, while the Patten bill (and Tasmania) does.

Considering the prevalence of online gendered abuse, the protection of women in anti-vilification laws is entirely appropriate. Indeed, the unique aspect of Patten’s bill is its granting of important additional powers to address largely gendered online abuse and trolling.

The Patten bill is not a radical attack on free speech. Rather, it represents a sound, appropriate and balanced approach to protecting vulnerable groups from harmful abuse, particularly in our social media age.

In a period where the federal government is undermining and overriding existing discrimination and vilification protections, this bill provides some much-needed hope and reason.

– ref. Why Victoria’s new anti-vilification bill strikes the right balance in targeting online abuse – http://theconversation.com/why-victorias-new-anti-vilification-bill-strikes-the-right-balance-in-targeting-online-abuse-123014

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Claude Roux, Distinguished Professor of Forensic Science, University of Technology Sydney

After recent criticism in the US and the UK, forensic science is now coming under attack in Australia. Several recent reports have detailed concerns that innocent people have been jailed because of flawed forensic techniques.

Among the various cases presented, it is surprising that the most prominent recent miscarriage of justice in Victoria did not rate a mention: the wrongful conviction of Farah Jama, who was found guilty of rape in 2008 before the verdict was overturned in 2009.

This omission is not entirely unexpected. The forensic evidence in the case against Jama was DNA. Despite this fact, the recent media comments have re-emphasised the view that DNA is the gold standard when it comes to forensic techniques. Justice Chris Maxwell, president of the Victorian Court of Appeal, said:

…with the exception of DNA, no other area of forensic science has been shown to be able reliably to connect a particular sample with a particular crime scene or perpetrator.

How can the same technique simultaneously be the forensic gold standard and contribute to such a dramatic miscarriage of justice? Is forensic science so unreliable that none of it should be admissible in our courts? Of course not, otherwise the criminal justice system would be left relying on much less reliable evidence, such as witness statements and confessions.

Read more: Get real, forensic scientists: the CSI effect is waning

Evidence in context

It makes no sense to assess the reliability of any forensic technique in the abstract. A forensic method is only “reliable” as far as it helps answer the particular questions asked in the context of a particular case. Asking the wrong questions will undoubtedly deliver the wrong answers, even if the best and most fully validated forensic method is applied.

Conversely, some forensic methods are perceived by some commentators to have less intrinsic value or even questionable reliability. But these methods might yield the answer to a crucially relevant question.

A typical example would be an incomplete shoe mark of poor quality left at a crime scene. It might not be possible to assign this mark to a specific shoe, but it might be enough to exclude a particular shoe or to identify the direction in which the perpetrator walked.

Forensic science is much more than merely applying methods or conducting tests – success also depends on the ability to identify and answer a relevant question.

A forensic science system is not like a clinical laboratory, processing samples and producing results for prescribed tests. Rather, good forensic science requires collaboration between investigators, scientists and other stakeholders. The focus should be resolving judicial questions using a scientific approach.

What matters most is the detection, recognition and understanding of the traces left by individuals during an alleged crime. This a much more complex issue than simply deciding whether or not a particular forensic method is deemed “reliable”.

Complex process

Forensic science is much less cut-and-dried than television dramas might suggest. When a DNA swab or a shoe mark lands on a forensic scientist’s lab bench, it has already gone through many steps, each with their own uncertainties.

These uncertainties are unavoidable, because forensic traces typically represent the aftermath of a chaotic event. The only option is to manage these uncertainties through a better understanding of how these traces are generated, persist, degrade, interact with each other, and how the information they hold can be interpreted.

The debate about the reliability of forensic science is not new. It illustrates a more fundamental issue: the lack of understanding of forensic science among the general public (who are potential jurors), and even among highly reputable law practitioners and non-forensic scientists.

Legacy of reform

The high-profile 2009 US National Academy of Sciences report and the 2016 Obama Administration report, both of which criticised some uses of forensic evidence, prompted an international reaction and several reviews of forensic practices.

They justified more empirical research to support some forensic conclusions. These improvements have been occurring in Australia for some years under the leadership of the National Institute of Forensic Science and through several academic research programs. And the recent UK House of Lords enquiry into the state of forensic science in England and Wales identified the Australian forensic science model as a leading example.

However, these reports excluded crime scene management from the scientific domain. They provided limited guidance about the challenging topic of interpretation of forensic evidence. This is disturbing because these are the two areas that require most attention if we are serious about improving forensic science outcomes.

Read more: ‘This is going to affect how we determine time since death’: how studying body donors in the bush is changing forensic science

As the recent media coverage has shown, evidence interpretation remains a sore point between the legal and scientific communities. Where is the boundary of the responsibility of science versus the law? The fact that the legal community poorly understands forensic evidence is undoubtedly a shared responsibility. Shifting the blame onto forensic science will only exacerbate the problem.

If we think this is all too hard with traditional physical evidence, how does the criminal justice system expect to cope with our rapidly evolving digital society? Digital evidence is typically harder to assess than physical evidence in terms of volume, variety, rapidity, and privacy issues.

Better education, research and collaboration will form a large part of the answer. They will induce a better understanding of forensic science and its fundamental principles, so it can serve justice with confidence.

– ref. Forensic science isn’t ‘reliable’ or ‘unreliable’ – it depends on the questions you’re trying to answer – http://theconversation.com/forensic-science-isnt-reliable-or-unreliable-it-depends-on-the-questions-youre-trying-to-answer-123020

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sandra Jones, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Engagement, Australian Catholic University

Around 1% of the population has an autism spectrum disorder, with estimates ranging from one in 150 to one in 70.

While people differ in the range and severity of their symptoms, common features include difficulties with communication and social interaction, restrictive and repetitive behaviours and interests, and sensory sensitivities.

Read more: What causes autism? What we know, don’t know and suspect

According to the 2017 Autism in Australia report, autism is most prevalent among children aged five to 14, with 83% of Australians with an autism diagnosis aged under 25.

But while children are more likely to have a diagnosis of autism than adults, this doesn’t mean children “grow out” of autism.

Why are rates higher among children?

There are a number of reasons why the prevalence of autism is higher among school-aged children than adults, starting with the measurement.

“Prevalence” refers to the rate of diagnosis and/or self-reports, not the rate of actually having autism. As autism is a lifelong condition, it’s more likely the rates of actually having autism are stable across adults and children.

Diagnostic techniques and awareness of autism have improved dramatically in recent times. Many autistic adults would not have been given a formal diagnosis, but rather misdiagnosed or just seen as “weird”.

Read more: Do more children have autism now than before?

These days, there are clear benefits of having and reporting a diagnosis for school-aged children; including access to funding and educational support. This means parents who suspect their child has autism may seek out a diagnosis when in previous generations they would not.

There are far fewer benefits to having and reporting a diagnosis for adults, and many more barriers, including stigma and discrimination.

Some children lose their diagnosis

Autism is a lifelong condition. However, a small number of studies suggest a minority of children may “lose” their autism diagnosis.

A 2011 analysis of American national survey data found 13% of children diagnosed with autism (187 of the 1,576 whose parents responded to the question) had “lost” their diagnosis.

The most common reason was “new information”, such as being diagnosed with another developmental, learning, emotional, or mental health condition.

Only 21% of the 187 parents reported their child had lost their diagnosis due to treatment or maturation; and only 4% (eight children) had a doctor or other professional confirm the child did not have ASD and did not have any other developmental, learning, emotional, or mental health condition.

A recent study in the Journal of Child Neurology examined the records of 569 children diagnosed with autism between 2003 and 2013. It found 7% (38 of the 569) no longer met the diagnostic criteria.

However, most were diagnosed with another behaviour disorder (such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder) or a mental health condition (such as anxiety disorder).

Just three children out of 569 did not “warrant” any alternative diagnosis.

Read more: Five myths about autism

The few studies that report on children who no longer met the criteria for a diagnosis of either autism or another condition are typically small-scale observational studies.

In 2014, for example, US psychiatry researchers studied 34 people aged eight to 21 years who were diagnosed with autism before the age of five but no longer met the criteria for a diagnosis. This was defined as the “optimal outcome”.

The researchers found the “optimal outcome” group did not differ from “typically developing” children on socialisation, communication, most language sub-scales and only three had below-average scores on face recognition.

So, a very very small number of children lose their diagnosis and appear to function normally. But these small-scale studies don’t have the capacity to differentiate between “growing out of” and “learning to mask” autism-related behaviours.

Masking symptoms

The diagnostic and statistical manual (DSM-5) used to classify mental health disorders states symptoms of autism start early and continue throughout life, though adults may be able to “mask” their symptoms – at least in some situations.

One of the unexpected findings of the 2014 study of people who lost their autism diagnosis is they tended to have high IQs. The researchers suggest high levels of cognition allowed this group of autistic people to identify and compensate for their social differences.

Many autistic people learn to mask their behaviours and thought patterns from a young age; and this is particularly common with girls. They learn that to fit in and be accepted by their peers they need to act and speak like neurotypical people.

Masking is physically and emotionally draining, and leads to a range of negative outcomes such as exhaustion, burnout, anxiety, and depression – as well as negative self-perception and low self-esteem.

Read more: Autistic people aren’t really accepted – and it’s impacting their mental health

Why are these myths so harmful?

Many parents struggle with their child’s diagnosis of autism, as they face the realisation their child’s life may be very different from the one they imagined.

The myth that children can grow out of autism – if their parents do a good enough job of educating or changing them – is harmful for the whole family.

It can prevent parents from seeing and accepting their child as the wonderful human being they are and recognising their strengths.

Sadly, it can also lead to a lifetime of the autistic person perceiving themselves to be a failed neurotypical person rather than a successful autistic person.

Australia, like many countries, has made great strides in the provision of educational supports for these students in primary and secondary school. Then we stop.

Of those who complete secondary school, only 19% receive a post-school qualification. This compares with 59% of those with any form of disability and 68% of those without a disability.

In terms of work, ABS data from 2015 shows the unemployment rate for people with an autism diagnosis was 31.6%; more than three times the rate for people with any disability (10%) and almost six times the rate of people without disability (5.3%).

Read more: Expecting autistic people to ‘fit in’ is cruel and unproductive; value us for our strengths

Autistic children don’t grow into neurotypical adults, they grow into autistic adults who are under-serviced, isolated and stigmatised.

Until our employers, educational institutions, governments and communities fully understand this, we will continue to fail to provide them with appropriate educational and employment opportunities.

So, will your child grow out of their autism? Probably not, but with the right support, encouragement and understanding they might grow into it.

– ref. We need to stop perpetuating the myth that children grow out of autism – http://theconversation.com/we-need-to-stop-perpetuating-the-myth-that-children-grow-out-of-autism-119540

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian McGregor, Lecturer in Management, UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney

Multinational ice cream company Ben & Jerry’s will close its Australian stores for this month’s global climate strike and pay staff to attend the protest, amid a growing realisation in the business community that planetary heating poses an existential threat.

It is one of hundreds of business in Australia and many more overseas that plan to support the strike on Friday, September 20.

Millions of people around the world are expected to take part in the schools-led civil action, led by 16-year-old Swedish student and climate activist Greta Thunberg.

Read more: Mark Butler calls for “ruthless” re-examination of Labor policies, including on climate

The strike will call for decisive global action on climate change ahead of a major United Nations summit in New York on September 23.

Scientists themselves recently urged their colleagues to embrace political activism, even civil disobedience, arguing that using peer-reviewed research to influence policymakers has not brought about the radical change needed.

Ben & Jerry’s will close 35 shops across Australasia for the duration of the strike. The company’s Australian arm has declared that business as usual “is no longer a viable plan” in the face of a climate emergency. Or as the company says in its values statement: if it’s melted, it’s ruined.

No one will be spared from the effects of unmitigated climate change, and that includes the business community. That’s why I argue that all businesses should support the climate strike any way they can.

There is no escape

The Department of the Environment and Energy has warned of the pervasive effects on Australian business of higher temperatures, altered rainfall patterns and more frequent or intense fires, heatwaves, drought and storms.

The department says the changes will be felt “by every person and every organisation, public or private, and at all levels, from strategic management to operational activities”.

Many in the business sector recognise the looming challenge, including the Business Council of Australia which has called for a bipartisan energy and climate change policy framework.

So who’s already on board?

Ben & Jerry’s Australia and New Zealand marketing manager, Bert Naber, confirmed to me in an interview that the company would close its stores for several hours on September 20.

Staff will be paid while the stores are closed. The company is strongly encouraging staff to take part in the strike but their attendance is not compulsory.

The company will also close its US stores for the strike, joining other retailers such as Patagonia, Lush Cosmetics, and personal care firm Seventh Generation.

Australian marketing agency Republic of Everyone is closing its business for the day. ounder Ben Peacock is encouraging his staff to attend the event and perhaps even take a volunteer role.

Other large organisations such as software giant Atlassian are making it as easy as possible for staff to attend.

Atlassian chief executive Mike Cannon-Brookes said the climate crisis “demands leadership and action … But we can’t rely on governments alone.”

Cannon-Brookes co-founded Not Business As Usual, an alliance of progressive Australian companies pushing for greater action on climate change. As of September 9, more than 230 companies had joined the alliance and pledged to allow employees to strike including Future Super, Canva and Bank Australia.

On climate, business is a broad church

Calls from the Australian business sector for climate action have grown louder as the threat worsens. The sector has also demanded long-term certainty to assist with investment decisions – particularly energy businesses and large power consumers such as manufacturers.

However across the business community, research indicates that views are split on the need for stronger climate action.

Some parts of the business sector, such as insurance, reinsurance, financial services, renewable energy and energy efficiency have advocated for strong climate action early since the 1990s.

Read more: Australians disagree on how important climate change is: poll

Fossil fuel extraction industries, fossil fuel-driven electricity generation and vehicle manufacturers have, however, traditionally opposed strong emissions reduction targets.

There are exceptions. [Global mining company BHP], for example, is now calling for stronger action because it recognises that climate change is a huge global challenge that requires an urgent collaborative market and policy response.

Climate-aware investors are also calling on companies to act. They include superannuation giant HESTA, which recently demanded that Australian oil and gas companies Woodside and Santos link executive pay to reducing their emissions.

Advice for employees wanting to attend the strike

Of course, many employers will not be closing their doors for the climate strike and some workers will have to seek leave from their jobs to attend. The exact rules surrounding this will depend on individual awards or enterprise agreements.

In some cases employees may be able to negotiate an arrangement with their manager to enable them to participate in the strike.

While I strongly support the strike, I do not recommend “chucking a sickie” or not turning up for work so you can take part. That approach is likely to make your employer unhappy and leave them in the lurch.

I recommend that employees providing vital services, such as paramedics and the like, support the strike in ways other than leaving their duties. Supporting events in the lead-up to the strike can be found here.

Read more: UK becomes first country to declare a ‘climate emergency’

At the time of writing, 26 unions were listed on the Schoolstrike4climate website.

National Tertiary Education Union president Alison Barnes told me in an interview on September 4 that “the time for urgent action is now … we encourage people to take appropriate leave or make necessary arrangements with their employers to attend [the strike]”.

– ref. Everyone’s business: why companies should let their workers join the climate strike – http://theconversation.com/everyones-business-why-companies-should-let-their-workers-join-the-climate-strike-122976

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Troy Baisden, Professor and Chair in Lake and Freshwater Sciences, University of Waikato

Climate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change.

If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nz

I would like to know to what extent regenerative agriculture practices could play a role in reducing carbon emissions and producing food, including meat, in the future. From what I have read it seems to offer much, but I am curious about how much difference it would make if all of our farmers moved to this kind of land management practice. Or even most of them. – a question from Virginia

To identify and quantify the potential of regenerative agriculture to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we first have to define what it means. If regenerative practices maintain or improve production, and reduce wasteful losses on the farm, then the answer tends to be yes. But to what degree is it better, and can we verify this yet?

Let’s first define how regenerative farming differs from other ways of farming. For example, North Americans listening to environmentally conscious media would be likely to define most of New Zealand pastoral agriculture systems as regenerative, when compared to the tilled fields of crops they see across most of their continent.

If milk and meat-producing animals are not farmed on pasture, farmers have to grow grains to feed them and transport the fodder to the animals, often over long distances. It’s hard to miss that the transport is inefficient, but easier to miss that nutrients excreted by the animals as manure or urine can’t go back to the land that fed them.

Healthy soils

Returning nutrients to the land really matters because these build up soil, and grow more plants. We can’t sequester carbon in soil without returning nutrients to the soil.

New Zealand’s style of pastoral agricultural does this well, and we’re still improving as we focus on reducing nutrient losses to water.

Read more: New Zealand launches plan to revive the health of lakes and rivers

Our pastoral soils tend to have as much carbon as they once did under forest, but concerns have been raised about carbon losses in some regions. Yet, we do still have two big problems.

First, the animals that efficiently digest tough plants – including cows, sheep, and goats – all belch the greenhouse gas methane. This is a direct result of their special stomachs, and chewing their cud. Therefore, farms will continue to have high greenhouse gas emissions per unit of meat and milk they produce. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report emphasised this, noting that changing diets can reduce emissions.

The second problem is worst in dairying. When a cow lifts its tail to urinate, litres of urine saturate a small area. The nitrogen content in this patch exceeds what plants and soil can retain, and the excess is lost to water as nitrate and to the air, partly as the powerful, long-lived greenhouse gas nitrous oxide.

Defining regenerative

Regenerative agriculture lacks a clear definition, but there is an opportunity for innovation around its core concept, which is a more circular economy. This means taking steps to reduce or recover losses, including those of nutrients and greenhouse gases.

Read more: Regenerative agriculture can make farmers stewards of the land again

Organic agriculture, which prohibits the use of antibiotics and synthetic pesticides and fertilisers, could potentially include regenerative agriculture. Organics once had the same innovative status, but now has a clear business model and supply chain linked to a price premium achieved through certification.

The price premium and regulation linked to certification can limit the redesign of the organic agricultural systems to incremental improvements, limiting the inclusion of regenerative concepts. It also means that emission studies of organic agriculture may not reveal the potential benefits of regenerative agriculture.

Instead, the potential for a redesign of New Zealand’s style of pastoral dairy farming around regenerative principles provides a useful example of how progress might work. Pastures could shift from ryegrass and clover to a more diverse, more deeply rooted mix of alternate species such as chicory, plantains, lupins and other grasses. This system change would have three main benefits.

Win-win-win

The first big win in farming is always enhanced production, and this is possible by better matching the ideal diet for cows. High performance ryegrass-clover pastures contain too little energy and too much protein. Diverse pastures fix this, allowing potential increases in production.

A second benefit will result when protein content of pasture doesn’t exceed what cows need to produce milk, reducing or diluting the nitrogen concentrated in the urine patches that are a main source of nitrous oxide emissions and impacts on water.

A third set of gains can result if the new, more diverse pastures are better at capturing and storing nutrients in soil, usually through deeper and more vigorous root growth. These three gains interrelate and create options for redesign of the farm system. This is best done by farmers, although models may help put the three pieces together into a win-win-win.

Whether you’re interested in local beef in Virginia, or the future of New Zealand’s dairy industry, the principles that define regenerative agriculture look promising for redesigning farming to reduce emissions. They may prove simpler than agriculture’s wider search for new ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including genetically engineering ryegrass.

– ref. Climate explained: regenerative farming can help grow food with less impact – http://theconversation.com/climate-explained-regenerative-farming-can-help-grow-food-with-less-impact-123090

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

Sydney’s Inner West Council has a new policy that it is reported means “residents will no longer need to seek council approval to prune or remove trees within three metres of an existing home or structure”. Hold on, don’t reach for that chainsaw yet, because research shows good green infrastructure – trees, green roofs and walls – can add value to your home.

Green infrastructure offers significant, economic, social and environmental benefits. Urban greening is particularly important in dense urban areas like Sydney’s Inner West. Among its benefits, green infrastructure:

Some of these benefits accrue to owners/occupiers, whereas others provide wider societal benefits.

Read more: Higher-density cities need greening to stay healthy and liveable

A 2017 study focusing on three Sydney suburbs found a 10% increase in street tree canopy could increase property values by A$50,000 on average. And the shading effect of trees can reduce energy bills by up to A$800 a year in Sydney. So retaining your green infrastructure – your trees, that is – can deliver direct financial gains.

On a larger scale, a collaborative project with Horticulture Innovation Australia Limited compared carbon and economic benefits from urban trees considering different landuses along sections of two roads in Sydney. Higher benefits were recorded for the Pacific Highway, with 106 trees per hectare and 58.6% residential land use, compared to Parramatta Road, with 70 trees per hectare and 15.8% residential.

For the Pacific Highway section, total carbon storage and the structural value of trees (the cost of replacing a tree with a similar tree) were estimated at A$1.64 million and A$640 million respectively. Trees were also valuable for carbon sequestration and removing air pollution.

Tree species, age, health and density, as well as land use, are key indicators for financial and wider ecosystem benefits. Specifically, urban trees in private yards in residential areas are vital in providing individual landowner and collective government/non-government benefits.

Challenges of growth

As populations grow, cities increase density, with less green infrastructure. The loss of greenery affects the natural environment and both human and non-human well-being.

Read more: We’re investing heavily in urban greening, so how are our cities doing?

Trees and other green infrastructure reduce some impacts of urban density. However, policies, government incentives and national priorities can produce progress in urban greening or lead to setbacks. In the case of the Inner West Council, for instance, the inability to fund monitoring of changes in tree cover could lead to reductions at the very time when we need more canopy cover.

Key concerns include installation and maintenance costs of green infrastructure (trees, green roofs and walls) in property development, and tree root damage. Knowledge and skills are needed to maintain green infrastructure. As a result, developers often consider other options more feasible.

In the short and long term, multiple performance benefits and economic and environmental values are needed to establish the viability of green infrastructure.

Read more: Australian cities are lagging behind in greening up their buildings

Learning from Stockholm

Stockholm shares many issues found in Australian cities. Stockholm houses over 20% of Sweden’s inhabitants, is increasing in density and redeveloping land to house a growing population. Aiming to be fossil-free by 2050, Stockholm acknowledges the built environment’s role in limiting climate change and its impacts.

In a research project we intend to use virtual reality (VR) and electroencephalogram (EEG) technology to assess perceptions of green infrastructure and reactions to it in various spaces.

Our project combines VR with EEG hardware, which measures human reactions to stimuli, to learn how people perceive and value green infrastructure in residential development.

Identifying all the value of green infrastructure

The many benefits of green infrastructure are both tangible and non-tangible. Economic benefits include:

• those that directly benefit owners, occupants or investors – stormwater, increased property values and energy savings
• other financial impacts – greenhouse gas savings, market-based savings and community benefits.

Read more: If planners understand it’s cool to green cities, what’s stopping them?

The various approaches to evaluating net value present a challenge in quantifying the value of green infrastructure. The most common – cost-benefit analysis, triple bottom line, life cycle assessment and life cycle costing – are all inadequate for evaluating trade-offs between economic and environmental performance. Conventional cost-benefit analysis is insufficient for investment analysis, as it doesn’t include environmental costs and benefits.

This is salient for green infrastructure, as owners/investors incur substantial direct costs, whereas various shareholders share the value. Perhaps, in recognition of the shared value, a range of subsidies could be adopted to compensate investors. Discounted rates anyone?

Recent efforts to evaluate the business case for green infrastructure include attempts to identify and quantify the creation of economic, environment and community/social value. However, an approach that includes a more comprehensive set of value drivers is needed to do this. This is the gap we aim to fill.

The results of experiments using VR and EEG technology and semi-structured interviews will provide a comprehensive understanding of green infrastructure. This will be correlated with capital and rental values to determine various degrees of willingness to pay.

With this knowledge, property developers in Sweden and Australia will be able to make a more informed and holistic business case for increasing green infrastructure for more liveable, healthy cities.

Maybe we can then persuade more people, including those in the Inner West, to hang onto their trees and leave the chainsaws in the garage.

– ref. Trees can add $50,000 value to a Sydney house, so you might want to put down that chainsaw – http://theconversation.com/trees-can-add-50-000-value-to-a-sydney-house-so-you-might-want-to-put-down-that-chainsaw-122710

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Saunders, Research Professor in Social Policy, UNSW

First it was the Bureau of Statistics. It produced an notoriously bland press release headed “Inequality stable since 2013-14” when its own analysts had told it there had been a “significant increase” in wealth inequality since 2011–12, that wealth inequality was “at its peak” since it was first measured, and that there had been “a significant downward change” in the wealth share of the bottom fifth of Australian households.

The analyst who penned the note about the significant downward change added, in what appears to have been a plea for guidance: “I’m not sure that we want to draw attention to this though??”.

We know this only because of emails released by the Bureau of Statistics in response to a Freedom of Information request.

Christopher Sheil and Frank Stilwell drew attention to it in The Conversation and then went on to suggest that the Productivity Commission might have also been downplaying the growth in wealth inequality by producing its own bespoke measure at odds with others.

Read more: It’s not just the ABS. It’s also the Productivity Commission downplaying the growth in inequality

I am not convinced that the Productivity Commission did downplay the growth in wealth inequality, but that doesn’t mean sensitivity about inequality isn’t widespread in official circles, apparently including, as I will outline, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

First, the Productivity Commission.

Sheil and Stilwell present a chart showing the Commission’s 2017 report to be “the odd man out” among five studies – the only one to show a decline in the share of wealth going to the top 10% between 2013-14 and 2015-16.

Productivity Commission understandable

But on the graph presented by the Productivity Commission itself the decline is miniscule.

The PC study also measured a different thing to the other studies: so-called equivalised wealth, which is wealth adjusted for household size and composition.

This isn’t the place to argue the merits of the PC approach (I have problems with it), merely to note that if the PC’s findings were substantially different from other findings, it might be because it was measuring something different.

Read more: Inequality is growing, but it is also changing as Australia’s super rich evolve

This isn’t the case for what happened two years ago at the government-funded Australian Institute for Health and Welfare.

Institute for Health and Welfare inexplicable

Every two years since 1993 the AIHW has produced a report that presents reliable and detailed information about the need for and provision of welfare services such as aged care, child care, education, housing and disability services.

Every two years since 1993 the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare (AIHW) has produced a report that presents reliable and detailed information about the need for and provision of welfare services such as aged care, child care, education, housing and disability services.

I was involved in early discussions about the structure and content of Australia’s Welfare and have been asked (with others) to comment on draft chapters prior to release. In 1999 I contributed a chapter. I spoke at its launches in 1997 and 2005. I am a strong supporter of the AIHW and of its work.

In recent years it has added an overview of Australia’s welfare progress over a wide range of dimensions using a framework that covers 15 key indicators divided into seven themes.

It summarises recent changes in each indicator and indicates whether they are, on balance, favourable or unfavourable, or whether there has been no change or no clear trend.

One of the themes is material living conditions. The second of its three indicators is income inequality.

Table 9.2.2 summarises the changes between 2003-04 and 2013-14 as “unfavourable”.

Yet when I received my hard copy of that report in mid-November 2017, I was surprised to find a loose-leaf insert inside the front cover headed “Errata slip,” dated October 11, 2017.

An errata is usually a list of factual errors and corrections.

This one dealt not with factual errors but contained what were essentially three changes to the way in which income inequality was described, all of them the same.

In each case a phrase like this was removed

The difference between household income levels in the highest and lowest income quintiles has nearly doubled from 1994-95 to 2013-14

and replaced by one like this

While the distribution of income in Australia has shown little change in recent years, income inequality has risen since the mid-1990s as measured by the Gini coefficient.

Each quintile contains one-fifth of the population, where the top quintile contains those with the highest incomes and the bottom contains those with the lowest incomes.

The statement that has been replaced is correct. The difference between household income levels in the highest and lowest income quintiles had nearly doubled between 1994-95 and 2013-14.

But it has been expunged from the version of the report that can be downloaded from the AIHW website, even though careful readers will note that one instance of it still survives unexpurgated on page 355.

The changes struck me as weird at the time.

Errata are normally reserved for correcting or removing gross errors of fact discovered after printing. In this case, the changes simply replaced a factually correct statement of what the data showed (that income inequality had gone up substantially) with one that was far more qualified.

I find it inconceivable that those responsible for producing such a well-researched, meticulously-checked, authoritative and extensively assessed (internally and externally) report would, at this very late stage, have decided to insist on the change themselves.

Read more: Don’t believe what they say about inequality. Some of us are worse off

So did the Institute give in to external pressure to conform and fall in behind the (incorrect) government line that income inequality hasn’t grown? It’s hard to think of another explanation.

If this is the case, what the Institute did is made it easier for the Bureau of Statistics to dilute the message of its own statistics two years later.

Even stranger still…

One of the most bizarre aspects of this whole episode is that the current government has been actively pursuing policies designed to increase inequality – at least in the short-run – through substantial tax cuts for those at the top, and resistance to raising Newstart for those at the bottom.

Both have been justified on the grounds that widening income gaps will increase incentives to work and save and encourage more Australians to “have a go”.

It thus seems odd for the government to try to suppress or alter information that shows two of its policies working as planned, if that’s what’s happened here.

Read more: There’s a reason you’re feeling no better off than 10 years ago. Here’s what HILDA says about well-being

We need reliable and accurate data on inequality in order to monitor all aspects of our progress and tell whether programs are working as intended. Massaging presentations to make it look as if less is happening than actually is doesn’t serve public policy well.

The agencies that provide this data must abide by the strongest possible standards to ensure the integrity of their data. As far as is known, they do. But those standards have to extend to the presentation of their data. Without that, we will become less than we are, and we will have less idea of what we are doing.

– ref. Another official Australian report has been doctored to gloss over rising inequality – http://theconversation.com/another-official-australian-report-has-been-doctored-to-gloss-over-rising-inequality-123091

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

A senior Liberal backbencher, Russell Broadbent, has strongly attacked the government’s legislation for mandatory sentencing for serious child sex offences under federal law and indicated he won’t vote for it in parliament.

Attorney-General Christian Porter specifically acknowledged the Victorian MP’s criticism – which was made at a backbench committee meeting on Monday – when briefing the Coalition parties on the legislation on Tuesday.

Broadbent has made it clear he would not vote for the bill, which will be introduced into parliament on Wednesday.

But he would not cross the floor – he wouldn’t be present for a vote.

Porter argued for the plan on the grounds that the sentencing had not been adequate in these cases.

But at Monday’s meeting Broadbent, a moderate, said mandatory sentencing interfered with the separation of powers, and removed the option for judges to take into account the particular circumstances of a case.

Announcing the details of the legislation last week Porter said 28% of child sex offenders convicted of federal offences in 2018-19 served no jail time.

Among those who got jail sentences “the average length of time that offenders spent in custody was just 18 months,” Porter said.

The government says that as well as mandatory sentencing, the legislation will

• have a presumption against bail for serious and repeat offenders

• increase maximum penalties, including up to life imprisonment for the most serious offences

• contain presumptions in favour of cumulative sentences and actual imprisonment

• ensure all sex offenders, when released, are adequately supervised

• prevent courts discounting sentences on the grounds of good character where this was used to facilitate the crime.

Labor is opposed in principle to mandatory sentencing but has indicated it may agree to it when it is tied to child protection.

A spokesman for shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus said: “We haven’t yet seen the detail of this bill. When the government releases the bill we will go through our usual parliamentary processes. We will consider it in light of the advice from experts on how to best keep our children safe.”

The Law Council of Australia has opposed the mandatory sentencing plan, saying “sentencing is not a one-size-fits-all exercise, but this is the effect mandatory sentencing has.”

In 2000 three Liberal backbenchers, Petro Georgiou, Danna Vale, and Peter Nugent threatened to cross the floor over mandatory sentencing of Aboriginal juveniles in the Northern Territory. They were instrumental in stopping the practice. But Broadbent was not in parliament then – he had been defeated in 1998 and did not return until 2004.

– ref. Liberal moderate Russell Broadbent will not vote for government’s mandatory sentencing legislation – http://theconversation.com/liberal-moderate-russell-broadbent-will-not-vote-for-governments-mandatory-sentencing-legislation-123273

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sunanda Creagh, Head of Digital Storytelling

Everywhere you turn these days, there’s a diet ad, or family member or friend raving about some new diet that apparently works wonders.

But what does the research actually say about how to lose weight – and if you even need to lose it in the first place?

To find out, The Conversation’s Alexandra Hansen interviewed Clare Collins, a professor in nutrition and dietetics at the University of Newcastle.

Professor Collins, who recently wrote an article titled The science behind diet trends like mono, charcoal detox, Noom and Fast800, also designed a free online course called The science of weight loss – dispelling diet myths.

Alexandra began by asking Clare Collins how a person would know if they needed to change their diet.

Read more: The science behind diet trends like mono, charcoal detox, Noom and Fast800

New to podcasts?

Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click here to listen to Trust Me, I’m An Expert on Pocket Casts).

You can also hear us on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Trust Me, I’m An Expert.

Read more: Health Check: what’s the best diet for weight loss?

Additional reading:

The Australian Guide to Healthy Eating

Credits:

Recording and editing by Wes Mountain and Chynthia Wijaya, additional editing by Sunanda Creagh.

Additional audio

Kindergarten by Unkle Ho, from Elefant Traks.

CNN report.

BBC report.

Images

Shutterstock

– ref. Trust Me, I’m An Expert: what science says about how to lose weight and whether you really need to – http://theconversation.com/trust-me-im-an-expert-what-science-says-about-how-to-lose-weight-and-whether-you-really-need-to-122635

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dale Dominey-Howes, Professor of Hazards and Disaster Risk Sciences, University of Sydney

Spring has barely arrived, and bushfires are burning across Australia’s eastern seaboard. More than 50 fires are currently burning in New South Wales, and some 15,000 hectares have burned in Queensland since late last week.

It’s the first time Australia has seen such strong fires this early in the bushfire season. While fire is a normal part of Australia’s yearly cycle and no two years are alike, what we are seeing now is absolutely not business as usual.

Read more: Grim fire season looms but many Australians remain unprepared

And although these bushfires are not directly attributable to climate change, our rapidly warming climate, driven by human activities, is exacerbating every risk factor for more frequent and intense bushfires.

The basics of a bushfire

For some bushfire 101, a bushfire is “an uncontrolled, non-structural fire burning in grass, scrub, bush or forest”. This means the fire is in vegetation, not a building (non-structural), and raging across the landscape – hence, uncontrolled.

For a bushfire to get started, several things need to come together. You need fuel, low humidity (which also often means the fuel itself has a low moisture content and is easier to burn), and oxygen. It also helps to have an unusually high ambient temperature and winds to drive the fire forward.

In Australia, we divide bushfires into two types based on the shape and elevation of the landscape.

First are flat grassland bushfires. These are generally fast-moving, fanned by winds blowing across flattish open landscapes, and burn through an area in 5–10 seconds and may smoulder for a few minutes. They usually have low to medium intensity and can damage to crops, livestock and buildings. These fires are easy to map and fight due to relatively straightforward access.

Read more: The summer bushfires you didn’t hear about, and the invasive species fuelling them

Second are hilly or mountainous bushfires. These fires are slower-moving but much more intense, with higher temperatures. As they usually occur in forested, mountainous areas, they also have more dead vegetation to burn and are harder to access and fight.

They burn slowly, passing through an area in 2-5 minutes and can smoulder for days. Fires in upper tree canopies move very fast. Mountainous bushfires actually speed up as they burn up a slope (since they heat and dry out the vegetation and atmosphere in front of the fire, causing a runaway process of accelerating fire movement).

Climate change and bushfire risk

To be clear, as previously reported, the current bushfires are not specifically triggered by climate change.

However, as bushfire risk is highest in warm to hot, dry conditions with low humidity, low soil and fuel load moisture (and are usually worse during El Niño situations) – all factors that climate change in Australia affects – climate change is increasing the risk of more frequent and intense bushfires.

Widespread drought conditions, very low humidity, higher than average temperatures in many places, and strong westerly winds driven by a negative Southern Annular Mode (all made worse by human-induced climate change) have collided right now over large areas of the eastern seaboard, triggering extremely unusual bushfire conditions – certainly catching many communities unawares before the start of the official bushfire season.

Read more: The air above Antarctica is suddenly getting warmer – here’s what it means for Australia

Different regions of Australia have traditionally experienced peak bushfire weather at different times. This has meant that individual households, communities and the emergency services have had specific periods of the year to prepare. These patterns now seem to be breaking down, and bushfires are happening outside these regular places and times.

New challenges for the emergency services

While experts recently forecast a worse-than-average coming bushfire season, the current emergency has essentially exploded out of nowhere.

Many Australian communities do know how to prepare but there is always some apathy at the start of bushfire season around getting households and communities bushfire-ready. When it’s still relatively cold and feeling like the last whisps of winter are still affecting us, bushfire preparation seems very far off.

Compounding our worsening bushfire conditions, we are increasingly building in bushfire-prone areas, exposing people and homes to fire. This tips the scales of risk further in favour of catastrophic losses. Sadly too, these risks always disproportionately affect the most vulnerable.

Read more: Natural disasters are affecting some of Australia’s most disadvantaged communities

With such extensive fires over wide areas, the current emergency points to an extremely frightening future possibility: that emergency services become more and more stretched, responding to fires, floods, storms, tropic cyclones and a myriad other natural hazards earlier in each hazard season, increasingly overlapping.

Our emergency services do an amazing job but their resources and the energy of their staff and volunteers can only go so far.

Regularly the emergency services of one area or state are deployed to other areas to help respond to emergencies.

But inevitably, we will see large-scale disasters occurring simultaneously in multiple territories, making it impossible to share resources. Our emergency management workforce report they are already stressed and overworked, and losing the capacity to share resources will only exacerbate this.

Immediate challenges will be to continue funding emergency management agencies across the nation, ensuring the workforce has the necessary training and experience to plan and respond to a range of complex emergencies, and making sure local communities are involved in actively planning for emergencies.

– ref. Climate change is bringing a new world of bushfires – http://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-bringing-a-new-world-of-bushfires-123261

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Renae Barker, Lecturer in Law, University of Western Australia

Sometimes legal disputes are about more than money. Sometimes what is really wanted is an apology – an acknowledgement of wrongful treatment. As former President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Sir Ronald Wilson, said in White v Gollan, an apology can restore a complainant’s “sense of dignity and self-worth”.

If the federal government’s proposed Religious Discrimination Bill becomes law, a person seeking an apology for religious discrimination will have a new avenue to do so.

As the law stands, the only federal protection against religious discrimination is in the Fair Work Act 2019. While a court can order remedies such as reinstatement or monetary compensation, there appears to be no case under the Fair Work Act which an employer has been ordered by a court to apologise for unlawful termination on the basis of discrimination – religious or otherwise.

Read more: Religious Discrimination Bill is a mess that risks privileging people of faith above all others

In contrast, an apology can be ordered under the proposed Religious Discrimination Act in conjunction with the existing remedy provisions of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986.

The Religious Discrimination Bill has been modelled, in part, on the Racial Discrimination Act. Like the Racial Discrimination Act, complaints made under the proposed Religious Discrimination Act will be made initially to the Australian Human Rights Commission. They may then be referred to the Federal Court if the parties are unable to resolve their dispute.

One of the orders the Federal Court can make is for an apology. The Human Rights Commission Act allows a court to make an order requiring a respondent “to perform any reasonable act or course of conduct to redress any loss or damage suffered by an applicant”. This can include an order to make a private and/or public apology.

There are several cases in which a court has ordered an apology for racial discrimination. In White v Gollan, for example, a publican was ordered to send a written apology and publish an apology in a newspaper circulating in the district after he refused to serve two people in the public bar because they were Aboriginal.

Courts consider that the aims of anti-discrimination legislation sometimes can be advanced by an order to apologise for unlawful discrimination.

In this respect, Israel Folau’s case highlights a difference between orders made under the Fair Work Act and orders that will be available under the proposed Religious Discrimination Act.

Earlier this year, Folau called for an apology from Rugby Australia. He said:

First and foremost I am hoping for an apology from Rugby Australia and an acknowledgement that even if they disagree with my views I should be free to peacefully express my religious beliefs without fear of retribution or exclusion.

Israel Folau’s lawyer, George Haros, has said an apology would “come a long way to resolving the dispute”.

However, Rugby Australia’s Chief Executive, Raelene Castle, has so far ruled out an apology, saying:

…inclusion means inclusion for everybody, and we’ve got portions of our community who were very hurt and upset by Israel’s comments, hence why we are in this situation.

The parties to the Folau case go to mediation on December 13. If that fails, the case will go to court in February next year. In his statement of claim, Folau has sought an apology. He will need to persuade the court that an apology order is necessary to “remedy” the effects of wrongful termination under the Act. However, obtaining an apology as an order rather than by negotiation is a long shot.

Read more: Why Christians disagree over the Israel Folau saga

Given Rugby Australia’s reluctance to apologise so far, even if the court ordered an apology, would there be any point?

Some state tribunals have recognised that a distinction can be drawn between a personal, sincere and heartfelt apology, which cannot be compelled, and an apology that is an acknowledgement of wrongdoing under anti-discrimination legislation.

Despite the fact some judges regard an ordered apology as a contradiction in terms, identified benefits include a complainant receiving the remedy they seek, and public acknowledgement of unlawful conduct, which in turn promotes the aims of anti-discrimination laws.

Further, some cases show that once wrongdoing is found, those initially unwilling to apologise may be willing to do so. Finally, an ordered apology may restore a party’s sense of self-worth and dignity.

Undeniably, monetary compensation can be an important to remedy for the harmful effects of discrimination. Yet the opportunity to receive an apology order may prove to be an important additional remedy under the proposed legislation.

– ref. How might an apology feature in the new religious freedom bill? – http://theconversation.com/how-might-an-apology-feature-in-the-new-religious-freedom-bill-122873

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Allen, PhD candidate researching galaxy formation and evolution, Swinburne University of Technology

Over the weekend, India attempted to make history by becoming just the fourth nation to successfully land a probe on the Moon. It came agonisingly close, but after journeying millions of kilometres, the Vikram lander lost contact in the final few hundred metres and crash-landed on the lunar surface.

But it would be both unfair and plain wrong to label the mission a failure.

Two-month trip

After a postponed launch, India’s Chandrayaan-2 spacecraft began its journey to the Moon on July 22.

Onboard it carried the Vikram lander and Pragyan rover, equipped to search the lunar south pole for water and other valuable resources. Everything seemed to be going according to plan. Chandrayaan-2 completed several orbits around Earth and then the Moon, slowly making its way closer to the lunar surface and taking photographs the whole time.

On September 2, the Vikram lander separated and began to make its descent. All communications were normal until the lander was within 2km of its goal.

Then it went silent – a space engineer’s worst nightmare.

Vikram, do you copy?

So far, the Indian Space Research Organisation’s (ISRO) engineers have not been able to reestablish communications with the lander. It’s likely Vikram landed with enough force to damage its communications equipment, as well as other instruments.

But all hope was not lost, as Chandrayaan-2 remained in orbit above the Moon and, with its high-resolution camera, was able to spot the lander. If oriented favourably, Vikram could still manage to power itself up.

ISRO has not admitted defeat and will keep trying to connect to Vikram for the next two weeks. However, the chances of success diminish with time.

While the Chandrayaan-2 mission has not gone as expected, it cannot be called a failure. The Chandrayaan-2 orbiter will continue to monitor the Moon for up to seven years and the high-resolution images it takes will be vital to future international efforts to land on the Moon.

Technically a success

The near success of Vikram’s landing should be celebrated. To appreciate just how hard it is, let’s delve into some physics.

Earth is rotating and also hurtling through space at more than 100,000km per hour. The Moon is almost 400,000km away and travelling around 4,000km per hour as it orbits Earth.

To reach the Moon, you first have to escape Earth’s gravity and ensure you’re going at the right speed to orbit Earth a few times before moving far enough to be caught by the Moon. Then you slowly decrease your distance to the lunar surface, inching closer over several orbits until you are low enough to use powered assistance to land.

Read more: India has it right: nations either aim for the Moon or get left behind in the space economy

It took the United States and Russia decades to design, plan and execute missions to the Moon. In fact, the ISRO was founded shortly after the successful Apollo 11 mission.

We should applaud the hard work India has done over the past 50 years to get this far. This sentiment was clear as Indian prime minister Narendra Modi addressed his country, all of whom stood in solidarity with the scientists who spent countless hours in pursuit of their goal.

A global space community

The story of the Indian lander echoes that of the failed Israeli landing attempt earlier this year.

The Beresheet lander was built by private company SpaceIL, which was chasing the coveted Google Lunar XPrize when an engine malfunction caused it to swan dive into the Moon’s surface.

I mention this mission to reiterate just how hard the task is, but also to demonstrate that the old Cold War space superpowers are no longer the only ones in the game. Countries and even private companies across the world are gaining spacefaring capabilities and undertaking incredible missions that will enable humankind to go further than ever before.

In the next five years, more than a dozen missions to the Moon from six different countries, including Japan and Korea, are slated. This doesn’t include NASA’s ambitious Artemis mission that seeks to put the first woman on the Moon.

Read more: Five reasons India, China and other nations plan to travel to the Moon

But as the cliché goes, with great power comes great responsibility.

Now that countries across the world can send things into space, we must have solidarity as a global spacefaring community to consider how our actions up there will affect us on Earth and to ensure long-term success in space ventures.

This is not the last international space mission you will hear about in the news this year.

In coming years, we may even be discussing Australian ventures into space – and maybe even to the Moon itself.

– ref. India’s moon mission should be considered a success, and a lesson in spacefaring – http://theconversation.com/indias-moon-mission-should-be-considered-a-success-and-a-lesson-in-spacefaring-123171

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Suzanne Mahady, Gastroenterologist & Clinical Epidemiologist, Senior Lecturer, Monash University

Australia has one of the highest rates of bowel cancer in the world. In 2017, bowel cancer was the second most common cancer in Australia and rates are increasing in people under 50.

Up to 35% of cancers worldwide might be caused by lifestyle factors such as diet and smoking. So how can we go about reducing our risk of bowel cancer?

Read more: What’s behind the increase in bowel cancer among younger Australians?

What to eat

Based on current evidence, a high fibre diet is important to reduce bowel cancer risk. Fibre can be divided into 2 types: insoluble fibre, which creates a bulky stool that can be easily passed along the bowel; and soluble fibre, which draws in water to keep the stool soft.

Fibre from cereal and wholegrains is an ideal fibre source. Australian guidelines suggest aiming for 30g of fibre per day for adults, but fewer than 20% of Australian adults meet that target.

Wheat bran is one of the richest sources of fibre, and in an Australian trial in people at high risk of bowel cancer, 25g of wheat bran reduced precancerous growths. Wheat bran can be added to cooking, smoothies and your usual cereal.

It’s not clear how fibre may reduce bowel cancer risk but possible mechanisms include reducing the time it takes food to pass through the gut (and therefore exposure to potential carcinogens), or through a beneficial effect on gut bacteria.

Once bowel cancer is diagnosed, a high fibre diet has also been associated with improved survival.

Read more: Interactive body map: what really gives you cancer?

Milk and dairy products are also thought to reduce bowel cancer risk. The evidence for milk is graded as “probably protective” in current Australian bowel cancer guidelines, with the benefit increasing with higher amounts.

Oily fish may also have some protective elements. In people with hereditary conditions that make them prone to developing lots of precancerous growths (polyps) in the bowel, a trial where one group received a daily supplement of an omega 3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (found in fish oil) and one group received a placebo, found that this supplement was associated with reduced polyp growth. Whether this is also true for people at average risk of bowel cancer, which is most of the population, is unknown.

And while only an observational study (meaning it only shows a correlation, and not that one caused the other), a study of bowel cancer patients showed improved survival was associated with daily consumption of coffee.

What to avoid

It’s best to avoid large quantities of meat. International cancer authorities affirm there is convincing evidence for a relationship between high meat intake and bowel cancer. This includes red meat, derived from mammalian muscle such as beef, veal, lamb, pork and goat, and processed meat such as ham, bacon and sausages.

Processed meats have undergone a preservation technique such as smoking, salting or the addition of chemical preservatives which are associated with the production of compounds that may be carcinogenic.

Evidence also suggests a “dose-response” relationship, with cancer risk rising with increasing meat intake, particularly processed meats. Current Australian guidelines suggest minimising intake of processed meats as much as possible, and eating only moderate amounts of red meat (up to 100g per day).

What else can I do to reduce the risk of bowel cancer?

The key to reducing cancer risk is leading an overall healthy lifestyle. Adequate physical activity and avoiding excess fat around the tummy area is important. Other unhealthy lifestyle behaviours such as eating lots of processed foods have been associated with increased cancer risk.

And for Australians over 50, participating in the National Bowel Cancer Screening program is one of the most effective, and evidence-based ways, to reduce your risk.

Read more: INTERACTIVE: We mapped cancer rates across Australia – search for your postcode here

– ref. Here’s what you can eat and avoid to reduce your risk of bowel cancer – http://theconversation.com/heres-what-you-can-eat-and-avoid-to-reduce-your-risk-of-bowel-cancer-120084

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sandra Gattenhof, Associate professor, Queensland University of Technology

There has been renewed scrutiny in recent weeks about spending on private school capital works. Alongside science labs, sporting fields, and “wellbeing spaces”, many of Australia’s richest schools feature elaborate performing arts centres.

Melbourne’s Wesley College’s redevelopment, for example, includes a $21 million music school and $2.3 million visual arts and design precinct. Meanwhile, programs for disadvantaged students who show artistic talent have relied on volunteers and small grants.

Usually comparisons between public and private schooling focus on academic or sporting outcomes – but what of creative education?

Increased engagement in arts education has wide ranging benefits for academic and social outcomes – and those most at risk have the most to gain. Research has long shown the arts offer many benefits beyond “art for arts sake”, with health, social and economic benefits which offer both private and public value.

Confidence gained from arts programs, and their capacity to support healthy risk taking improves academic outcomes and student behaviour. For teachers, the arts can be a way of connecting to children who struggle with conventional approaches.

An uncommon experience

Last year, the ABC’s Don’t Stop The Music showcased the work of the inspirational principal and staff at Challis Primary School, a disadvantaged school in the Perth suburbs.

Through a public donation program, the school was able to provide students with musical instruments to loan and access to music education experts. Over the series, we saw how engagement in the arts supports academic, social and emotional development – as well as redressing issues such as attrition and disengagement.

The program was lauded by school staff, parents and children, but it is not the common experience of students in Australian public schools.

Measuring creativity and the effects of arts engagement is not simple. But this will be the challenge for evaluators such as Programme for International Student Assessment, which will track creativity and critical thinking from 2021. The 2015 Australian PISA scores across reading literacy, mathematical literacy and scientific literacy placed in the middle performance range. An outcome of the measuring creativity may result in greater funding to public schools to lift the score depending on the outcome.

A non-national Australian curriculum

In 2011, then Minister of the Arts Peter Garrett enshrined arts into the Australian Curriculum.

This historic move meant all Australian children and young people would be entitled to arts education from their first moment of early schooling to the end of year 10.

But the implementation of this arts curriculum has not been fully realised. This is a result of two factors: the lack of training in arts delivery in tertiary teaching courses across Australia, and the lack of infrastructure and resources in public schools.

Don’t Stop The Music starkly showed the results of underfunding and sub-optimalfacilities for arts programs. The music program would not have been successful without the donations of instruments and additional support from external experts.

By contrast, the 2011 documentary Mrs Carey’s Concert focused on the music program at MLC School in Burwood, NSW – with its double-storey music centre – and the students’ biennial performance at the Sydney Opera House. In Don’t Stop the Music, students from Challis Primary School made do with practising in the library, staff room, or whatever empty space they can find.

Their support didn’t come from a multimillion dollar venue but from the tenacity of teachers who believed deeply in their students.

Rights of the Child

The United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child states that all governments:

shall respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in cultural and artistic life and shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure activity.

Scott Rankin, CEO and Creative Director of Big hART, one of Australia’s leading arts and social change organisations, takes this further:

Culture is far from recreational, elitist or optional. It is an issue of justice, which plays out in pragmatic ways, as an essential service.

The centrality of the arts in the lives of children and young people is key to developing entrepreneurship, social intelligence, problem solving and critical thinking skills, which are becoming increasingly essential as preparation for work in the 21st century.

The career outcomes for students who had access to state-of-the-art creative facilities versus those who did not have yet to be quantified in Australia. In 2016, British research showed that award-winning actors there were over twice as likely to have been educated at an independent school. Conversely, this was not true of popular musicians.

If inequitable education funding continues, Australia’s children and young people in low socio-economic or marginalised communities will not have the creative skills and innovation mindsets to see them become successful and productive citizens both now and in the future.

It’s time to reprioritise funding and direct it to Australia’s creative kids who could most benefit.

– ref. Arts education helps school students learn and socialise. We must invest in it – http://theconversation.com/arts-education-helps-school-students-learn-and-socialise-we-must-invest-in-it-122199

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

The relationship between ministers and the Australian public service has transformed from a partnership to one more like “master-servant”, with the “master” including the minister’s staff, according to former senior bureaucrat Andrew Podger.

Podger, who headed various federal departments and was public service commissioner, said this had come about through the “thickening” of the interaction between the public service and ministers, coupled with the professionalisation of politics.

Delivering the Parliamentary Library Lecture on Tuesday, Podger said the incentives for senior public servants had changed, and this had affected the way they acted.

“Controlling the public service to minimise political risk is too often given more weight than taking advantage of the intellectual capacity and administrative experience the APS has to offer’”, he said.

Some senior public servants tried to demonstrate “responsiveness” to please their “masters” “by devoting resources to more tactical and immediate support than to strategic and longer term advice”.

This was, in the term coined by the late Peter Aucoin, a Canadian expert on public administration, to exercise “promiscuous partisanship” – “a willingness to go too far in supporting the elected government’s political agenda and then switching when government changes, going too far again in supporting the new government’s political agenda.

“They presumably think this demonstrates non-partisanship, but it really just prostitutes the professional apolitical role of the APS, blurring the line between the role of the APS and that of ministerial staff and undermining the confidence of the parliament and the public in the APS as an apolitical institution,” Podger said.

His observations come ahead of the release of the Thodey review of the APS and after Scott Morrison has made it clear that he sees the service’s role as primarily implementation of the government’s agenda, downplaying its provision of wider advice.

Podger said he thought the view that a more independent public service offered ministers greater political risk than benefit “is more often the view of ministerial staff than ministers themselves”.

“A government genuinely determined to improve services to Australians and to pursue policies in our long-term interests should value a highly capable civil service.”

He was hopeful Morrison on reflection “takes a broader view of the important role of the APS that goes beyond service delivery and implementation of government policies, to encompass strategic policy advice that is taken seriously”.

Challenges the government would face, including those identified by Morrison in relation to the economy and global uncertainty, would require calling on expert bureaucratic advice, he said.

“Investing in the capability of the APS and nurturing it as an institution is a particular responsibility of any prime minister.”

Podger said the role of the public service commissioner needed strengthening. This was “particularly in light of the common practice in recent decades of prime ministers appointing individuals known and favoured personally by them as secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet”.

Morrison has recently appointed Phil Gaetjens as head of the Prime Minister’s department. Gaetjens was chief of staff to Morrison when he was treasurer.

“The APS needs a clear and separate professional head of the service, focused on stewardship of the APS and its capability to serve future governments as well as the current one,” Podger said.

“The secretary of PM&C is the operational head, marshalling the resources of the APS to meet the requirements and lawful directions of the prime minister and the cabinet.”

Podger urged a more independent process for appointing departmental heads, with the APS commissioner taking the lead role in advising on secretary appointments.

Under this process, the prime minister would be required to consider advice from a panel led by the commissioner and including up to two other secretaries selected by the commissioner. If the PM did not follow the panel’s advice, he or she would have to table in parliament the reasons for selecting someone else.

– ref. Don’t practice ‘promiscuous partisanship’, former public service commissioner warns bureaucrats – http://theconversation.com/dont-practice-promiscuous-partisanship-former-public-service-commissioner-warns-bureaucrats-123181

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Philippa Martyr, Lecturer, Pharmacology, Women’s Health, School of Biomedical Sciences, UWA, University of Western Australia

Would you like to go to your local pharmacy and buy prescription medicines without seeing the doctor first? Or would you like to collect your prescription medicines at the local supermarket?

These are some of the options canvassed now the Commonwealth government is negotiating the seventh Community Pharmacy Agreement with pharmacists.

Read more: Explainer: what is the Community Pharmacy Agreement?

Groups representing pharmacists and doctors are putting forward their own cases about how health care should be delivered in Australia, where it’s delivered and who delivers it.

Arguments are playing out as a type of “turf war” between the professions as each side discusses which is the safest, most cost-effective way to deliver health care over the next five years.

But the professions haven’t always existed as we know them today. And current “turf wars” are not new. In fact, history shows us the changing nature of the professions since medieval times.

Read more: Forget folk remedies, Medieval Europe spawned a golden age of medical theory

Modern pharmacy traces its origins to the medieval apothecary. But so does modern medical practice. That’s because the job of apothecary doesn’t line up neatly with modern ideas of “doctor” and “pharmacist”.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, apothecaries could do pretty much anything: diagnose, create medicines from raw materials, and administer drastic remedies like bleeding and purging.

By colonial times, medicine in Australia was largely unregulated and based on enthusiastic self-help. Home medicine chests were popular. They contained often-deadly raw materials such as antimony and opium for preparing home remedies for everything from constipation to breast cancer.

In remote areas, trained doctors could clash with other healers who prescribed, dosed, bound wounds, delivered children, pulled teeth and set fractures.

Medicine was a matter of “buyer beware”. You took your chances with your own medical theories, recipes and dosages. People also expected to buy whatever medical ingredients they needed from the nearest available shop – whether it was a pharmacy, a feed store or a grocer.

It took determined action from groups of British-trained doctors to impose legal order, placing their own profession at the top of the healing tree.

But many colonial legislators weren’t convinced doctors were really experts in health care. Parliamentary debates revealed stories about bad, trained doctors and good, untrained healers.

Legislators knew laws didn’t always protect people from careless medical or pharmacy practice. In Colac in Victoria in 1880, a pharmacist’s apprentice accidentally put ammonia rather than morphine in a medicine and killed a child.

When colonial doctors were asked to assess pharmacy qualifications, sometimes they knew so little they had to register everyone who presented themselves as qualified.

Over the course of the 20th century, Australia’s medical and pharmacy laws gradually limited pharmacists to preparing and dispensing medicines.

At the same time, poisons legislation reduced the range of drugs available over the counter. These included “patent medicines”, ready-made mixtures, some of which worked, some of which contained very little medicine.

The boundaries change again

Since then, the boundaries of what each profession is allowed to do has changed once more.

Now, pharmacists can dispense medication without a prescription for people receiving stable treatment. This only includes medicines like the contraceptive pill and drugs for high levels of blood fats (like statins). Pharmacists can also give flu vaccines.

And some pharmacists want to do more. A March 2019 review found Western Australian pharmacists want to be able to prescribe medications for chronic illnesses like asthma and diabetes.

Read more: Drunken midwives and snooty surgeons: a short history of giving birth

There are also some new players in the game. The giant retailer Chemist Warehouse wants to dispense prescription drugs free to pensioners in Australia, as it does in New Zealand. Convenience stores like 7-Eleven now want to sell prescription medicines. And pharmacies may one day operate out of supermarkets.

When pharmacists won the right to administer flu shots, they were accused of taking money away from GP practices. Now, GPs are asking for the right to own pharmacies attached to their practices.

Read more: Relaxing pharmacy ownership rules could result in more chemist chains and poorer care

Deregulation arguments come full circle

The world of unregulated medicine has gradually became more tightly managed, but now we are hearing calls for deregulation.

Doctors and pharmacists have always talked about protecting the public from risks. But there are other factors involved, like having a monopoly on an expensive product.

If GPs and pharmacists provide similar services, it’s easy to ask why one group has to train far longer than the other, and be paid more than the other.

How this current turf war will end up is anyone’s guess.

– ref. How rivalries between doctors and pharmacists turned into the ‘turf war’ we see today – http://theconversation.com/how-rivalries-between-doctors-and-pharmacists-turned-into-the-turf-war-we-see-today-122534

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tracey-Ann Palmer, Lecturer, Initial Teacher Education, University of Technology Sydney

Thousands of Year 10 students are in the process of choosing subjects for their final years of school and half will probably choose to ditch science.

For someone like me who thinks science is one of the most worthwhile things I’ve ever studied, that decision is bewildering.

The downward trend in science enrolments has been watched with concern for decades and is the subject of much research.

Read more: Curious Kids: how was maths discovered? Who made up the numbers and rules?

But still science continues to be out of favour with teens despite its potential use in a wide range of employment opportunities, beyond the traditional science careers.

Teens live in a world of science

Today’s teenagers have gown up in a world shaped by science. Most don’t know life without the internet and have the world at their fingertips (and parents to help) through computers, smartphones and other connected devices.

Schools are doing what they can to try to teach students the skills they need to prosper in a future that continues to be shaped by science, with increased use of automation, artificial intelligence and so on.

You would think students in this environment would jump at science as a subject that teaches critical thinking and problem solving – just the skills needed in this modern world.

But that’s just not happening.

There are plenty of books written on why students aren’t choosing science and government reports on why we need more science skills, so you might wonder what hasn’t been done.

That’s where my research comes in. I have studied as a scientist, teacher and marketer and I thought the problem might not be science at all, but how students see science compared to the other subjects they can choose. To me it looked like a purchase decision.

How students choose subjects

I wanted to know how students chose their subjects and how they saw science, so I asked them.

Initially, I spoke to 50 students from five New South Wales schools and then 15 adults (careers advisers and teachers) who helped students make their choices. I went to the information events at these schools and reviewed the subject choice documents given to students.

Next, a group of 379 Year 10 students were surveyed to ask about their subject choices. They were asked to rank 21 factors I found students considered when they chose their subjects. These factors included things such as parent advice, teacher advice, enjoyment of a subject, subject difficulty and the expected mark.

What I found was that the students seemed to use a two-stage process to choose their five to six subjects. The first stage was a choice on “love” or “hate” (they used those words). Then, with any subjects left over, they judged the value of the subject compared to the others available.

This value was in terms of how useful a subject was for a career or further study, and how much effort they would need to put in to get good marks. Unfortunately, this is where things go wrong for science.

Science looks like the bad buy

Students reported more often (16 against 7) that they saw science as harder than other subjects, and as harder to get marks. Students didn’t say they wanted to avoid work – it just had to be worth it.

Unfortunately, science has a problem here too. Students repeatedly commented that science wasn’t as useful as other subjects – unless you wanted to be a doctor, scientist, engineer or something similar.

I did not see anything at any of the school subject selection events that countered this idea. This makes science look like the bad buy. It’s seen as expensive in terms of time and effort to get marks, and as having limited use.

Yet science is useful in a range of careers, from carpentry to management and many other roles – basically any career that needs answers backed by evidence. Science helps us to understand and participate in the world in which we live.

But this is not clear to students. Their perception of the usefulness of science is very narrow, so there is no longer pressure to include it as a staple next to mathematics and English.

Seeing the value of science

Knowing this gives us something to work with. Along with all the other great work to help students love science, we can work on their perceptions of the value of science at the time they are choosing subjects.

Schools should invite people from a wide range of career backgrounds to come talk to students to share their ideas on how science is useful in their jobs.

Read more: Timely intervention: how Doctor Who shapes public attitudes to science

We can also do some very practical things to make sure science is at its most attractive when students are choosing subjects – for example, doing fun work in the lab and not scaring them with any challenging exam just before they choose.

These teenagers do not take subject choice lightly – they know they may be closing the doors on some paths. It would be wrong to convince students to take any subject that’s not right for them, but this is about helping them see the value of science.

If they see that value of science subjects through good information and good experiences then they may decide to stay with science, at least for a couple more years.

– ref. Keep your job options open and don’t ditch science when choosing next year’s school subjects – http://theconversation.com/keep-your-job-options-open-and-dont-ditch-science-when-choosing-next-years-school-subjects-123012

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa Dethridge, Coordinator Masters of Media Professional Research; Game Design Research, RMIT University

Review: Ride Like a Girl

Award-winning actor Rachel Griffiths takes the reins on a large cast and crew to direct and co-produce this timely biopic. We focus on a rambunctious, country family with finely drawn brother-sister and father-daughter subplots.

The luminous Teresa Palmer (Hacksaw Ridge, Berlin Syndrome, A Discovery of Witches) stars as Michelle Payne, first victorious female Melbourne Cup jockey. Sam Neil plays her stubborn dad Paddy, patriarch of Victoria’s Payne racing family.

Michelle’s loyal brother is played by real-life “best strapper in Australia” Stevie Payne, who outshines the large professional cast playing himself.

Griffiths successfully adapts to her first role as director and maintains tight rein on her crew. Showing knowledge and experience of Hollywood narrative techniques, she calls the shots with confidence. The story blends classic Hollywood storytelling with Australian feelgood family fare.

Kids will love this movie. It’s about farmyards; single dads; a wedding; a funeral; horses – falling off them and getting back on – all leading to a fast climax and a no-nonsense denouement that will please most audiences. Sound predictable? Maybe.

But this is the stuff parents have been waiting for. A fascinating rite-of-passage for a gutsy heroine; all the pageantry of the sport of kings, with a gorgeous local cast playing the real-life Payne family of champions. Griffiths makes sure our hearts warm as two outsiders, Michelle and brother Stevie, overcome all odds to achieve their international Melbourne Cup victory.

A hundred to one odds

So what does it take for a young woman to train for and win the Melbourne Cup at odds of a hundred to one? Michelle Payne lives with nine siblings (eight of them jockeys) on her dad’s horse farm near Ballarat, genteel capital of the old gold-mining district.

We first meet a feisty five-year-old who’s besting her siblings at back yard races. Dad helps her understand the racetrack and memorise the data on all prior Melbourne Cup jockeys. So horsey is she that Michelle sleeps in the stable and skips class at the country Catholic school where a comical nun (Magda Szubanski) first admonishes and then supports the girl’s ambition.

We meet Michelle again at 15 as she plans her racing victories with brother Stevie who plays himself, a young man with Down Syndrome, treated as a “blessing” by his family.

Audiences will be hooked by Stevie’s bubbly humour and his natural rapport with both horses and the camera. There is no challenge to himself or his sister that can disrupt their magic circle. The Cup will one day be theirs!

We follow teen apprentice Michelle as she runs to the city and waits patiently on the outskirts of the Caulfield racing establishment. She’s up before dawn, training and getting to know characters at the track; pushing to earn her place as a pro jockey in their world. Her relentless energy drives the action through the trials of paternal conflict and a disastrous fall that threatens her life.

The special on-track race cameras reveal strife, spills and scuffles but do not dwell on suffering or conflict. The camera stays on Michelle’s persistent hard work and will to succeed.

A jockey’s life is depicted as extreme sport. The wiry Michelle is in ceaseless physical training: crunches and pushups; vitamins for breakfast. We melt in our seats as she wraps herself in plastic bags to sweat off the last kilo before race day.

There is no sex, no guns, no drugs and no violence in this story. But there’s plenty of drama. Michelle rides on despite doctors’ warning that another fall could kill her. Her confrontations with officials show her steely but careful determination to sustain her place in the ranks.

Patient diplomacy

Palmer shows us Michelle’s patient diplomacy. She does not whinge when given a tiny changing room at the track. She’s scornfully unafraid when a trainer makes a lewd proposal. Perhaps as a result of her dealings with grumpy dad, she persuades resistant officials and horse owners that she’s worthy of a Cup ride.

Her cool head and superior horsemanship allow her to quietly and discretely upturn tradition. This softly-softly approach makes Michelle a feminine heroine with a tactful approach to sexual politics. By the final act, the racing fraternity support her every step of the way.

Ride Like a Girl is a feminised form of Joseph Campbell’s classic hero’s journey. We empathise with the passionate ambition of an heroic girl, pure of heart, with both maidenly and warrior traits.

Read more: Are you monomythic? Joseph Campbell and the hero’s journey

In one parody of a traditional romance scene, Michelle breathlessly confesses, “Dad, I’ve found ‘The One.’” He asks, “how many legs does this Prince of yours have?”

True to the maiden heroines of legend, Michelle’s first love is for animals, in this case her steed, the Prince of Penzance whom she rides to victory with tender encouragements.

In utterly classic form, our heroine tries, falls, dares again and wins. She shares the rewards with a brother who, like her, is vulnerable but determined. This story is indeed made sweeter knowing it is all true.

Ride Like a Girl will be released in Australiac cinemas on 26th September.

– ref. In Ride Like a Girl, Rachel Griffiths feminises the traditionally male hero’s journey – and warms hearts – http://theconversation.com/in-ride-like-a-girl-rachel-griffiths-feminises-the-traditionally-male-heros-journey-and-warms-hearts-122933

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Karg, Senior research fellow, Swinburne University of Technology

Australians love sport. Whether it be record crowds at the recent Boomers v USA basketball game, or the record numbers who sign up as loyal members of our professional teams, sport plays a major role in the Australian community.

However, it is not just what happens on the court or field that matters. A new survey from Swinburne University has found that Australians think sports organisations do more for the greater good than government, religious organisations, or business.

Read more: Trust in politicians and government is at an all-time low. The next government must work to fix that

This nationally representative survey of 1,000 people was a collaboration between Swinburne’s Sports Innovation Research Group and the Australian Leadership Index (ALI), a publicly available benchmark of leadership for the greater good across Australia.

The ALI tracks public perceptions and expectations of leadership for the greater good, as well as the drivers of perceived leadership for the greater good.

The findings show that 31.7% of people believe that sports organisations demonstrate leadership for the greater good to a “fairly large” or “extremely large” extent.

This is somewhat higher than local (30.2%) and state government (27%) and significantly higher than national businesses (24.6%) and the federal government (23.5%). Only charities and public sector institutions are perceived more favourably by the general community.

Why are sporting bodies such good community leaders?

From a community perspective, leadership for the public good occurs when leaders demonstrate high ethical standards, prioritise transparency and accountability even when it could have a negative impact on their administrations, and are responsive to the needs of the people they serve and the community.

Integrity and ethics are increasingly important considerations for sporting bodies – many of them now have dedicated units to deal with these matters.

Our survey found respondents’ perceptions of sporting bodies’ contribution to the greater good was driven primarily by how ethical they considered them to be.

The second most important factor was accountability — the extent to which institutions are seen to accept responsibility for their negative impacts.

Taken together, this suggests the responses of sport organisations to negative issues will have a critical impact on perceptions of their social leadership.

Such issues are common and often play out in public, high profile settings. Cricket Australia’s response to ball tampering and AFL’s responses to drugs, performance enhancing or otherwise, exemplify these issues.

Finally, the apparent focus of a sport on creating positive social outcomes, such as preventing discrimination and creating equal opportunities, was the third most important driver.

From national sport bodies to individual teams and athletes, sporting bodies increasingly engage in discretionary programs and initiatives – most commonly targeting health, education, gender equality, and social cohesion – to contribute to their communities.

Which sports organisations lead the way?

The initial stage of our research tested perceptions of a number of professional sports – those that operate with large administrative structures and generate significant revenue.

Of the sports we examined, netball was the ranked highest in terms of overall leadership for the greater good (34.2%). Netball Australia led the field in terms of perceived transparency, accountability and ethical standards.

The AFL (31.4%) was next best, scoring well in terms of its focus on creating positive social outcomes and its responsiveness to the people it serves.

Read more: Explainer: does Rugby Australia have legal grounds to sack Israel Folau for anti-gay social media posts?

Of the professional sports we examined, Rugby League (25.9%) and Rugby Union (24.5%) were seen as showing the least leadership for the greater good. Both scored low on accountability, ethical standards and focus on social value.

In the case of the latter, comments from the survey indicated there was significant controversy regarding the treatment of Israel Folau. Some respondents approved of the strong stand taken by Rugby Australia towards Folau. However, others regarded his treatment as excessive and motivated by commercial concerns rather than ethics.

Building community cohesion

In Australia, sport is organised across three levels: national, state and local. Of these, community clubs are the lifeblood of Australian sport.

Notably, community sports clubs are largely sustained by volunteers. At the community club level, volunteers include coaches, officials and administrators.

Although there are many reasons why people volunteer, one reason stems from volunteers’ public service motivation.

Community sport clubs build community cohesion, helping local people build friendships and social connections. Unlike large charitable organisations where there are concerns about donations being allocated to cover administrative costs, local organisations with high levels of community involvement – like community sport clubs – engender greater levels of public trust.

Consistent with this, our results show that 38.3% of Australians think community sport clubs demonstrate leadership for the greater good to a “fairly large” or “extremely large” extent. This is significantly better than the results obtained for State and National sport associations and Professional Sport Leagues.

Our results raise concerns related to recent predictions that local clubs will be replaced by larger sport organisations with corporate leadership and governance structures because of growing market pressures. A possible unintended consequence of this may be a corresponding decline in public trust in the leadership and governance of sport overall.

The benefits of leadership for social good

The majority of sport organisations in Australia are public bodies, reliant on public funding and support. The exception are larger corporate sport bodies, including professional leagues and sports, that have become self sufficient via commercial sport revenue streams.

These sports organisations share a desire to serve their communities. Our research affirms this notion, showing that sport organisations, especially community clubs, perform well in communities and compare favourably to other public and private bodies.

In the context of persistently low trust in institutions, in general, and government and business institutions, in particular, sport organisations appear to offer a glimmer of hope, and a powerful example, of leadership for the public good.

– ref. Best on ground: why Australians think sporting bodies provide strongest leadership for public good – http://theconversation.com/best-on-ground-why-australians-think-sporting-bodies-provide-strongest-leadership-for-public-good-122999

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daryl Sparkes, Senior Lecturer (Media Studies and Production), University of Southern Queensland

In Stephen King’s Pet Sematary, caretaker Jud Crandall warns against burying bodies in the old Indian burial ground. “They don’t come back the same”, the old man drawls, with a mix of desperation and horror in his voice.

If only television executives heeded this same advice.

Around the globe, recent reboots of some long loved, long dead, television programs highlight the unimaginative strategies studios are employing to out-manoeuvre each other in the race for higher ratings. Hitting our screens again of late have been the exhumed corpses of Beverly Hills 90210, Twin Peaks, Arrested Development, X-Files, Will & Grace and Roseanne, among others.

I’ve dubbed this “Zombie TV”. It’s the type that could have only been created by television programmers adhering to The Simpsons adage: “We’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas”.

Zombie reboots are old shows with the same cast and same locations. It’s like we’ve all just hitched a ride in Doc Brown’s DeLorean and teleported 20 years into the future. The latest Australian example is the beloved Seachange.

Read more: Curious Kids: Are zombies real?

Not much of a sea change

Originally on the ABC but now switched to Nine, this raising from the dead takes place 20 years after the original – but things don’t seem to have developed much for our characters in the years since.

Laura Gibson (Sigrid Thornton) is still dispensing her own brand of justice, Bob Jelly (John Howard) is still on the scrounge, and Heather Jelly (Kerry Armstrong) is still off with the pixies.

The underlying problem here is that a Channel Nine audience is very different to an ABC one – not least of all in age. The average age of an ABC viewer is 66; the average age of the Nine viewer is a sprightly 50.

Watching this reboot, it feels like writer Deb Cox has reacted to this audience change by writing in a much more light and flippant (if that’s possible) tone.

The comic aspects are at the fore while the drama (or melodrama) has been downplayed. Every scene has a comedic touch to it, so much so that the characters are more caricatures of their former selves. The brooding and at times poignant scenes of the original, such as Laura’s romances with Diver Dan (David Wenham) and Max Connors (William McInnes) have little place at Pearl Bay now – unless each ends with slapstick.

But the main issue is that what was fresh and relevant in 1998 isn’t in 2019.

Times have changed

Twenty years ago, many dreamed of escaping the city commute and chaos for the peaceful surrounds of a small town by the water. But high unemployment, sky-rocketing ocean view house prices, limited educational opportunities and reduced entertainment options have taken the gloss off small-town living.

Many of those who made the change previously are now returning to the cities for these exact reasons.

So what is the place of a Seachange reboot after the zeitgeist has passed?

Seachange always hooked itself on the one premise that life away from the cities was so much better. Everything else in it was pretty much (beloved) stock standard melodrama, and the reboot hasn’t shifted to reflect current societal issues. Without that hook is the attraction of the show just another nostalgia kick?

Mass grave robbery

Seachange, so far, seems unlikely to achieve the ratings success it is chasing. It premiered as the highest rating drama of 2019 with 787,000 metro viewers. By week two, a third of those viewers had been lost.

But it could still lead to mass grave robbery of Australian television programming. For television executives Zombie TV is a very enticing prospect. Australian networks need to abide by strict quotas on new drama, and original TV drama is risky – if it doesn’t work, heads can roll.

Bringing back an old, popular show, carries less risk – people tune in for nostalgia’s sake, at the very least. And, if it fails after that? Then the execs can claim, “It was huge 20 years ago, who knew it wouldn’t be now?” The failure is disowned.

Zombies have their origins in the voodoo religion of Haiti, where corpses were believed to be revived by black magic, becoming mindless creatures, or for slave labour or to carry out curses tormenting the living.

Maybe TV executives need to keep that in mind, too.

– ref. The new Seachange is a sad case of Zombie TV: when your favourite programs come back from the dead – http://theconversation.com/the-new-seachange-is-a-sad-case-of-zombie-tv-when-your-favourite-programs-come-back-from-the-dead-123162

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Terry Goldsworthy, Associate Professor in Criminology, Bond University

Last week, the Australasian Council of Women and Policing held its 2019 conference, with a focus on how law enforcement responds to women in the communities they serve and how police services can expand opportunities for women in leadership positions.

Although opportunities for women in policing have expanded over time, their overall numbers remain relatively low. Nationwide, about a third of all police personnel were women in 2017-18, but barriers remain to states achieving their goals of reaching 50-50 gender parity on police forces. Women are vastly underrepresented in senior roles, as well.

The changing role of women in policing

Women began to play a role in policing in the United Kingdom in the early 1900s, though this was initially limited to focusing on women and children impacted by war. By 1915, there were Women Police Service volunteer constables and officers patrolling streets across the country, though they were prevented from becoming a permanent part of the police force.

In the United States, Lola Baldwin became the country’s first sworn female police officer in the city of Portland, Oregon, in 1908. Baldwin focused on crime prevention in areas where women could be subject to predatory behaviours by men, such as dance halls and saloons.

As societal attitudes changed over time, the opportunities and roles for women in policing expanded. For example, in 1975, the Queensland Police Force established a specialised rape squad to handle crimes involving sexual assaults against women, creating an all-female team of investigators.

Women are still breaking into new areas of policing today. Queensland finally got its first female motorcycle officers in 2017, for instance, when two women passed the arduous three-week qualifying course.

Participation of women in policing

In the United States, women comprised just 12% of sworn police officers (police officers with general arrest powers) in 2014 – an increase of just four percentage points from 1987. It is worth noting, however, that women were better represented on police forces in bigger population centres.

Gender equity is slightly better in the United Kingdom, where women accounted for 30% of police officers in 2019, up from 26% in 2010.

Read more: #MeToo is not enough: it has yet to shift the power imbalances that would bring about gender equality

And in Australia, 33.6% of sworn and unsworn police personnel were women in 2017-18, up marginally from 32.2% in 2012-13, according to the Report on Government Services 2019. While most states have increased the number of women in their ranks in recent years, New South Wales and the Northern Territory have been trending in the opposite direction over the past 12 months.

Many police services across the country have now enacted strategies to achieve 50-50 gender equity for police staff. And several services, including the Australian Federal Police, have initiated independent reviews of their organisational culture and the prevalence of sex discrimination.

Breaking the glass ceiling and senior representation

The United Kingdom appointed its first female chief constable (Pauline Clare) in 1995. In 2017, Cressida Dick was then appointed the first female head of the Metropolitan Police – the UK’s largest police service.

In 2001, Christine Nixon was appointed Victoria’s chief commissioner, the first woman to be named head of an Australian police force. And the appointment of Katarina Carroll as the Queensland police commissioner this July marked the final breaking of the glass ceiling for that police service.

Read more: Why is sexual harassment in the AFP systemic? And can the culture be changed?

However, despite these high-level appointments, problems still exist in terms of the representation of women in senior ranks. A 2018 analysis of Queensland police data showed that women were proportionally underrepresented at every rank above inspector in that state. When questioned about this imbalance of female leadership, Queensland Police Commissioner Ian Stewart said:

Our promotions are based on people who can show merit. We will again not be changing our systems to promote people who don’t have the merit to do the job.

In South Australia, women made up 28.5% of sworn police in 2017, but only 18.5% of commissioned officers. The same disparity exists in Victoria, where women accounted for 28% of sworn police officers in 2017, but only 16% of the leadership roles.

A 2019 review of the NSW police promotion system found that women were also underrepresented in leadership roles in that state, but it did not find any overt discrimination.

Barriers to participation

Despite having gender-equity targets in place, many states struggle with the recruitment of women for police forces. Although the Queensland Police Force did reach 50-50 parity for its recruitment program in 2016-17, Stewart said it’s getting more difficult to attract female applicants.

If we don’t have enough we won’t change the standard, and we’ll have more male applicants than women in a recruit program. I think that will happen at times.

The Victoria Police Force last month announced it would provide targeted assistance for potential recruits to meet entry fitness standards in an effort to boost female participation.

In essence, there are two main barriers to increasing the numbers of women in policing: elements of sexism and discrimination that result from the male-dominated culture in police forces and the nature of the job itself.

Read more: Report reveals entrenched nature of sexual harassment in Victoria Police

A number of police services, including NSW, South Australia, Victoria and the Australian Federal Police, have conducted inquiries into the culture of their forces and made commitments to stamp out discrimination based on gender.

What these changes cannot do, however, is make some aspects of the job more attractive to women. Operational policing involves shift work, long hours, exposure to physical harm and mental trauma. As Stewart noted,

Twenty-four-hour shifts and 365-days-a-year work all take a toll on people, and particularly for women who are the primary raiser[s] of families

One potential solution is a bigger focus on flexible working arrangements and part-time policing arrangements to help improve the work-life balance for officers.

But it remains to be seen if these steps will make a difference. While the number of women in policing is on the rise, only time will tell if the goal of reaching 50-50 gender parity will someday become reality.

– ref. Women have made many inroads in policing, but barriers remain to achieving gender equity – http://theconversation.com/women-have-made-many-inroads-in-policing-but-barriers-remain-to-achieving-gender-equity-123082

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Lee, Professor at the National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University

The Morrison government is having another shot at getting its proposal to drug test people on welfare through the Senate.

Welfare, health and drug treatment experts have consistently opposed the proposal since it was first introduced three years ago. They say these measures will only serve to further marginalise people on welfare and people who use drugs, and may have a range of unintended consequences such as homelessness.

If the government really wanted to assist people who have drug problems to return to work, it would increase funding for drug treatment.

What’s being proposed?

The new proposal appears very similar to those the Senate previously rejected in 2017 and 2018.

A two year trial would test around 5,000 new recipients of Newstart Allowance and Youth Allowance for a range of illegal drugs in three locations in Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia.

Read more: Drug testing welfare recipients raises questions about data profiling and discrimination

Cocaine has been added to the list of drugs to be tested for. The list already included methamphetamine, MDMA (ecstasy), opioids (such as heroin) and cannabis in earlier versions.

Welfare recipients who test positive will be placed on income management, with 80% of their income quarantined.

They will undertake a second test within a month. Two positive tests will result in a referral to a medical professional for treatment. Ongoing treatment may be a requirement of their job plan.

If they return two positive tests, or they dispute a test and ask for another test, they will be required to repay the cost of the tests.

What is the rationale?

The government is attempting to frame the measure as a helping hand for people who have problems with drugs.

Social services minister Anne Ruston said the measure was not to punish people on welfare but to identify those who needed help.

During previous attempts to get this legislation through the Senate, former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull described it as a measure of “love”.

But a positive drug test is not an indicator of problems. It cannot distinguish between one-off, irregular or regular use. It cannot indicate how much of a drug has been used. So it will not be able to fulfil the government’s wish to identify those who need help.

Most people who use drugs do not have problems with them. Only 20% of people who use methamphetamine, for example, use it more than once a week. Using more often than weekly is a marker for dependence.

So the majority of people who test positive will probably not have a problem, and will be inadvertently and unnecessarily caught up in the treatment system.

Alcohol and tobacco are the drugs that cause the most harm, including dependence and longer-term health problems. They are also the biggest financial burden on the community. Neither is addressed under this measure, so it will not assist the majority of people who need help.

Read more: History, not harm, dictates why some drugs are legal and others aren’t

If the aim was to help people address ongoing drug problems, MDMA would not be on the list of drugs to be tested. There are very few long-term problems with MDMA. It rarely requires treatment, despite it being the in the top three most commonly used illicit drugs in Australia.

Why it’s unlikely to be effective

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has said the plan is “about helping people get off welfare, off the dole and into work”.

But there is no evidence drug use is a barrier to job seeking. In fact, most people who use drugs are employed.

A 2001 Canadian study concluded drug testing welfare recipients was an expensive process that would result in a very marginal increase in employment.

A 2013 position paper from the Australian National Council on Drugs, the Australian government’s previous drug advisory body, similarly concluded:

There is no evidence that drug testing welfare beneficiaries will have any positive effects for those individuals or for society, and some evidence indicating such a practice would have high social and economic costs. In addition, there would be serious ethical and legal problems in implementing such a program in Australia.

There’s also little evidence such a measure would save money by kicking people off welfare, given the costs of running such programs.

Read more: Is evidence for or against drug-testing welfare recipients? It depends on the result we’re after

New Zealand originally looked at a scheme similar to the Australian proposal, but subsequently modified it to subsidise existing pre-employment testing. It tested more than 8,000 people on welfare and returned only 22 positive results.

Trials in the US found relatively few people who received government benefits tested positive to illicit drugs. Among seven states that trailed a similar measure in the US, nearly all of them had detection rates of less than 1%.

The trials showed little net benefit, also making it an expensive exercise.

The evidence in favour of forcing people into treatment is limited. It is less effective than voluntary treatment for long-term outcomes, and increases overdose risk.

Financial sanctions can lead to poorer outcomes in people with alcohol or other drug problems.

Read more: Forcing ice users into rehab won’t solve the problem – here’s what we need instead

Instead, increase funding for drug treatment

Every $1 spent on drug treatment saves about $7 in health, welfare and other costs to the community.

Drug treatment reduces drug use and harms, which has knock-on effects of improving participation in the community (including employment and training), improving health and well-being, and reducing criminal behaviour.

Yet there are too few drug treatment places for people who want it, let alone forcing people who don’t want or need it into treatment.

Along with drug testing welfare recipients, the government has announced a A$10 million treatment fund. But we need at least double the A$1.2 billion currently spent to just meet the existing demand for voluntary treatment.

The proposed measure is a blunt response to a nuanced problem. There are much more effective, and cost effective, ways to address both alcohol and other drug problems and unemployment than drug testing welfare recipients.

Read more: Helping drug users get back to work, not random drug testing, should be our priority

– ref. Drugs don’t affect job seeking, so let’s offer users help rather than take away their payments – http://theconversation.com/drugs-dont-affect-job-seeking-so-lets-offer-users-help-rather-than-take-away-their-payments-123096

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Max Abbott, Professor of Psychology and Public Health, AUT, Auckland University of Technology

New Zealand passed the Misuse of Drugs Amendment into law last month, giving police discretion to take a health-centred approach rather than prosecuting those in possession of drugs, including class A drugs like methamphetamine, heroine and cocaine.

The new law also classifies two synthetic cannabinoids as class A drugs and allows for temporary drug class orders to be issued for emerging substances.

The New Zealand Drug Foundation hailed the amendment as “a massive leap” towards treating drug use as a health issue, while the New Zealand Police Association argued that it would essentially decriminalise the possession of class A drugs.

Drug use remains a criminal offence in New Zealand – police “discretion” not to prosecute is not tantamount to decriminalisation. I argue that the law change is a positive step towards a health and social response to drug use and misuse, so long as it doesn’t get lost in translation.

Read more: Drug laws on possession: several countries are revisiting them and these are their options

A ‘health-centred’ approach to drug policy

The amendment requires police to use their discretion not to prosecute when they find someone in possession of an illicit drug for personal use. Police are directed to consider whether prosecution is required in the public interest or whether a health-centred approach would be more beneficial.

The law change is one of several related government initiatives. The previous amendment, passed in December 2018, enabled the development of a medicinal cannabis scheme and legal defence against prosecution for terminally ill patients. And a referendum on recreational cannabis legislation will be held in conjunction with the 2020 general election.

Read more: Potential cost to patient safety as NZ debates access to medicinal cannabis

These measures are in keeping with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s decision not to join US President Donald Trump’s “war on drugs”. Instead, Ardern said New Zealand would pursue a “health-based” approach.

While driven in part by a shift in government policy, the amendment was also a response to the chief coroner’s report highlighting that 55 or more people died of synthetic cannabinoid drugs in the past two years. Two of the most dangerous of these, AMVB-FUBINACA and 5F-ABA, have been reclassified as class A drugs. Provisions have been made for temporary class drug orders to control new and potentially harmful drugs.

This will mean increased investigative powers for police and heavier sentences for importers, manufacturers and dealers of these substances. It will also enable government to react quickly to emerging high-risk drugs.

Criminalising drug use doesn’t work

To support the new legislation, the government has increased funding for addiction treatment services and is establishing a multi-agency drug early warning system. The amendment emphasises a health response to personal drug use. It applies to all classes of drug.

In practice, police already exercise discretion not to prosecute and have been doing so increasingly in recent years. Police charges for cannabis possession or use have fallen 70% in the past decade. On the other hand, drug offences for methamphetamine possession or use have risen sharply. Last year, for the first time, they outnumbered cannabis charges.

Overall, thousands of people continue to be convicted each year for minor drug use or possession. These people are disproportionately young and Māori.

There is no evidence that convicting and sentencing drug users reduces drug use overall or benefits them individually. To the contrary, criminal convictions often have adverse consequences for career and life opportunities. The costs to the criminal justice system and taxpayer are considerable.

Potential outcomes of the law change

The devil is in the detail. Reduced fear of prosecution will probably lead more people with drug-related problems to seek professional help. Potentially thousands who come to police attention will avoid being prosecuted each year. Instead, many will receive treatment and other forms of support that change their lives in positive ways.

Police and the courts should be freed up to focus on serious drug-related offences and other crime. The proportion of Māori being sentenced and imprisoned should reduce.

But these outcomes depend greatly on how police exercise their discretion not to prosecute. A huge shift in police culture, mindset and professional skill is required. The outcomes presuppose that accessible, specialist addiction and support services are readily available.

The recent government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction noted severe strain on existing services and called for an expanded range of treatment and detox services. This depends not only on additional funding, but requires strong leadership and significant change in the size and composition of New Zealand’s addiction-related workforce.

The amendment’s other provisions should help address the devastating impacts of new substances. The rate of their development will most likely accelerate, and some may be as, or more, dangerous than AMVB-FUBINACA and 5F-ABA. The effectiveness of the multi-agency early warning system will be critical in rapidly identifying these drugs.

The long road to ‘far-reaching’ drug reform

While regarded as a significant step in the right direction, many see this and the December 2018 amendment falling far short of being a comprehensive health and social response to drug use and misuse. Both the Law Commission in 2011 and the Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction in 2018 called for a complete rewrite of the Misuse of Drugs Act (1975).

Drug use remains a criminal offence, even for terminally ill patients. Police discretion means that many people are still being arrested for possession and personal use of cannabis and other drugs. Māori could well continue to be unfairly targeted.

Many drug users are reliant on criminal gangs for supply. This both sustains gangs and other criminal operators, and brings users under the influence of dealers who can encourage progression to more harmful substances and criminal activity to sustain their drug use or addiction.

The upcoming referendum may in part address this in relation to cannabis. But more far-reaching reform will be required across the full spectrum of substances. In the interim, new measures will need to be carefully monitored and adapted to ensure that they conform with their intent.

– ref. New law gives NZ police discretion not to prosecute drug users, but to offer addiction support instead – http://theconversation.com/new-law-gives-nz-police-discretion-not-to-prosecute-drug-users-but-to-offer-addiction-support-instead-122323

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lucyna Kedziora-Chudczer, Program Manager / Adjunct Research Fellow, Swinburne University of Technology

If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au.

Why does Saturn have rings? – Isla, age 7, Killarney.

Most people think many millions of years ago, Saturn didn’t have rings at all. Instead, it had a big moon moving around it.

Eventually, this moon came very close to Saturn while moving faster and faster around it.

This caused the moon to get pulled in two directions at once. It burst and broke into pieces that eventually spread around the planet into a flattened doughnut shape made of ice and rock.

The chunks kept smashing into each other, which made a lot of powdery dust and snow. Some chunks fell onto Saturn or floated off into space. That’s still happening today, and in the distant future the rings will disappear entirely.

Read more: Curious Kids: can people live in space?

Discovering Saturn’s rings

We didn’t always know Saturn had rings.

A few hundred years ago, an astronomer named Galileo looked at the sky through one of the first telescopes. When he used it to look at Saturn, he thought the planet looked a bit like the head of a teddy bear with two big ears. He thought it may be made of three planets.

Years later, astronomers used better telescopes and realised Saturn was surrounded by what looked like a large flat disk.

At first, astronomers thought the disk might actually touch Saturn. An astronomer named Christiaan Huygens thought the disk around Saturn was as solid as a pancake or a ring on a finger.

Another astronomer, Giovanni Cassini, was first to notice the ring had some gaps in it.

Now we know the rings are made of moon dust and rocks. And because Saturn is very far away from the Sun, it is a very cold planet. That means the rocks in Saturn’s rings are very icy. Some are even made entirely of ice, like snowballs.

Saturn’s rings are very bright because snow reflects sunlight strongly.

When people sent spaceships to other planets and took close-up photos, they discovered Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune also have rings. But these rings are very faint and hard to see from Earth. They also realised these planets have many moons – some smaller and some bigger than Earth’s Moon.

Thank you and goodbye, Cassini

If you are interested to learn more about Saturn and its beautiful rings, you might like to read about the Cassini–Huygens space research mission. It involved sending a spaceship (with no people on it) to Saturn.

It took about seven years for Cassini to get to Saturn. Then, for about 10 years, Cassini sent photographs and data back to Earth so we could learn as much as we could about Saturn before the spacecraft ran out of fuel. At the end of the mission, on Friday, September 15, 2017, Cassini dived into Saturn’s atmosphere.

Read more: Curious Kids: how high could I jump on the moon?

Hello, curious kids! Have you got a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au Please tell us your name, age and which city you live in. We won’t be able to answer every question but we will do our best.

– ref. Curious Kids: why does Saturn have rings? – http://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-does-saturn-have-rings-121433

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Ward, PhD Student, The University of Queensland

Threatened species habitat larger than the size of Tasmania has been destroyed since Australia’s environment laws were enacted, and 93% of this habitat loss was not referred to the federal government for scrutiny, our new research shows.

The research, published today in Conservation Science and Practice, shows that 7.7 million hectares of threatened species habitat has been destroyed in the 20 years since the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 came into force.

Read more: Koalas can learn to live the city life if we give them the trees and safe spaces they need

Some 85% of land-based threatened species experienced habitat loss. The iconic koala was among the worst affected. More than 90% of habitat loss was not referred or submitted for assessment, despite a requirement to do so under Commonwealth environment laws.

Our research indicates the legislation has comprehensively failed to safeguard Australia’s globally significant natural values, and must urgently be reformed and enforced.

What are the laws supposed to do?

The EPBC Act was enacted in 1999 to protect the diversity of Australia’s unique, and increasingly threatened, flora and fauna. It was considered a giant step forward for biodiversity conservation and was expected to become an important legacy of the Howard Coalition government.

Read more: Queensland’s new land-clearing laws are all stick and no carrot (but it’s time to do better)

The law aims to conserve so-called “protected matters” such as threatened species, migratory species, and threatened ecosystems.

Clearing and land use change is regarded by ecologists as the primary threat to Australia’s biodiversity. In Queensland, land clearing to create pasture is the greatest pressure on threatened flora and fauna.

Any action which could have a significant impact on protected matters, including habitat destruction through land clearing, must be referred to the federal government for assessment.

The law is not being followed

We examined federal government forest and woodland maps derived from satellite imagery. The analysis showed that 7.7 million hectares of threatened species habitat has been cleared or destroyed since the legislation was enacted.

Of this area, 93% was not referred to the federal government and so was neither assessed nor approved.

It is unclear why people or companies are not referring habitat destruction on such a large scale. People may be self-assessing their activities and concluding they will not have a significant impact.

Others may be seeking to avoid the expense of a referral, which costs A$6,577 for people or companies with a turnover of more than A$10 million a year.

The failure to refer may also indicate a lack of awareness of, or disregard for, the EPBC Act.

The biggest losers

Our research found that 1,390 (85%) of terrestrial threatened species experienced habitat loss within their range since the EPBC Act was introduced.

Among the top ten species to lose the most area were the red goshawk, the ghost bat, and the koala, losing 3 million, 2.9 million, and 1 million hectares, respectively.

In less than two decades, many other imperilled species have lost large chunks of their potential habitat. They include the Mount Cooper striped skink (25%), the Keighery’s macarthuria (23%) and the Southern black-throated finch (10%).

What’s working, what’s not

We found that almost all referrals to the federal government for habitat loss were made by urban developers, mining companies and commercial developers. A tiny 1.3% of referrals were made by agricultural developers – despite clear evidence that land clearing for pasture development is the primary driver of habitat destruction.

Alarmingly, even when companies or people did refer proposed actions, 99% were allowed to proceed (sometimes with conditions).

The high approval rates may be derived, in part, from inconsistent application of the “significance” test under the federal laws.

For example, in a successful prosecution in 2015, Powercor Australia and Vemco] were fined A$200,000 for failing to refer clearing of a tiny 0.5 hectares of a critically endangered ecosystem. In contrast, much larger tracts of habitat have been destroyed without referral or approval, and without any such enforcement action being taken.

Clearer criteria for determining whether an impact is significant would reduce inconsistency in decisions, and provide more certainty for stakeholders.

The laws must be enforced and reformed

If the habitat loss trend continues, two things are certain: more species will become threatened with extinction, and more species will become extinct.

The Act must, as a matter of urgency, be properly enforced to curtail the mass non-referral of actions that our analysis has revealed.

If nothing else, this will help Australia meet its commitment under the Convention on Biological Diversity to prevent extinction of known threatened species and improve their conservation status by 2020.

Read more: Why aren’t Australia’s environment laws preventing widespread land clearing?

Mapping the critical habitat essential to the survival of every threatened species is also an important step. The Act should also be reformed to ensure critical habitat is identified and protected, as happens in the United States.

Australia is already a world leader in modern-day extinctions. Without a fundamental change in how environmental law is written, used, and enforced, the crisis will only get worse.

– ref. Environment laws have failed to tackle the extinction emergency. Here’s the proof – http://theconversation.com/environment-laws-have-failed-to-tackle-the-extinction-emergency-heres-the-proof-122936

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Peetz, Professor of Employment Relations, Centre for Work, Organisation and Wellbeing, Griffith University

Wages growth for Australian workers is among the worst in the industrialised world. For more than a third of workers on individual contracts, wages aren’t growing at all.

This is odd, given Australia is in a “record” 28th year of economic growth with apparently low unemployment and a supposedly strong economy.

Read more: Vital Signs: Amid talk of recessions, our progress on wages and unemployment is almost non-existent

Government economists have floated a range of reasons, from blaming workers not changing jobs enough to caps on public-service salaries. But the most obvious factor is the loss of worker power due to the decline in unionisation over the past three decades.

Looking for alternative answers

Low wage growth is a problem in most industrialised countries, but since 2013 Australia’s nominal wage growth has been less than half the OECD average, according to Jim Stanford at the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work.

Last year Stanford co-edited a book on the wages crisis in Australia, to which I contributed. In the book’s third chapter, Stephen Kinsella and John Howe declare “the erosion of workers’ rights is the most consequential, and actionable, factor behind the stagnation of wages in Australia”.

But some government economists seem to be struggling to recognise this.

In July, a deputy secretary of Treasury instead pointed to the problem of workers not switching jobs enough as warranting “further attention”.

It was as if, somehow, workers had collectively but separately decided not to apply for higher paying jobs, and this was a cause rather than an effect of lower worker power.

Last month the Reserve Bank governor, Philip Lowe, told the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics that caps on public-sector wage increases were part of the problem. This suggests the bank recognises there is an institutional element to the issue, though low wage growth is not just a public-sector problem.

Reserve blank

In April the Reserve Bank held a conference on low wages growth.

One of the papers, by staff in the Reserve Bank’s Economic Research Department, found that union membership declines “are unlikely to account for much of the recent low wages growth”.

This finding was odd, because for decades economists have been writing about how unions have raised wages, and how union decline is a factor in rising inequality.

In the past Reserve Bank officials have complained that unions were too effective. In 1997, for example, the bank’s deputy governor worried about there being “excessive wage demands”.

The paper from the bank’s Economic Research Department is based on analysing statistics from the federal government’s Workplace Agreements Database. It’s a very good database, but it does not contain data on union density (membership as a proportion of employment). So it cannot be used to test if declining union density is affecting wage outcomes.

Union density is far from being a perfect measure of union power, but it is better than the proxies the paper uses.

In lieu of considering union density, the paper bases its conclusion on finding there has been no decline in the share of enterprise agreements negotiated with union involvement. It also finds wages in union agreements have continued to grow faster than wages in non-union agreements.

Neither of these findings proves wage stagnation is unconnected to declining union density. They only show that employees have even less bargaining power when they aren’t unionised.

We need stronger evidence than this to overturn decades of research showing unions raised wages.

Labour market monopsony

That said, the decline in union density is not the only issue. Changes to industrial relations laws have also made it harder for unions to obtain wage increases. Modelling the effects of such things is even harder for economists.

Research overseas points to local labour markets being increasingly dominated by a small number of employers. The US National Bureau of Economic Research suggests wages in more concentrated labour markets are 17% lower than wages in less concentrated labour markets.

Tacit or explicit agreements between employers to not poach workers, and “non-compete” clauses being forced on even low-skilled workers, also shift power from employees to employers.

Read more: This is what policymakers can and can’t do about low wage growth

As the late Princeton University economist Alan Krueger pointed out last year, monopsony power – the power of buyers (employers) when there are only a few – has probably always existed in labour markets “but the forces that traditionally counterbalanced monopsony power and boosted worker bargaining power have eroded in recent decades”.

So yes, there are a number of reasons why workers have less power, and why wages growth is weaker, than in the past. Among them, though, we cannot ignore the critical fall in union bargaining power.

– ref. There’s an obvious reason wages aren’t growing, but you won’t hear it from Treasury or the Reserve Bank – http://theconversation.com/theres-an-obvious-reason-wages-arent-growing-but-you-wont-hear-it-from-treasury-or-the-reserve-bank-122041

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By G. Gregory Haff, Professor of Strength and Conditioning, Edith Cowan University

Since the first mapping of the human genome there has been interest in understanding which genetic factors underpin performance in sport.

With the rise of genetic testing among athletes, it remains to be seen exactly how the world of elite sport will be affected.

Last year the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology revealed China will use genetic testing on its athletes ahead of the 2022 Winter Olympics, incorporating it into the official athlete selection process.

Concerns are mounting as the falling cost of genetic testing lead to worldwide interest in commercialising it. This is resulting in more direct-to-consumer tests being offered, without input from medical practitioners or genetic counselling.

Critics of these services worry about the quality controls of the genetic analyses and interpretation of results. They argue the services could lead to significant misinformation which could negatively impact an athlete’s sporting future.

A specialised approach

Two gene variants are commonly linked with sports performance. These are ACE II (associated with endurance athletes) and ACTN3 RR (associated with sprinters and power athletes).

While there is strong evidence these genes are related to sports performance, there’s little evidence that an individual’s sporting performance capacity can be predicted based on genes.

Read more: Athletic ability and genetics: can science spot a sure-fire winner?

This is because sport is complex and very few sports are classified as solely a sprint, power or endurance sport. Also, many factors underpin athletic success including a broader variety of genetic traits and physical, environmental and psychological elements. All of these work in concert to impact overall performance.

That said, a knowledge of genetic predispositions is a potentially valuable tool for understanding individual responses to exercise training.

It’s possible understanding the relationships between genes and individual training responses can be used to better individualise athlete training programs.

A paper published this year reported those with particular gene variants linked to aerobic training adaptations showed greater training responsiveness after eight weeks of targeted training.

Therefore, genetic testing could potentially be used to personalise an athlete’s training program and improve the efficiency and results of training processes.

The ethical considerations

The debate over whether genetic testing of athletes actually works has been around for some time, especially regarding recruitment and selection programs.

Many are worried its use to determine sporting potential will pose a significant challenge to the spirit of the Olympics and similar contests.

In 2015 researchers examined the available literature on direct-to-consumer genetic testing for sports performance and talent identification, and published a consensus statement. This was followed by the Australian Institute of Sport’s 2016 Position Stand.

In these documents, genetics experts suggest no child or young athlete should have their training altered or be talent-spotted based on direct-to-consumer genetic testing. This is due to concerns around a lack of evidence-based interpretation of results, which may give aspiring athletes incorrect advice about their suitability for a sport.

Because of the complex nature of sports performance, the authors of the AIS Position Stand suggest genetic testing should never be used for inclusion or exclusion in a talent-identification program. They say the “use of genetic phenotypes as an absolute predictor of athletic prowess or sport selection is unscientific and unethical”.

In 2003 the Australian Law Reform Commission and National Health and Medical Research Council recommended discrimination laws be amended to make it illegal to discriminate on a person’s real or perceived genetic status.

The fact is, there is great potential for genetic testing to result in discrimination.

Keeping up with the inevitable

A study published last year examining elite sport in the United Kingdom found that most athletes and support staff surveyed weren’t aware of genetic testing for sport performance (92%) or injury risk assessment (91%).

When sport support staff were asked if they would consider genetic testing of their athletes, most were interested in the relationship between genetics and performance (61%) and injury susceptibility (78%). When asked whether testing should be used as a talent-identification tool, 51% of support staff were less willing to consider it.

Nonetheless, several nations are turning to genetic testing to determine athletic potential. In 2014 it was revealed Uzbekistan is also using genetic testing as a tool for finding future Olympians.

There are concerns more countries will follow suit and this could lead Olympic sport down a slippery slope, or even encourage gene doping programs.

Read more: Explainer: what is gene doping – and will any athletes at Rio 2016 have tried it?

To ensure a future in which we harness genetic testing while not compromising on fairness in sport, we must further research the benefits of knowing how genetics relate to human performance and injury risk. And we should apply this knowledge to enhance training processes.

The future should’t be in excluding individuals from sport but in finding ways to use genetics to precisely prescribe athletes’ training programs. This will help them chase their unique sporting dreams while remaining true to the Olympic spirit.

– ref. Will the genetic screening of athletes change sport as we know it? – http://theconversation.com/will-the-genetic-screening-of-athletes-change-sport-as-we-know-it-122781