Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Patrick Rule, Palaeontology PhD Candidate, Monash University

When most of us think of the prehistoric past, we envision a world of bizarre, often fearsome giants. From dinosaurs to mammoths and even penguins, life then seemed larger than life today.

Millions of years ago in Australia, giant goannas, kangaroos and diprotodontids (wombat relatives) roamed the landscape. The seas teemed with gargantuan predators such as the infamous “megalodon” shark and so-called giant killer sperm whales.

Fossils from this lost world can be found in sandstone rocks, between five million and six million years old, at Beaumaris – a bayside suburb in Melbourne and one of Australia’s most significant urban fossil sites. Here, fossils of ancient marine animals often wash ashore, eroded out of rocks by the tides.

However, some of these fossils are now revealing “jumbo” was not the only size for extinct animals. Our team’s research, published today in the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, reports nine new seal fossils from Beaumaris, which we suspect came from nine different individuals.

The findings paint a picture of a relatively small animal, making its way through a world of giants.

Read more: Meet the giant wombat relative that scratched out a living in Australia 25 million years ago

More than doubling the seal fossil record

Melburnians have been collecting fossils from Beaumaris for more than 100 years. Yet it continues to produce remarkable and scientifically important finds.

This includes extremely rare fossils of animals such as seals. Previously, scientists had studied only one seal fossil from this site.

The nine new fossils detailed in our research were collected and donated to Museums Victoria by local scientists and citizen scientists over the past 88 years. They have more than doubled the known fossil record of seals in Australia.

These fossils represent the oldest evidence of seals in Australia and were identified as “true seals”, a group mostly known from the Arctic and Antarctic. True seals belong to a different group to Australia’s fur seals and sea lions (eared seals), which only arrived in the region about 500,000 years ago.

In particular, one of the fossils we identified is a monachine (a southern true seal). Today, these are represented by animals such as leopard or elephant seals in the Southern Ocean surrounding the Antarctic, to which they are related.

Size estimates found the Beaumaris monachines to have been quite small, at only 1.7 metres long. This is similar to the size of today’s Northern Hemisphere seals such as the harbour seal.

However, the Beaumaris seal’s living relatives are much larger – usually 3m long or more. Modern leopard seals can grow to more than 3m long, while elephant seals can reach up to a gigantic 5m in length.

Most fossil whales found at Beaumaris are also smaller than their living counterparts.

This is the opposite trend to many other animal groups with fossils found there, including some sharks and seabirds, wherein the extinct animals were much larger than those alive today.

An uncertain future for marine life

Why is finding small seals at Beaumaris important?

Five million years ago, before the ice ages, the average annual temperature in southeast Australia was about 2–4°C warmer than it is today, with sea levels up to 25m higher.

These warmer oceans supported a greater diversity of marine megafauna than today, with longer but less energy-efficient food chains. These chains only had room for a few large top predators, such as megalodon sharks. And this may have limited the size of other top predators, including seals.

This is important. It suggests the large size of Antarctic seals living in the Southern Ocean today is due to colder oceans with more energy-efficient food chains, in which more food is available for marine animals.

If climate change continues to warm the oceans, food chains may once again start to become less energy efficient, resulting in a loss of the resources today’s large seals rely on for survival.

The discovery of seal fossils at Beaumaris has implications for not only unlocking the past, but also for contextualising the future.

It shows the biodiversity and ecology of marine megafauna off southern Australia originated during the long-term transition from a warmer to colder world – a process that only recently began changing trajectory.

To this day, the fossil site at Beaumaris continues to reveal scientifically important finds, thanks to members of the public working with scientists from Museums Victoria.

Read more: The Meg: the ocean’s fossil record is a treasure trove for potential monster movies

– ref. In a land of ancient giants, these small oddball seals once called Australia home – https://theconversation.com/in-a-land-of-ancient-giants-these-small-oddball-seals-once-called-australia-home-144574

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Fitz-Gibbon, Director, Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre; Associate Professor of Criminology, Faculty of Arts, Monash University

Victoria is in the grip of its most severe lockdown since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This means opportunities for victims of family violence to seek help are more limited than ever.

It is essential to closely monitor how the pandemic has exacerbated experiences of family violence and how the restrictions are affecting people’s ability to seek help.

Here we present trend data from three key frontline services to better understand how the current Victorian restrictions have impacted family violence help-seeking behaviours.

Reflecting the limited opportunities to seek help, more women are making use of online chat with 1800RESPECT, while more male perpetrators are seeking behaviour change support.

Risks have risen during the pandemic

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, significant concerns have emerged about the heightened risk of family and domestic violence for women and children.

In April, the United Nations declared this a “shadow pandemic”. The UN called for governments worldwide to commit more funding to ensure safety from violence during this period.

During the first period of restrictions, our research with practitioners in Victoria and Queensland identified an increase in the frequency and severity of family violence. Practitioners also reported an increase in first-time reports of intimate partner violence and the weaponising of children as part of shared care arrangements.

Practitioners told us perpetrators were using children and the threat of COVID-19 infection to gain access to women, to force them to share a house with their abuser when they previously lived separately, and to control access to children.

Read more: ‘We are in a bubble that is set to burst’. Why urgent support must be given to domestic violence workers

National research by the Australian Institute of Criminology found one in ten women in a relationship said they had experienced intimate partner violence during the pandemic. Half of those women said the abuse had increased in severity since the outbreak of the pandemic in Australia.

What has changed in lockdown 2.0 in Victoria?

Under stage 4 restrictions implemented across Melbourne on August 2, opportunities for women to help seek are significantly limited. There is a curfew, time outside the house has been limited to one hour of exercise a day within 5 kilometres of home, and only one member of the household is permitted to shop for essential food and household items each day.

While the Victorian government has stipulated seeking help for family violence is a permitted reason to leave the home, our research during the first period of restrictions showed perpetrators used lockdown to further control and isolate their victims.

Since the COVID-19 restrictions began earlier this year, 1800RESPECT, the national helpline, has had an increase in demand for its services nationally. There has also been a shift in how individuals are accessing the helpline.

One of the notable changes compared with the pre-COVID period has been the increased use of the online chat function. Between May and July 2020, Victorians represented 31% of all 1800 webchat. This represents a 30% increase in use compared to the three months prior to May.

The other key change in help-seeking that the 1800RESEPCT data show is the increased volume of calls placed late at night, peaking around midnight.

Read more: How do we keep family violence perpetrators ‘in view’ during the COVID-19 lockdown?

This may reflect that women are waiting until their children and/or abusive partner are asleep before they seek help. Anecdotally, however, counsellors report that callers at these hours are seeking help to deal with trauma, including nightmares, flashbacks and/or sleep disturbances. It is believed the COVID-19 restrictions are exacerbating experiences of trauma as being confined to their homes triggers victim/survivors’ memories of being or feeling trapped.

The Victorian government has acknowledged the impact of the restrictions on the resurgence of trauma among victims/survivors of family violence. These victims/survivors can be exempt from wearing a mask, for example, where they have previously been choked, strangled or suffocated.

Reports to Victoria Police

Since stage 3 restrictions were reintroduced in Victoria in July, Victoria Police have reported a slight decrease in family violence reports around the state.

This may reflect that the restrictions make it more difficult for victims to report abuse. If living with their abuser, they likely have less time on their own and significantly less time out of the house. The fact that previously separated couples are once more having less in-person contact may also be a factor here.

A clear understanding of police reporting rates and actual experiences of violence will likely emerge over time and will be an important point of analysis.

The current rate of reporting contrasts with the increase in family violence reporting after the easing of the first wave of stage 3 restrictions in Victoria. As people had more in-person contact with family members, Victoria Police found reporting of family violence between separated couples increased to pre-COVID rates.

Engagement with men’s services and behaviour change programs

No to Violence, the peak body for men’s services, reported a spike in requests for services during the initial period of stage 3 restrictions in Victoria.

While calls to the Men’s Referral Service slightly increased as Victoria re-entered stage 3 restrictions, it has not been at the same level as earlier in the pandemic.

Changes in men’s help-seeking have been observed in the Brief Intervention Service (BIS) delivered by No to Violence. The number of men eligible for and enrolling in the intervention has increased. BIS is used to “hold” men who are waiting to enter a program, or who are enrolled in a program that has been suspended during the COVID-19 restrictions.

Men are also eligible for this program when they have called the Men’s Referral Service (MRS) with concerns about their behaviour and how COVID is making it worse.

Sustaining engagement with men who have been identified as using violence is essential to ensure risk is visible and managed during this period of restrictions. The importance of ensuring men’s services can meet increased demand was reocgnised by the Victorian Government this week through the announcement of an additional $20 million in funding to keep perpetrators ‘in full sight’.

Ensuring women’s safety moving forward

The true extent of family violence in the Victorian community during the pandemic will only emerge in the months and years to come.

It is widely acknowledged that crises increase the prevalence and severity of violence against women, but the reporting of this victimisation can lag. The anecdotal trends presented here from frontline services indicate changing patterns in help-seeking behaviours during lockdown. They also point to encouraging signs of men engaging with behaviour change interventions.

We must act now to prevent further family violence and to provide adequate protection to women and children during this period.

Federal and state governments must provide additional resources to keep women and their children safe during home confinement and minimise the potential for escalating violence. This will require increased investment in safe housing and the specialist domestic violence sector, to allow for innovations in remote service delivery.

Read more: As demand for crisis housing soars, surely we can tap into COVID-19 vacancies

As we have noted previously, it has also never been more important to invest in the development of supports for the well-being of family violence practitioners. The safety of all families depends on the well-being and continued availability of the frontline practitioners who lead Victoria’s family violence response.

Neighbours, friends and family can also play a critical role in supporting victims and helping them access supports during periods of restrictions. Recognising this, we need to enhance the capacity of bystanders to know what to do and how to help in safe and effective ways.

Securing women and children’s safety during COVID-19 requires a whole-of-community response.

If your well-being is threatened by staying home, you can travel more than 5km and break curfew to find safety. Contact Safe Steps on 1800 015 188 or visit safesteps.org.au for specialist help._

If you believe a friend, family member, neighbour or work colleague is at risk of family violence or you have concerns for their safety contact 1800 RESPECT to speak to a counsellor, or if you believe you are in immediate danger call 000._

– ref. More help required: the crisis in family violence during the coronavirus pandemic – https://theconversation.com/more-help-required-the-crisis-in-family-violence-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic-144126

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Ward, Chair of Veterinary Public Health and Food Safety, University of Sydney

We know some influenzas are seasonal, and the common cold is more common in winter. But what about COVID-19? Many people have been wondering whether the weather plays a role in its spread.

At this stage we don’t really know if or how temperature affects COVID-19 transmission. But it looks like one aspect of the weather — humidity — does play a role.

In a new study published today, we found the number of locally acquired COVID-19 cases in the Sydney area increased as the air became drier.

This adds to a growing body of evidence that identifies a link between humidity and COVID-19.

What we did

We accessed the daily numbers of reported COVID-19 cases from NSW Health. Cases are reported by postcode, with information on the likely source of each case. These data allowed us to compile the daily numbers reported between February and May, and to match them to the nearest weather recording stations.

We downloaded the relevant meteorological data and then used a method called time-series analysis to predict cases based on weather recorded up to 14 days prior.

We found we needed only relative humidity to predict COVID-19 cases. Humidity is a measure of water vapour in the air. Lower relative humidity at a given temperature means the air is drier. For every 1% decrease in relative humidity, there was a corresponding 7-8% increase in cases.

This relationship was consistent: we found it in both the exponential stage of the epidemic (when the numbers of cases were growing rapidly, in February and March) and when the epidemic was declining (in April and May). And the relationship was evident across different areas of greater Sydney.

We didn’t find a relationship between COVID-19 cases and temperature, rainfall or wind speed.

Read more: Why we can’t tell if warmer weather slows down the spread of coronavirus

This study adds to our earlier research

Our research originally began with a study in China, very early in the COVID-19 pandemic (December to February). In that study we found both drier air and lower temperatures were linked to more reported cases of COVID-19.

We then conducted a study in Sydney, published in May, also focusing on the early phase of the pandemic. In this study we didn’t analyse the findings by area like we have in our most recent study (we just looked at the dataset for Sydney as a whole).

The fact we were able to identify relative humidity as an important factor in both the Chinese winter and Australian summer, using the same research methods, gave us confidence this is a real phenomenon. Our latest study strengthens this hypothesis even further.

Of course, laboratory research on SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, is still in its infancy. But there has been research on closely related coronaviruses, including those that cause sudden acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

In two studies on SARS in Hong Kong and China, and two on MERS in Saudi Arabia, researchers found the same inverse relationship between relative humidity and cases.

Why would there be a link between low humidity and COVID-19?

Coronaviruses can survive for a period of time on surfaces, and in the air. When an infected person coughs, sneezes or even talks, they can produce infectious droplets and aerosols.

By virtue of their larger size (and therefore weight), droplets land on surfaces relatively quickly.

However, aerosols are much smaller, so they persist in the air and they hang around for longer in drier air. So it follows transmission of COVID-19 is more likely when humidity is lower.

Read more: Is the airborne route a major source of coronavirus transmission?

In one of the first studies on SARS-CoV-2, scientists detected infectious aerosolised virus for up to 16 hours. In another study, aerosolised virus remained viable for at least three hours.

Although we need much more research on this topic, airborne spread of COVID-19 is plausible. It might even be the primary way this disease spreads.

COVID-19 and the weather

US President Donald Trump famously suggested warmer weather would see COVID-19 “miraculously” go away. But we don’t have much information yet on the relationship between the weather and COVID-19.

Some studies have found lower temperature to be a factor in coronavirus diseases, while other studies have found the reverse.

We will need to examine at least a year of COVID-19 data to really know. But a growing number of studies, including our new paper, are pointing to humidity as a consistent a factor.

In Sydney, humidity is lowest in winter, particularly in August, and highest in summer. The same is true for most coastal areas in Australia — meaning people in these parts may now be in a period of heightened COVID-19 risk.

In inland areas we tend to see the opposite. So for example, in Canberra, the relative humidity is lowest in December and January.

Read more: Here’s what we know so far about the long-term symptoms of COVID-19

Of course, we can’t change the weather.

But knowing what conditions can promote virus transmission allows us to better target the interventions we already have available — such as social distancing and wearing a mask — via public health messaging.

It also allows us to focus more on surveillance during anticipated periods of increased transmission risk.

– ref. Research shows coronavirus thrives in dry air (and August is coastal Australia’s least humid month) – https://theconversation.com/research-shows-coronavirus-thrives-in-dry-air-and-august-is-coastal-australias-least-humid-month-144508

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deanna Kemp, Professor and Director, Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, The University of Queensland

This month, the first global standard to prevent mining catastrophes was released, following the tragic collapse of a tailings dam in Brazil last year which killed 270 people.

People living near or downstream from a mine deserve to know they’ll be safe. While the standard requires mining operators to act transparently, it’s being rolled out without independent oversight. And it’s not clear how communities – many of them vulnerable – will be supported to understand mining projects and their implications.

The standard comes at a time when public visibility of the mining industry is at a low. The COVID-19 pandemic has restricted movement globally, making it harder for outside experts, journalists, investors and regulators to monitor what’s happening on the ground.

Tailings dams are among the largest human-made structures on the planet. Their collapse has become more frequent in recent years, and Australia is not immune. Independent oversight is necessary to hold mining companies to account.

Towards safer tailings

Tailings are the residues left over from mining and minerals processing – a combination of finely ground rock, chemicals and water. They are commonly stored in the mining lease area, in huge engineered structures.

Tailings often contain tiny particles that can damage the environment by releasing toxic substances such as arsenic and mercury, contaminating soil and water.

The new global standard aims to guide the safe management of tailings facilities, with a goal of “zero harm” to people and the environment. It spans the earliest conception stages to planning, construction, operation, closure and post-closure activities such as rehabilitation.

The standard was developed through an independent process triggered by a devastating tailings dam collapse in Brazil in January 2019. Mud and mining waste from the Córrego do Feijão mine washed across the town of Brumadinho, killing 270 people.

Read more: Dam collapse at Brazilian mine exposes grave safety problems

That tragedy followed another tailings dam collapse in Brazil in 2015. The dam, part owned by Australia’s BHP, triggered a mud flow that killed 19 people and devastated the river system.

Tailings dam failures have also occurred in Australia. In 2018, a dam slumped at the Cadia gold mine in New South Wales, releasing more than a million tonnes of slurry elsewhere on the site.

This month, a report by Victoria’s Auditor-General revealed systemic regulatory failures in the management of former mines. It cited the Benambra copper and zinc mine, which ceased operations in 1996. A tailings dam containing 700,000 tonnes of sulphuric material was later found to be at risk of release due to erosion or embankment failure.

The right to know

The exact number of active tailings facilities globally is not known, but it’s thought to be in the tens of thousands. Thousands more are inactive or abandoned.

Local communities have a right to know about these structures and their risks, but sometimes struggle to access information.

The new standard includes unprecedented requirements for operators to publicly disclose information including:

• the rationale for site selection and facility design
• consequence classification (ranking the severity of a potential failure)
• risk management and emergency preparedness plans
• the outcomes of independent reviews
• operator capacity to cover the costs of reclamation for closure.

Our research shows a high number of tailings facilities around the world are in areas with low levels of literacy and governance, and correspondingly high levels of inequality and corruption.

This means local communities should be given strong support to access and understand tailings information. An independent entity is also needed to oversee implementation of the standard, and help make mines publicly accountable.

Mining investor groups, with trillions of dollars under management, are also seeking this information to safeguard their investments.

Public accountability

Civil society groups have argued the standard does not go far enough to protect workers, communities and ecosystems.

Critics also highlight that, as yet, there is no independent mechanism for implementation or enforcement. On this, we agree. To date, an oversight body for the standard has not been established, and the standard has not been incorporated into national laws. That means the role of investors, shareholders and the general public is critical to holding companies to account.

Read more: Investors push for positive global change in tailings management

A recent Australian example shows the pressure the public can bring to bear on mining companies. In May, it emerged Rio Tinto destroyed a 46,000-year heritage site on traditional lands in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. As information about the incident came to light, an outraged public demanded a federal inquiry, now underway.

Rio Tinto is also conducting a board-led review and, after public pressure, has promised to make it public.

Next steps

The architects of the standard – the United Nations Environment Programme, the Principles for Responsible Investment, and the International Council on Mining and Metals – are now discussing how to implement it to achieve industry change.

The global transition towards low-emissions technology brings even sharper focus to this issue. Increased global demand is expected for metals including copper and gold, iron ore, lead, zinc, cobalt and lithium. Such mines tend to produce larger quantities of tailings than, say, coal mines.

Read more: Why most Aboriginal people have little say over clean energy projects planned for their land

Our research suggests this will lead to more mines – and more tailings facilities – in remote and fragile environments, and on the traditional lands of Indigenous peoples in Australia and elsewhere.

This means making mining companies accountable will become even more important in future, to keep people and the environment safe.

– ref. World-first mining standard must protect people and hold powerful companies to account – https://theconversation.com/world-first-mining-standard-must-protect-people-and-hold-powerful-companies-to-account-144285

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Norton, Professor in the Practice of Higher Education Policy, Australian National University

In a surprise move, the government has revealed several new policies to reduce rates of failure in university subjects. If the legislation passes, it will require universities to:

• monitor student academic performance more closely
• prevent students enrolling in too many subjects
• exclude students who fail more than half their subjects, except in special circumstances.

The problem with the new laws, which include withdrawal of funding for students who fail too many subjects, is they will push universities towards faster, and possibly premature, termination of student enrolments.

Failing is expensive

In 2018, nearly 17% of subjects taken by Commonwealth-supported students were not successfully completed. The students either failed or withdrew after the census date when they incur a HELP debt.

This lack of subject success is expensive. Exact costs are not published, but taken as a proportion of Commonwealth payments the fail-or-withdraw rate translates into nearly A$800 million in HELP debt and almost A$1.2 billion in subsidies to universities.

Some fails are avoidable

Some students fail subjects because, despite their best efforts and those of their teachers, their academic work is not satisfactory. We would worry about academic standards if the pass rate was 100%. But other failed subjects are potentially avoidable.

Sometimes students fail due to academic factors universities can do something about, such as by improving teaching or helping students who are falling behind.

Read more: Failing a subject isn’t just the student’s fault. Universities can and should help

Universities cannot control student life issues such as health, work and family matters. All of these are reasons students give for failing subjects. But universities can judge whether these issues are temporary or manageable. If so, they are not fundamental obstacles to future academic success.

Other students fail because they are not going to class, handing in essays or sitting tests. They have effectively dropped subjects or their course, but have not officially notified their university. The system then automatically registers HELP debts and fails.

When La Trobe University examined its records, it estimated a quarter of all fails were by “ghost students” who did not submit the work needed to pass. If these students can be encouraged to formally withdraw earlier, subject fails and HELP debts will decrease.

Read more: More students are going to university than before, but those at risk of dropping out need more help

The government’s measures to reduce fails

The legislation has several measures intended to limit ghost enrolments and failed subjects.

Students would not be allowed to enrol in more than double the subjects a full-time student normally takes in a year, unless they had a demonstrated capacity to do so. University policies already prevent major subject overloads, as taking on too much increases the risk of failure.

But some students – about 2,500 on the government’s figures – enrol in more than one university at once. Upgrading the government’s enrolment IT should help identify and regulate these students.

By law, universities must check before enrolment that each prospective student is academically suited to their course. The new law would extend this requirement to the subject level.

How this would work in practice is unclear. With more than eight million subject enrolments a year, checking every one would be a massive exercise.

Focusing on students with prior fails may be sufficient. It would be in line with existing university policies on students who fail half or more of their subjects in a semester.

A 2018 Grattan Institute report I co-authored found that, of the 7% of commencing bachelor-degree students who failed all their first-semester subjects, a quarter continued and also failed all second-semester subjects. Future outcomes like that may signal non-compliance with the academic suitability law.

Finally, the legislation would give the government power to deprive universities of funding for students it deems not “genuine”. Genuineness indicators already used in private higher education institutions include whether students are reasonably engaged in the course, whether they have satisfied course requirements and, if the course is online, how many times they have logged on. These provisions target ghost students.

Read more: Universities need to train lecturers in online delivery, or they risk students dropping out

Consequences for students

As general themes, the ideas in the legislation are not inherently bad. Many reflect standard or common practices in higher education.

The problem is that universities have to balance the risks of further fails and HELP debt against the benefits of giving students a second chance.

If the legislation passes, universities will be nervous about being fined for breaching the academic suitability rule and losing funding for non-genuine students. This creates an incentive to end enrolments, possibly prematurely, after one bad semester.

Students who fail more than half their subjects, after taking at least eight in a bachelor degree, already face exclusion from their course. But the legislation would limit which factors universities can consider in making this decision.

Universities could take into account failures due to reasons beyond a student’s control, such as their own or a family member’s illness. But universities could not consider general difficulties adapting to university life, or other reasons a student could plausibly have controlled.

A different approach

Patterns of subject failure are worth investigating, to protect students put at unacceptably high risk of further fails and debt. But this task should be handled not by the Department of Education, which would implement these laws, but the Tertiary Education Quality and Standard Agency. Many subject fails are linked to the course admission, teaching quality and course retention matters that TEQSA already regulates.

TEQSA operates under a “regulatory necessity, risk and proportionality” principle, which lets it take a nuanced approach. Universities that put failing students at high risk of continued poor performance would have to improve their practices. But universities would still be free to consider the complex trade-offs of each individual case, without inflexible rules driving them to one conclusion.

Students should also be made more aware of the census date’s importance. A small Grattan Institute survey showed many students did not know what the census date was, or thought they did but gave an incorrect answer. A name change that highlights its significance, such as “payment date”, would encourage students to drop subjects sooner to avoid HELP debt and fails.

Although the government has identified a real problem, its heavy-handed regulation would create unnecessary red tape for universities and exclude students who should get a second chance.

– ref. Uni student failure rate is a worry, but the government response is too heavy-handed – https://theconversation.com/uni-student-failure-rate-is-a-worry-but-the-government-response-is-too-heavy-handed-144414

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Halvard Dalheim, Practitioner in Residence, The Henry Halloran Trust, University of Sydney

COVID-19 has raised many questions about how we plan our cities. The issues affect all of us, whether you are in Perth or 3,300 kilometres away in Sydney. Common issues suggest a common approach, but how might we achieve that?

Common approaches require a common understanding and by chance next year, 2021, is census year. The output from the census is one of the most important inputs to city and regional planning. It’s an opportunity for planners to directly reference the detailed data of the people and households of the communities that make up Australia.

The issues the COVID-19 pandemic has confronted us with raise the question of what other common-ground issues could be explored.

Read more: Coronavirus has changed our sense of place, so together we must re-imagine our cities

Why do this?

Interestingly, an “alignment of the stars” is occurring to some degree.

The Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) is calling for a national settlement strategy. Among other things the institute suggests a national settlement strategy should:

• express long-term growth and liveability outcomes – nationally and for the states and regions

• provide a context for a national population policy

• set performance measures for liveability and productivity outcomes.

A core benefit would be better-targeted infrastructure funding.

But the states and territories have already signed off on 57 regional and capital city plans. We need to think a little about what these plans mean – we cannot just stick them together. We need to understand where the common connections and objectives are.

As planning is a state responsibility, the states must drive this process. However, the states have a poor record of collaboration on strategic planning matters. Yes, we see a few good connections from time to time, but not a deliberative collaboration on city and regional planning issues.

The constitution does not provide the federal Parliament with powers to make laws relating to planning. However, the federal government has sought to deliver city outcomes, through the current City Deals as well as, in the past, the Building Better Cities program and the National Urban and Regional Development Authority.

Read more: Urban policy: could the federal government finally ‘get’ cities?

Our common understanding and approach must therefore start and finish with collaboration by the states, with Commonwealth support.

Common planning themes already exist

Most Australian capital cities have developed metropolitan plans. The current plans were generally developed in 2017-18. With plans often reviewed every five years, some deep-dive research aligned with the 2021 census would sit well with that timing.

My review of the main themes of each capital city plan reveals areas of commonality (very few across all), as well as some clear local considerations.

Regional Australia accounts for most of the nation’s land area, and most regions have completed regional plans. It’s equally important, then, to identify and understand common issues and approaches outside the capital cities.

Gaining a common understanding of all issues and opportunities in the regions is a greater challenge than for the capital cities because of the diversity and scale of regional areas. But there are clearly many common issues, including water security, telecommunications coverage, growth and change, transport, access to services, and bushfires and floods, to name a few.

Read more: People and issues outside our big cities are diverse, but these priorities stand out

Planning for a COVID-19 world

In addition, many papers and articles have been published on the performance of cities and what issues city plans need to respond to in a COVID-19 world. Key issues include:

Read more: We’re at a fork in the road: do we choose neighbourhoods to live, work and play in?

The initial planning response has been to fast-track development proposals to maximise the opportunities for the market to respond.

Infrastructure investments have also included more projects supporting walking, cycling and public spaces in line with what we have learned from the impacts of COVID-19.

It’s increasingly clear economic recovery is going to take time. A common research agenda could be used to better inform a national infrastructure agenda directed to stimulating economic activity and thus jobs.

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

What is it we need?

Ultimately, we need agreement on the understanding behind a set of common issues, and on how we respond. The key here is a common understanding. Differences in the planning systems across the states represent a technical, not substantive, issue which each state would deal with in an implementation phase.

To enhance the prospects of agreement between the states on settlement issues, a research agenda linked to the 2021 census date is a prime opportunity to start a dialogue. A collaborative approach to planning across the states can occur at any time, but the opportunity to align research with the census comes around only once every five years.

While the census is a year away, that doesn’t leave much time to establish a joint research agenda.

The first critical task is simply coming together and agreeing to work collaboratively. This requires commitment to understanding both the challenges and opportunities, as well as working jointly on responses. We need to learn to walk (understand) before we start to run (plan).

The emergence of a national cabinet suggests these unique times call for new ways of doing things. Now is the time for the planning profession to add its strategic insights into cities and regions to support Australia’s recovery.

– ref. Census year is the time to work together on a national settlement strategy – https://theconversation.com/census-year-is-the-time-to-work-together-on-a-national-settlement-strategy-142274

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cameron Murray, Research Fellow – Henry Halloran Trust, University of Sydney

Real home prices across Australia have climbed 150% since 2000, while real wages have climbed by less than a third.

Sydney and Melbourne rank among the most expensive cities in the world. Australia-wide, home ownership levels have fallen from 70% to 65% in the last 20 years and home equity levels have fallen from 80% to 75%. Younger workers have been completely priced out of the major cities.

Among those who can afford homes, the increase in household debt to income ratios is weighing on consumption and increasing financial fragility.

We are often told the problem lies in supply — we don’t have enough homes in the places people want them. And while it’s true a reduction in the supply of housing relative to the population will reduce housing per person and increase housing rents, what we are seeing is something different — a growing divergence between rents and the price of housing as a financial asset that’s increasing much more quickly.

Australia has become something of a world leader in demand-driven home price inflation. Australians have been increasingly buying housing for the purpose of securing financial returns — both capital gains and rental income, in a process often described as the financialisation of housing, but one that we think can be more accurately thought of as “rentierization”.

How it happened

In a working paper published this morning by the University of Sydney and the University College London Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, we argue “rentierization” best describes the increasing use of housing to extract land rents, in the form of capital gains on property and rents from tenants — a process in which Australia is well advanced.

Despite multiple major boom and bust cycles, including Victoria’s 1880s land boom and the 1890s recession that followed, land values and home prices were relatively low compared to the total value of economic activity right up the 1960s.

Long-term Australian real price index for housing and construction prices

In contrast, we show, real Australian home prices have soared 215% since 1980 and have shown few signs of reversion to long-term trends, despite brief corrections in 2009-10 and 2017-2019.

The graph shows the rise in home prices has been driven by rising land values rather than construction costs, which have grown at a rate closer to general price inflation.

It’s tempting to ascribe the takeoff in home prices to low interest rates. Low rates enable households to take out larger mortgages relative to their incomes.

But rates were also low in the 1960s (close to rates in the 2010s, when home prices were soaring) and didn’t much push up prices then.

More from the house than the wage

Low rates appear to be a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for soaring prices. Among the other things that seem to be needed are increased access to finance, declining public involvement in housing, and tax breaks that reflect the political power of owners.

The return to land in the form of capital growth has climbed from around 3.5% of gross domestic product before 1960 to 16.7% of GDP since 2000.

Read more: Fall in ageing Australians’ home-ownership rates looms as seismic shock for housing policy

It has become so high as to rival and at times dominate wages as a source of household income.

The graph below compares the annual return to a typical home over a year with the annual return to labour in the form of a wage, both nationally and for Sydney (where only recent data is available).

When the measure is greater than one it implies that the average home had a greater return, made up of rent and capital gains, than the average worker.

Total return from housing compared to wages

In 16 of the 29 quarters leading up to June 2019, the median Sydney home earned more than the median full-time worker earned from wages.

In Australia, housing is overwhelmingly privately owned. For a brief period in the 1950 and 1960s, public housing was created on a significant scale, but a huge privatisation program soon followed and today it represents just a few percent of new supply.

Into this environment was thrown the removal of controls on lending from the 1980s, enabling banks to expand property-related lending.

Read more: Vital Signs: why now is the right time to clamp down on negative gearing

More credit flowing in to a finite supply of land generates a feedback cycle as rising prices and collateral values stimulates more lending and higher prices.

In Australia, mortgage lending grew from just under 20% of GDP in 1990 to over 80% today. By way of comparison, business lending climbed 35% to 40%.

The vast majority of mortgage lending is for the purchase of existing, rather than new, homes.

Investors push up prices for everyone

The investor share of new mortgage lending has grown from 10% in the early 1990s to 40%. It has given owner occupiers and first home buyers price competition they didn’t previously have to face.

Australia’s unusually generous tax concessions for investors helped. They are granted discounts on capital gains tax, while being able to deduct the full costs of operating their properties, (including interest costs) against income from any source.

Where the deductions exceed rental income, the process is known as negative gearing.

Read more: Australians are working longer so they can pay off their mortgage debt

A lot will need to change in order to shift things. Mortgage credit will need stronger regulation. It may be time to revisit the credit controls used in Australia in the 1950s and 1960s, which directed investment into new rather than existing housing and helped increase home ownership.

The case for a central housing bank

Taxes should focus on land rents, in the form of increasing residential property values or windfalls from changing land use. Taxing away future rents would dent speculation.

Broadening annual land value taxes to primary residences as well as investors housing would be part of the change, introduced at a low initial rate and with options for delayed payment or borrowing against future sales for those on low incomes.

Tax advantages extended housing investors, such as negative gearing and discounted capital gains taxes, should be scrapped.

Read more: Our states are crying poor. They wouldn’t if they charged for rezoning

And there’s a case to reintroduce direct government involvement. A central housing bank could use its ability to supply and sell new housing to set a “home price corridor” to ensure home prices did not rise rapidly and dampen potential falls in prices.

It could also be used to provide a variety of alternative stable tenures for households, such as different kinds of renting, public housing and selling dwellings to social housing providers at discounted prices.

Challenging vested interests will be hard, but the current downturn offers hope.

As rates of home ownership fall, renters struggle to make ends meet and central banks run out of leverage to stimulate the economy with interest rates already at rock-bottom, reforms that previously appeared politically impossible might gain traction.

– ref. When houses earn more than jobs: how we lost control of Australian house prices and how to get it back – https://theconversation.com/when-houses-earn-more-than-jobs-how-we-lost-control-of-australian-house-prices-and-how-to-get-it-back-144076

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Heidi Norman, Professor, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Technology Sydney

Review: Looky Looky Here Comes Cooky, screening at the Melbourne International Film Festival and on NITV and SBS Viceland.

This year marks the 250th anniversary of Captain Cook’s first landing on the east coast and his claim of territory for the British Empire. Like most scheduled events of 2020, commemorations of this milestone were scuttled by the pandemic.

For some, the cancellation of Cook events relieved a simmering trepidation. But many Aboriginal communities had worked hard to consider their engagement in the 250-year commemoration and communicate the “view from the shore” among themselves and to wider audiences.

The film Looky Looky Here Comes Cooky, directed by Steven McGregor, canvasses Indigenous Australian accounts of, and responses to, Captain Cook’s arrival.

Read more: Explorer, navigator, coloniser: revisit Captain Cook’s legacy with the click of a mouse

The length of the east coast

Sweeping coastline shots remind us of the changing landscape away from the buttery sandstone cliffs of Dharawal country at that place Kamay, which Cook renamed Stingray Bay and we now call Botany Bay.

Host Steven Oliver – known previously as an actor and as creator of comedy sketch show Black Comedy (2014) – guides us the length of the east coast.

At La Perouse we hear the testimony of Dharawal elder and intellectual Shayne Williams and Aboriginal Land Council chair Noeleen Timberry, whose family were witnesses in 1770. We journey through to the Torres Strait, where the story of the planting of a stick and cloth at so called Possession Island is disputed.

Read more: Black Drop Effect review: infusing the present moment with layers of the past

Along the way, artists yarn, dance, slam and sing on a specially created “songline”. Songlines are not just oral histories or “anthropological footnotes”, Oliver reminds us. They

tell the real story in different, but essentially complementary ways; to really belong you’ve got to embrace the songlines. They are the story of this land.

Singer Kev Carmody narrates the movements of warriors organising in his ballad of Multuggerah, a resistance leader and warrior of the Darling Downs.

Mo’Ju sings of a medicine woman with predictive powers who “can see them coming from far away, I know that they are bringing us pain”.

Rapper Birdz imagines a moment

standing on the shoreline, Cook man coming, Patiently waiting for someone I haven’t seen before, They say they came in peace.

While Mau Power vocalises “anger and loss, pain and hurt”.

A more truthful engagement

The voices in Looky Looky offer the possibility of a different Australia with a more truthful engagement with its history.

At one point Oliver declares, “Uncle Jimmy James [Cook] sailed up the north coast, no shame, naming places that all the way along the coast”.

Cook pubs, Cook streets, roads, parks, bridges and even a university reveal an enduring mark.

Calling in at the Captain Cook Hotel, Oliver feels duty bound to order the kitchen’s “special”, a macabre joke not lost on Indigenous peoples of the Pacific. It is a Captain Cook steak (on ciabatta).

There is arguably greater generosity about the Cook story now than there was when the bicentenary was celebrated. The current NSW State Library exhibition Eight Days in Kamay includes 1970 footage from the counter-commemoration protest of poet Oodgeroo Noonuccal in which she recites:

Peace was yours Australian man with tribal laws you made, till white colonial stole your peace with rape and murder raid … they shot and poisoned and enslaved, until a scattered few, only a remnant now remain, and the heart dies in you.

Also featured is activist and Aboriginal Legal Service co-founder Paul Coe, who then challenged the crowd:

… the only way you are going to get anywhere is to come out and demand your rights, showing that you want your rights, not begging.

But in Looky Looky, Guugu Yimithirr Traditional Owner and Bama Historian Alberta Hornsby explains Cook didn’t know he was looking at a nation of peoples who had scientists, lore, language. Eventually, she says, he did develop an admiration for her people.

Hornsby reminds us of the resolution of a dispute over stolen harvests by Cook’s men, who had broken the lore/law of the land. At this location in far north Queensland, Guugu Yimithirr men conducted a process of reconciliation with Cook and several of his crew, to settle their differences.

Read more: Terra nullius interruptus: Captain James Cook and absent presence in First Nations art

Being seen

Hornsby and Shayne Williams are strong voices throughout the film. Both speak of the complexity of commemorating Cook while acknowledging our own people and history.

As Hornsby says:

I do have respect for Captain Cook, but I have far greater respect for my ancestors.

Williams adds:

If we’re going to move forward let’s own our history. The time has come to make ourselves visible again. We’re the only ones who can do that. Australian history and Aboriginal history, are synonymous.

Oliver enlivens songlines to connect people over Country with his earnest blend of engaging humour and bold fact. Within the pastiche of animation, dance, poetry and interviews, it is the generously offered reflections about commemoration, past and present that provide the most compelling elements.

Read more: Friday essay: death on the Darling, colonialism’s final encounter with the Barkandji

Any commemoration of the British claim to the territory of Australia that unleashed loss and disruption on an unrelenting scale, is fraught. Looky Looky is part comedy, part a tale of survival and resistance, part poetry and dance.

The intention of the songlines as narrative is powerful, but the most disruptive forces are the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices who are working through ways to carry stories of the past gently but firmly into the present.

The film is worth watching as one contribution to the commemoration of white settlement made difficult by unyielding historical narratives and experience of disadvantage. Much more work is still needed.

MIFF is online until 23 August 2020. Looky Looky Here Comes Cooky will be simulcast on NITV and SBS VICELAND on Thursday 20 August at 8.30pm.

– ref. Looky Looky Here Comes Cooky: the ‘view from the shore’ told through songlines, with generosity – https://theconversation.com/looky-looky-here-comes-cooky-the-view-from-the-shore-told-through-songlines-with-generosity-144065

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

Federal parliament is set to make history with its first “hybrid” sitting in the fortnight starting next week, with some members connecting virtually.

But border closures and state government rules are causing a nightmare for many of those planning to attend in person.

Unless there is a last minute political hitch, a substantial number of MPs will speak, ask questions or respond to questions remotely.

Technology challenges aside, they’ll have the easier time of it than quite a lot of their colleagues.

Victorians who want to be physically present are now in a fortnight’s quarantine, in Canberra or at their homes, unable to leave their residences.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and Health Minister Greg Hunt are locked up in the national capital, as are the Speaker, Tony Smith and the Senate President, Scott Ryan. (Hunt has even installed an Australian government background for virtual news conferences.)

Under Queensland government rules, MPs who go to Canberra from that state will have to self-isolate for a fortnight when they return home.

If the Queensland rules are still in force in early December, those attending the final sitting ending December 10 can forget any pre-Christmas sprees – they’ll be isolating until Christmas Day.

Victorians who want to attend all the rest of the year’s scheduled sittings will only be able to have a fortnight home between now and December 10, given the quarantine rules.

Among those Victorians choosing not to make the journey next week is Richard Marles, deputy leader of the opposition. He said on Monday, “It is a difficult decision but I will be staying in my community as Victorians face this second wave.” Labor frontbencher Bill Shorten will also be missing from parliament house – he was on the ABC’s Insiders program in person on Sunday.

Tasmania is tightening its conditions for returning MPs, replacing an automatic exemption from quarantine with consideration on a case by case basis.

Ryan has flagged his concerns with the various restrictions imposed by indicating he will be making a statement to the senate about the issue when it resumes.

It would make sense for the government to consolidate the sittings after the October 6 budget, so the parliament could finish the year earlier, but there is no sign of that as yet.

Even in Canberra life will be tougher than usual for some of the parliamentarians. In a statement on Monday Smith and Ryan advised those from Sydney and Newcastle that while in the ACT they should “avoid visiting retail or hospitality venues,” which is bad news for the cash-strapped local eateries.

Moreover: “When attending Parliament House, parliamentarians and staff should avoid congregating in groups, and avoid face-to-face meetings with external visitors”.

Not that there will be many staff to congregate – the presiding officers say they should not go to Canberra “unless it is considered absolutely essential”. And external visitors will be as rare as hens’ teeth, under the presiding officers’ advice.

Scott Morrison has yet to tick off on MPs linking up virtually – Labor is keen – but it is hard to see him not agreeing.

This is formally done through Christian Porter, the leader of the House, who earlier expressed concerns about the technology and the application of parliamentary privilege.

Morrison has signalled general support for the sitting to have its virtual element. For the government not to embrace it would look out of touch at best and obstructionist at worst. Parliamentary committees have been operating remotely through the pandemic and for years before.

The government has the final say only in regard to the House of Representatives; the Senate, where the government is in a minority, is its own master.

This week rehearsals are underway for the virtual system, with MPs who won’t be in Canberra given trial runs. They will have to operate from their electorate offices, and use parliamentary equipment. Even the usual dress rules that apply to each chamber are expected to operate for the “virtuals”.

The pandemic produced a different atmosphere in the House of Representatives, with the macho aggression toned down, certainly initially. No doubt the hybrid parliament will have yet another distinctive vibe.

– ref. View from The Hill: ‘Virtual’ participants and border restrictions will make for a bespoke parliamentary sitting – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-virtual-participants-and-border-restrictions-will-make-for-a-bespoke-parliamentary-sitting-144602

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Kamradt-Scott, Associate professor, University of Sydney

The world is hoping a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine will soon become available. So far, more than 160 candidate vaccines are in development.

Some 31 of these have entered human clinical trials. One of them is Russia’s “Sputnik V”, which was granted approval by the country’s health ministry last week. But the World Health Organisation (WHO) and a large number of international experts have urged Russia to conduct more testing to ensure the vaccine’s safety before using it.

But even if this candidate and others are proven to be safe and effective, developing the vaccine is just the first step.

Some of the biggest challenges in getting everyone vaccinated still lie ahead.

Read more: Russia’s coronavirus vaccine hasn’t been fully tested. Doling it out risks side effects and false protection

Challenge 1: manufacturing the vaccine

The first major challenge after a vaccine is developed is to produce enough of it to start vaccination programs. One estimate puts global vaccine production capacity at up to 6.4 billion doses per year, though this is based on single-dose influenza vaccines.

But some of the COVID-19 vaccines currently in development require two or three injections. This means, if the same technology for COVID-19 vaccines is required as for influenza vaccines, global production is severely reduced.

It has been estimated that to achieve sufficient levels of immunity among the global population with a two-dose vaccine, we would need between 12 billion and 15 billion doses – roughly twice the world’s current total vaccine manufacturing capacity.

Shifting to exclusively manufacture a COVID-19 vaccine will also mean shortages of other vaccines such as those for preventable childhood diseases such as measles, mumps and rubella. So prioritising COVID-19 could cost many other lives.

Can we buy vaccines in advance?

Given these production constraints, governments have previously tended to sign advance purchase agreements with vaccine manufacturers to guarantee access. These commercial-in-confidence agreements are usually signed in secret, often with different prices being charged to different governments depending on whether they are the first customer or 30th and their ability to pay.

It also means countries that can afford to buy vaccine stocks in advance get first access, leaving poorer nations to miss out or be forced to wait years. This has happened on at least two previous occasions.

In 2007, Indonesia found it couldn’t purchase H5N1 influenza (bird flu) vaccines despite being one of the worst-affected countries at the time. This was because several other richer countries had already organised advanced purchase agreements, and led Indonesia to temporarily withhold sharing virus samples with the WHO in retaliation. And in 2009, rich nations bought up almost all the stock of H1N1 influenza vaccines, crowding out less-developed nations.

Most of the world’s leaders, including Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison, have stated that a successful COVID-19 vaccine should be shared equitably. In July, Australia was one of 165 countries to join the “COVAX” initiative launched by the WHO, global vaccine alliance GAVI, and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations. The initiative aims to deliver 2 billion doses of a COVID-19 vaccine by the end of 2021.

Countries representing 60% of the world’s population have signed up to this initiative, but not everyone has and we’ve already seen a number of instances in which governments have sought to gain priority access over others. The problem with this vaccine nationalism is that rather than being based on equity or need, it will create global supply problems with those countries that have special deals getting access to the vaccine first.

Read more: How ‘vaccine nationalism’ could block vulnerable populations’ access to COVID-19 vaccines

Challenge 2: distributing the vaccine

The second key challenge is distributing the COVID-19 vaccine. Most vaccines need to be transported in cold storage, which presents a problem for many parts of the world where electricity failure is a common feature of daily life.

The WHO has estimated up to 50% of vaccines are wasted every year, often because of inadequate temperature control in supply chains.

With the marked reduction in international passenger air travel, the movement of cargo has also slowed. This will need to be addressed with airlines ahead of any attempts to distribute the vaccine.

Beyond the initial transport from the manufacturer, getting the vaccine to rural and remote communities requires sophisticated logistical services, which many poorer countries lack.

Without substantial investment to strengthen international and national supply chains, it will be years before vaccines can reach everyone who needs them.

How is Australia placed?

In Australia, criticism has emerged the government hasn’t done enough to secure access to vaccines, with some reports also suggesting New Zealand has invested more in global vaccine initiatives.

But Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt said on Sunday that Australia is in “advanced negotiations with a range of different companies with regards to a vaccine,” one of which is reportedly the University of Oxford’s candidate.

While some might argue more needs to be done to secure a COVID-19 vaccine for Australians, it’s not necessarily the best move to enter into advanced purchase agreements. They are expensive, and there’s no guarantee the candidates Australia signs up for will be safe and effective.

Nevertheless, the government’s approach has been to avoid putting all its eggs in one basket, supporting multiple vaccine initiatives. It has also supported multilateral initiatives such as granting more than US$10 million to CEPI, one of the key organisations managing the COVAX initiative.

It’s also good to see the government is willing to support initiatives such as COVAX that aim to make the vaccine available to those countries with limited means to pay. While some may see this as excessive altruism, it’s in Australia’s broader interest, given borders are likely to remain closed until a vaccine has been made widely available. The quicker the world is vaccinated, the sooner we can reopen our borders.

What this means for the average Australian is that we should get ready for a long wait. Even if the Australian government signs an advanced purchase agreement to secure priority access to a safe and effective COVID vaccine, initial supplies are going to be extremely limited.

Priority groups like frontline health-care workers will get first access, followed by those who are more vulnerable to serious illness. If you’re otherwise fit and healthy, you should be prepared that it could take up to a few years after vaccines become available.

If they become available sooner, it will only be because countries have agreed to work together like never before. Let’s hope they can do it.

Read more: Vaccine progress report: the projects bidding to win the race for a COVID-19 vaccine

– ref. Creating a COVID-19 vaccine is only the first step. It’ll take years to manufacture and distribute – https://theconversation.com/creating-a-covid-19-vaccine-is-only-the-first-step-itll-take-years-to-manufacture-and-distribute-144352

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Donna Pendergast, Dean, School of Educational and Professional Studies, Griffith University

With a little over three months to go, Year 12 students have their sights set on the last major hurdle that will see them complete their final year of school — exams.

What a year it has been for them. All students have experienced disruption, some for many weeks with learning at home rolled out around the nation in its various forms.

Senior induction days celebrated early this year promised a very different experience for these now young adults as their rite-of-passage year slowly changed into one of postponed and finally cancelled events.

We conducted a series of interviews at the end of the first semester with eight Year 12 students from one Queensland school, who hope to study at university. Six were female and two male.

Many students said they were anxious about how COVID-19 has affected their senior year.

One girl said she was

super overwhelmed and uncertain as to how my results will be affected […] I am nervous for the future […] to be honest I am a little bit down[…] I was extremely excited for senior year[…] there is also a lot of chaos in the world, which is pretty overwhelming.

But some were more positive. One commented on “having fantastic teachers”, while another said he was “excited to use technology more”.

Here is what else the students we spoke with had to say about their experience in 2020 and their aspirations for university in 2021.

How they felt

As the parent of a Year 12 student, I have had the chance to sit alongside some Year 12s and witness their journey. Like many other parents and teachers, we have been privy to their disappointments and seemingly endless capacity to pivot, adapt and recalibrate — their resilience and resolve is inspiring.

Read more: ‘Exhausted beyond measure’: what teachers are saying about COVID-19 and the disruption to education

Because this is their year, they must make it the best it can be. But for some the resolve is wearing thin. Almost all the students in our survey expressed a sense of loss about their school year.

One girl said

we are missing out on a lot of these opportunities as well as being able to spend time with my friends at school

And another girl expressed that

it really sucks that we have already missed out on events throughout the school and we are uncertain for how long this will last.

One girl said the class of 2020 was

disadvantaged because many memories that we are meant to be making together in our senior year has been taken away from us.

This highlights the important final year of schooling as a milestone — a rite of passage.

Only one student, who was male, had a contrary view of missing out on a normal year, saying

it’s a great opportunity to relieve myself of many commitments and free up time to work on other endeavours — in other words, I feel pretty good about it.

What about university?

This year Queensland joined the rest of the country in calculating an ATAR for university entry, whereas before they used a different system.

We asked students if they had concerns about university in 2021. One girl summarised many of the responses by saying

I think everyone is a little bit worried about how we will be affected as a cohort — not just because of Covid-19 but also because we are the first year level through on the new ATAR system. That was already pretty overwhelming in terms of new assessment, new university entry calculations, etc. I think that the biggest worry/uncertainty is if universities are going to be a bit more flexible with our cohort.

Students also suggested they are looking to universities to make up some of their lost experiences. One girl said

the class of 2020 will need supportive universities with a close sense of community when we attend in 2021 to make up for some of our lost lasts.

There is a sense of shared experience, a kind of bonding these students expressed, with several comments such as we are “staying positive and looking to the future” and “we just need to look after each other”.

Read more: Every Victorian Year 12 student will have COVID-19 factored into their grade — we should do it for all Australian students

Perhaps endurance and resilience have become a necessary part of the DNA of the class of 2020. These are positive behaviours that will see them through their next phase of education.

– ref. ‘It really sucks’: how some Year 12 students in Queensland feel about 2020 – https://theconversation.com/it-really-sucks-how-some-year-12-students-in-queensland-feel-about-2020-144004

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Morgan Gilmour, Adjunct Researcher in Marine Science, University of Tasmania

After 16 weeks in an industrial compost heap, we unearthed blue and white balloons and found them totally unscathed. The knots we spent hours painstakingly tying by hand more than four months ago were still attached, and sparkly blue balloons still glinted in the sun.

These balloons originally came from packages that advertised them as “100% biodegradable”, with the manufacturers assuring they were made of “100% natural latex rubber”. The implication is that these balloons would have no trouble breaking down in the environment.

Read more: Balloon releases have deadly consequences – we’re helping citizen scientists map them

This appeals to eco-conscious consumers, but really just fuels corporate greenwashing — unsubstantiated claims of environmentally friendly and safe products.

Holding perfectly intact balloons in our hands after four months in industrial compost, we had cause to question these claims, and ran experiments.

What’s the problem?

This problem is two-fold. First, balloons are additional plastic waste in the environment. They are lightweight and can travel on air currents far from the point of release. For example, one 2005 study found a balloon travelled more than 200 kilometres.

When they pop, they float back to the earth’s surface and land in, for example, the ocean or the desert, and wash up on beaches where animals can eat them, from sea turtles and seabirds to desert tortoises.

The stretchiness of balloons means they can get stuck in animals’ digestive tracts, which will cause choking, blockage, decreased nutrient absorption and effectively starve the animal.

Read more: How to get abandoned, lost and discarded ‘ghost’ fishing gear out of the ocean

Second, what most consumers don’t realise, is that to shape milky natural rubber latex sap into the product we know as a balloon, many additional chemicals need to be added to the latex.

These chemicals include antioxidants and anti-fogging (to counteract that cloudy look balloons can get), plasticisers (to make it more flexible), preservatives (to enable the balloon to sit in warehouses and store shelves for months), flame retardants, fragrance and, of course, dyes and pigments.

Even more chemicals have to be used to make the additives “stick” to the latex and to stick to each other, enabling them to work in tandem to create a product we expect to use for about 24 hours. So, the balloons can’t be “100% natural rubber latex”.

And yet, despite substantial evidence of harm and the presence of these chemicals, balloon littering persists. Balloon releases are common, with only some regional regulations in place, such as in New South Wales and the Sunshine Coast.

Lying for decades

While some factions of the balloon industry denounce balloon releases, these claims are only recent.

For decades, the industry relied on one industry-funded study from 1989 which claimed that after six short weeks, balloons degraded “at about the same rate as oak tree leaves” and there was no way balloons were a threat to wildlife.

That study was not peer-reviewed, its methods are unclear and not repeatable, and the results are based on only six balloons.

Read more: Avoiding single-use plastic was becoming normal, until coronavirus. Here’s how we can return to good habits

Because balloons are frequently reported to be at sea, ingested by wild animals and washed up on beaches, it’s clear they’re not breaking down in only six weeks. Anecdotal studies have tested this to varying degrees, confirming balloons don’t break down.

Only one peer-reviewed scientific study has quantified balloon degradation, and that also occurred in 1989 — the same year as the industry study. They tested elasticity for up to one year, which means the balloons were intact for that whole time.

We wanted to know: has anything changed since 1989? And why aren’t there more studies testing balloon degradation, given the passion behind the balloon issue?

So, we set out to quantify exactly how long latex balloons would take to break down. And we asked if balloons degraded differently in different parts of the environment.

Our experiment tested their claims

Industrial composting standards require that the material completely disintegrates after 12 weeks and that the product is not distinguishable from the surrounding soil.

We designed an experiment: after exposing balloons to six hours of sunlight (to simulate typical use, for example, at an outdoor party), we put blue and white balloons in industrial compost, and in saltwater and freshwater tanks.

We allowed for aeration to simulate natural conditions, but otherwise, we left the balloons alone. Every two weeks, we randomly removed 40 balloons from each treatment. We photographed them to document degradation. Then we tested them.

Were the balloons still stretchy? We tested this in the University of Tasmania engineering lab to determine tensile (resistence) strength. We found that in water tanks, the balloons became less stretchy, losing around 75% of their tensile strength. But if they had been composted, balloons retained their stretchiness.

Were the balloons still composed of the same things they started with? We tested this by taking spectral measurements of the balloons’ surface. The balloons showed signs they were exposed to ultra violet light in the water tanks, but not in the compost. This means their chemical composition changed in water, but only slightly.

Finally, and most importantly, did the balloons lose mass?

After 16 weeks, the balloons were still recognisably balloons, though they behaved a little differently in compost, water and saltwater. Some balloons lost 1–2% mass, and some balloons in freshwater gained mass, likely due to osmotic absorption of water.

What can we do?

It’s clear latex balloons don’t meaningfully degrade in 16 weeks and will continue to pose a threat to wildlife. So what can we do as consumers? We offer these tips:

• do not release balloons outdoors
• do not use helium-filled balloons outdoors (this prevents accidental release, and saves helium), which is a critically limited resource
• if you use balloons, deflate and bin them after use
• consider balloon alternatives, like bubbles
• make educated purchases with federal Green Guidelines in mind.

Read more: There are some single-use plastics we truly need. The rest we can live without

– ref. We composted ‘biodegradable’ balloons. Here’s what we found after 16 weeks – https://theconversation.com/we-composted-biodegradable-balloons-heres-what-we-found-after-16-weeks-138731

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laurie Berg, Associate Professor, University of Technology Sydney

In the early days of the COVID-19 lockdown in March, many temporary visa holders working in heavily casualised industries, such as hospitality and retail, lost their jobs and struggled to meet basic living expenses.

These included international students, backpackers, graduates, sponsored workers and refugees, among others.

Despite the devastating financial impact on these temporary migrants, the government excluded them from JobKeeper and JobSeeker. Instead, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said if they could not support themselves, it was time to go home.

Today, UnionsNSW is releasing the findings of a large-scale survey showing just how badly temporary migrants have suffered due to the lockdown and lack of financial support from the government. The survey of over 5,000 visa holders, conducted in late March and early April, paints a devastating picture:

• 65% of participants lost their job

• 39% did not have enough money to cover basic living expenses

• 43% were skipping meals on a regular basis

• 34% were already homeless, or anticipated imminent eviction because they could not pay rent.

For many, a worsening financial situation

Data from a separate new survey we are conducting confirms that the financial hardship of temporary migrants is likely to worsen in the coming months.

Through the UTS and UNSW-led Migrant Worker Justice Initiative, we conducted an online survey of over 6,000 temporary migrants in July. Preliminary analysis indicates that over half of the participants (57%) anticipated their financial situation would be somewhat or much worse within six months.

This does not take into account the impact of the stage 4 lockdown in Victoria, which came into effect in August after our survey.

Read more: Why temporary migrants need JobKeeper

Many respondents also said they could not “make their way home” when restrictions were being put in place to contain the virus — as Morrison had recommended — because flights were unavailable (20%) or unaffordable (27%). Others could not return because their country’s borders were closed (20%).

But for the majority, leaving Australia was not an option because of the great investment they said they had made in their studies (57%), their work and their futures in Australia (31%).

Half of our respondents also chose not to leave because they might not be able to return to Australia soon, or at all, and this was a risk they could not take.

The government’s treatment of temporary visa holders during the crisis also soured many on their experience here. According to our survey, 59% of international students and backpackers were now somewhat or far less likely to recommend Australia as a place for study or a working holiday.

One international student described his experience as

hopeless, lonely, wronged and without any support after five years paying my taxes and being part of the community.

And according to a backpacker,

the Australian government treated people on working holiday visas as consumable. If I go back to my country, I will never come to Australia again.

Calls for government support have been ignored

In early April, 43 leading academic experts across Australia warned of the severe humanitarian impact the lack of government support would have on visa holders who stayed in Australia.

As the level of destitution among temporary migrants became clear, charities tried to provide emergency food relief, and states introduced limited support schemes for international students, refugees and other groups of visa holders. Many universities, themselves facing significant financial challenges, also provided modest payments to international students.

Read more: Open letter to the prime minister: extend coronavirus support to temporary workers

Despite these interventions, hundreds of organisations — including unions, refugee service providers and migrant communities — raised the alarm in May, and again in July, about the worsening humanitarian crisis.

Still, the federal government continues to refuse support for temporary migrants, except for a small, one-off emergency payment provided to the Red Cross for a limited number of visa holders.

The government’s only other concession was to permit temporary visa holders to access their superannuation (which most did not have because they worked for noncompliant employers who underpaid them in cash). Even this small support mechanism was recently ended for temporary residents without warning.

Why Australia must support temporary migrants

Australia is a global outlier in its callous treatment of temporary migrants during the pandemic. Other countries, such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada and Ireland, have all extended wage subsidies to temporary visa holders.

Australia has obligations under international human rights law to ensure every person within its borders has a safe and secure place to live, adequate food and basic health care.

Advising temporary visa holders to go home does not diminish these obligations. Nor does it absolve Australia of its moral obligations to these people it encouraged to greatly invest in studying and working here.

It is unreasonable to expect international students to simply abandon their studies, or to expect other migrants to leave Australia when it has become their home. They have paid tax, contributed to our community and built long-term relationships.

Many of Australia’s low-wage industries are also reliant on migrant workers. In fact, during the lockdown, the government even changed the rules of student visas to permit them to work more hours in dangerous jobs in aged care, supermarkets, disability support and health care.

The government should also be concerned about the reputational damage to our international education market, and to the working holiday maker market, which provides a critical labour force for the horticulture industry.

Over the coming months, without ongoing government support, the living situations for hundreds of thousands of temporary visa holders in Australia will continue to deteriorate.

It is well past time the federal government acknowledge this crisis and focus its attention on meeting temporary migrants’ acute humanitarian needs.

Read more: The coronavirus risk Australia is not talking about: testing our unlawful migrant workers

– ref. ‘I will never come to Australia again’: new research reveals the suffering of temporary migrants during the COVID-19 crisis – https://theconversation.com/i-will-never-come-to-australia-again-new-research-reveals-the-suffering-of-temporary-migrants-during-the-covid-19-crisis-143351

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Usha M. Rodrigues, Senior Lecturer in Journalism, Deakin University

Australia prides itself on being a successful multicultural society. Yet Australian television does not reflect the make-up of the wider community. This in turn means many stories of multicultural Australians remain untold.

An analysis by Deakin University, to be launched today, shows Australian television news and current affairs programs across all channels are overwhelmingly curated, framed and presented by journalists and commentators from an Anglo-Celtic background.

Read more: Australians born overseas prefer the online world for their news

The report, titled “Who gets to tell Australian stories?”, examined two weeks of programs. It found more than 75% of their presenters, commentators and reporters are of Anglo-Celtic background. Only 13% have a European heritage, 9.3% non-European and 2.1% Indigenous background.

To determine this, we examined publicly available biographical information about each individual. We looked at relevant public statements about their cultural background including on social media sites, their surname and its origins, place of birth, and visual observation. This was cross-checked by another researcher.

These findings do not match well with the wider population. An estimated 58% of Australians have an Anglo-Celtic background, 18% European, 21% non-European and 3% Indigenous backgrounds.

Lack of diversity is evident in the stories, too

The study also examined more than 19,000 news and current affairs items from Australian free-to-air metropolitan and regional networks, broadcast over two weeks in June 2019. It found the lack of diversity is also reflected in the stories programs make, the issues they examine and the way they examine them.

The numbers are worse when one considers Australians of non-European and Indigenous backgrounds make up 24% of the Australian population, but appear on television news screens for only 6% of the times.

The lack of representation of journalists from multicultural Australia in television news also excludes minority communities from news. Less than 4% of all news and current affairs stories broadcast by 81 programs are about multicultural Australia.

It is not surprising multicultural Australia is disenchanted with mainstream Australian television and seeks news from social and online media. Related to this, our recent experience of COVID-19 has shown many Australians have negative attitudes towards those from multicultural backgrounds.

The 2016 census showed nearly half of all Australians were born overseas or had a parent born overseas. There is also great linguistic diversity. More than 300 languages are spoken across the nation and 21% of Australians speak a language other than English at home.

The analysis of representation of diversity in Australian television news is part of a larger project undertaken by four universities and Media Diversity Australia. The project includes three data components – an examination of a two-week blocks of programs, a survey of television newsroom staff, and an analysis of television networks’ leadership and board teams.

Interviews with senior news and current affairs leaders from all free-to-air networks supplement the empirical research. Although most leaders recognise their outlets need to do more to reflect the diversity of their audience, most do not have any concrete plans to do so.

Apart from SBS, all three commercial channels and the ABC lack fair representation of journalists from non-European background. Channel 7, Channel 9 and regional channels (Win Canberra, Seven Tasmania, Southern Cross, ACT, Channel 9 Darwin, Prime 7 ACT and Win Hobart) have almost no journalists from an Indigenous or non-European background.

The lack of cultural diversity in the regional television network workforce is alarming because regional media remains the pipeline to train young journalists. They then move to metropolitan locations or rise through the ranks to senior roles.

A close look at popular breakfast shows shows an alarming lack of diversity. Channel 7 has a presenter, commentator or reporter of non-European background on camera only 7% of the time. Channel 9 has tokenistic representation of non-European and Indigenous journalists on camera.

The study was undertaken at Deakin University by adopting the Australian Human Rights Commission’s four broad classifications of cultural backgrounds – Anglo-Celtic, European, non-European and Indigenous.

Read more: New research shows how Australia’s newsrooms are failing minority communities

What needs to be done?

The report recommends systematic collection of diversity data, establishing cultural diversity targets, and prioritising diversity in the recruitment and promotion of newsroom staff. It also explores the commercial incentive for networks to better connect with and reflect their increasingly diverse audience.

Importantly, there must be greater diversity among Australian television networks’ decision-makers (senior executives and the boards). Without it, the culture of Australian television newsrooms is unlikely to change.

Our study found a staggering lack of cultural diversity in leadership roles – including at SBS – which is no doubt having a trickle-down effect on the newsroom floor.

– ref. Whitewash on the box: how a lack of diversity on Australian television damages us all – https://theconversation.com/whitewash-on-the-box-how-a-lack-of-diversity-on-australian-television-damages-us-all-143434

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stuart Ralph, Associate Professor and malaria researcher, University of Melbourne

The number of COVID-19 deaths globally – more than 750,000 – is now greater than the amount of people who succumb to malaria most years.

Meanwhile, national statistics show lockdown restrictions in Australia have potentially helped reduce the number of flu cases.

So while the pandemic continues to have a huge impact on global health, here are some of the known and likely impacts the virus is having on six other major health challenges.

The results might surprise you.

1. Sexually transmitted infections

Some dating apps such as Tinder and Bumble report an increase in online activity, but is this translating to an increase of meet-ups for sexual activity despite the lockdown?

Researchers from the University of Melbourne are investigating these and other questions in a survey examining the sexual and reproductive health impacts of COVID-19.

Although this research is ongoing, preliminary analysis suggests a decline in sexual activity among those without cohabitating partners during lockdown, and an increase in solo sex activities such as masturbation and using sex toys.

Adult stores have also reported a jump in sales during the lockdown.

Read more: The safest sex you’ll never have: how coronavirus is changing online dating

While early reports suggest a possible decline in STIs during the lockdown period, with the resumption of normal life across most of Australia, it’s unclear if this trend will continue.

2. Respiratory infections

Each year the flu kills 2,000-3,000 Australians. The measures people are taking to limit COVID-19, such as increased physical distancing, good hand hygiene and face masks, are already having a clear benefit on limiting flu spread.

Read more: The coronavirus lockdown might help limit this year’s flu season – but you should still get your flu jab anyway

Deaths from flu in the first half of 2020 were down to just 36, compared with 430 in the same period last year.

While we might expect similar reductions in other respiratory infections, the World Health Organization has major concerns about tuberculosis (TB). Well over a million people worldwide die each year from TB, and extensive detection and tracing programs are key to reducing deaths.

These TB control programs have already been impacted by the pandemic and the WHO predicts an extra 1.4 million people could die as a result over the next five years.

3. Insect-borne diseases

Staying home should stop you inhaling someone else’s cough or sneeze, but it probably won’t stop you being bitten by a mosquito.

More than 700,000 people die each year from diseases spread by biting insects, such as malaria, dengue, sleeping sickness and yellow fever.

Read more: Can mosquitoes spread coronavirus?

There are already signs dengue cases are growing in Southeast Asia in the wake of reduced control measures brought by COVID-19.

Monash University’s Scott O’Neill, director of the World Mosquito Program and dengue expert, predicts we’re facing a perfect storm in which fragile health systems manage outbreaks of two diseases at once.

In the case of malaria, the WHO estimates deaths in many parts of the world could double this year, killing hundreds of thousands more people if insecticide-treated net campaigns are interrupted because of COVID-19.

4. Non-communicable diseases

In wealthy countries such as Australia, non-communicable diseases such as cancer, heart disease and stroke are some of the main causes of death and disability. Death from some of these can be reduced by appropriate screening and primary healthcare interventions.

Read more: Even in a pandemic, continue with routine health care and don’t ignore a medical emergency

If people delay going to their doctor to monitor blood pressure or put off routine cancer testing (and reports so far suggest this is happening), we will inevitably see more illness and deaths from these causes.

Cancer Australia has launched a campaign, Cancer Won’t Wait, to remind people to continue to participate in national screening campaigns for breast, cervical and bowel cancers and not to put off seeking medical attention for danger signs of cancer.

In countries that have relatively good control of COVID-19, increases in these non-communicable diseases are likely to far exceed the deaths directly caused by COVID-19.

5. Alcohol and substance abuse

If social media posts are anything to go by, people could be drinking more frequently and in higher volume than normal during the pandemic.

According to a poll commissioned by the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, one in five Australian households are buying more alcohol than normal during the pandemic.

Alcohol contributed to more than 1,000 deaths in Australia in 2017 alone, and heavier drinking during the pandemic would exacerbate this pattern.

Read more: Worried about your drinking during lockdown? These 8 signs might indicate a problem

Experts also worry about possible longer-term behavioural changes in drinking at home.

The health impacts of abuse of other substances such as heroin or cocaine during the pandemic remains contentious. Limits on transport and movement are already impacting both the trafficking and use of illicit drugs, but users might replace scarce drugs with other equally hazardous substances.

6. Mental health

Mental health disorders have some of the heaviest global health burdens of any type of illness. The social, economic and health impacts of COVID-19 will have huge consequences for mental health for many around the world.

Mental health support services have already reported a surge in calls, while hospitals have seen an increase in presentations of young people after self harm. Australia has launched a National Mental Health and Wellbeing Pandemic Response Plan backed by an initial A$48.1 million.

The Victorian government announced an additional A$60 million for mental health services but much more will likely be needed to avert a crisis in this area.

Read more: As ‘lockdown fatigue’ sets in, the toll on mental health will require an urgent response

What’s the verdict?

Although some infectious diseases that are normally spread directly from person to person are already reducing their transmission because of our response to COVID-19, many other diseases will get much worse during and after the pandemic.

Although we can’t ease up our efforts to control the spread of COVID-19, taking our eye off other ongoing illnesses will mean even worse health and economic outcomes. It’s crucial to maintain our focus on prevention, control and elimination for the many other health challenges that impact Australia, and the world.

– ref. From STIs to malaria, here are six disease trends we should heed during the pandemic – https://theconversation.com/from-stis-to-malaria-here-are-six-disease-trends-we-should-heed-during-the-pandemic-143907

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Edwin White, Professor Emeritus, University of Melbourne

To slow climate change, humanity has two main options: reduce greenhouse gas emissions directly or find ways to remove them from the atmosphere. On the latter, storing carbon in soil – or carbon farming – is often touted as a promising way to offset emissions from other sources such as energy generation, industry and transport.

The Morrison government’s Technology Investment Roadmap, now open for public comment, identifies soil carbon as a potential way to reduce emissions from agriculture and to offset other emissions.

In particular, it points to so-called “biochar” – plant material transformed into carbon-rich charcoal then applied to soil.

But the government’s plan contains misconceptions about both biochar, and the general effectiveness of soil carbon as an emissions reduction strategy.

What is biochar?

Through photosynthesis, plants turn carbon dioxide (CO₂) into organic material known as biomass. When that biomass decomposes in soil, CO₂ is produced and mostly ends up in the atmosphere.

This is a natural process. But if we can intervene by using technology to keep carbon in the soil rather than in the atmosphere, in theory that will help mitigate climate change. That’s where biochar comes in.

Making biochar involves heating waste organic materials in a reduced-oxygen environment to create a charcoal-like product – a process called “pyrolysis”. The carbon from the biomass is stored in the charcoal, which is very stable and does not decompose for decades.

Plant materials are the predominant material or “feedstock” used to make biochar, but livestock manure can also be used. The biochar is applied to the soil, purportedly to boost soil fertility and productivity. This has been tested on grassland, cropping soils and in vineyards.

But there’s a catch

So far, so good. But there are a few downsides to consider.

First, the pyrolysis process produces combustible gases and uses energy – to the extent that when all energy inputs and outputs are considered in a life cycle analysis, the net energy balance can be negative. In other words, the process can create more greenhouse gas emissions than it saves. The balance depends on many factors including the type and condition of the feedstock and the rate and temperature of pyrolysis.

Second, while biochar may improve the soil carbon status at a new site, the sites from which the carbon residues are removed, such as farmers’ fields or harvested forests, will be depleted of soil carbon and associated nutrients. Hence there may be no overall gain in soil fertility.

Read more: A pretty good start but room for improvement: 3 experts rate Australia’s emissions technology plan

Third, the government roadmap claims increasing soil carbon can reduce emissions from livestock farming while increasing productivity. Theoretically, increased soil carbon should lead to better pasture growth. But the most efficient way for farmers to take advantage of the growth, and increase productivity, is to keep more livestock per hectare.

Livestock such as cows and sheep produce methane – a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Our analysis suggests the methane produced by the extra stock would exceed the offsetting effect of storing more soil carbon. This would lead to a net increase, not decrease, in greenhouse gas

A policy failure

The government plan refers to the potential to build on the success of the Emissions Reduction Fund. Among other measures, the fund pays landholders to increase the amount of carbon stored in soil through carbon credits issued through the Carbon Farming Initiative.

However since 2014, the Emissions Reduction Fund has not significantly reduced Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions – and agriculture’s contribution has been smaller still.

Read more: Carbon dioxide levels over Australia rose even after COVID-19 forced global emissions down. Here’s why

So far, the agriculture sector has been contracted to provide about 9.5% of the overall abatement, or about 18.3 million tonnes. To date, it’s supplied only 1.54 million tonnes – 8.4% of the sector’s commitment.

The initiative has largely failed because several factors have made it uneconomic for farmers to take part. They include:

• overly complex regulations
• requirements for expensive soil sampling and analysis
• the low value of carbon credits (averaging $12 per tonne of CO₂-equivalent since the scheme began).

A misguided strategy

We believe the government is misguided in considering soil carbon as an emissions reduction technology.

Certainly, increasing soil carbon at one location can boost soil fertility and potentially productivity, but these are largely private landholder benefits – paid for by taxpayers in the form of carbon credits.

Read more: Climate explained: are we doomed if we don’t manage to curb emissions by 2030?

If emissions reduction is seen as a public benefit, then the payment to farmers becomes a subsidy. But it’s highly questionable whether the public benefit (in the form of reduced emissions) is worth the cost. The government has not yet done this analysis.

To be effective, future emissions technology in Australia should focus on improving energy efficiency in industry, the residential sector and transport, where big gains are to be made.

– ref. Dishing the dirt: Australia’s move to store carbon in soil is a problem for tackling climate change – https://theconversation.com/dishing-the-dirt-australias-move-to-store-carbon-in-soil-is-a-problem-for-tackling-climate-change-141656

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanne Orlando, Researcher: Children and Technology, Western Sydney University

The video-sharing app TikTok is a hot political potato amid concerns over who has access to users’ personal data.

The United States has moved to ban the app. Other countries, including Australia, have expressed concern.

But does this mean your children who use this app are at risk? If you’re a parent, let me explain the issues and give you a few tips to make sure your kids stay safe.

A record-breaker

Never has an app for young people been so popular. By April this year the TikTok app had been downloaded more than 2 billion times worldwide.

The app recently broke all records for the most downloaded app in a quarterly period, with 315 million downloads globally in the first three months of 2020.

Its popularity with young Aussies has sky-rocketed. Around 1.6 million Australians use the app, including about one in five people born since 2006. That’s an estimated 537,000 young Australians.

Like all social media apps, TikTok siphons data about its users such as email address, contacts, IP address and geolocation information.

TikTok was fined $US5.8 million (A$8 million) to settle US government claims it illegally collected personal information from children.

As a Chinese company, ByteDance, owns TikTok, US President Donald Trump and others are also worried about the app handing over this data to the Chinese state. TikTok denies it does this.

Read more: China could be using TikTok to spy on Australians, but banning it isn’t a simple fix

Just days ago the Trump administration signed an executive order to seek a ban on TikTok operating or interacting with US companies.

Youngsters still TikToking

There is no hint of this stopping our TikToking children. For them it’s business as usual, creating and uploading videos of themselves lip-syncing, singing, dancing or just talking.

The most recent trend on TikTok – Taylor Swift Love Story dance – has resulted in more than 1.5 million video uploads in around two weeks alone.

But the latest political issues with TikTok raise questions about whether children should be on this platform right now. More broadly, as we see copycat sites such as Instagram Reels launched, should children be using any social media platforms that focus on them sharing videos of themselves at all?

The pros and cons

The TikTok app has filled a genuine social need for this young age group. Social media sites can offer a sense of belonging to a group, such as a group focused on a particular interest, experience, social group or religion.

TikTok celebrates diversity and inclusivity. It can provide a place where young people can join together to support each other in their needs.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, TikTok has had huge numbers of videos with coronavirus-related hashtags such as #quarantine (65 billion views), #happyathome (19.5 billion views) and #safehands (5.4 billion views).

Some of these videos are funny, some include song and dance. The World Health Organisation even posted its own youth-oriented videos on TikTok to provide young people with reliable public health advice about COVID-19.

The key benefit is the platform became a place where young people joined together from all corners of the planet, to understand and take the stressful edge off the pandemic for themselves and others their age. Where else could they do that? The mental health benefits this offers can be important.

Let’s get creative

Another benefit lies in the creativity TikTok centres on. Passive use of technology, such as scrolling and checking social media with no purpose, can lead to addictive types of screen behaviours for young people.

Whereas planning and creating content, such as making their own videos, is meaningful use of technology and curbs addictive technology behaviours. In other words, if young people are going to use technology, using it creatively, purposefully and with meaning is the type of use we want to encourage.

Users of TikTok must be at least 13 years old, although it does have a limited app for under 13s.

Know the risks

Like all social media platforms, children are engaging in a space in which others can contact them. They may be engaging in adult concepts that they are not yet mature enough for, such as love gone wrong or suggestively twerking to songs.

Read more: The secret of TikTok’s success? Humans are wired to love imitating dance moves

The platform moves very quickly, with a huge amount of videos, likes and comments uploaded every day. Taking it all in can lead to cognitive overload. This can be distracting for children and decrease focus on other aspects of their life including schoolwork.

So here are a few tips for keeping your child safe, as well as getting the most out of the creative/educational aspects of TikTok.

1. as with any social network, use privacy settings to limit how much information your child is sharing

2. if your child is creating a video, make sure it is reviewed before it’s uploaded to ensure it doesn’t include content that can be misconstrued or have negative implications

3. if a child younger than 13 wants to use the app, there’s a section for this younger age group that includes extra safety and privacy features

4. if you’re okay with your child creating videos for TikTok, then doing it together or helping them plan and film the video can be a great parent-child bonding activity

5. be aware of the collection of data by TikTok, encourage your child to be aware of it, and help them know what they are giving away and the implications for them.

Happy (safe) TikToking!

– ref. TikTok can be good for your kids if you follow a few tips to stay safe – https://theconversation.com/tiktok-can-be-good-for-your-kids-if-you-follow-a-few-tips-to-stay-safe-144002

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hayley Henderson, Postdoctoral Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

Latin America is now the epicentre of the COVID-19 pandemic. The fastest spread of the disease in the region’s cities follows a pattern of contagion that is anything but arbitrary. Disturbing images in international media depict the unfolding crisis, from disinfection campaigns in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to stockpiles of cardboard coffins in Guayaquil, Ecuador.

Read more: Deaths and desperation mount in Ecuador, epicenter of coronavirus pandemic in Latin America

By this week, about 30% of the world’s reported cases were in the region. But some centres have been much worse hit than others. Two factors underpin these variations: levels of inequality, and the ways governments and communities are handling the crisis.

Across the region’s largest cities, the first cases had appeared by early March in well-off neighbourhoods. Not until May were exponential rates of infection recorded in most Latin American countries. The surge in cases reflected the spread of coronavirus across cities and into their poorest neighbourhoods.

The poor are more vulnerable

Many of the urban poor have not been able to manage risk in the way that the better-off do. To make ends meet they often travel long distances in public transport to work in wealthier neighbourhoods. Those who have jobs are often employed in the informal economy: cleaning houses, fixing electrical problems, selling vegetables and so on.

By June 2020, infection rates were increasing in many middle-class neighbourhoods too – for example, in Buenos Aires. However, self-isolation is a more realistic prospect in these areas. Medical care is also more accessible.

Inequality created ideal conditions for COVID-19 to spread. The disease disproportionately affects residents of informal settlements in the largest cities. One-fifth of the Latin American population lives in such settlements.

As well as their work being insecure, their living conditions add to their vulnerability. Some of the problems faced can include overcrowding, malnutrition, deficient sewer systems, limited (and often paid) access to drinkable water, overwhelmed or unaffordable health services and indoor air pollution from cooking (with open fires or simple stoves, for example).

Read more: So coronavirus will change cities – will that include slums?

Given these conditions, COVID-19 is far from a levelling force. It is the latest crisis to reveal old and hard truths about Latin America’s social and economic geography.

Quality of governance laid bare

The virus has not spread unabated in all Latin American cities. The quality of governance and the preparedness of services have greatly affected outcomes between cities and countries.

Some have paid a high price for the harmful impacts of inconsistent communications by authorities and political leaders, weak public health systems, liberalised employment conditions and lack of support for disadvantaged groups.

Mortality analyses conducted by the Coronavirus Resource Center at John Hopkins University show six of the countries most affected by COVID-19 worldwide are now in Latin America. Brazil, Chile and Peru have reached 50 or more deaths per 100,000 population. Nowhere has it been made clearer how a chronically underfunded public health system leaves behind vulnerable people.

The mortality rate is lower in other parts of the region. In these countries, strict restrictions have been introduced and the public health systems bolstered since the start of the pandemic. Leading examples include Uruguay, with 1.07 deaths per 100,000 people, and Argentina (11.7/100,000).

In June, Time included Argentina’s response in “The Best Global Responses to COVID-19 Pandemic”. In the capital, Buenos Aires, co-ordination between the three levels of government has been strong on public health as well as economic and social protection measures despite political differences. Shared communications have backed strict lockdown measures every fortnight since March 20 (read more about the Buenos Aires experience here).

Bottom-up efforts are vital too

It is not just top-down approaches by government that make a difference to local outcomes. The bottom-up work of social organisations in Latin American cities has also been vital.

We see this work especially in informal settlements that lack public services. Often run voluntarily and by women, these organisations cook meals for people in need, make masks, source medications, spread public information and fix broken houses.

Read more: How Mumbai’s poorest neighbourhood is battling to keep coronavirus at bay

Many of their actions are also directed toward the state. With an ethic of care, they seek to drive anti-neoliberal change and demonstrate a better urban future centred on people’s real lives and desires.

For example, across the region feminist social movements and politics are dismantling patriarchal perspectives about modern cities. Their collective response to the COVID-19 crisis is a demonstration of solidarity.

Remaking cities after the pandemic

Looking forward to the post-pandemic city, there are valuable lessons to be learnt from Latin America.

First, debilitating inequality must be redressed. Poverty has been built into the way cities are developed. But this is now being denaturalised.

Second, co-ordinated and strong state-led action that made public health the priority has saved lives in cities like Buenos Aires. Bipartisan leadership and collaboration between levels of government can also help us deal with pressing urban challenges in the future.

Third, because of the ubiquitous albeit unequal way coronavirus has affected people across cities, there is potential for a post-pandemic future that focuses on collective well-being.

Many Latin American social organisations, and the networks between them, offer hope and direction for the challenge of recovery. Not only do they provide vital support in crisis management, they could play a democratising role in shaping politics and state responses to redress inequality over the long term.

– ref. From the COVID-19 epicentre: lessons from Latin American cities’ successes and failures – https://theconversation.com/from-the-covid-19-epicentre-lessons-from-latin-american-cities-successes-and-failures-144000

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kantha Dayaram, Associate Professor, School of Management, Curtin University

How to stop sick people going to work?

That’s a question the Victorian government has been grappling with since it became clear about 80% of new COVID-19 infections in the state’s second-wave outbreak were from workplace transmissions.

Read more: ‘Far too many’ Victorians are going to work while sick. Far too many have no choice

After official visits to 3,000 people meant to be self-isolating found more than 800 not at home, the government instituted the largest on-the-spot fine in the state’s history – A$4,957 for defying a stay-at-home order (and up to $20,000 for going to work knowing you have COVID-19).

Along with the big sticks, there have been carrots. The Victorian government, the Fair Work Commission and the federal government have all weighed in to provide financial support to workers who lack paid sick leave.

But these measures have been a belated band aid to a problem that should have been entirely predictable. It’s the consequence of a deepening class divide in work in which hundreds of thousands of essential workers in high-risk industries are poorly paid and lack job security, guaranteed hours or sick-leave entitlements.

Aged care workers

Aged-care homes (linked to more than 2,000) cases and meat-processing facilities (linked to about 870 cases) show the predicament of “flexible employment” for workers.

In the aged care sector, about 90% of carers are female, 32% born overseas, 78% permanent part-time and 10% casual or contract, according to the 2016 National Aged Care Workforce Census and Survey. Seven in ten are employed as personal care attendants. Of those, almost 60% work 16–34 hours a week, with a median wage of A$689. About 30% want to work more hours, and 9% work more than one job.

An underemployed workforce is advantageous to employers. As the Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre’s 2018 report on developing sustainable careers for aged care workers noted:

Underemployment offers organisations a buffer of additional hours that can be accessed when there are staff shortages. The regularity and predictability of hours is a challenge for workers, though, in terms of their lack of employment and income stability.

It might now be noted it also makes it problematic for them to turn down shifts, to stay home if they feel unwell, or to seek out a coronavirus test lest a positive result forces them to self-quarantine.

Meat processing workers

In red-meat-processing facilities, about 20% of the processing workforce is casual, according to a 2015 report by the Australian Meat Processor Corporation. These workers “can be terminated on any given day part-way through a shift”.

The rest of the workforce is barely more secure, with 80% employed as “daily hires”. This means their jobs technically terminate at the end of a shift. They can be sacked with just one day’s notice.

Media reports have highlighted the predicament for workers without paid sick leave. At the Golden Farms Turosi poultry processing site in Geelong, for example, media reported that workers told to self-isolate after a COVID-19 outbreak in July were then directed to return to work early to clean the premises.

The United Workers Union said the company expected its workers “to dip into their own entitlements or, for casuals, be left with nothing at all” during the stand-down. Glenn Myhre, a Golden Farms worker for 34 years, put it like this:

This is leaving a lot of people very insecure. Casuals and people with no entitlements are going to be left in a really tight spot.

Read more: When it comes to sick leave, we’re not much better prepared for coronavirus than the US

Fair Work Commission decisions

It should not be surprising that those with insecure incomes and jobs would risk going to work when they do feel unwell.

Yet official appreciation of this has been slow.

In April the Fair Work Commission, Australia’s industrial relations arbiter, approved changes to more than 100 awards to provide two weeks’ pandemic leave for all employees, including casual workers. But the leave was unpaid.

On July 8 it deferred a union application for paid pandemic leave to health workers (to be paid by employers).

The commission accepted expert evidence that “at a high level of generality, workers in the health and social care sectors are at a higher risk of infection by COVID-19 (and other infectious diseases)”.

It also acknowledged the “very real risk” that employees with no paid leave entitlements “may not report any COVID-19-like symptoms or contact with someone suspected of having COVID-19 out of concern that they will suffer significant financial detriment”.

However, the commission ruled, “the elevated potential risk to health and care workers of actual or suspected exposure to infection has not manifested itself in actuality”.

Three weeks later, on July 27, as the disaster in Victoria’s aged care facilities unfolded, the commission granted paid pandemic leave to casual aged care workers.

Covering all workers

Ensuring paid pandemic leave for all workers has taken longer.

In June the Victorian government introduced a one-off A$1,500 “hardship payment” for workers left with no income if ordered to self-quarantine. It did not, however, cover lost income from self-isolating while awaiting the result of a COVID-19 test.

On August 3, the day after Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews declared a state of disaster and a stage 4 lockdown for Melbourne, the federal government announced a $1,500 “disaster payment” for all Victorians without paid leave entitlements who are ordered to self-isolate.

Then, after a joint call from the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Business Council of Australia for a national paid pandemic leave, the federal government agreed to extend the disaster payment to all states and territories.

A festering class divide

The failure to anticipate this problem is one of the greatest flaws in Australia’s response to the pandemic.

The belated payments are a tacit acknowledgement of a systemic problem. It is one that needs more than a temporary band-aid.

For a society that prides itself on egalitarianism, the mounting evidence that vulnerable workers have borne the brunt of health and financial impacts calls for broad reform of an industrial relations system that has allowed a class divide in working conditions to fester.

Read more: What defines casual work? Federal Court ruling highlights a fundamental flaw in Australian labour law

To paraphrase the sociologist C. Wright Mills, the pandemic should motivate us to finally acknowledge as a public issue what has perhaps been too easily dismissed as the private troubles of individual workers.

– ref. Workplace transmissions: a predictable result of the class divide in worker rights – https://theconversation.com/workplace-transmissions-a-predictable-result-of-the-class-divide-in-worker-rights-143896

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Patricia Ranald, Honorary research fellow, University of Sydney

In the negotiations for an Australia-European Union Free Trade Agreement at present underway, the European Union is pushing for longer monopolies on medicines for its pharmaceutical companies.

If it gets them, Australians will wait longer for cheaper versions of those medicines.

It is important information, but we are only aware of it because (unlike Australia) the European Union publishes its trade negotiating positions.

Ours have long been kept secret, even from us.

Next week the parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Treaties will hold a hearing into whether we should change the system to make sure we know more.

The government itself commissioned the inquiry after the committee’s investigation into the Australia-Hong Kong and Indonesian free trade agreements recommended it give

due consideration to implementing a process through which independent modelling and analysis of a proposed trade agreement is undertaken in the future by the Productivity Commission or equivalent organisation

At the moment the committee only gets to see trade agreements after they have been signed, meaning (literally) that the Australian people don’t get to know what their government is a bout to sign until after it has signed it.

We don’t get to see what we are about to sign

Afterwards, the parliamentary committee is effectively limited to saying yes to ratification (the final step after signing) or no. It can’t suggest changes to the text.

Nor can the parliament, which only gets to vote on the enabling legislation. Some parts of agreements, including some that constitute binding commitments, are not included in that legislation.

The committee’s recommendation follows similar recommendations by previous inquiries, and a plea by the Productivity Commission for independent modelling of likely outcomes before negotiations begin, and and an independent public assessment of agreements after they are concluded, but before they are signed.

The Commission says the current arrangements lack transparency and tend to oversell the likely benefits.

The so-called national interest analyses and regulatory impact statements prepared by negotiators are delivered after the agreements have been signed and so far have always recommended they be ratified.

The agreements deal with more than trade.

One reason is that Australia already has very low or zero tariffs. Negotiators from other countries need to obtain other concessions.

Read more: It’s more than a free trade agreement. But what exactly have Australia and Indonesia signed?

The Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership ratified by Australia in 2018 has chapters dealing with the regulation of essential services such as medicines, education, aged care, childcare, energy, financial and digital services, as well as foreign investment, labour and environment regulations and government procurement and product standards.

The European Union, the United States and Japan use the negotiations to fight for longer monopolies on medicines. Investors use them to obtain the right to sue governments; copyright owners use them to achieve longer copyright terms.

What’s needed?

The committee could recommend that government table in parliament a document setting out its priorities and objectives at the start of each negotiation.

It could also recommend the release of updates and negotiating texts, European Union style, and the release of the final text of agreements before they are signed.

It could recommend an independent analysis of the costs and benefits of proposed agreements of the kind suggested by the Productivity Commission, both before signing, and also some years after signing to get an idea of whether they have lived up to their promise.

Read more: When even winning is losing. The surprising cost of defeating Philip Morris over plain packaging

It could consider the health, environment and gender impacts, as well as the economic impacts.

And it could recommend that the parliament rather than the executive be given the role of agreeing to whole treaties, something legal experts say would permitted by the Constitution.

These changes would give us a better idea of what’s being negotiated in our name.

– ref. Last to know: the European Union knows more about our trade talks than we do – https://theconversation.com/last-to-know-the-european-union-knows-more-about-our-trade-talks-than-we-do-144196

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Kimball, PHD Student in Classics, University of Newcastle

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

Are witches and wizards real? Mabel, age 7, Anglesea, Victoria.

They are, but not in the way most people think.

The witches and wizards you read about in fairy tales and fantasy can usually do amazing things. They can fly, cast spells and brew potions. Some can even see the future. These witches and wizards aren’t real, but they are based on people who are.

Calling someone a witch or wizard hasn’t always been a very nice thing to do. In many cultures, practising magic was looked down on or thought to be evil. In many countries, laws were passed against the use of magic. This meant that people who were thought to practise magic were often punished, even if they hadn’t actually done anything wrong.

The ancient world

Thousands of years ago, in places like Greece and Rome, using magic wasn’t actually illegal unless you hurt someone with it.

For example, in Rome it was illegal for someone to use magic to steal his neighbour’s crops. We know this because two Roman writers, Pliny and Seneca, mention it when they talk about the 12 original laws of Rome.

We have also found a lot of records that the Greeks and Romans had witches and wizards, including an entire spell book called the Greek Magical Papyri. This book has instructions about how to make and cast all sort of spells.

Some of those spells were inscribed on lead and can be found in museums today.

Read more: Curious Kids: Are mermaids real?

Witch hunts and wizard towers

Things changed in the Medieval and Early Modern European periods. The use of magic became connected to worship of the devil so it was seen not just as illegal but as heresy – or a sin against God.

This meant anyone suspected or convicted of using magic was in trouble not just with the law, but with the church.

Eventually books were written on how witches could be identified and punished. The most famous of these is called the Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches). It was written by two German priests, Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger, around 1486.

This was also a time when people began to believe that witches had some amazing powers, some of which were written about in the Malleus. People thought witches would rub ointment on themselves or their broomsticks in order to fly to gatherings at night where they would cook and eat children. They also thought witches had the power to turn people into animals.

These powers eventually made their way into folklore, which was then written down in fairy tales like Hansel and Gretel.

In other places, magic was less persecuted. John Dee (1527-1608) was the court astronomer for Queen Elizabeth I. He was also a mathematician, astrologer, occultist and alchemist. Although much of his research bridged the gap between magic and science, Dee wouldn’t have seen much difference between the two.

All his research was concerned with understanding the world around him.

Much like persecuted witches became the witches of fairy tales, Dee and men like him contributed to the idea that wizards are wise men that live in towers, a little bit like J.K. Rowling’s Albus Dumbledore.

Read more: Curious Kids: why can’t humans grow wings?

Witches and wizards today

Today, wizards have mostly been relegated to fantasy or to stage performers, who usually call themselves magicians. But witches have become more common than ever.

In the 1940s and 50s, a new religious movement appeared called Wicca. Wicca, or pagan witchcraft, typically involves the worship of a Goddess and a God. Magic rituals can be part of Wiccan practice but it isn’t always necessary.

In the late 1960s, a number of women’s activist groups named themselves using the acronym WITCH. There were many variations of the acronym, such as “Women Inspired to Tell their Collective History” or “Women Incensed at Telephone Company Harassment”. These witches used their platform to fight for women’s rights.

The 2011 British census found 11,766 people identified themselves as Wiccan, while 1,276 described themselves as practising witchcraft.

The kind of person that we might call a witch or wizard is constantly changing. So, even if the witches and wizards of fairy tales and fantasy aren’t real, the people they are based on are.

– ref. Curious Kids: are witches and wizards real? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-are-witches-and-wizards-real-141799

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

Tradespeople and others in licensed occupations would find it easier to work across state and territory boundaries next year under a plan being developed.

Federal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, announcing the plan, agreed to by the nation’s treasurers, said it would “help to address impediments to labour mobility across jurisdictions by allowing a person who is licensed or registered in one jurisdiction to be already considered registered in another in an equivalent occupation.”

There is at present mutual recognition of licensed occupations, but workers need to apply for recognition in another state or territory, pay fees and sometimes meet extra requirements.

Frydenberg said the tradespeople the agreement could assist included carpenters, joiners, bricklayers, builders, electricians and plumbers. It could also help teachers and property agents.

It is hoped the agreement will operate from January 1. It will need legislation to be passed in the jurisdictions. National cabinet will hear a progress report in October.

There would be limited exemptions – which are still being worked through -– to the automatic recognition of licences.

Frydenberg said the current mutual recognition regime was costly, complex and imposed an excessive regulatory burden on businesses that operated across borders.

“A uniform scheme will make it easier and less expensive for businesses, professionals and workers to move or operate within jurisdictions and across Australia, thereby creating jobs, increasing output, competition and innovation, and resulting in lower prices for consumers and businesses.”

At present there are more than 800 different licences in manual trades alone. About one fifth of workers in the economy are required to be licensed. Interstate migration was about 300,000 in 2019 – before the impact of the pandemic and closed borders between states and territories.

The Productivity Commission in 2015 criticised the working of mutual recognition schemes then operating. It saw “automatic mutual recognition as a flexible, low-cost way of facilitating trade and labour mobility while minimising the regulatory burden”.

– ref. Frydenberg announces ‘automatic recognition’ plan to help workers and businesses operate across state borders – https://theconversation.com/frydenberg-announces-automatic-recognition-plan-to-help-workers-and-businesses-operate-across-state-borders-144553

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

The inquiry commissioned by the Berejiklian government into the Ruby Princess COVID-19 disaster has laid blame on NSW health officials, who made “inexcusable” and “inexplicable” mistakes. It also exonerated the Australian Border Force.

In the report, the federal government was sharply criticised for refusing to allow an official to appear before the inquiry, with commissioner Bret Walker SC saying this belied Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s promise of full cooperation.

Some 2,700 passengers from the Carnival Australia cruise ship were allowed to disembark on March 19 before the test results for COVID-19 had come back. The passengers, some of whom had displayed respiratory symptoms, scattered widely, spreading the virus. This led to hundreds of cases, with some 28 deaths linked to the cluster.

Walker found serious mistakes and misjudgements on the part of health officials. He said that in light of all the information the NSW health expert panel had, “the decision to assess the risk of the Ruby Princess as ‘low risk’ – meaning, in effect, ‘do nothing’ – is as inexplicable as it is unjustifiable. It was a serious mistake”.

It should have been assumed there were possible infected passengers “who could transmit the virus and perhaps spark an outbreak of infection, if no steps were taken to prevent or limit that outcome”.

Passengers should not have been allowed to spread through the community until test results were known.

“The delay in obtaining test results for the swabs taken from the Ruby Princess on the morning of 19 March is inexcusable. Those swabs should have been tested immediately,” Walker said.

“The failure to await test results on 19 March is a large factor in this commission’s findings as to the mistakes and misjudgements that caused the scattering of infected passengers.”

Walker criticised the cruise line for not having enough swabs aboard but said, given this, there should have been dockside swabbing.

There has been speculation about whether the Australian Border Force had any responsibility for the disaster, but Walker stressed “neither the ABF nor any ABF officers played any part in the mishap”.

“The relevant legislative provisions make it crystal clear that the Australian Border Force (ABF), despite its portentous title, has no relevant responsibility for the processes by which, by reference to health risks to the Australian community, passengers were permitted to disembark,” he said.

But Walker was blunt about the federal government’s attitude to the inquiry. “The one fly in the ointment so far as assistance to this commission goes, is the stance of the Commonwealth.

“A summons to a Commonwealth officer to attend and give evidence about the grant of pratique for the Ruby Princess was met with steps towards proceedings in the High Court of Australia.

“Quite how this met the prime minister’s early assurance of full cooperation with the commission escapes me.

“This waste of time and resources, when time, in particular, was always pressing, was most regrettable.

“It seems that this practical approach was swamped by a determination never to concede, apparently on constitutional grounds, the power of a state parliament to compel evidence to be provided to a state executive inquiry (such as a royal commission or a special commission of inquiry) by the Commonwealth or any of its officers, agencies or authorities.”

Labor’s shadow minister for home affairs, Kristina Keneally, said that on March 15, Morrison had said he was putting in place “bespoke arrangements” for arriving cruise ships.

“He promised cruise ships would be ‘directly under the command of the Australian Border Force’.

“What ‘bespoke arrangements’ did Scott Morrison put in place for arriving cruise ships? This report shows there were none,” Keneally said.

– ref. Ruby Princess inquiry blames NSW health officials for debacle – https://theconversation.com/ruby-princess-inquiry-blames-nsw-health-officials-for-debacle-144512