Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katinka van de Ven, Alcohol and other drug specialist, UNSW Sydney

“We must have a drink before the end of the year!”

December is a perfect storm for anyone trying to cut back on drinking. Between end-of-year deadlines, work parties, family gatherings and school events, alcohol is suddenly everywhere.

It can make drinking feel not just normal, but expected.

But if you want to drink less (or not at all) this silly season, you don’t have to rely on willpower alone. Having a plan can help.

Some evidence suggests when goals are focused on how you’ll approach something – such as a not-drinking strategy – rather than what you’ll avoid (alcohol), it’s easier to follow through.

So here are some simple strategies, backed by evidence.

1. Make a plan

When making decisions, our brains tend to prioritise immediate goals over long-term ones. Scientists call this “present bias”. This means it’s harder to keep your long-term goal (cutting back on alcohol) in mind when confronted by the chance for immediate gratification (having a drink).

But if you plan when you will and won’t drink in advance, you reduce the need to make this decision in real time – when alcohol is in front of you and your willpower may be lower and you’re more driven by emotion.

Look ahead at your calendar and choose your drinking and non-drinking days deliberately. Committing to the plan ahead of time reduces the chances of opportunistic drinking when social pressure is high.

2. Track your drinks

Tracking when and how much you drink is one of the most effective and well-supported strategies for reducing alcohol use and staying motivated.

You may be surprised how much tracking alone can change your drinking, simply by being more mindful and helping you understand your patterns.

It doesn’t matter how you do it – in an app, a notebook or even on your phone calendar. Writing it down is better than trying to remember. And doing it consistently works best. Aim to record drinks in real time if you can.

There are lots of free, evidence based apps, such Drink Tracker, that can help you track your drinking and drink-free days.

3. Try zero alcohol drinks

For many people, the rise of alcohol-free beer, wine and spirits has made it much easier to enjoy the ritual of drinking at social events, without the intoxication.

But they’re not for everyone – particularly those who find the look, smell and taste of alcohol triggering. Know yourself, see what works, and don’t force it if it’s not helping reach your goals.

4. Slow the pace

If your aim is to cut back, try alternating each alcoholic drink with something non-alcoholic.

Water is best, but zero, low or non-alcoholic drinks can still reduce how much you drink overall – and as a bonus they can also help you stay hydrated, which may reduce the chance of a hangover.

Eating something healthy and filling before and during drinking is also a good idea. It prevents rapid spikes in blood alcohol levels, as well as slowing the absorption of alcohol into your system. This means your body has a better chance of metabolising the alcohol.

Eating well can also help calm the cravings for sugary, fried and salty foods that are often triggered by alcohol.

5. Beware of an all-or-nothing approach

Don’t fall into the “goal violation” trap (sometimes called the abstinence violation effect). That’s the when slipping up makes you abandon your plan altogether.

Maybe someone talks you into “just a splash” – or one drink somehow becomes five – and you tell yourself: “Oh well, I’ve blown it now.”

But a slip is just a slip – it doesn’t mean you have to give up on your goals. You can reset straight away, at the next drink or the next day.

6. Set up accountability

Letting a friend or partner know that you are trying to drink less helps you stay accountable and provides support – even better if they join you.

7. Have responses ready

People may notice you’re not drinking or are drinking less. They may offer you a drink. Try a simple “I’m good” or “I’m pacing myself tonight”. Work out what feels OK to you – you don’t need to give long explanations.

8. Be kind to yourself

When you’re making a big change, it won’t always go smoothly. What matters is how you respond if you slip up. Shame and guilt often lead to more drinking, while self-compassion supports longer-term behaviour change.

Instead of seeing a slip as failure, treat it as information: What made it hard to stick to your goals? What could help next time?

December doesn’t have to derail your goals

Change comes from consistent small steps, even during the busiest month of the year. Focus on developing a relationship with alcohol that you are in control of, not the other way around.

If you are trying to make changes to your drinking, talk to your GP or check out free evidence-based resources such as Hello Sunday Morning, SMART Recovery and the Alcohol and Other Drug Hotline.

Katinka van de Ven is the Research Manager of Hello Sunday Morning. She also works as a paid evaluation and training consultant in alcohol and other drugs. Katinka has previously been awarded grants by state governments and public funding bodies for alcohol and other drug research.

Nicole Lee works as a paid evaluation and training consultant in alcohol and other drugs. She has previously been awarded grants by state and federal governments, NHMRC and other public funding bodies for alcohol and other drug research. She is CEO of Hello Sunday Morning, a government funded not for profit service.

– ref. 8 ways to drink less during the silly season – https://theconversation.com/8-ways-to-drink-less-during-the-silly-season-270298

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leanne Weber, Adjunct Professor of Criminology, University of Canberra

The Trump administration is extending its anti-immigration agenda beyond US borders. This week, US embassies in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom and several Western European nations were instructed to collect and transmit migrant-related crime data in these countries to Washington.

The administration’s stated purpose is to assist US allies in reforming their immigration systems and curbing what the US labels “mass migration”. In a briefing to explain the action, a US State Department spokesperson called mass migration an “existential threat to Western civilisation and the safety of both the West and the world”.

This request is unprecedented and extremely harmful.

First, it is embedding the Trump administration’s criminalisation and mass deportation of migrants into its diplomatic relations with other countries.

Second, the Trump administration’s directive is perpetuating a false narrative that migrants are to blame for any perceived increase in crime rates.

Escalating US crackdowns

Empirical research over decades in the US shows migrants do not offend at disproportionate rates, despite persistent political claims.

Nonetheless, the Trump administration continues to escalate its harsh crackdown on migrants under the justification that US cities are under siege. This has enabled the government to take actions that critics say violate international law and curtail domestic civil liberties, including:

• deporting migrants without due process
• detaining migrants with no criminal history for long periods, and
• separating families.

In addition, the US government has also taken lethal military action against boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean, alleging “narco-terrorists” are flooding the country with drugs.

Australia’s own harsh response

Australia is described in the US State Department briefing as a “great ally”. The spokesperson explained the US government’s intent in collecting migrant crime data:

to warn our friends that if you import a rapid number of individuals of any background, but particularly individuals of a culture that’s radically different than Australia’s without any sort of mechanism for diffusing the impact, that can lead to political unrest, that can lead to economic instability.

In Australia, public inquiries and criminology research have consistently found claims of a link between migrants and crime to be exaggerated and harmful. These studies often call for stricter media regulations on inaccurate crime reporting to avoid scapegoating marginalised communities.

Yet, successive governments have continued to expand their powers to deport migrants under the guise of public safety. This approach is a form of “crimmigration” – when immigration enforcement is incorporated into crime control.

It creates harsher consequences for non-citizens who commit offences, compared to citizens. In addition, many people who have not been convicted of a violent crime – and sometimes no crime at all – have been caught up in these exclusionary processes.

In 2023, the High Court ruled in the NZYQ case that continuing to detain individuals who cannot be removed from Australia is unconstitutional. This resulted in the release of hundreds of non-citizens (some of whom had no convictions, or had convictions and had served their prison sentences) into the community on bridging visas.

The action ignited heated parliamentary debates about a supposed existential threat to Australian society. In many cases, the debates featured divisive language and unsupported claims that are characteristic of the current US administration.

Emergency laws were hastily passed to respond to the situation. These resulted in punitive measures, including:

• a new visa regime with parole-like conditions
• new criminal offences with mandatory minimum sentences, and
• preventative detention modelled on existing counter-terrorism provisions.

Migration is not a threat

These developments show the potential for Trumpian-style immigration approaches to take hold in Australia. The recent anti-immigration rallies across Australia – in addition to the adoption of the “mass migration” terminology – suggest there would be fertile ground for this in parts of society.

But it is not clear to us how enhanced visa cancellations and deportation powers improve community safety.

Every day in Australia, people are processed by the criminal justice system and returned to the community. The government is not taking responsibility for effective crime prevention by targeting non-citizens for punishment and exclusion. This will not make Australia safer. It will only trigger safety concerns for multicultural communities.

A more rigorous and evidence-based approach is needed to address the social determinants that increase the risk of marginalised communities coming into contact with the criminal justice system. This includes systemic racism.

Migration is a feature of our globalising world and does not represent an existential threat to Western civilisation, as claimed in the US State Department.

Retreats into ultra-nationalist rhetoric and the scapegoating of migrants are never the answer.

Leanne Weber receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Alison Gerard receives funding from the Australian Research Council. This research entitled ‘Analysing interactions within the criminal deportation system’ (DP210100931) was supported by the Australian Research Council Discovery Grant scheme (GA142484-V3). For more information visit: https://www.canberra.edu.au/about-uc/faculties/busgovlaw/research/criminal-deportation-project..

Marinella Marmo receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Attorney-General’s Department, and the Law Foundation of SA.

– ref. Trump wants Australian data on migrant crime. This will only scapegoat vulnerable people – https://theconversation.com/trump-wants-australian-data-on-migrant-crime-this-will-only-scapegoat-vulnerable-people-270571

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Darian-Smith, Professorial Fellow in History, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, The University of Melbourne

Recent calls by Opposition Leader Sussan Ley to cut Australia’s intake of migrants have been accompanied by a promised revision — if the coalition is elected — of not only the immigration system, but the “integrity” of Australia’s citizenship test and its “character test”.

Ley’s comments came in the wake of the case of civil engineer Matthew Gruter, a South African national who moved to Australia in 2022 on a work-sponsored visa.

Gruter’s visa was cancelled, and he is interned in Villawood Detention Centre with one month to leave Australia or be deported following his participation in a neo-Nazi rally in Sydney.

The rising threat of right-wing extremism has meant both the government and the opposition have doubled down on their support for core national values of tolerance and respect.

But when politicians talk about “Australian values”, what exactly do they mean?

Immigration and Citizenship Minister Tony Burke has stated “modern” Australia is equated with a “multicultural” society. Yet there has not always been such agreement across the political spectrum about what constitutes Australian identity and character. And the much-lauded value of egalitarianism has long been, and remains, deeply problematic.

Citizenship and Australian values

A multiple-choice citizenship test was first introduced under the Howard government in October 2007. It aimed to ensure applicants understood Australian society and culture, and their own rights and responsibilities.

Opinion polling at the time was generally positive, with the Labor opposition ultimately supporting the legislation. Yet there was considerable criticism of the test, notably whether it sanctioned a version of Australia’s history and identity that was outdated, conservative and irrelevant to contemporary experiences. After the Labor Rudd government came to power, the logistics of the test were amended to provide greater accessibility to migrants on refugee and humanitarian visas.

In 2020, the Morrison government revamped the citizen test much more substantially. This now included a new mandatory section on Australian values. To pass the test, all the “values” questions have to be answered correctly, with score of 75% achieved overall and completed within 45 minutes.

Subscribing to Australian values is not restricted to migrants seeking citizenship. Most visa applicants must sign up to the Australian Values Statement, confirming they acknowledge the key tenets that underpin Australian society and culture. Those seeking a permanent visa must also confirm they will “make reasonable efforts” to learn English if it is not their first language, and acknowledge that citizenship requires a pledge of loyalty to Australia and its people.

The history of ‘Australian values’

Since British colonisation of Australia, there has been discussion and debate about the distinctive culture and characteristics of the white settler population. These initially came from visiting observers to the colonies. More recently, there has been ongoing commentary on Australian identity, beliefs and social and political divisions from journalists, politicians, academics — especially historians – and others.

Australia’s colonial histories and the continent’s unique environments have influenced conversations about a national “type” and collective values. The convict system, the gold rushes, the colonial appropriation and exploitation of the land and its natural resources, and the waves of “free” settlers were seen as contributing to a society defined by a democratic spirit and an egalitarian ethos.

This was seen most sharply in the white male workforce of the bush. The rise of the union movement in the late 19th century underscored an emerging radical nationalism. In this “paradise for workers”, it was popularly claimed that the high standard of living meant all could afford to “eat meat three times a day”.

At federation in 1901, there was dawning recognition that while the new nation was founded on British institutions and culture, the experiences and outlook of its white peoples were different from the old, class-riven world of Britain.

The first world war and the power of the “Anzac legend”, spawned at Gallipoli, cemented Australia’s coming of age. The heroic, and broadly universal, qualities attributed to Australian soldiers brought the masculinist mateship of the bush to the battlefield. This was in turn cast as exemplifying national values.

In the aftermath of the second world war, popular ideas around “Australianness” became increasingly conservative and complacent. National characteristics were less concerned with progressive social changes than with maintaining the status quo.

From the late 1940s, mass migration from countries other than Britain deeply challenged the notion of a homogenous Australian settler population. Waves of migrants from Europe, the Middle East and, by the 1970s, South-East Asia were creating a more culturally and linguistically diverse society.

Migrants at the time were expected to speak English and follow an “Australian way of life”. The best-selling 1957 satirical novel, and later film, They’re a Weird Mob, by John O’Grady under the pseudonym Nino Culotta, shows the bewilderment new arrivals faced in understanding Australian society and its values.

Exclusion and inclusion

Egalitarianism or equality of opportunity was, and continues, to be seen as a core Australian value. The Life in Australia booklet glosses over how Australia’s legal and social systems have been historically discriminatory on the grounds of race and ethnicity. While Indigenous Australians are acknowledged as Australia’s “first inhabitants”, there is no suggestion that British colonisation resulted in frontier violence, failed to recognise Indigenous ownership of traditional lands under the doctrine of terra nullius, and long denied the human rights of First Nations peoples.

The booklet explains the meaning of the anachronistic term “fair go”, stating that in Australia everyone “is given an equal opportunity to achieve success”.

Yet the exclusion of non-white migrants was also enforced by colonial and later Commonwealth legislation. The 1948 Nationality and Citizenship Act was the first legislation that provided for Australian citizenship, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. However, it did not grant them voting rights.

Successive amendments to the act introduced residency requirements for migrants, removed preferential treatment for those from Britain. In 1984, a further amendment repealed the laws that meant all Australians were British subjects.

It was, however, the dismantling of the racially restrictive White Australia Policy in 1973 and the embrace of multiculturalism that was to have a major impact on Australia’s identity as a multicultural nation.

The Life in Australia information also explains that Australians value “mateship”, now somewhat oddly linked to “a strong tradition of community service and volunteering” rather than to a historically masculinist culture. There are strong statements about the equality of men and women, and their right to make decisions about personal matters free from intimidation and violence.

The official preparation for new arrivals to live in Australia and understand its society and culture is limited. It is also simplistic and selective in its explanation of core values. In this context, what are new migrants to make of the growing inequities in Australia in terms of wealth distribution, or the recent data on the significant gender pay gap, or the troubling statistics on gender-based violence? How are they to understand national conversations about Indigenous and non-Indigenous reconciliation, truth-telling and Treaty? How can the decline in Australians’ belief in democratic processes be explained and addressed?

Ley’s intention to explore how migrants will be made aware of Australian national values would benefit from explaining these historical issues. A meaningful investment in civics education is certainly one dimension in fostering a greater understanding of contemporary Australia. This applies not only to new migrants but across the population more widely.

It would also be a good time to hold a national conversation about the relevant values that underpin the society that we want to live in now and leave as a legacy for subsequent generations.

Kate Darian-Smith has received funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Sussan Ley talks about ‘Australian values’ in assessing migrants. What exactly does that mean? – https://theconversation.com/sussan-ley-talks-about-australian-values-in-assessing-migrants-what-exactly-does-that-mean-270676

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sebastian Rosenberg, Associate Professor, Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney; University of Canberra

A regional New South Wales public hospital will soon close its mental health inpatient facility, in favour of a home-based service.

The ABC reports voluntary patients at Kempsey District Hospital will either be transferred to a new “hospital in the home” program or a neighbouring hospital, while involuntary patients will be transferred to Port Macquarie Base Hospital, 55 kilometres away.

The NSW government says if the hospital in the home program is successful, it could be rolled out across the state.

While some locals have raised concerns about the risks of care at home, the move is the next step in a long process of establishing good mental health care in the community.

Governments committed to de-institutionalisation about 40 years ago, promising a range of services to support people with mental illness to live well and get the treatment they need in the community.

However, this shift has been slow going.

Mental health system under financial pressure

Our mental health system is under enormous pressure. The amount of funding mental health receives as a share of total health spending, about 7%, hasn’t changed since 1992.

But the burden of disease attributable to mental health and addictions has. It now accounts for around 15% of the total disease burden.

Australia’s response to mental illness has become hospital-centric. Hospital-based expenditure accounts for the largest component of state and territory spending on mental health, close to 80%. This type of care is also the most expensive, leaving only a fraction to spend on mental health care in other settings.

Australia was a pioneer in hospital alternatives

Australia has pioneered alternatives to hospitalisation for mental illness. As early as 1907, community organisations such as the Aftercare Association were working to find patients housing, care and work in the community, outside the asylums.

By the 1970s and ‘80s, spurred by key inquiries such as the Richmond Report, Australia’s response to mental illness shifted to providing care through a network of services focused on treating and supporting people in the community.

As part of this mix, the hospital in the home model emerged, offering patients more options and helping to manage hospital bed demand. It’s now an established model of mental health care across Australia.

So what is hospital in the home for mental health?

Hospital in the home provides acute, hospital-level mental health care for patients in their own home, rather than having to be admitted to hospital.

It offers a comparable level of care in a familiar environment. The hospital in the home team, which can include psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses, allied health and peer workers, develops a treatment plan and provides care at home. This may involve daily home visits or, in some cases, appointments at a clinic or online.

The team works with the patient to create a treatment and recovery plan, often involving family and carers with the patient’s permission.

Discharge planning begins at the start of admission, with the goal of getting the patient back to their usual level of functioning in the community as soon as possible.

What does the evidence say?

Hospital in the home is backed by good evidence which shows it’s an effective alternative to hospital-based care and can shorten length of stay and reduce the need for subsequent admissions.

Compared with hospital-based care, hospital in the home also has a reduced risk of adverse events such as seclusion and restraint.

Many people find it more comfortable and would prefer hospital in the home to hospital admission. As one person pointed out, hospital in the home care:

felt like I was being checked in with, rather than checked on, which is quite a different distinction. It was like I was part of the team, rather than a number being treated.

There are also clients for whom this kind of service may not be appropriate, including those at very high risk of suicide.

Expanding options for care in the community

New Zealand spends more than 20% of its mental health funding on community-based services, compared with Australia’s 7%. NZ offers consumers many more alternatives to hospital care.

One such service is Tupu Ake, a consumer-run acute public psychiatric “ward”, supported by clinical and professional staff, but in a lovely house in south Auckland. Tupu Ake has reduced the need for acute hospital admission.

Successive mental health reports and inquiries in Australia have long recommended the establishment of a vibrant community mental health sector, including hospital in the home.

But this choice remains rare. Access to programs – including Orygen @ Home, which provides acute mental health care for young people in their home – is sought-after but very limited.

Home-based programs need adequate funding

The unsustainable acute pressure facing hospitals is now driving health services to urgently consider alternative models of care.

St Vincent’s Health Australia, for example, this week announced it would shift half of its services to home-based or online care over the next five years. Hospitals would be dedicated to emergency wards and intensive care.

This comes as federal and state/territory governments negotiate the next five-year next national health and hospital funding agreement.

Alternatives such as hospital in the home should feature prominently in the new funding agreement, as part of an overall strategy to reduce the hospital-centric nature of our mental health system.

But in doing so, it will be important to stay faithful to both the philosophy and the model of care that underpins hospital in the home for mental health. Replacing suboptimal hospital-based care with suboptimal home-based care is unacceptable.

Sebastian Rosenberg 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. For many people with acute mental illness, ‘hospital in the home’ means living well in the community – https://theconversation.com/for-many-people-with-acute-mental-illness-hospital-in-the-home-means-living-well-in-the-community-270458

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Wiskich, Visiting Fellow in Economics, Australian National University; CSIRO

Shipping moves 90% of global trade and produces nearly 3% of global emissions. The sector has proved challenging to clean up, as cargo ships can travel for weeks between ports and typically rely on cheap, energy-dense and extremely polluting heavy fuel oil.

Earlier this year, international efforts to move shipping towards net zero by using cleaner fuels fell apart under pressure from the United States. But as battery prices fall year on year, there might be another way forward.

Electric ferries already shuttle passengers and cars on short routes, while harbour tugs and inland cargo vessels are also going electric. At present, electrification works best over modest distances where charging can happen at the dock.

Could it ever work for container ships crisscrossing oceans? These giants can travel from China to Europe without refuelling due to the energy density of oil. The weight and expense of battery packs means it would be hard to swap oil for batteries.

But electrification isn’t all or nothing. Batteries would need to begin by operating alongside liquid fuels. In recent research, I lay out two potential ways to do this: using onboard battery packs and charging at ports, or connecting container ships to dedicated battery vessels.

How can batteries best help move cargo?

Electrification is worthwhile as a way to cut emissions and potentially save money. The question is how to do it – and whether it stacks up economically.

Placing batteries permanently on the ship is intuitive, matching the main way battery packs are used in electric cars, buses and trucks. In this scenario, ships would recharge in ports and also ideally at sea to make the most of the expensive batteries.

The second approach is different. Here, container ships able to propel themselves using fuel or electricity would tap into a global fleet of smaller battery vessels.

A container ship would link to a battery vessel and use its stored power as the vessel moves alongside it. The battery vessel would then peel off and return to port to charge up again. Battery vessels already exist, but at smaller scale. One option would be tightly integrating battery vessels, like the submarine swallowed by the ship in the Bond film The Spy Who Loved Me.

My modelling shows a container ship going from China to Europe could be powered by battery vessels between Chinese ports and Singapore. It would then use fuel to go from Singapore to Sri Lanka and then to the Horn of Africa. A lack of nearby land means battery vessels would have to power the ship for more than four days, which would be economical only if marine-rated battery prices fell extremely low (under A$100 per kilowatt-hour).

Once at the Horn of Africa, the ship could switch back to battery vessels that charge using the region’s booming solar capacity to go through the Red and Mediterranean Seas to northern Europe. My modelling suggests it would take 33 battery vessels to go from China to northern Europe.

Is it economically viable?

My modelling suggests it doesn’t make economic sense to install large battery packs on ships. For each giant New Panamax container ship, it would cost almost A$150 million to install 600 megawatt-hours of storage at $232,000 per MWh. Batteries rated for ocean conditions are more expensive. Fully charged, this giant battery pack would propel a container ship for 24 hours – about 700km.

The ship would have to be charged regularly to make the investment worthwhile. But long distances between some ports makes this difficult, and if the route had to change to go around Africa rather than through the Red Sea, the expensive battery would likely sit idle for weeks.

The off-ship battery vessel approach has more promise, as it offers a gradual approach and more flexibility.

Battery ships could be deployed first where renewable power is cheapest or where distances between stops are short. The benefits of partial electrification could potentially begin at today’s prices, assuming a carbon price was applied to shipping fuel.

While container ships are currently being built and retrofitted to allow electrical connectivity at port, this wouldn’t be enough. The giant engines of these ships would have to be modified to permit electric propulsion at the cost of 5–10% efficiency.

Fuel is a large cost for ship owners, as container ships burn more than 100 tonnes a day. A tonne of fuel costs abour A$800 and provides the same useful power as about 6 megawatt-hours of electricity. When fuel is expensive, ships travel more slowly.

Even partial electrification would bring a speed boost. My research suggests running on electric propulsion could boost speeds by up to 50%.

If battery prices keep falling sharply, ship operators would gain a clear financial incentive to seek out electric options. Ships would travel slowly on fuel and faster on electricity.

Looking ahead

The shipping industry is looking to cut emissions and head towards net zero. This will require several technologies, ranging from clean fuels to more efficient engines and electrification where feasible.

To date, most research on shipping electrification has focused on short trips. But steep and ongoing price declines for batteries and renewables change this equation.

If carbon emissions are priced in more countries, the equation will change faster, as electricity would become far and away the cheaper option.

Giant battery packs on ocean-crossing container ships are unlikely ever to make financial sense. By contrast, the off-ship battery vessel is much more promising. Even if it ultimately proves infeasible, the idea deserves serious exploration.

Anthony Wiskich 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. Electric container ships won’t work – but a fleet of auxiliary battery ships could clean up shipping – https://theconversation.com/electric-container-ships-wont-work-but-a-fleet-of-auxiliary-battery-ships-could-clean-up-shipping-266596

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anabela Malpique, Senior Lecturer in Literacy, Edith Cowan University

Writing using computers is a vital life skill. We are constantly texting, posting, blogging and emailing.

This is a huge change for schools when it comes to teaching writing. For students, learning how to write on a computer is crucial. National literacy tests are now administered online in many countries, including Australia’s NAPLAN.

The rise of AI tools such as ChatGPT still require students to become expert writers so they can prompt the technology and judge the quality of its products.

However, despite its importance, our new research shows typing and word processing skills are often not explicitly taught in primary schools.

Why is it so important to learn how to write on a computer?

Research suggests teaching typing and word processing skills should start in primary school, much like writing with pen and paper.

There is no evidence-based recommendation for specific ages to start, but it should also be taught as schools introduce students to computers. This is crucial to avoid incorrect key locations and hand and finger positions, which are difficult to correct later.

This is not necessarily a skill children will pick up naturally. Research shows children who are explicitly taught typing and word processing together write longer and better computer-based texts than those who have not been taught.

Our study

Despite computers being introduced to classrooms in the 1990s, there is little information about how typing and word processing are being taught in Australian schools.

In the first national study of its kind, we surveyed 340 Australian primary teachers from government, Catholic and private sectors across all states and territories about computer-based writing.

There’s no recommended amount for teaching computer-based writing. However, recommendations for teaching writing overall are to spend at least one hour per day on writing skills.

Similar to previous overseas studies, teachers in our study spent significantly more time teaching paper-based writing than computer-based writing skills. Overall, students spent an average of 143 minutes per week writing texts using paper and pen or pencil. They spent an average of 57 minutes per week writing using a digital device.

The explicit teaching of keyboard use received an average of nine minutes per week, compared to 31 minutes for handwriting.

Teaching computer-based writing skills was less frequent among teachers of years 1 to 3, when compared with years 4 to 6.

What are the barriers?

We also asked teachers whether they thought it was important to teach computer-based writing skills. More than 98% agreed it was important to teach keyboarding and word-processing skills. About 40% of respondents said specialised lab assistants should be available to help teach students in the junior primary years.

But teachers reported there were no official programs to teach typing and computer-based writing in their schools. As one told us:

it’s not consistent in my school and most instruction is ad hoc/entirely up to the teacher […]

Teachers also reported a lack of access to keyboards to teach computer-based writing skills. Only 17% said their students had access to devices with external keyboards (keyboards separate to the screen) in the classroom.

When asked about their confidence to teach computer-based writing skills, most teachers (74%) said they had not been adequately prepared during their teacher education. Most (84%) reported they had little confidence teaching their students how to create texts using digital devices. As one teacher said:

much more training needs to happen for us to learn how to teach computer-based writing (not just keyboarding).

What now?

Our research suggests we need three key changes to better support young Australian students to learn how to type and write on a keyboard.

1. Resourcing: schools need adequate technology to teach computer-based writing. Research indicates uneven access to laptops and keyboards across Australian classrooms is creating an equity divide in the teaching of digital writing.

2. Professional learning: teachers need evidence-based strategies to teach computer-based writing through meaningful, ongoing professional learning opportunities.

3. Curriculum changes: the school curriculum should integrate computer-based writing skills from early grades, including keyboard accuracy and speed and higher-order writing processes like planning and revising.

We know writing supports thinking and learning. It is also one of the key skills students learn at school. Primary students must be supported to develop computer-based writing skills so they can be skilful writers in our increasingly digital world.

Anabela Malpique has received funding from The Ian Potter Foundation and currently receives funding from The Collier Charitable Foundation.

Deborah Pino Pasternak has received funding from the Australian Research Council and currently receives funding from the ACT Education Directorate through the Affiliated Schools Research Program.

– ref. Australian students spend more time learning to write on paper than computers – does this need to change? – https://theconversation.com/australian-students-spend-more-time-learning-to-write-on-paper-than-computers-does-this-need-to-change-270779

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hussein Dia, Professor of Transport Technology and Sustainability, Swinburne University of Technology

Melbourne’s long-awaited Metro Tunnel will open on Sunday November 30. The tunnel will only carry limited services until February 2026, when it will become fully operational.

With construction having begun in 2017, this is the first major reconfiguration of Melbourne’s rail system in decades. It is expected to increase capacity, improve reliability, and create new connections to some of the city’s busiest destinations.

But Melbournians’ travel behaviour is changing slowly. Car dependence remains high, confidence in public transport has fallen, and commute times continue to rise.

Like other major Australian cities, Melbourne is being pulled between two futures: the sustainable, public-transport-centred city long planned for, and the car-led city that daily life still reinforces. The tunnel is a crucial step towards the first — but its success will be measured by what happens next.

What the Metro Tunnel delivers on day one

From 30 November, new train services will begin running through the Metro Tunnel and stopping at all five new underground stations.

These services operate alongside the existing timetable, and passengers on the Cranbourne, Pakenham and Sunbury lines can choose between their current City Loop services or a Metro Tunnel service by interchanging at key stations.

A full timetable change will occur on 1 February 2026, when all trains on these lines begin running through the Metro Tunnel.

Five new stations – Arden, Parkville, State Library, Town Hall and Anzac – greatly expand access to key destinations, particularly the medical and university precinct. These visible gains set the tone for the next decade of network improvements.

Why the opening is significant

The tunnel will be the backbone for future expansions, such as Airport Rail and the Suburban Rail Loop.

It also gives planners more flexibility. With lines removed from the City Loop, delays are less likely to cascade, and services can increase where demand is strongest.

This moves Melbourne closer to the operating principles of successful metro systems overseas – a shift that signals how Australian cities can modernise legacy suburban rail.

Behaviour may not shift immediately

Infrastructure can change a network overnight. Travel habits change more slowly.

Experiences in London and Vancouver show that passengers respond gradually as new patterns become familiar.

Melbourne’s latest travel data shows the challenge ahead. Car dependence remains high, even as car ownership declines.

Confidence in public transport has dipped, with concerns about cost, crowding, connections and safety – especially in outer suburbs with fewer alternatives. The Metro Tunnel will improve performance, but rebuilding trust requires consistency over time.

What needs to happen next

A smooth early period will be important. Frequent, predictable services matter more to daily choices than small travel-time savings.

Safety and accessibility also influence whether people choose public transport. This means lighting, wayfinding and comfortable interchanges will play a big role.

The tunnel’s full impact will depend on broader reform. Bus network improvements, better tram priority and stronger first- and last-kilometre connections will determine how many people can realistically shift from driving.

The tunnel provides a spine. The rest of the network must support it.

What to watch in the first few months

Crowding on the busiest corridors may ease gradually over the first few months, with more noticeable change expected from February when the new timetable begins and all trains on the affected lines shift to the Metro Tunnel. Ridership at Parkville and Arden stations, which serve hospitals and universities, will be particularly telling when students return early next year.

Network-wide travel times will show whether the added capacity is improving stability and reliability in peak periods. Early shifts in the share of people using public transport will indicate how quickly habits are changing.

Lessons from the Sydney Metro

Sydney’s 2024 City and Southwest Metro opening offers a useful benchmark.

In its first year, the M1 line delivered more than 66 million journeys, with more than 99% of trains running on time.

Traffic across the Harbour Bridge fell, and passengers moved away from crowded Sydney Trains stations. The key lesson: when reliability and frequency are high, behaviour can shift within months.

The bigger picture

The Metro Tunnel is a major step towards a more sustainable Melbourne. It expands capacity, improves access, and enables upgrades that were impossible under the old configuration.

The tunnel also demonstrates how Australian cities can adopt true metro-style networks rather than stretching legacy rail systems ever further.

But travel patterns still lean heavily toward driving. Infrastructure changes what is possible, but reliability, safety and convenience determine what people choose.

New public transport infrastructure on this scale is a milestone, but the real test is how it reshapes the way Melbourne moves in the years ahead – and what other Australian cities learn from it.

Hussein Dia receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the iMOVE Australia Cooperative Research Centre, Transport for New South Wales, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, Victorian Department of Transport and Planning, and Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts.

– ref. Australia’s latest metro is about to open. Here’s how we’ll know if it’s working – https://theconversation.com/australias-latest-metro-is-about-to-open-heres-how-well-know-if-its-working-270682