Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Joseph, Professor of Human Rights Law, Griffith University

On November 21 2024, the Albanese government unveiled its bill to introduce a minimum age of 16 for most social media platforms. The government claims the bill is necessary to protect children from social harm.

But it might violate the implied freedom of political communication (IFPC) in the Constitution if it is passed. If so, it will be invalid.

Children, politics, and media

Children are not apolitical. Significant “underage” political activists include Greta Thunberg, the Schools Strike 4 Climate movement, and the local Channel 6 news channel, founded by Leo Puglisi when he was 12.

Some of the most compelling footage of the Amsterdam soccer riots involving Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters came from a 13-year-old journalist known as Bender. And children do not need to be activists to be politically engaged: a person’s political consciousness and identity often starts to evolve in childhood.

Social media is a crucial source of political information and communication for children. They pay comparatively little attention to legacy media sources such as newspapers or television news. Furthermore, legacy media rarely publishes content from children, unlike social media. The interactivity of the latter allows for conversation, debate and galvanisation that is simply not replicated in the former.

What is the implied freedom of political communication?

The IFPC applies where a legal “burden” is placed on political communication, which is defined as communications on matters that might affect a person’s federal vote, their opinion of the federal government, and constitutional referendums. That definition from Lange v ABC (1997) has since been interpreted to encompass communication about virtually any topic that can be viewed as political.

A “burden” arises where the “flow” of political communication is disrupted, which includes a legal disincentive to communicate openly.

In the first Unions NSW case (2013), restrictions on political donations from non-voters, namely corporations and trade unions, were found to breach the IFPC. Restrictions on political donations and expenditure would reduce the political information available to voters and others.

The proposed ban would disrupt the flow of political communication to and from children. Unlike corporations and trade unions, children are future voters. Their later political choices are often influenced by views developed while they are children. Furthermore, the minimum age requirement will deprive us all of children’s political voices on social media.

The IFPC is not absolute. Once a burden on political communication is established, the High Court will then apply a test of proportionality to establish whether the law is nevertheless constitutional. Almost all IFPC cases have turned on this issue of proportionality.

So the government would first have to establish whether the impugned law has a purpose that is compatible with Australia’s system of representative government. The purpose of protecting children would satisfy this step.

There is then a three-step test to establish proportionality. First, is the law suitable for achieving its purpose? Laws fail this test if they lack a rational connection to the purpose. Here, a social media minimum age might be suitable if there is good evidence that social media harms children.

However, we do not yet know how the minimum age requirement will be practically implemented, in particular how social media platforms will verify the age of users. The ban will not be “suitable” if it is unworkable or easy to thwart.

Furthermore, there are views that a ban could harm children and breach their human rights. For example, social media might give some children access to online communities that alleviate feelings of isolation and alienation. If a ban significantly harms children, it is not a suitable or rational way to protect them.

Second, is the ban is necessary for achieving the purpose? Or are there other ways of achieving the purpose that might impose a lesser burden on political communication?

Notably, a parliamentary inquiry, which tabled its report on the impact of social media on Australian society on November 17, did not recommend a ban. Instead, it favoured the imposition of a duty of care for online platforms to take steps to prevent harm to users. Parliament’s own investigation concluded that less drastic means might suffice to protect children, which indicates the minimum age requirement might fail the test of necessity.

Third, the extent of the impact on political communication is weighed against the importance of the purpose of reducing harm to children. The potential impact on the flow of political communication is massive, given a huge age group will be excluded from using most social media, so that side of the equation should carry considerable weight in any “balancing” exercise.

The bill, if passed, is arguably vulnerable to failing all three steps of the proportionality analysis. It only needs to fail one to be invalid.

A bill that is ripe for constitutional challenge

The IFPC has been one of the most litigated aspects of the Constitution in the past three decades. The vast majority of impugned laws have survived challenge because they have been found to pass the test of proportionality.

Yet this bill seeks to cut a giant swathe of political communication out of existence in Australia. It could feasibly be a rare example of a law that disrupts political communication to such an extent that it is invalid. Social media companies will surely mount a constitutional challenge to find out.

Sarah Joseph does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Banning under-16s from social media may be unconstitutional – and ripe for High Court challenge – https://theconversation.com/banning-under-16s-from-social-media-may-be-unconstitutional-and-ripe-for-high-court-challenge-244282

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Dawes, Research Fellow in Medico-Legal History, Australian National University

This month marks 35 years of DNA evidence being used in Australian legal cases. But unlike DNA firsts in other countries, Autralia’s is perhaps the most significant legal milestone that is practically unheard of.

The 1989 trial in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court of Desmond Applebee was a messy case, about a nasty crime. This case was the first time in Australia DNA evidence was admitted in court.

Importantly, it failed to properly engage with the legal and scientific issues DNA evidence raised.

The case graphically illustrates the challenge of interrogating novel scientific evidence – a difficulty that persists in Australia’s legal system today.

The Applebee case

In 1988, a knife-wielding serial rapist had sexually assaulted a number of young women in Canberra, including the 18-year-old daughter of a diplomat. Police suspected known offender Desmond Applebee because he fit the physical description, had used weapons in past crimes and had recently got out of prison – which the rapist had told one victim.

Police found a balaclava and guns in Applebee’s car. But Applebee claimed that at the time of the rape, he was unconscious from a fainting attack. The emergency room doctor who saw him shortly after, however, didn’t find symptoms of a fainting episode.

The diplomat’s daughter’s identification of Applebee from a photo line-up, after not picking him in an identification parade, was a potential weak point.

An identification parade is where the police place a suspect of a crime in a lineup of similar-looking people before the victim. If the victim identifies the suspect from the parade, it is considered stronger evidence than a photo line-up because the suspect is there in person and can object if they feel it is being done unfairly.

The Australian Federal Police turned to DNA evidence to firm up their case.

A DNA match

Forensic DNA testing was very new at the time. The concept had been proposed in 1985 by genetics researchers at the University of Leicester, led by Alec Jeffreys. It was used in a United Kingdom immigration dispute in 1985. It was then famously used as part of the investigation into the Leicestershire rape-murders of Dawn Ashworth and Lynda Mann, and ultimately led to the conviction of Colin Pitchfork in 1988 in the UK.

Forensic DNA testing was not done in Australia at the time. But Australian Federal Police officers had heard about the Pitchfork case. They had samples from the Applebee investigation hand-couriered to Cellmark Diagnostics in the UK, the company licensed by Jeffreys to use his DNA technique.

The tests showed a match between Applebee’s DNA and that of the rapist the police were looking for.

Over-egged claims

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions flew Cellmark’s lab technician and supervisor to Canberra to testify in Applebee’s trial. Their testimony slightly over-egged the claims for their DNA testing.

For example, Cellmark’s lab technician drew a connection between the DNA test and genes, “which make us what we are […] all individuals”. However, the tests actually used characteristic repeated sequences in the non-coding or “junk” part of the genome, not genes. These sequences are where a pattern of DNA base pairs are repeated over and over again. The number of repeats varies between individuals. Jeffreys’ DNA test looks at the number of repeats.

Cellmark’s lab technician and supervisor also described the company’s test as producing a “DNA fingerprint”, metaphorically linking it to unique fingerprints.

However, the company’s DNA analysis involved several separate tests, each looking at non-unique characteristics, which were then combined. Only in combination did the tests support the “1 in 165 million” claim, whereas a fingerprint is a single, unique thing. This nuance was not made clear at trial.

The “1 in 165 million” claim was also calculated based on the frequency of the component characteristics in white people. Applebee, however, was Aboriginal. The data on how common his DNA combination was in white people wasn’t relevant to Applebee, and there wasn’t data available at the time to say how common his DNA combination was in other ethnicities. This, however, wasn’t raised during the trial.

After the DNA evidence was presented, Applebee changed his story. He hadn’t fainted, he said, but the sex was consensual. The jury took just half an hour to return a guilty verdict. Applebee was sentenced to ten years in prison.

Doubts over scientific evidence?

A weight of other evidence also supported the guilty verdict against Applebee. But the handling of the DNA evidence in the case was problematic.

Defendants have a right to interrogate the evidence against them.

But novel scientific evidence – that is, evidence based on newly developed science – underscores the difference in resources between the state prosecution and the individual defendant. Very few people have resources comparable to what the state has. Legal aid doesn’t entirely level the playing field.

The failure to highlight some of the problems with the DNA evidence in Applebee’s case was arguably partly his own fault. He had fired his lawyer and got another one only after the DNA testimony.

But unless the defence makes an argument, our adversarial legal system has no other routinised gatekeeping mechanism for dealing with novel scientific evidence.

Testing reliability

One interesting idea for putting novel scientific evidence through a rigorous examination process was floated in the United States in the 1970s. It was known as a “science court” and would provide a specialised assessment process for new scientific evidence.

More commonly, many jurisdictions including in the UK and US, incorporate a “reliability test” to assess scientific evidence in court.

This requires the prosecution to convince the court that its scientific evidence is sufficiently well developed and validated to be accepted by professionals in the field. Meeting the test implies there are independent experts available to the defence to critically examine the evidence.

Australian criminal law, however, does not have a reliability test. And that’s a problem because novel forms of scientific evidence will continue to be developed. Proteomics, DNA phenotyping, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence – such developments in science and technology will keep presenting the courts with new types of very complex, technical evidence.

The National Sexual Assault, Family and Domestic Violence Counselling Line – 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) – is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for any Australian who has experienced, or is at risk of, family and domestic violence and/or sexual assault.

Laura Dawes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. A milestone legal case from 35 years ago holds important lessons for how courts deal with scientific evidence today – https://theconversation.com/a-milestone-legal-case-from-35-years-ago-holds-important-lessons-for-how-courts-deal-with-scientific-evidence-today-244033

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vicki Lowik, Adjunct Research Fellow, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Sciences, CQUniversity Australia

In a recent Newcastle trial, a jury found three men guilty on multiple charges of sexually assaulting three teenage girls over two nights.

The victims provided harrowing evidence of the violence perpetrated against them. In their victim impact statements, they described the significant trauma caused by these men.

Nevertheless, the convicted rapists were able to furnish the court with 20 good character references. These references spoke to the men’s caring natures and their respect for the dignity of women. The presiding judge is yet to hand down the sentence.

This is a standard feature of the criminal justice system, but there’s a social and legal push to change it, especially in sexual assault cases.

What’s a good character reference?

The legal purpose of good character references is to provide the judge with insight into any factors that could mitigate the defendant’s sentence.

Demonstrated prior good character, through a character reference, enables the judge to ensure the appropriateness and fairness of the sentence.

It is particularly relevant when the defendant does not have a criminal history or a history of that type of offence.

Writing a good character reference is quite simple. You just need to:

• address the judge

• provide your name and occupation

• explain your relationship with the defendant and how long you have known them.

Also, before giving an opinion about the character of the defendant, you must acknowledge their charge, but don’t suggest what sort of sentence would be appropriate.

As a general rule, referees are to provide an understanding of the defendant’s charge. This is to counter “old” glowing character references being submitted without the referees’ knowledge, as occurred in the Jeffrey “Joffa” Corfe trial.

In this instance, the judge took into account “powerful” character references when deciding the fate of Corfe. However, the authors of these references had provided them years earlier for a different purpose.

What about victims?

In comparison to the simplistic requirements for completing a good character reference, victims who want to provide a Victim Impact Statement must abide by various stipulations.

Most importantly, the victim can only read their statement if the defendant is found guilty, or enters a plea of guilty and is being sentenced.

The statement can include any information about how the crime has affected the victim or their family.

However, the prosecutor can remove any details about the crime perpetrated by the defendant or any other crimes they may have committed. They can also remove any references to medical conditions, if there is no supporting documentation.

Also, the victim cannot give their opinion about the character of the defendant or the sentence they should receive.

Retraumatising victim-survivors

Victim-survivors describe being re-traumatised at various stages in the criminal justice system. One such stage can be when the defendant receives a sentence the victim-survivor sees as inadequate.

Sentences can be reduced through the consideration of good character references, with a notable example being the Luke Lazarus trial.

Referees of significant standing in the community submitted good character references on behalf of Lazarus.

He was found guilty of raping 18-year-old Saxon Mullins and was sentenced to five years jail, with a minimum of three years to be served.

He was later acquitted on appeal due to an error in jury directions. Lazarus served just 11 months in jail.

Barristers consider the submission of good character references to be part of a defendant’s right to procedural fairness.

Such references can serve to promote the assault as being out of character for the defendant, indicating he is unlikely to re-offend.

But it can also be re-traumatising for a victim-survivor to hear positive character comments about someone who has pleaded guilty or been found guilty of assaulting them.

Though there are moves towards introducing more trauma-informed court processes for victim-survivors of sexual violence, reforming court culture and the justice system can be challenging – but it is possible.

Reform campaigns

Child abuse survivor advocates, Harrison James and Jarad Grice, are seeking to prevent convicted child sexual abuse offenders from having their sentences reduced due to good character references.

James and Grice have launched a campaign Your Reference Ain’t Relevant that is gaining momentum and has gathered mainstream coverage and support from advocates and the public.

Now laws need to catch up. There’s been some movement in the right direction, but nothing definitive.

In February 2024, the Victorian County, Magistrates and Supreme Courts implemented changes to rules about the use of good character references.

Practice notes now state that referees must acknowledge that they are aware of the charges against the defendant.

Also in February, a petition led by victim-survivors was tabled in the ACT Legislative Assembly to amend the relevant act so that good character references can no longer be considered when sentencing child sexual abuse offenders.

The Attorney-General has referred the petition to the Justice and Community Safety Directorate for stakeholder consultation. How this might play out is unclear, especially as the ACT Bar Association doesn’t support the move.

And in May, the NSW Sentencing Council commenced a review. It’s looking into the the sentencing act and the common law about applying “good character” in sentencing child sexual abuse offenders and in sentence proceedings in general. The council will make recommendations for reform, if considered appropriate.

On a federal level, the government in January requested the Australian Law Reform Commission undertake an inquiry into improving justice responses to sexual violence.

It has since released an issues paper for comment on various options that could likely improve justice responses for victim-survivors.

One option raised for comment was “the harmonisation of sentencing legislation”, including legislation that excludes good character being used as a mitigating factor in sentencing. The final report is due in January 2025.

Amanda-Jane George is currently serving on the Expert Advisory Group to the Australian Law Reform Commission’s inquiry into the Justice Responses to Sexual Violence, which is funded by the Australian Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department.

Vicki Lowik does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Character references tell a court you’re a good person. Why are convicted rapists allowed to use them? – https://theconversation.com/character-references-tell-a-court-youre-a-good-person-why-are-convicted-rapists-allowed-to-use-them-240324

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shahper Richter, Senior Lecturer in Digital Marketing, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming education, with schools and universities increasingly experimenting with AI chatbots to assist students in self-directed learning.

These digital assistants offer immediate feedback, answer questions and guide students through complex material. For teachers, the chatbots can reduce their workload by helping them provide scalable and personalised feedback to students.

But what makes an effective AI teaching assistant? Should it be warm and friendly or professional and competent? What are the potential pitfalls of integrating such technology into the classroom?

Our ongoing research explores student preferences, highlighting the benefits and challenges of using AI chatbots in education.

Warm or competent?

We developed two AI chatbots – John and Jack. Both chatbots were designed to assist university students with self-directed learning tasks but differed in their personas and interaction styles.

John, the “warm” chatbot, featured a friendly face and casual attire. His communication style was encouraging and empathetic, using phrases like “spot on!” and “great progress! Keep it up!”.

When students faced difficulties, John responded with support: “It looks like this part might be tricky. I’m here to help!” His demeanour aimed to create a comfortable and approachable learning environment.

Jack, the “competent” chatbot, had an authoritative appearance with formal business attire. His responses were clear and direct, such as “correct” or “good! This is exactly what I was looking for.”

When identifying problems, he was straightforward: “I see some issues here. Let’s identify where it can be improved.” Jack’s persona was intended to convey professionalism and efficiency.

We introduced the chatbots to university students during their self-directed learning activities. We then collected data through surveys and interviews about their experiences.

Distinct preferences

We found there were distinct preferences among the students. Those from engineering backgrounds tended to favour Jack’s straightforward and concise approach. One engineering student commented:

Jack felt like someone I could take more seriously. He also pointed out a few additional things that John hadn’t when asked the same question.

This suggests a professional and efficient interaction style resonated with students who value precision and directness in their studies.

Other students appreciated John’s friendly demeanour and thorough explanations. They found his approachable style helpful, especially when grappling with complex concepts. One student noted:

John’s encouraging feedback made me feel more comfortable exploring difficult topics.

Interestingly, some students desired a balance between the two styles. They valued John’s empathy but also appreciated Jack’s efficiency.

The weaknesses of Jack and John

While many students found the AI chatbots helpful, several concerns and potential weaknesses were highlighted. Some felt the chatbots occasionally provided superficial responses that lacked depth. As one student remarked:

Sometimes, the answers felt generic and didn’t fully address my question.

There is also a risk of students becoming too dependent on AI assistance, potentially hindering the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills. One student admitted:

I worry that always having instant answers could make me less inclined to figure things out on my own.

The chatbots also sometimes struggled with understanding the context or nuances of complex questions. A student noted:

When I asked about a specific case study, the chatbot couldn’t grasp the intricacies and gave a broad answer.

This underscored AI’s challenges in interpreting complex human language and specialised content.

Privacy and data security concerns were also raised. Some students were uneasy about the data collected during interactions.

Additionally, potential biases in AI responses were a significant concern. Since AI systems learn from existing data, they can inadvertently perpetuate biases present in their training material.

Future-proofing classrooms

The findings highlight the need for a balanced approach in incorporating AI into education. Offering students options to customise their AI assistant’s persona could cater to diverse preferences and learning styles. Enhancing the AI’s ability to understand context and provide deeper, more nuanced responses is also essential.

Human oversight remains crucial. Teachers should continue to play a central role, guiding students and addressing areas where AI falls short. AI should be seen as a tool to augment, not replace, human educators. By collaborating with AI, educators can focus on fostering critical thinking and creativity, skills AI cannot replicate.

Another critical aspect is addressing privacy and bias. Institutions must implement robust data privacy policies and regularly audit AI systems to minimise biases and ensure ethical use.

Transparent communication about how data is used and protected can alleviate student concerns.

The nuances of AI in classrooms

Our study is ongoing, and we plan to expand it to include more students across different courses and educational levels. This broader scope will help us better understand the nuances of student interactions with AI teaching assistants.

By acknowledging both the strengths and weaknesses of AI chatbots, we aim to inform the development of tools that enhance learning outcomes while addressing potential challenges.

The insights from this research could significantly impact how universities design and implement AI teaching assistants in the future.

By tailoring AI tools to meet diverse student needs and addressing the identified issues, educational institutions can leverage AI to create more personalised and effective learning experiences.

This research was completed with Guy Bate and Shohil Kishore. The authors would also like to acknowledge the support of Soul Machines in providing the AI technology used in this research.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Warm and friendly or competent and straightforward? What students want from AI chatbots in the classroom – https://theconversation.com/warm-and-friendly-or-competent-and-straightforward-what-students-want-from-ai-chatbots-in-the-classroom-244261

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Highfield, Associate Professor, Early Childhood Education Academic Lead, University of Canberra

Screen use and internet safety are two of the top concerns Australian parents have about their kids’ health and wellbeing – even ranking ahead of diet, exercise and depression.

We know it’s important to teach children how to be safe around technology. But it can be really hard to know where to start, or when.

Our new project shows how parents can begin teaching children about screen use, consent, image sharing, and where you go online from as young as three years.

It doesn’t need to be a big “sit down chat”, either. It’s something parents and carers can model as they go about their day.

Use screens together

Our project, Young children in Digital Society, produced resources for early childhood educators to teach children about living well and safely with technology. These ideas can also be used by families at home.

One of our key messages is the importance of young children using screens with adults.

When children play games or watch digital content with trusted adults, they have opportunities to discuss information and ideas that can extend their thinking.

For example, you can talk about why the characters in a program did what they did. Or, after watching a show featuring a dog, you could go away and look up different dog breeds together.

Using technology together also means children have active supervision when online. As the animation below shows, the mum first checks “Kitten Quest” is a safe game for her four-year-old, then turns off in-app purchasing and in-game chat functions. Then she sits down to play it with her child, so they can enjoy it together.

Read more:
3 ways to help your child transition off screens and avoid the dreaded ‘tech tantrums’

Talk as you use screens

Our resources also emphasise the importance of what we call the “talk aloud protocol”.

This means as they use screens, adults explain to children what they are doing, what they are noticing and why.

For example, if you are doing your online supermarket order you might get your child to help select how many apples you will put in your cart. You could point out to them how it costs more money the more you put in your cart. You could also point out how the website is full of other advertisements and promotions, encouraging you to buy more things (that you do not necessarily need or want).

Or, if you are searching for information on a video streaming platform together, you may want to remind your child not to be distracted by the “suggested for you” content, or banner advertising on the page.

In this Play School clip, Big Ted talks about how information is presented on the internet as he searches for more details about a dinosaur.

He talks about going to a trusted source – in this case, a website he has used before – and staying focused on the information you are seeking, not on all the other things the internet might suggest for you (such as a bottle of fancy “Dinosaur Water”).

Only talk to people you know

Another message our resources emphasise is how important it is for children to know who they are interacting with online.

This is about showing them the internet is just another part of real life, rather than a different world away from it.

An example of this for adults and children alike, is not responding to emails or opening links if we don’t know the sender.

In the clip below, Maurice sends Big Ted a photo from his field trip. Maurice uses the “talk aloud protocol” as he explains the components of the process, from taking the photo, to finding Big Ted’s email address, attaching photos and then sending the email.

At the other end, Big Ted announces he has an email and it’s from his friend Maurice. He is excited there’s a photo attached and he knows who it is from before he opens it.

You can start early

Even before children start school, parents can help lay the building blocks for children to stay healthy and safe online.

This includes using screens together, talking about what’s happening on them and highlighting things to watch out for.

The Young children in Digital Society project was a collaboration between researchers and groups such as ABC Early Childhood, the Australian Federal Police, eSafety Commissioner and the federal government’s parenting website, Raising Children. The authors wish to thank to ABC Early Childhood Education producer Laura Stone for her help with the research mentioned in this article.

Kate Highfield consults for ABC Kids, with a focus on supporting healthy technology use in play and learning. With colleagues, she receives or has received funding from the Australian Research Council.

Susan Edwards receives funding from Australian Research Council. The research in this article was funded under the Linkage Projects scheme, project number 190100387.

– ref. Why parents need to be like Big Ted and ‘talk aloud’ while they use screens with their kids – https://theconversation.com/why-parents-need-to-be-like-big-ted-and-talk-aloud-while-they-use-screens-with-their-kids-243357

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

The Albanese government is still discussing the details for the remaining five of the “Bali nine” to be repatriated to Australia, Special Minister of Sate Don Farrell has said.

The planned repatriation follows the representations from Anthony Albanese to new Indonesian president Prabowo Subianto on the sidelines of APEC.

The five are Scott Rush, Matthew Norman, Si-Yi Chen, Martin Stephens, and Michael Czugaj.

They were sentenced to life imprisonment for their role in a heroin smuggling plot in 2005.

Two of the original nine, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were executed by the Indonesians in 2015. Tan Duc Than Nguyen died of cancer, and the sole woman , Renae Lawrence, has been freed.

On Sunday the government to emphasise a deal hadn’t been finalised.

Farrell, appearing on Sky on Sunday, said discussions with Indonesia about the five were ongoing.

“The proposal isn’t, as I understand it, to release these people. They would continue to serve their sentence, except they’re serving them in Australia,” Farrell said.

The initial report of the expected release, with confirmation from the Indonesian government, appeared to catch the Australian government on the hop.

The Weekend Australian reported the Indonesian Coordinating Minister for Law, Human Rights, Immigration and Correctional Institutions, Yusril Ihza Mahendra, saying: “In Peru, the Australian Prime Minister made the request for the transfer of Australian prisoners with President Prabowo.

“The Indonesia President responded that they are currently reviewing and processing the ­matter, and it is expected to be carried out in December.”

The Dutton opposition took a hard line on Sunday. Shadow Attorney-General Michealia Cash called on Albanese to release details of whatever agreement had been reached.

“What is the deal? What is Australia giving up in relation to the deal? How much is it going to cost the Australian taxpayer? Will they continue to serve their prison sentences because they have been sentenced to life imprisonment in Indonesia? Will they continue to serve them out in Australia? And if not, why not?” she said on Sky.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Remaining members of ‘Bali nine’ set for repatriation, with conditions – https://theconversation.com/remaining-members-of-bali-nine-set-for-repatriation-with-conditions-243597

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacqueline Peel, Director, Melbourne Climate Futures, The University of Melbourne

The petroleum-laden dust has settled on this year’s United Nations climate summit, COP29, held over the past fortnight in Baku, Azerbaijan. Climate scientists, leaders, lobbyists and delegates are heading for home.

The meeting achieved incremental progress. Negotiators agreed on a new climate finance target of at least US$300 billion a year by 2035 (A$460 billion), up from US$100 billion now. These funds would help developing nations shift away from fossil fuels, adapt to the warming climate and respond to loss and damage from climate disasters.

Nations also agreed on the essential rules for a global carbon trading market, the last agreement needed to make the 2015 Paris Agreement fully operational.

As UN climate chief Simon Stiell said in the final session, the 29th Conference of the Parties (COP29) meeting showed the Paris Agreement was delivering on climate action, but national governments “still need to pick up the pace”.

I attended COP29 as an expert in international climate law and litigation. I observed the finance negotiations firsthand and represented a new alliance of Australian and Pacific universities supporting international climate cooperation.

At the outset, expectations for the conference were low. The United States had just voted for the return of climate denier Donald Trump. And Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev declared oil and gas a “gift of God” at an opening event.

But even with these considerable headwinds, progress was made.

Progress on climate finance

The world’s rich countries currently contribute US$100 billion a year to climate finance for developing nations. It pays for measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change by making systems more resilient.

Two years ago, countries agreed to create a new “loss and damage” fund for nations dealing with climate disasters, launched at the summit in Dubai last year.

At these COP29 talks, Australia announced it would contribute A$50 million (US$32 million) to this fund. Climate change is already costing developing countries huge sums, estimated at US$100-$500 billion a year.

These flows of funding from rich countries are essential for developing nations to increase their emissions reduction, as well as respond to climate damage.

The COP29 deal sets a target of at least US$300 billion per year by 2035, with richer countries leading delivery.

While this goal represents a tripling of the previous target, it falls far short of the $400-$900 billion many developing countries had called for in finance from rich governments.

Disappointed developing country representatives labelled it “a paltry sum” and a “joke”. It also falls short of what experts say is needed by 2035 to meet global climate finance needs.

Recognising this gap, the text calls on “all actors to work together” to scale up finance from all public and private sources to at least US$1.3 trillion per year by 2035. Ways this might be achieved will be presented at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, a year from now.

Making the international carbon market a reality

COP29 also reached an agreement that settles longstanding disputes about making the international carbon market a reality. This hard-won deal delivered global standards for carbon trading, opening up new ways for developing countries to boost their renewable energy capacity.

These rules will pave the way for country-to-country trading of carbon credits. Each credit represents a tonne of carbon dioxide either removed from the atmosphere or not emitted. The deal will give countries more flexibility in how they meet their emissions targets.

It’s not perfect. Concerns linger on whether the rules will ensure trades reflect real projects and how transparent and accountable the market will be.

But the agreement will boost the importance of carbon credits and could increase incentives to protect carbon “sinks” – such as rainforests, seagrass meadows and mangroves – with flow-on nature benefits.

New national climate goals

By February 2025, all 195 Paris signatories have to announce more ambitious emission targets. Some countries announced their new plans at COP29.

The most ambitious was the United Kingdom, which upped its 2030 goal of a 68% cut to reducing 81% below 1990 emissions by 2035.

Next year’s host, Brazil, released new targets for a 59%–67% drop below 2005 levels by 2035.

But Brazil didn’t amend its 2030 ambitions and plans to boost oil and gas production 36% by 2035.

The United Arab Emirates announced target cuts of 47% before 2035, ahead of net zero by 2050. But this pledge was criticised by climate campaigners because the UAE is projected to boost oil and gas production 34% by by 2035.

The host, Azerbaijan, did not release its goals. Many other countries, including Australia, also held off from announcing new targets in Baku.

Indecision on fossil fuels

Fossil fuels were the elephant in the room. At last year’s COP in Dubai, nations finally agreed to include wording on:

transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science

But at this year’s COP, there was no decision on how, exactly, to begin this transition – and fossil fuels are not explicitly mentioned in the outcome documents.

Delegates from oil giant Saudi Arabia repeatedly tried to block mention of fossil fuels across all of the negotiating streams.

Trump’s return wasn’t a deal-breaker

The consequences of Trump’s re-election for climate action were much discussed. But I observed a surprising amount of acceptance and even optimism for climate cooperation.

The US is the world’s second-largest emitter, after China. Trump has promised to ramp up the country’s oil and gas production, and pull the US from the Paris Agreement as he did during his first term.

But climate action continued regardless – especially in renewables giant China, which hit its 2030 renewable target this year. The US is no longer the main player in climate negotiations, and many countries are much further down the road of cutting emissions. Few show signs of backtracking.

As the US bows out, it creates a vacuum. At COP29, middle powers such as Canada, the UK and Australia stepped up.

Negotiators from a progressive High Ambition Coalition – including small island states, the European Union and Latin American countries such as Columbia – played an important role in pushing to urgently increase finance for climate action.

China, for its part, is clearly eyeing off the position of climate leader about to be vacated by the US. And leaders of progressive US states attended COP29 to show parts of the US are still on board with climate action.

Australia’s hosting bid for 2026 talks in limbo

Australia’s bid to host COP31 in 2026 alongside Pacific nations was tipped to win, given it had the support from nearly all of the 29 “Western European and Other States” group of nations which will decide the host this time. Many observers expected an announcement at the end of COP29.

But no decision was made, as the rival bidder, Türkiye, did not withdraw its bid.

An announcement is now likely in mid-2025 – after Australia’s next federal election.

What now?

Many people are disappointed by COP29. It did not bring transformative change. The huge jump in climate finance called for by developing countries, and many in civil society, didn’t eventuate.

It came as 2024 is on track to be the hottest on record, and the costs of extreme weather have risen to more than US$2 trillion over the last decade.

But this year’s talks were still a step forward, affirming international climate cooperation at a time of significant geopolitical tensions globally. As the UN’s Simon Stiell said:

the UN Paris Agreement is humanity’s life-raft; there is nothing else […] We are taking that journey forward together.

Jacqueline Peel receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) for a Discovery Project 2022 on investor action on climate change, and from 2025 will take up an ARC Laureate Fellowship examining international law’s role in ensuring corporate climate accountability.

She is the chair of a new COP Universities Alliance, which is an initiative between leading Australian and Pacific universities to coordinate the efforts and contribution of the Australia-Pacific higher education and research sector towards COP31.

– ref. From a US$300 billion climate finance deal to global carbon trading, here’s what was – and wasn’t – achieved at the COP29 climate talks – https://theconversation.com/from-a-us-300-billion-climate-finance-deal-to-global-carbon-trading-heres-what-was-and-wasnt-achieved-at-the-cop29-climate-talks-243697

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Grantham, Lecturer in Communication, Griffith University

The federal government’s proposed social media ban for under-16s has sparked widespread debate, affecting millions of young Australians, their families and educators. But will it actually work?

While the aim behind this ban is to protect children from online harm, it appears to be more of a kneejerk reaction to win votes.

In a world where technological advancement is accelerating and online communication is part of our everyday lives, teaching children about safe online use, rather than imposing bans, is a more effective way to protect them from harm while still allowing them to be technologically savvy.

Critics such as independent MP Zoe Daniel highlight potential issues such as social media sites becoming less safe as adults increasingly share any content, believing that children no longer have access:

What we’re doing is saying, ‘Well, we’re going to lock everyone under 16 out, and then everyone else can do whatever they want in there’. And also, we know that some people under 16 will get in.

Daniel is not the only person to express concern. Former Labor and now independent Western Australian Senator Fatima Payman used TikTok slang to highlight that young people often feel unheard in parliament.

Why a ban is the wrong way to go

Young people live a lot of their social lives online. Shielding youth entirely could disconnect them from peers and affect their social wellbeing. This has been demonstrated in a study on international high school students, who are particularly at risk of loneliness and isolation and are often living away from family and friends. While this study was on international students, the results have implications for others who are at risk of feeling lonely and isolated.

At 16, teens might face harmful content for the first time, including behaviours glorified on social media, which could be seen as “exciting”. This risks amplifying the very problems policymakers aim to prevent.

Australia recently revoked the visa of an OnlyFans star attempting to recruit 18-year-old boys at “schoolies” to create explicit content for her OnlyFans page.

While this star’s visa was revoked, other Australian-based OnlyFans creators have posted to TikTok showing videos of young men lining up to meet them.

This is being considered by many as new predatory behaviour to which young people might be exposed for the first time, with no education or support systems in place.

If young people are not allowed to navigate social media until they are 16, how will they navigate the risks once they can? Instead, teaching young people digital resilience offers a more sustainable approach.

The Finnish approach

Finland’s approach to digital literacy education is comprehensive and integrated. It aims to equip citizens of all ages with the skills to navigate the digital world effectively.

Finland’s education system embeds digital literacy as a fundamental component of its curriculum, integrating technology across all grade levels to prepare students for the digital age.

From preschool education, students are introduced to digital tools, safety and technology to learn responsible online behaviour. As Finnish academics Sirkku Lähdesmäki and Minna Maunula highlight:

creating a secure and empowering connection with media is a shared educational responsibility that necessitates the active participation of both schools and families.

Integrating digital literacy into the education system ensures skills are not taught in isolation, but embedded across the system.

Digital literacy in Finland extends beyond formal schooling. Public libraries and community centres offer programs to improve skills among adults, ensuring that digital literacy is a lifelong pursuit. As they say, digital competencies are civic skills.

This approach has been in place, with considerable success, for a decade. In 2014, in response to the rise of misinformation, Finland’s government launched an anti-fake news initiative aimed at teaching residents, students, journalists and politicians how to counter false information designed to create division.

This initiative is part of a multi-pronged, cross-sector approach to prepare citizens of all ages for the complex digital landscape.

In addition, the education system was reformed to emphasise critical thinking. This taught students to identify bots, understand image and video manipulations, and recognise half-truths and false profiles. The approach has been practical, with Finland ranking first out of 35 countries in a digital media literacy index measuring resilience six times in a row.

Similarities to smoking

Some politicians have likened social media use to smoking in terms of addictive qualities and potential to cause harm. For example, South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas said:

The evidence shows early access to addictive social media is causing our kids harm […] This is no different to cigarettes or alcohol. When a product or service hurts children, governments must act.

Drawing comparisons to smoking highlights the long-term challenges with tackling the issue. The proportion of Australians aged 14 and over who have ever smoked has significantly declined over the past two decades. But this is the result of a long-term change campaign that the government committed to in the 1990s. It has been successful largely due to a concerted public education campaign.

The government’s proposed legislation oversimplifies a deeply complex issue. Protecting young people requires long-term solutions such as fostering digital literacy, informed choices, and robust safeguards — not rushed, over-the-top, short-term measures.

Dr Aida Hurem’s cited research was funded by the Australian Research Council.

Susan Grantham does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Educating young people about social media would be far more effective than a ban – Finland can show us how – https://theconversation.com/educating-young-people-about-social-media-would-be-far-more-effective-than-a-ban-finland-can-show-us-how-244304

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sam Robinson, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland

With the start of summer just days away, many of us will be looking forward to long sunny days spent at the beach, by the pool, out camping or picnicking in the park.

Insects also love summer. This is when most of them breed and feed. But this shared appreciation of the season can sometimes lead to conflict.

Insects have long been prey to many species, including birds, mammals, amphibians and other insects. As such, they’ve evolved a diverse range of defences – perhaps none more familiar to humans than the sting.

Many ants have a sting at their rear end which they use to deliver venom. It’s not the sting itself that causes pain, but rather the venom. Ant venom contains a cocktail of different chemicals, some of which have evolved specifically to manipulate nerve endings in our skin to cause pain.

Let’s look at some of the different ant stings you might experience this summer in Australia, and how to respond.

Bull ants

Bull ants (also known as bulldog ants, jumper ants, or jack jumpers) are large, for an ant. Some species can reach a length of 4 centimetres. They are easily recognisable with their large eyes, long mandibles (jaws) and aggressive nature.

Their sting is immediate, hot, sharp, and unmistakable, not dissimilar to that of a honeybee. The intense pain will last only a few minutes, before it’s replaced by some redness and swelling around the sting site.

Green-head ants

Green-head ants are also called green ants (but not to be confused with the green tree ants of northern Australia which do not sting). Green-head ants are common, and love our grass lawns.

At around 6 millimetres long, they are significantly smaller than bull ants. They can be recognised by their shiny green and purple exoskeleton.

Green-head ants tend to be less aggressive than bull ants, but they can still deliver a meaningful sting. The pain of a green-head ant’s sting can build more gradually, and create an intense, sticky ache.

Fire ants

Fire ants (or red imported fire ants) are originally from South America. They were first detected in Brisbane in 2001, thought to have hitched a ride in shipping containers, and have since spread across south-east Queensland.

Fire ants are reddish-brown and black and range in size from 2–6 millimetres long.

You’re most likely to encounter fire ants at their nests, which look like a pile of powdery soil. A fire ant nest doesn’t have an obvious entry, which is a good way to distinguish them from other similar ant nests.

Disturbing a fire ant nest will awaken an angry mass of hundreds of ants and put you at risk of being stung.

The initial pain from an individual sting is like an intense, hot itch, though manageable. But fire ant stings rarely occur in single digits. One ant can sting multiple times, and multiple ants can sting one person, which can lead to hundreds of stings. Fire ant stings can lead to pus-filled ulcers and scarring in the days afterwards.

If you live in an area where there are fire ants, it’s worth taking a few minutes to educate yourself on how to recognise and report them.

Electric ants

Electric ants are another nasty accidental import, originally from Central and South America. Currently restricted to Cairns and surrounds, these are tiny (1.5 millimetres long) yellow ants.

Like fire ants, these ants will typically defend en masse, so many will sting at once. Their sting is more painful than you’d expect from such a tiny creature. I liken it to being showered in red hot sparks.

If you think you see electric ants, you should report this to Biosecurity Queensland.

Aussie ants aren’t the worst

You might be surprised to hear Australian ants don’t even make the podium for the most painful ant stings. Among the prize winners are harvester ants (North and South America) which cause an extreme, sticky ache, likened to a drill slowly turning in your muscle – for as long as 12 hours.

The gold medal goes to the sting of the bullet ant of South and Central America, which has been described as:

Pure, intense, brilliant pain. Like walking over flaming charcoal with a 3-inch nail embedded in your heel.

How to avoid getting stung (and what to do if you do)

Fortunately, the solution is usually very simple. Look before you sit on the ground or lay out your picnic blanket, avoiding areas where you see ant nests or lots of foraging ants.

Choice of footwear can also be important. In my experience, perhaps unsurprisingly, most stings occur on thong-wearing feet.

If you do get stung, in most cases it’s going to get better on its own. Pain will usually subside after a few minutes (sometimes a little longer for a green-head ant sting). The redness, swelling and itch that typically follow can last for a few days.

In the meantime, if needed, an ice pack will help with the pain. If it’s particularly bad, a local anaesthetic cream containing lidocaine may offer some temporary relief. You can get this over the counter at the pharmacy.

A small proportion of people may have an allergic reaction to ant stings. In very severe cases this might involve trouble breathing or swallowing. If you or someone you’re with experiences these symptoms after an ant sting, seek urgent medical attention.

Sam Robinson receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and the National Geographic Society.

– ref. Ant stings can be painful. Here’s how to avoid getting stung this summer (and what to do if you do) – https://theconversation.com/ant-stings-can-be-painful-heres-how-to-avoid-getting-stung-this-summer-and-what-to-do-if-you-do-241582

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Crosby, Professor, Monash University

Australia has a seriously big “nest egg”. The Future Fund – our sovereign wealth fund set up in 2006 – now manages about $230 billion.

Specifically, its remit is to “invest for the benefit of future generations of Australians”. That’s long been interpreted as earning the best possible return on investment, without unacceptable risk.

Along with a few other smaller public wealth funds, it’s managed independently, on behalf of the government.

So the government ruffled feathers this week when it announced a new investment mandate which, for the first time, will require it to prioritise specific investments in Australia:

• increasing the supply of residential housing
• supporting the energy transition
• delivering improved infrastructure

These might all seem like reasonable priorities for Australia. But from those who thought this directive was a deviation from the Future Fund’s founding aims, criticisms came thick and fast.

Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor accused Labor of “raiding Australia’s nest egg” for its own “pet projects”.

Peter Costello, who set up the fund when he was treasurer, said it would undermine the fund’s independence and lead to lower returns.

It’s quite possible, albeit unclear, that requiring the fund to prioritise certain kinds of investments will lead to lower returns.

There’s a more pertinent question. Why can’t the government fund these priority projects through debt rather than by spending sovereign funds?

Read more:
Australia’s $230 billion Future Fund encouraged to invest in housing, energy transition, infrastructure

History of the fund

The Future Fund’s initial purpose was actually to generate an asset pool that could cover government liabilities for future public sector pensions.

When it was established in 2006, the Australian economy was in a golden era of budget surpluses and revenues generated by mining and the China boom.

With public debt paid off, there were suddenly questions about the need for a government bond market (used to borrow money).

Australia was also asking whether it should invest its wealth in a new sovereign wealth fund.

The thinking behind the Future Fund was that Australia’s surpluses would not last forever, and a major liability that the government would one day have to face would be defined pension payments to the public service.

A decision was made to build a sovereign wealth fund to fund this liability, and relatedly, a decision to keep the government bond market alive.

Read more:
Investors have bid against each other to buy Australia’s first green bond. Here’s why that’s a great sign

The return of government debt

As we now know in hindsight, the global financial crisis brought an end to the era of budget surpluses. That created new questions about the role of the Future Fund.

With government debt rising, it was not obvious that maintaining a separate giant asset like the Future Fund continued to make sense. Why not simply use it to pay down debt?

As always, these questions come down to basic financial engineering.

If, hypothetically, the government was paying 5% interest on its debt, but could generate 6% on Future Fund earnings, it would be better to keep the Future Fund going than to spend it on debt reduction.

The Future Fund now manages assets of around $230 billion. National net debt is forecast at more than $880 billion for 2024–25 and is expected to keep rising.

The government also used this week’s announcement to promise there would be no drawdowns from the fund until at least 2032–33, by which time it’s expected to grow to $380 billion.

Nonetheless, this financial engineering equation will remain a key question for the government.

Will the new mandate affect returns?

Currently, the Future Fund’s mandate is to maximise returns, to build the biggest pool possible to fund the government’s future liabilities. Specifically, its mandate currently targets a return of 4–5% per year above the rate of inflation.

Will restricting what the fund can invest in reduce its total returns? It is reasonable to think that any constraint on investment decisions could have some negative impact on returns – and critics have certainly made that case this week.

The evidence on how mandates such as sustainability requirements affect investment returns is mixed. Analyses have shown that carefully constructed portfolios can perform well, but this is not always the case.

The key questions for the Future Fund become how much money gets allocated to these types of projects and how binding the mandates turn out to be.

Reasonable instructions to focus on green energy investments, housing and similar alternative assets might make sense in a national sense, but in terms of government debt and the purpose of the Future Fund, they muddy the waters.

Should the government just borrow for projects instead?

An alternative to having the Future Fund allocate funding to preferred government priorities would be to have the government simply borrow the money itself and keep the Future Fund assets separate.

If the government is going to support and fund these activities in either event, whether it does so via its debt or its assets doesn’t matter. The government’s net asset position is the same.

Australia is still in the position of having a relatively low national debt position relative to OECD countries, and funding costs are low. As long as we maintain fiscal discipline, this will continue to be the case.

Mark Crosby does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Is using the Future Fund for housing, energy and infrastructure really ‘raiding Australia’s nest egg’? – https://theconversation.com/is-using-the-future-fund-for-housing-energy-and-infrastructure-really-raiding-australias-nest-egg-244293

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Stokes-Parish, Assistant Professor in Medicine, Bond University

If someone’s heart suddenly stops beating, they may only have minutes to live. Doing CPR (cardiopulmonary resusciation) can increase their chances of survival. CPR makes sure blood keeps pumping, providing oxygen to the brain and vital organs until specialist treatment arrives.

But research shows bystanders are less likely to intervene to perform CPR when that person is a woman. A recent Australian study analysed 4,491 cardiac arrests between 2017–19 and found bystanders were more likely to give CPR to men (74%) than women (65%).

Could this partly be because CPR training dummies (known as manikins) don’t have breasts? Our new research looked at manikins available worldwide to train people in performing CPR and found 95% are flat-chested.

Anatomically, breasts don’t change CPR technique. But they may influence whether people attempt it – and hesitation in these crucial moments could mean the difference between life and death.

Heart health disparities

Cardiovascular diseases – including heart disease, stroke and cardiac arrest – are the leading cause of death for women across the world.

But if a woman has a cardiac arrest outside hospital (meaning her heart stops pumping properly), she is 10% less likely to receive CPR than a man. Women are also less likely to survive CPR and more likely to have brain damage following cardiac arrests.

These are just some of many unequal health outcomes women experience, along with transgender and non-binary people. Compared to men, their symptoms are more likely to be dismissed or misdiagnosed, or it may take longer for them to receive a diagnosis.

Bystander reluctance

There is also increasing evidence women are less likely to receive CPR compared to men.

This may be partly due to bystander concerns they’ll be accused of sexual harassment, worry they might cause damage (in some cases based on a perception women are more “frail”) and discomfort about touching a woman’s breast.

Bystanders may also have trouble recognising a woman is experiencing a cardiac arrest.

Even in simulations of scenarios, researchers have found those who intervened were less likely to remove a woman’s clothing to prepare for resuscitation, compared to men. And women were less likely to receive CPR or defibrillation (an electric charge to restart the heart) – even when the training was an online game that didn’t involve touching anyone.

There is evidence that how people act in resuscitation training scenarios mirrors what they do in real emergencies. This means it’s vital to train people to recognise a cardiac arrest and be prepared to intervene, across genders and body types.

Skewed to male bodies

Most CPR training resources feature male bodies, or don’t specify a sex. If the bodies don’t have breasts, it implies a male default.

For example, a 2022 study looking at CPR training across North, Central and South America, found most manikins available were white (88%), male (94%) and lean (99%).

These studies reflect what we see in our own work, training other health practitioners to do CPR. We have noticed all the manikins available to for training are flat-chested. One of us (Rebecca) found it difficult to find any training manikins with breasts.

A single manikin with breasts

Our new research investigated what CPR manikins are available and how diverse they are. We identified 20 CPR manikins on the global market in 2023. Manikins are usually a torso with a head and no arms.

Of the 20 available, five (25%) were sold as “female” – but only one of these had breasts. That means 95% of available CPR training manikins were flat-chested.

We also looked at other features of diversity, including skin tone and larger bodies. We found 65% had more than one skin tone available, but just one was a larger size body. More research is needed on how these aspects affect bystanders in giving CPR.

Breasts don’t change CPR technique

CPR technique doesn’t change when someone has breasts. The barriers are cultural. And while you might feel uncomfortable, starting CPR as soon as possible could save a life.

Signs someone might need CPR include not breathing properly or at all, or not responding to you.

To perform effective CPR, you should:

• put the heel of your hand on the middle of their chest

• put your other hand on the top of the first hand, and interlock fingers (keep your arms straight)

• press down hard, to a depth of about 5cm before releasing

• push the chest at a rate of 100-120 beats per minute (you can sing a song) in your head to help keep time!)

What about a defibrillator?

You don’t need to remove someone’s bra to perform CPR. But you may need to if a defibrillator is required.

A defibrillator is a device that applies an electric charge to restore the heartbeat. A bra with an underwire could cause a slight burn to the skin when the debrillator’s pads apply the electric charge. But if you can’t remove the bra, don’t let it delay care.

What should change?

Our research highlights the need for a range of CPR training manikins with breasts, as well as different body sizes.

Training resources need to better prepare people to intervene and perform CPR on people with breasts. We also need greater education about women’s risk of getting and dying from heart-related diseases.

Jessica Stokes-Parish is affiliated with the Translational Simulation Collaborative, an academic and operational alliance formed by Bond University and Gold Coast Health to deliver better healthcare outcomes through improved simulation delivery techniques and the development of healthcare practitioners who can use simulation for their everyday quality improvement.

Rebecca A. Szabo, is the lead of Gandel Simulation Service based at The Royal Women’s Hospital in partnership with The University of Melbourne. Gandel Simulation Service uses translational simulation for all people who access and work in healthcare, responsive to the needs of all stakeholders, to develop high performing teams and improve patient safety.

Rebecca A. Szabo is an associate investigator for a validation study of a new dry-electrode ECG device for preterm infants. This is a researcher-initiated study. Laerdal Medical have provided the research team with NeoBeat MiniTM devices for the study. Laerdal Global Health have not been involved in study design or execution and have not funded the study beyond provision of the devices. Laerdal Medical have also provided the research team with a NeoNatalie Live Newborn Ventilation Trainer manikin and NeoBeatTM device for training related purposes.

– ref. Women are less likely to receive CPR than men. Training on manikins with breasts could help – https://theconversation.com/women-are-less-likely-to-receive-cpr-than-men-training-on-manikins-with-breasts-could-help-242702

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Winter, Associate Professor in Political Theory, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

When Prime Minister Christopher Luxon stood in Parliament last week to apologise to survivors of abuse in care, his words were among many fine speeches by government officials and survivors that day.

But to understand what is really happening, we now need to set those words alongside what the government has – and has not – been doing.

The apology arose from a recommendation in the Abuse in Care Royal Commission’s 2021 report on redress. At the time, the government announced it would launch a comprehensive redress system in mid-2023. That did not happen.

Then, in July this year, Luxon told the nation to expect a substantial redress program before the end of 2024. That will not happen, and his apology on November 12 did not restate that commitment.

Survivors must lead

The apology was an opportunity for the government to demonstrate a commitment to action. It was also an opportunity for survivors to participate in redress.

Originally, representative survivors were to respond in the debating chamber to Luxon’s speech, but the government decided to do things differently. Survivors would instead speak in the Beehive before the apology.

As they could not respond directly to the apology itself, they spoke about their shared struggles, hopes and fears. Although their speaking times were cut from ten to five minutes, and Luxon was not in the room, they laid down a clear challenge.

Government action to date has been inadequate, they said. Proper redress must acknowledge past and ongoing injuries. And it must implement the transformative changes needed to prevent systemic abuse in care.

As survivor Keith Wiffin said, adequate redress requires “direct involvement and leadership from survivors”. Overall, there needs to be partnership between survivors and the Crown, and between Māori and tauiwi (non-Māori).

Survivors are owed substantial redress for their injuries. Moreover, only the Crown has the power and resources needed to stop future systemic abuse in care. But survivors say the consultation model is broken.

A seemingly perpetual consultation process – in which the government asks survivors about its proposals, and survivors wait for yet another Cabinet paper – not only creates delays, but is also disempowering.

As survivor Tu Chapman said, the state has “continued to divide us survivors by picking and choosing when you want our insights and when you want us involved”. The government, Chapman added, should “give us what we need, so we can contribute. We, the mōrehu [survivors], have the answers.”

Questions of redress

The prime minister has now said the government intends to have a new redress system in place in 2025. But we also need to look at what wasn’t said in the apology.

He did not commit to any of the royal commission’s central recommendations on redress. Those included addressing survivors’ needs and claims holistically, the process being independent of offending institutions, embracing te ao Māori, including survivors of faith-based care, and being survivor-led.

Those are significant absences. The responsible minister, Erica Stanford, instead announced the government is “working towards introducing a new streamlined redress system next year”. This is not something survivors have been specifically requesting.

Some have speculated the redevelopment of ACC’s
Integrated Services for Sensitive Claims might be an option the government is considering. This currently offers sexual assault survivors quicker access to an expanded range of social, economic, vocational, clinical and therapeutic services. But that is a long way from what the Royal Commission recommended.

Perpetrators and unmarked graves

Elsewhere, the apology itself offered few specific commitments. Luxon announced the government would seek to remove public memorials and other honours for those who are “proven perpetrators”.

What this means is unclear. Many abusers are dead, others are too old to be brought to trial. At present, there may be no mechanism to rescind honours posthumously, leaving alleged serial abusers such as Louise Miles undisturbed.

Luxon also committed to investigating unmarked graves. The Royal Commission identified the potential for unmarked graves at several large institutions and recommended an independent body investigate those sites.

How that will work is unknown, but it should include identifying who is buried, enable the return of remains to relatives where appropriate, and otherwise recognise these sites as cemeteries.

More than words

Finally, we need to watch what the government is doing at the same time as it responds to the abuse-in-care report.

As others have noted, the introduction of military-style boot camps for young offenders risks a return to a system the royal commission condemned as a breeding ground for abuse. The government is also defunding community-based social services, risking another generation entering what has been called the “care-to-prison pipeline”.

And we have seen the end of a digitisation program designed to facilitate access to survivors’ care records that would underpin the work of a comprehensive redress program.

In his apology, Luxon announced that November 12 2025 will be a national remembrance day for survivors of abuse in care. Perhaps it should become an annual commemoration day, a perpetual reminder of the horrors endured by so many and an impetus for improvement.

When the date rolls around next year, we can expect more fine official sentiments. But without real action, Wiffin’s words on the day of the apology will still hold true:

We’ve heard those words from the state before, and they are meaningless because they have not resulted in change or progress.

The author acknowledges the contribution of Filipo Katavake-McGrath to the writing of this article.

Stephen Winter worked on the High Level Redress Design Working Group in 2023. His opinions are his own and do not represent those of that or any other group.

– ref. Survivors of abuse in care know how redress should work – will the government finally listen? – https://theconversation.com/survivors-of-abuse-in-care-know-how-redress-should-work-will-the-government-finally-listen-243798

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Flora Hui, Research Fellow, Centre for Eye Research Australia and Honorary Fellow, Department of Surgery (Ophthalmology), The University of Melbourne

The United States Food and Drug Administration has just approved the first-ever clinical trial that uses CRISPR-Cas13 RNA editing. Its aim is to treat an eye disease called wet age-related macular degeneration that causes vision loss in millions of older people worldwide.

This trial marks a new frontier in gene therapy – the process of treating or curing medical conditions by changing a person’s genes.

What makes it special is the fact the therapy targets RNA, instead of DNA. So, what does that mean, and why should we be excited?

What is gene editing and how is it used?

Genes are made up of DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid. Nearly all cells in your body have the same DNA, the material that makes your body uniquely yours. If anything goes wrong in your DNA, it can result in various diseases.

Thanks to recent advances, we now have the tools to directly change someone’s DNA – this has paved the way for gene editing as a type of gene therapy.

It is done using the CRISPR-Cas9 system, which was created after scientists discovered that bacteria defend against invading viruses by capturing their DNA and destroying it.

This makes gene editing highly useful when designing new treatments for genetic conditions where you need to correct faulty DNA.

Gene editing has already been trialled in people. Earlier this year, a successful clinical trial was done to test the safety of a new gene editing therapy for an inherited eye disease. Gene editing has also been trialled for a heart disorder called transthyretin amyloidosis, as well as blood disorders.

Gene editing causes permanent changes to a person’s genes, effectively rewriting parts of their DNA. But altering DNA comes with its own challenges and risks.

Care must be taken to avoid accidentally causing unintended but permanent changes to DNA elsewhere in the gene, which could lead to unwanted mutations.

Read more:
What is CRISPR gene editing, and how does it work?

What is RNA and how does RNA editing work?

One way to avoid the risks of editing DNA is to target RNA or ribonucleic acid instead.

RNA is also in all our cells, and plays a key role in their functions. One of its jobs is making proteins. If DNA is the set of genetic instructions, RNA is what reads and translates those instructions into making the proteins our cells need.

RNA editing, then, is also a type of gene therapy. Its goal is to change how RNA interprets genetic instructions to control how proteins are made. In most recent advancements, RNA editing uses the CRISPR-Cas13 system, a newer technique that was created specifically to help develop therapies that work with RNA.

DNA editing is permanent, which is needed to treat genetic diseases. RNA editing events, on the other hand, are transient in nature because RNA molecules are constantly being made and degraded in our cells.

RNA editing doesn’t permanently change a person’s DNA, but rather alters the steps that happen after the RNA molecule “reads” the DNA instructions.

This means it can be used to produce more targeted results by, for example, only altering how one specific protein is made. This also makes it a potentially safer option over DNA editing, with fewer unintended effects on other cells.

RNA editing also has an advantage where you can potentially control or reverse the therapy, providing a level of control DNA editing can’t provide.

This is an important factor to prevent over-treatment and makes it a versatile therapy for conditions where faulty DNA isn’t the cause of the disease.

So what is this first RNA editing trial going to do?

Age-related macular degeneration or AMD affects more than 200 million people worldwide and is predicted to grow to 300 million by 2040.

As the name suggests, age plays a role – it almost exclusively affects people older than 55 years. AMD affects the health of the macula, the central part of the retina, which processes what we see. It’s a leading cause of irreversible blindness around the world.

Wet AMD occurs when there is a build-up of fluid and new, leaky blood vessels underneath the macula, causing rapid and severe impact to a person’s central vision.

Currently, it’s treated with regular drug injections into the eye to control the growth of the leaky blood vessels. The drugs block VEGF, or vascular endothelial growth factor, a molecule that tells our bodies to make new blood vessels.

This is where RNA editing comes in. In the lab, scientists have proven that the delivery of the RNA editing therapy via a safe, engineered virus allowed for an effective reduction of VEGF levels to stop new blood vessel growth in the eye through a one-off injection. For treating wet AMD, it would mean no more monthly needles.

The FDA-approved clinical trial will now assess the safety of RNA editing therapy for wet AMD. It’s also the first-ever clinical stage trial for a CRISPR-Cas13 RNA editing therapy, marking a significant milestone for the field of research.

While it’s early days for the technology, the new trial shows RNA editing therapies have arrived. It will be yet another powerful tool in humanity’s arsenal to develop safe new therapies for various medical conditions.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. RNA editing is the next frontier in gene therapy – here’s what you need to know – https://theconversation.com/rna-editing-is-the-next-frontier-in-gene-therapy-heres-what-you-need-to-know-243938

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katie Lee, PhD Candidate, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland

Summer is nearly here. But rather than getting out the sunscreen, some TikTokers are urging followers to chuck it out and go sunscreen-free.

They claim it’s healthier to forgo sunscreen to get the full benefits of sunshine.

Here’s the science really says.

How does sunscreen work?

Because of Australia’s extreme UV environment, most people with pale to olive skin or other risk factors for skin cancer need to protect themselves. Applying sunscreen is a key method of protecting areas not easily covered by clothes.

Sunscreen works by absorbing or scattering UV rays before they can enter your skin and damage DNA or supportive structures such as collagen.

When UV particles hit DNA, the excess energy can damage our DNA. This damage can be repaired, but if the cell divides before the mistake is fixed, it causes a mutation that can lead to skin cancers.

The most common skin cancers are basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Melanoma is less common, but is the most likely to spread around the body; this process is called metastasis.

Two in three Australians will have at least one skin cancer in their lifetime, and they make up 80% of all cancers in Australia.

Around 99% of skin cancers in Australia are caused by excessive exposure to UV radiation.

Excessive exposure to UV radiation also affects the appearance of your skin. UVA rays are able to penetrate deep into the skin, where they break down supportive structures such as elastin and collagen.

This causes signs of premature ageing, such as deep wrinkling, brown or white blotches, and broken capillaries.

Sunscreen can help prevent skin cancers

Used consistently, sunscreen reduces your risk of skin cancer and slows skin ageing.

In a Queensland study, participants either used sunscreen daily for almost five years, or continued their usual use.

At the end of five years, the daily-use group had reduced their risk of squamous cell carcinoma by 40% compared to the other group.

Ten years later, the daily use group had reduced their risk of invasive melanoma by 73%

Does sunscreen block the health-promoting properties of sunlight?

The answer is a bit more complicated, and involves personalised risk versus benefit trade-offs.

First, the good news: there are many health benefits of spending time in the sun that don’t rely on exposure to UV radiation and aren’t affected by sunscreen use.

Sunscreen only filters UV rays, not visible light or infrared light (which we feel as heat). And importantly, some of the benefits of sunlight are obtained via the eyes.

Visible light improves mood and regulates circadian rhythm (which influences your sleep-wake cycle), and probably reduces myopia (short-sightedness) in children.

Infrared light is being investigated as a treatment for several skin, neurological, psychiatric and autoimmune disorders.

So what is the benefit of exposing skin to UV radiation?

Exposing the skin to the sun produces vitamin D, which is critical for healthy bones and muscles.

Vitamin D deficiency is surprisingly common among Australians, peaking in Victoria at 49% in winter and being lowest in Queensland at 6% in summer.

Luckily, people who are careful about sun protection can avoid vitamin D deficiency by taking a supplement.

Exposing the skin to UV radiation might have benefits independent of vitamin D production, but these are not proven. It might reduce the risk of autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis or cause release of a chemical that could reduce blood pressure. However, there is not enough detail about these benefits to know whether sunscreen would be a problem.

What does this mean for you?

There are some benefits of exposing the skin to UV radiation that might be blunted by sunscreen. Whether it’s worth foregoing those benefits to avoid skin cancer depends on how susceptible you are to skin cancer.

If you have pale skin or other factors that increase you risk of skin cancer, you should aim to apply sunscreen daily on all days when the UV index is forecast to reach 3.

If you have darker skin that rarely or never burns, you can go without daily sunscreen – although you will still need protection during extended times outdoors.

For now, the balance of evidence suggests it’s better for people who are susceptible to skin cancer to continue with sun protection practices, with vitamin D supplementation if needed.

Katie Lee receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Rachel Neale receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

– ref. Yes, you still need to use sunscreen, despite what you’ve heard on TikTok – https://theconversation.com/yes-you-still-need-to-use-sunscreen-despite-what-youve-heard-on-tiktok-232708

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Keller Kopf, Senior Lecturer in Ecology, Charles Darwin University

In humans and other animals, ageing is generally associated with a decline in biological function. But scientists are now discovering older animals perform vital roles in populations and ecosystems.

Unfortunately, however, old animals can suffer the most from human activity such as over-fishing and trophy hunting. And the value of old, wise animals is not usually considered when we manage animal populations and seek to protect biodiversity.

Our new review, published today in Science, draws on evidence from around the world to argue for a new approach called “longevity conservation”.

The loss of old and wise animals has devastating global consequences. Clearly, more must be done to prioritise their survival.

Benefits of a long life

Cold-blooded (ectothermic) animals such as fish and reptiles tend to keep growing throughout their life. This means older individuals are generally larger than younger individuals.

Being bigger has benefits, especially when it comes to feeding and reproduction. It’s widely known the number of offspring increases with age in fish and many other ectotherms. But it’s only recently been discovered that older mothers of some fish and sea turtles produce exponentially more offspring as time goes on. Their young may also have better chances of survival.

Survival rates are can be higher in offspring from older mothers in other species too. For example, in birds older parents and their helpers often provide more food and better habitat for their chicks, improving fledgling survival rates.

Females from a range of species tend to select older males as mates. These males commonly assume crucial social roles, such as leading long distance movements like migration, and regulating social structures, such as reducing aggressive behaviour. These behaviours influence decision-making with direct consequences for group and offspring survival.

With age comes wisdom

Some animals draw on experience accumulated over the course of their lifetime in order to make better decisions. In elephants, mothers and grandmothers are repositories of knowledge.

This “grandmother effect”, first studied in humans, also occurs in whales. Wise grandmother killer whales, which no longer reproduce, help their families find food when it is scarce and this benefits survival.

In a wide range of species, new research is showing how older individuals transmit their knowledge to others via a process called cultural transmission. The benefits of old age extend to animals such as migratory birds, pack-hunting carnivores, and even fish. For example, taking all the big fish from some populations has diminished their collective group memory often needed for migration and knowledge of spawning areas.

Examining the loss of older animals

Our research set out to build understanding of the ecology and conservation of old animals.

We assembled an interdisciplinary team of experts who work on different animals and diverse ecosystems. Our team included behavioural and wildlife ecologists as well as freshwater, marine and fisheries scientists.

We searched the literature and wrote a review. In addition, we used a machine learning topic model to delve into more than 9,000 peer-reviewed papers.

Most research has focused on the negative aspects of ageing, particularly in humans, and short-lived animal models such as fruit flies. Yet emerging evidence is showing how old wild animals contribute to populations and ecosystems.

Many of these functions benefit people too, but are being lost as old individuals are removed from the wild.

Fishing has caused a systematic decline in the abundance of old fish, with these aged individuals reduced in 79-97% of the ocean populations examined.

Old African elephants and other trophy animals are commonly poached or hunted, both legally and illegally.

But the loss of old individuals is not limited to large enigmatic species. Deep-sea coral and Antarctic sponges – which can live for thousands of years – are being harvested, damaged by fishing gear, and affected by climate change. These species cannot be replaced within our lifetime.

Species that live to advanced ages are often large, slow-growing, and slow to mature. These traits can make these species more vulnerable to extinction if older adults are killed by humans.

But when humans spare old individuals, these long-lived species are more resistant to environmental change and provide more stable ecosystem services, such as fisheries which supply protein to feed the world.

Retaining old animals tends to protect populations from poor environmental conditions such as drought and other extreme climate events, allowing species to persist against the odds. This buffering capacity is increasingly important in the face of global climate change.

Introducing ‘longevity conservation’

Old animals play vital roles in the maintenance of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Yet harvest management and conservation practices tend not to focus on preserving age structures within populations. And the loss of old individuals is not yet recognised by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as a means of listing threatened species, or as a type of over-fishing.

To protect old individuals and maintain or restore the age structure of wild populations, we propose “longevity conservation” measures.

Decisive new policy and actions are needed to protect and restore the crucial ecological roles and services old, wise, and large animals provide. For example, formally recognising and avoiding “longevity overfishing” should be incorporated into fisheries management to help ensure the long-term sustainability of fisheries.

Biodiversity conservation and threatened species policies should protect age structure. This is particularly important in long-lived species that produce more offspring with age, or where migration, social networks and cultural transmission of knowledge are required for survival.

Keller Kopf does research on long-lived animals and has received grants associated with the management and conservation of fisheries and wildlife.

– ref. Humans are killing off the old and wise animals that hold nature together. Here’s what must change – https://theconversation.com/humans-are-killing-off-the-old-and-wise-animals-that-hold-nature-together-heres-what-must-change-243831

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matej Lipar, Adjunct Research Fellow, School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University

Earlier this year, a caver was poring over satellite images of the Nullarbor Plain when he came across something unexpected: an enormous, mysterious scar etched into the barren landscape.

The find intrigued scientists, including my colleagues and I. Upon closer investigation, we realised the scar was created by a ferocious tornado that no-one knew had occurred. We outline the findings in new research published today.

Tornadoes are a known threat in the United States and elsewhere. But they also happen in Australia.

Without the power of technology, this remarkable example of nature’s ferocity would have gone unnoticed. It’s important to study the tornado’s aftermath to help us predict and prepare for the next big twister.

Australia’s tornado history

Tornadoes are violent, spinning columns of air that drop from thunderstorms to the ground, bringing wind speeds often exceeding 200 kilometres an hour. They can cause massive destruction – uprooting trees, tearing apart buildings and throwing debris over large distances.

Tornadoes have been reported on every continent except Antarctica. They most commonly occur in the Great Plains region of the United States, and in the north-east region of India–Bangladesh.

The earliest observed tornado in Australia occurred in 1795 in the suburbs of Sydney. But a tornado was not scientifically confirmed here until the late 1800s.

In recent decades, documented instances in Australia include a 2013 tornado that crossed north-east Victoria and travelled up to the New South Wales border. It brought winds between 250–300 kilometres an hour and damaged Murray River townships.

And in 2016, a severe storm produced at least seven tornadoes in central and eastern parts of South Australia.

It’s important for scientists to accurately predict tornadoes, so we can issue warnings to communities. That’s why the Nullarbor tornado scar was useful to study.

A whirlwind mystery

The Nullarbor Plain is a remote, dry, treeless stretch of land in southern Australia. The man who discovered the scar had been using Google Earth satellite imagery to search the Nullabor for caves or other karst features.

Karst is a landscape underlain by limestone featuring distinctive landforms. The discovery of the scar came to the attention of my colleagues and I through the collaborative network of researchers and explorers who study the Nullarbor karst.

The scar stretches from Western Australia over the border to South Australia. It lies 20 kilometres north of the Trans-Australian Railway and 90 kilometres east-north-east of Forrest, a former railway settlement.

We compared satellite imagery of the site over several years to determine that the tornado occurred between November 16 and 18, 2022. Blue circular patterns appeared alongside the scar, indicating pools of water associated with heavy rain.

My colleagues and I then travelled to the site in May this year to examine and photograph the scar and the neighbouring landscape.

Our results have been published today in the Journal of Southern Hemisphere Earth Systems Science.

What we found

The scar is 11 kilometres long and between 160 and 250 metres wide. It bears striking patterns called “cycloidal marks”, formed by tornado suction vortexes. This suggests the tornado was no ordinary storm but in the strong F2 or F3 category, spinning with destructive winds of more than 200 kilometres an hour.

The tornado probably lasted between seven and 13 minutes. Features of the scar suggest the whirling wind within the tornado was moving in a clockwise direction. We also think the tornado moved from west to east – which is consistent with the direction of a strong cold front in the region at the time.

Local weather observations also recorded intensive cloud cover and rainfall during that period in November 2022.

Unlike tornadoes that hit populated areas, this one did not damage homes or towns. But it left its mark nonetheless, eroding soil and vegetation and reshaping the Earth’s surface.

Remarkably, the scar was still clearly visible 18 months after the event, both in satellite images and on the ground. This is probably because vegetation grows slowly in this dry landscape, so hadn’t yet covered the erosion.

Predict and prepare

This fascinating discovery on the Nullarbor Plain shows how powerful and unpredictable nature can be – sometimes without us knowing.

Only three tornadoes have previously been documented on the Nullarbor Plain. This is likely because the area is remote with few eye-witnesses, and because the events do not damage properties and infrastructure. Interestingly, those three tornadoes occurred in November, just like this one.

Our research provides valuable insights into the tornadoes in this remote and little-studied region. It helps us understand when, and in what conditions, these types of tornadoes occur.

It also emphasises the importance of satellite imagery in identifying and analysing weather phenomena in remote locations, and in helping us predict and prepare for the next big event.

And finally, the results are a stark reminder that extreme weather can strike anywhere, anytime.

Matej Lipar does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. A man scouring Google Earth found a mysterious scar in the Australian outback – and now scientists know what caused it – https://theconversation.com/a-man-scouring-google-earth-found-a-mysterious-scar-in-the-australian-outback-and-now-scientists-know-what-caused-it-239867

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Treena Clark, Chancellor’s Indigenous Research Fellow, Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building, University of Technology Sydney

Once located 250 metres to the east of the Art Gallery of South Australia, the grand beaux-arts style Jubilee Exhibition Building was constructed to house the 1887 Adelaide Jubilee International Exhibition and to celebrate the 50th anniversary of South Australian settlement.

Hosting interstate and international participants, the exhibition presented various items, including machinery, fine art, textiles and produce.

In the South Australian section, the Protector of Aborigines, responsible for controlling Aboriginal people in South Australia and the Northern Territory, exhibited cultural implements and artefacts.

Some of these items included bags and wallets made of “native hemp” from the Northern Territory.

This colonial presentation of forced and unpaid fashion labour from First Nations people was a practice that had commenced decades earlier.

In 1866, the Central Board for the Protection of the Aborigines showcased baskets, bags, and bonnets at the Melbourne Intercolonial Exhibition of Australasia.

In the Queensland Court of the 1888 Melbourne Centennial Exhibition, pearl jewellery from the Torres Strait Islands was exhibited.

By the mid-20th century, these wares ceased being displayed in the exhibitions and First Nations people had more autonomy in their craft production. This rise of self-determination led to the first wave of First Nations fashion design, of contemporary garment-makers and textile-designers.

A market for design

In Coffs Harbour in the mid-1960s, First Nations women made clothes for tourists at the Big Banana. Although the garments did not feature their designs, the women received income from crafting the dresses and sarongs.

In the late 1960s, textiles from the Tiwi Islands emerged and were later paraded in small fashion shows.

Other arts and crafts centres soon joined the textile movement, and an explosion of designs materialised in the market.

By the 1980s, First Nations fashion design had been cemented as a movement.

This was the time of individual designers presenting alongside the established arts and crafts centres and showcasing their designs on international runways.

Their designs and silhouettes were new: they told contemporary stories of colonisation, community, family and culture.

Self-determination

Today, First Nations artists and designers are self-determining the ownership of their cultural stories and the appropriate practices within the fashion, gallery, library and museum sectors.

Many First Nations artists and designers are presenting across multiple mediums and ensuring their designs and practices are culturally, environmentally and economically sustainable.

The First Nations pieces featured in the exhibition Radical Textiles traverse art and fashion design, taking the item off the body and onto a mannequin or frame. These works of art share a common thread of honouring and celebrating tradition, ancestors, family, community and Country.

The pieces embody wearable art from a purely experimental or commercial approach.

Trudy Inkamala (Western Arrernte/Luritja people) (1940–2023) and Sheree Inkamala’s (Western Arrernte/Luritja/Pitjantjatjara people) (b. 1995) Dilly bags everywhere (2021) features a contemporary vibrant bag and striking bold dress print depicting women and animal motifs.

Sustainable and recycled materials, including used woollen blankets, discarded metal and cotton dyed from plants, are prominent in this work.

Trudy Inkamala was a respected Elder and knowledge-keeper who crafted fibre and hand-painted art that depicted and featured people and wildlife. Her younger relation, Sheree Inkamala, is an emerging sculptural textile and print artist.

Their designs embody the Yarrenyty Arltere Artists style, an Aboriginal-owned and run art centre in Mparntwe (Alice Springs), renowned for its colourful and playful soft sculptures, works on paper, textiles and film.

Annabell Amagula’s (Anindilyakwa people) (b. 1965) representation of Country, culture and sustainability in her Ghost Net Bag and Dress (2020) highlights technical skill and intricate detail in several layers of craft.

Amagula’s dress and bag make use of fair-trade silk, a handwoven ghost net, and recycled miners’ high-vis uniforms.

The silk pattern depicts an existing image of Amagula’s ghost net crab sculpture, which has been repeated and digitally printed. A recycled miner’s uniform is used to edge the dress and, along with the ghost net, construct and shape the bag.

Amagula is a senior artist from Groote Eylandt in the Northern Territory and a member of Anindilyakwa Arts, whose family has significantly assisted her in the art of paint and bag creation.

Always was, always will be

Clothing The Gaps’ iconic Power Tee boldly incorporates the Aboriginal flag colours and features the historically significant message “Always Was, Always Will Be”, a powerful acknowledgement that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are the rightful custodians of this land and sovereignty was never ceded.

Clothing The Gaps is a majority Aboriginal-owned social enterprise located in Victoria, co-founded by Laura Thompson (Gunditjmara people) and Sarah Sheridan. The organisation designs wearable clothing for First Nations peoples and allies and uses colours and slogans to highlight the profoundly important themes impacting First Nations people.

Ethically made in Australia on Wurundjeri Country, Victoria, their clothes embody wearable activism, which calls for and influences social change.

Paul McCann’s (Marrithiyel people) (b. 1984) Sovereignty Never Ceded Gown and Suit (2023) speaks to the trauma and resilience of First Nations people and the importance of sovereignty and self-determination.

As a commissioned set for the 2023 Melbourne Fashion Festival, McCann’s gown features cream satin, blue organza and gold hand-painted designs. The black vintage suit is adorned with blue and gold hand-painted motifs.

A fashion design graduate, McCann was inspired by his grandmother’s vintage outfits and his family’s cultural stories and art. His design ethos is that of culture and glamour and he often adds hand-painted art and embellishments to garments and jewellery that tell stories of tradition and Country.

These four works of art and fashion have multiple interwoven messages, themes and creative practices. Some are wildly colourful, while others are subdued. Some represent contemporary graphics, while others traditional art. Some overtly speak to sovereignty, while others are subtle in their message.

Their commonality advocates and showcases culture, craft, sustainability and a desire for truth-telling.

This essay was originally published in the Radical Textiles publication from the Art Gallery of South Australia and is republished with permission.

Treena Clark has received funding through the University of Technology Sydney Chancellor’s Indigenous Research Fellowship scheme.

– ref. Design as a movement: how First Nations people take ownership of their cultural stories through fashion – https://theconversation.com/design-as-a-movement-how-first-nations-people-take-ownership-of-their-cultural-stories-through-fashion-244152

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephanie Gomes-Ng, Senior Lecturer of Psychology, Auckland University of Technology

Former New Zealand prime minister John Key has three white rabbits painted on his helicopter, a nod to his “massively superstitious” habit of repeating “white rabbits” three times at the start of every month.

Tennis champion Rafael Nadal performs the same sequence of actions (shirt-tug, hair-tuck, face-wipe) before every serve. Taylor Swift paints “13” on her hand for good luck before a show, while Rihanna won’t allow anything yellow in her dressing room.

Perhaps you, too, are superstitious. Maybe you have a lucky number, avoid black cats, or shudder at the thought of opening an umbrella indoors.

Even if you don’t consider yourself superstitious, little things like saying “bless you” after a sneeze, knocking on wood or crossing your fingers are all examples of behaviours with superstitious origins.

We humans are particularly susceptible to superstitions. But why are we so quick to develop superstitious behaviours, and do we really believe they can bring good or bad luck?

In our new research, we set out to answer this question. We tested whether people could tell the difference between outcomes they caused and outcomes they didn’t cause, and this told us something about the cognitive roots of human superstition.

Learning about cause and effect

From as early as four months, infants learn their actions produce outcomes – kicking their legs shakes the crib, shaking a rattle makes an interesting noise, dropping a toy on the floor means mum or dad picks it up.

As we grow older, we develop a more sophisticated understanding of cause-and-effect relationships, asking “why?” questions about the world around us.

This sensitivity to causes and effects sets the stage for important developmental milestones, like imaginative play, planning actions to achieve a goal, predicting others’ intentions, anticipating and regulating emotions, and cooperating with others.

The ability to learn about relationships between causes and effects is a defining feature of human cognition. But how does this square with our superstitious tendencies?

When cause and effect is an illusion

We learn about causes and effects from experience. When our behaviour is followed by an outcome, we learn about the relationship between our action and that outcome. The more often this action-outcome pairing occurs, the stronger the perceived link between them.

This is why we repeat behaviours that produce rewarding outcomes, and avoid repeating behaviours that produce punishing ones.

But what happens if an outcome follows our actions by coincidence? If I wear my lucky socks and my favourite sports team wins, this is probably just a coincidence (it’s unlikely my sock-wearing actually caused the win). But if this happens a few times, I may develop a superstition about my lucky socks.

This suggests superstitious behaviour arises because we aren’t particularly good at discerning when our actions cause an outcome, versus when our actions just coincide with (but do not cause) an outcome. This is a common explanation for superstition – but does it have any weight?

Testing our ability to detect causality

We can test what underpins superstitious behaviour by simply asking people “who caused that outcome?”. Getting it right would suggest we can discern action-outcome relationships (and therefore that there must be some other explanation for superstitious behaviour).

Our research did exactly that. We asked whether people could tell when their actions did or didn’t cause an outcome.

We recruited 371 undergraduate students from a large New Zealand university, who participated in one experimental session for a course credit. Participants played a game where a positive outcome (winning) or a negative outcome (losing) occurred either after their own action (clicking a button), or independently of their action.

Importantly, participants weren’t given any information beforehand about the type of outcome or whether it would depend on their behaviour. This meant they had to rely on what they actually experienced during the game, and we could test their ability to judge whether they had caused the outcome.

This also meant participants’ preexisting superstitions and other characteristics (such as age) didn’t affect our results. Their behaviour during the task was representative of human behaviour more generally.

Participants’ scores indicated they often got it right: in about 80% of trials, they knew when they’d caused the outcome, and when they hadn’t.

A built-in bias

The distinction between causing and not causing the outcomes was sometimes very subtle. This made it more difficult for participants to tell what had occurred.

When they weren’t sure, participants defaulted to saying “I caused it”, even if they actually hadn’t. They were biased to attribute outcomes to their own actions, particularly after winning outcomes.

This bias may be the key to explaining why we’re superstitious: something I did caused something to happen, even if I can’t be sure what it was. And it suggests knowing superstitions aren’t real may not actually stop us from behaving superstitiously.

On the surface, this may not make sense – why expend energy doing things we know don’t affect outcomes? But if we look deeper, this bias serves an important purpose, because it helps ensure we don’t miss any potential connections between our actions and their outcomes. In other words, it’s better to be safe than sorry.

Research shows that engaging in superstitious behaviour can also increase confidence in our abilities to achieve a goal, improve performance in different tasks, and alleviate anxiety by giving us a sense of control.

The tendency to attribute positive outcomes to our actions (as we found) can boost self-esteem and psychological wellbeing. So, perhaps we’d all benefit by indulging in a little superstitious behaviour. Touch wood.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Knowing superstitions aren’t real doesn’t stop us behaving superstitiously – why? – https://theconversation.com/knowing-superstitions-arent-real-doesnt-stop-us-behaving-superstitiously-why-240541

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

Richard Marles is an ambitious man who hasn’t given up the dream of one day reaching the top job. But, despite being deputy prime minister, his profile is much lower than that of Treasurer Jim Chalmers, the candidate considered most likely to succeed Anthony Albanese as Labor’s leader.

The treasurer was at his most hyperactive this week, with an economic statement to parliament, reforms to superannuation, and a new set of priorities (investment in housing, the energy transition, and infrastructure) for the Future Fund, the nation’s $230 billion sovereign wealth fund. The latter immediately opened the government to opposition claims it was trying to bend the independent fund to its will (Chalmers’ retort was to accuse the opposition of wanting less investment in these areas).

But it was Marles’ dead-bat performance in question time that was most useful to the government in this penultimate parliamentary week of the year.

The government appeared blindsided, and the opposition was delighted, by a US–UK agreement to accelerate the deployment of “cutting-edge” nuclear technology. The agreement was released during the COP29 climate conference in Baku, which Energy Minister Chris Bowen was attending.

Australia refused to be party to the agreement; the government’s awkward position was accentuated by the UK government’s statement on the agreement initially (mistakenly) saying Australia was expected to join.

On Tuesday and Wednesday Marles, acting prime minister while Albanese was overseas, kept his answers on script, sticking to the formula that Australia doesn’t – and under Labor wouldn’t – have a domestic nuclear industry and so wasn’t signing up. He couldn’t smother the issue, but he did limit the smoke.

The parliamentary week had started badly for the government, with the opposition refusing to support its plan for caps on universities’ foreign students.

This had been a surprise, and adds a layer of uncertainty to a university sector already in considerable chaos, with the finances of some institutions in deep trouble, leading to extensive job cuts.

The government continued to pile new legislation into a stretched parliament, notably bills for a ban on children under 16 accessing social media, and for a far-reaching shakeup of electoral donations and spending. The Coalition is supporting both.

The social media ban has been panned by some (though not all) experts, but will be very popular with parents. Platforms, rather than parents or children, will have the responsibility for compliance, facing hefty fines for systematic breaches.

The legislation is “about helping families”, Communications Minister Michelle Rowland told parliament in Thursday’s question time. Unusually, her opposition counterpart David Coleman jumped up immediately to support her, saying “this issue of the safety of Australian children online from social media is one of the defining issues of our era”.

Like the social media ban, the electoral changes are also on track to be passed next week, given a deal between the major parties. But they have sparked angst from the minor players including the teals.

There is general agreement “big money” should be taken out of politics. However, one person’s “big money” is another person’s positive support to “level the playing field” for new players.

Most would see Clive Palmer’s about $120 million spend for the last election as over the top. But many would take a different attitude to the $13 million spent by Simon Holmes à Court’s Climate 200, that helped a number of teals become MPs.

When it comes to electoral reform, it’s a matter of balance – curbing excess but enabling aspirants who do not have the backing of big parties or incumbency to have reasonable access. There’ll be continuing argument about whether the government’s package has that balance right.

The Liberals’ interest in signing up was not unexpected, in light of their vulnerability to teals and other independents. Although the changes don’t come in for this election, the Liberals want to contain what could be a longer-term trend.

So does Labor. It has not yet been hit like the Liberals have by the wave of community candidates (although it lost its previously safe NSW seat of Fowler to one). But with a primary vote around 30% and no sign the public disillusionment with the main parties is waning, it knows the risk that’s looming. It also has the challenge of Greens candidates in its inner-city seats.

The electoral legislation has given the teals an issue for next year’s poll. They can use it to boost the case for their own re-election (before the system changes) and it possibly opens the way for them to say that if there is a minority government they might press for changes to make the arrangements, in their view, “fairer”.

Meanwhile, voters’ attention remains firmly on matters closer to the kitchen table. They don’t see much good news. The prospect of interest rate falls appears to be receding even further into the depths of 2025, and the economy is likely to remain stagnant for the time being.

Chalmers, in his economic statement, was upbeat. We’re having a “soft landing”, he said. Inflation is falling. Treasury is expecting a “gradual recovery in the economy”. Real wages are growing (slowly).

People’s experiences and perceptions are, however, baked in hard. The Freshwater poll in the Australian Financial Review this week found the top issue of concern to people, the cost of living, had risen in the past month by 5 points to 77%. When people were asked about managing key issues, the Coalition had a 12-point lead on cost of living and a 17-point lead on economic management.

By Thursday, Albanese was back in parliament after his week away at APEC and the G20. He was just in time to hear his old rival Bill Shorten, the former Labor leader who came close to being prime minister, deliver his valedictory.

It had a salutary message in what, for Australia, is a time of division.

“I’m a proud moderate,” Shorten said. “Being in the centre is an acknowledgement that Australians hold broad, diverse views. The majority in the middle should never be hostage to the intolerant few on the zealous fringe.”

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Marles plays a defensive bat on nuclear as the government rushes to get though late work – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-marles-plays-a-defensive-bat-on-nuclear-as-the-government-rushes-to-get-though-late-work-244287

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

Bill Shorten has declared himself “a proud moderate” in a valedictory speech declaring parliament has the responsibility to ensure the extremes of left and right do not set the terms of political debate.

Shorten, former Labor leader and current cabinet minister, told parliament: “I reject outright the argument that being moderate is a sign of conservatism or apathy.

“You can be in the centre and be a reformer, a humanitarian, or radical in terms of your ambition to get things done for the Australian people.

“Being in the centre is an acknowledgment that Australians hold broad, diverse views. The majority in the middle should never be hostage to the intolerant few on the zealous fringe.”

Shorten retires from parliament in February to take the position of vice-chancellor of the University of Canberra. He was a minister in the former Labor government, and opposition leader from 2013-19, narrowly losing two elections. He is Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services and has been devoting his efforts to getting the NDIS back on track after a huge spending blow out.

In his speech, Shorten said parliament “must rise to the big issues and engage with them thoughtfully and respectfully.

“Let’s not be a stage for noisy actors talking at each other, over each other and past each other.

“Parliament has the responsibility to ensure the extremes of the left and right do not set the terms of debate. Otherwise, the ideological trenches become deeper – and the centre ground becomes a no-man’s land”.

Shorten outlined what he saw as some key priorities for the parliament in the future, including being ambitious on climate change and tax reform.

He said the tax system still taxed property lightly and income heavily.

This meant young Australians  carried a disproportionate share of the tax burden and paid  more tax than a generation ago.

It was harder than ever for young people to save for a home, and  increasing supply was an essential  part of solving this problem, Shorten said.

“We must not become a society where  realising the dream of home ownership is dependent on having rich parents.”

Shorten also there was also unfinished business on defence and foreign policy.

“We need to develop even further our own defence capabilities within the bonds of existing alliances.

“And prioritise, even more, Australian foreign  policy with an Australian accent.”

Shorten said parliament had “unfinished business” with First Nations people, including their being recognised in the constitution.

“I remain hopeful that – with good faith on all sides – we can achieve recognition of Indigenous Australians in our nation’s birth certificate.”

He said parliament and Australians generally also had “unfinished business on equal treatment of women.

“Because there is no more shocking measure of inequality between men and women than domestic and family violence.”

Shorten urged the parliament: “Be ambitious for this place. This great democratic institution and its power to forge a path to a more productive, moderate, inclusive, compassionate and equal Australia.

“I’ll be urging you on – and wishing you well.”

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Shorten declares himself ‘a proud moderate’, saying Australians ‘in the middle’ shouldn’t be hostage to intolerant fringes – https://theconversation.com/shorten-declares-himself-a-proud-moderate-saying-australians-in-the-middle-shouldnt-be-hostage-to-intolerant-fringes-244275

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt Garrow, Editorial Web Developer

We all know how important it is to save enough money for retirement – but what about spending it wisely when we get there?

Even for those who have built up a suitable nest egg, managing money well in retirement isn’t necessarily straightforward. Now, the federal government has said it wants to make it easier.

On Wednesday, Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced a broad package of reforms to the retirement phase of the superannuation system.

Key aims include expanding access to reliable information, supporting more innovation in super products, and introducing a new reporting framework focused on retirement outcomes.

There’ll also be a new set of voluntary “best practice principles” for the industry, to help it design “modern, high quality” retirement products.

Next year, the government will consult on a draft version of these principles. The Conversation asked five experts what they thought the most important focus should be.

Read more:
Chalmers targets reforms to superannuation products and transparency in the retirement phase

– ref. New ‘best practice’ principles for superannuation products are coming. We asked a panel of experts what should be included – https://theconversation.com/new-best-practice-principles-for-superannuation-products-are-coming-we-asked-a-panel-of-experts-what-should-be-included-244164