Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bridget Haire, Senior lecturer, public health ethics, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney

HIV prevention was allocated A$43.9 million over three years in this week’s federal budget. Some $26m of this is for “PrEP” for people without access to Medicare.

PrEP means pre-exposure prophylaxis – the preventative use of antiretroviral medication in people who don’t have HIV, but who are at risk of it.

Antiretroviral medications are the drugs used to treat HIV, but if used before exposure, can prevent someone acquiring the virus.

Here’s why this extra funding is so important, what it means for people at risk of HIV, and for public health more broadly.

Why take PrEP?

PrEP is highly effective at preventing HIV. It does this by stopping HIV replicating in the body, preventing the establishment of a chronic (long-term) infection.

It has some major advantages over other ways to prevent acquiring HIV, such as condoms.

First, it allows people to plan their HIV prevention ahead of time and not have to use something in the heat of the moment. Second, it enables a person who has receptive sex – whether anal, vaginal or both – to be in control of their own protection, and not have to rely on the actions of their partner(s).

There are different types

Currently, there are two ways to take PrEP in Australia – as a daily pill or “on demand”. There is an injectable form, but this is not yet widely available.

“On demand” involves four tablets. You take two pills immediately before sex, one a day afterwards, and another the day after that. It is fiddlier than daily dosage, but good for people who have risky sex periodically.

For most gay and bisexual men, the efficacy of these three types of PrEP is roughly equivalent. But “on demand” PrEP is less effective for vaginal sex because the drug concentration is lower in the vagina. “On demand” PrEP is also not useful for people with chronic hepatitis B, because the episodic use of PrEP drugs could increase the risk of resistance to hepatitis B treatment.

Is PrEP on Medicare?

PrEP is currently subsidised under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for people with access to Medicare. And there are high levels of uptake in Australian-born gay and bisexual men.

But access for overseas-born gay and bisexual men has been an issue. Many temporary residents and visitors to Australia are not eligible for Medicare. This is a problem not only for someone who might be at risk of acquiring HIV, but also for public health.

Funding PrEP for people not eligible for Medicare is part of a suite of interventions that aims to optimise Australia’s HIV response.

Australia is aiming to eliminate HIV transmission by 2030. This means reducing HIV transmission to below 91 new cases a year, at which point it is deemed no longer a public health threat.

Early diagnosis is vital

While HIV diagnoses in Australia are low, 44% of them in 2022 were classified as “late” diagnoses. This means that by the point of diagnosis people had already sustained significant immune damage, indicating they had likely been living with HIV for some years.

Early diagnosis of HIV means people can access effective treatment. This treatment stops immune suppression, meaning people can live long, healthy lives. Treatment also means they can’t transmit HIV to their sexual partners. But a late diagnosis means people did not seek testing for many years, did not know they were living with HIV, and may have inadvertently exposed others. This is bad for the individual, and for public health.

HIV testing, then, is the cornerstone of an effective HIV response. The provision of new money in this week’s federal budget to expand testing options is therefore welcome.

One of these initiatives is $3.8m to make HIV self-tests from vending machines more widely available. Another $2.5 million has been allocated to expand self-testing kits available by mail.

Both these programs provide a discreet way for people to access testing without having to face another person. They are intended to address the barrier of shame or stigma some people may fear in accessing in-person services. They also avoid the expense of seeing a GP for testing.

How our HIV response has changed

Over the past 40 years there have been major highlights in the response to HIV: the advent of combination therapy, which transformed a life-threatening infection to a chronic, manageable illness; the discovery that antiretrovirals could work as prevention; and the treatment that prevents people with HIV from transmitting to sexual partners.

In comparison, these new initiatives may seem modest, but that would underestimate their importance. In responding to barriers that could exclude people from the prevention and care services they need, this funding supports the lofty goal of eliminating HIV.

Bridget Haire has received funding from Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council. She is a former president of the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations (now alled Health Equity Matters).

– ref. What is PrEP for HIV? Will it stop me getting infected? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-prep-for-hiv-will-it-stop-me-getting-infected-230096

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole George, Associate Professor in Peace and Conflict Studies, The University of Queensland

New Caledonia’s capital city, Noumea, has endured widespread violent rioting over the past 48 hours. This crisis intensified rapidly, taking local authorities by surprise.

Peaceful protests had been occurring across the country in the preceding weeks as the French National Assembly in Paris deliberated on a constitutional amendment that would increase the territory’s electoral roll. As the date for the vote grew closer, however, protests became more obstructive and by Monday night had spiralled into uncontrolled violence.

Since then, countless public buildings, business locations and private dwellings have been subjected to arson. Blockades erected by protesters prevent movement around greater Noumea. Four people have died. Security reinforcements have been deployed, the city is under nightly curfew, and a state of emergency has been declared. Citizens in many areas of Noumea are now also establishing their own neighbourhood protection militias.

To understand how this situation has spiralled so quickly, it’s important to consider the complex currents of political and socioeconomic alienation at play.

The political dispute

At one level, the crisis is political, reflecting contention over a constitutional vote taken in Paris that will expand citizens’ voting rights. The change adds roughly 25,000 voters to the electoral role in New Caledonia by extending voting rights to French people who’ve lived on the island for ten years. This reform makes clear the political power that France continues to exercise over the territory.

The current changes have proven divisive because they undo provisions in the 1998 Noumea Accord, particularly the restriction of voting rights. The accord was designed to “rebalance” political inequalities so the interests of Indigenous Kanaks and the descendants of French settlers would be equally recognised. This helped to consolidate peace between these groups after a long period of conflict in the 1980s, known locally as “the evenements”.

A loyalist group of elected representatives in New Caledonia’s parliament reject the contemporary significance of “rebalancing” (in French “rééquilibrage”) with regard to the electoral status of Kanak people. They argue after three referendums on the question of New Caledonian independence, held between 2018 and 2021, all of which produced a majority no vote, the time for electoral reform is well overdue. This position is made clear by Nicolas Metzdorf. A key loyalist, he defined the constitutional amendment, which was passed by the National Assembly in Paris on Tuesday, as a vote for democracy and “universalism”.

Yet this view is roundly rejected by Kanak pro-independence leaders who say these amendments undermine the political status of Indigenous Kanak people, who constitute a minority of the voting population. These leaders also refuse to accept that the decolonisation agenda has been concluded, as loyalists assert.

Instead, they dispute the outcome of the final 2021 referendum which, they argue, was forced on the territory by French authorities too soon after the outbreak of the COVID pandemic. This disregarded the fact that Kanak communities bore disproportionate impacts of the pandemic and were unable able to fully mobilise before the vote. Demands that the referendum be delayed were rejected, and many Kanak people abstained as a result.

In this context, the disputed electoral reforms decided in Paris this week are seen by pro-independence camps as yet another political prescription imposed on Kanak people. A leading figure of one Indigenous Kanak women’s organisation described the vote to me as a solution that pushes “Kanak people into the gutter”, one that would have “us living on our knees”.

Beyond the politics

Many political commentators are likening the violence observed in recent days to the political violence of les événements of the 1980s, which exacted a heavy toll on the country. Yet this is disputed by local women leaders with whom I am in conversation, who have encouraged me to look beyond the central political factors in analysing this crisis.

Some female leaders reject the view this violence is simply an echo of past political grievances. They point to the highly visible wealth disparities in the country. These fuel resentment and the profound racial inequalities that deprive Kanak youths of opportunity and contribute to their alienation.

Women have also told me they’re concerned about the unpredictability of the current situation. In the 1980s, violent campaigns were coordinated by Kanak leaders, they tell me. They were organised. They were controlled.

In contrast, today it is the youth taking the lead and using violence because they feel they have no other choice. There is no coordination. They are acting through frustration and because they feel they have “no other means” to be recognised.

There’s also frustration with political leaders on all sides. Late on Wednesday, Kanak pro-independence political leaders held a press conference. They echoed their loyalist political opponents in condemning the violence and issuing calls for dialogue. The leaders made specific calls to the “youths” engaged in the violence to respect the importance of a political process and warned against a logic of vengeance.

The women civil society leaders I have been speaking to were frustrated by the weakness of this messaging. The women say political leaders on all sides have failed to address the realities faced by Kanak youths. They argue if dialogue remains simply focused on the political roots of the dispute, and only involves the same elites that have dominated the debate so far, little will be understood and little will be resolved.

Likewise, they lament the heaviness of the current “command and control” state security response. It contradicts the calls for dialogue and makes little room for civil society participation of any sort.

These approaches put a lid on grievances, but they do not resolve them. Women leaders observing the current situation are anguished and heartbroken for their country and its people. They say if the crisis is to be resolved sustainably, the solutions cannot be imposed and the words cannot be empty.

Instead, they call for the space to be heard and to contribute to a resolution. Until that time they live with anxiety and uncertainty, waiting for the fires to subside, and the smoke currently hanging over a wounded Noumea to clear.

Nicole George 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. Why is New Caledonia on fire? According to local women, the deadly riots are about more than voting rights – https://theconversation.com/why-is-new-caledonia-on-fire-according-to-local-women-the-deadly-riots-are-about-more-than-voting-rights-230199

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brad Elphinstone, Lecturer in psychology., Swinburne University of Technology

Should you be denied life insurance or have to pay extra if you have a genetic risk for certain diseases? Should insurance companies even have access to your genetic data in the first place? This is known as “genetic discrimination”, a practice already banned in some countries, including Canada.

The Australian Treasury is currently working on a review of the relevant legislation, with insurance industry bodies arguing a total ban would raise life insurance bills.

But this legislation doesn’t just have implications for genetic discrimination. Genetic testing underpins vital branches of medical science. Our research shows the question of who can assess a person’s genomic data directly influences public trust in future genomic research in Australia.

What is genomic research?

Human genomic research holds promise for the development of cures and treatments for cancers and heritable diseases. To achieve this, researchers rely on people willingly donating their genomic data. This is your DNA code derived from something like a blood sample. Genomic data is particularly useful when linked with lifestyle – diet, exercise, habits – and health records.

If researchers have access to this data from thousands of people, they can look for patterns to see if certain genes might be linked to certain illnesses or diseases. Treatments or cures can then be developed to target the gene or genes involved.

To assist with making genomic research viable and accessible for researchers, national-level biobanks exist, such as in the United Kingdom. These biobanks can store data from hundreds of thousands of people.

Australia does not yet have a national biobank, but some researchers in Australia do conduct studies that involve the collection of genomic data.

Can we trust biobanks?

Previous research has found people are generally supportive of genomic research and biobanks. They recognise the potential for new treatments or cures such research can bring.

However, trust in biobanks decreases substantially if there is any commercial involvement in biobank management or research. This poses a problem, as commercial involvement in biobanking is increasingly likely. Running these repositories, conducting research and bringing new treatments to market is expensive.

People who express such distrust often cite concerns that profit will be put ahead of the public good. One common issue is the perceived unfairness of “big pharma” hypothetically making large profits from freely donated genomic data.

Another primary concern, that is often a dealbreaker when it comes to hypothetically donating data, is that data will be sold to insurance companies who will then deny cover or increase premiums.

If people are unwilling to donate to biobanks due to the perceived risk of genetic discrimination from insurance companies, the scope of genomic research may suffer.

People are most trusting of biobanks if they are managed by universities and hospitals, who then also conduct the research. This is because these types of public institutions are not typically seen to be profit driven.

Would Australians trust a biobank?

Our research explored the required conditions for a trusted Australian national biobank. Specifically, we examined what Australians think about genomic research and sources of distrust. We also examined different legal safeguards that could be implemented to enhance trust and willingness to donate.

We started by surveying a statistically representative sample of 1,000 Australians. We found four groups Australians can be categorised into based on their attitudes towards genomic research:

• highly supportive and willing to donate to a national biobank (approximately 23% of the population if you extrapolate from our sample)
• supportive and open to donating but wary of commercial involvement (37%)
• supportive and open to donating but wary of commercial and governmental involvement (26%)
• completely unwilling to donate under any circumstances (14%)

In a follow-up study we interviewed 39 people from these groups. Across the four groups, including those who were willing to donate, there were clear concerns about genetic discrimination from insurers or employers. Concern about corporate profiteering was also widespread. However, respondents maintained a pragmatic view that pharmaceutical companies necessarily need to make some profit.

Based on the interviews, and a third experimental survey, it was clear a national biobank should be managed by a public institution. Additionally, we should have a data access committee comprising relevant experts.

This committee would assess applications from researchers attempting to access the data. For example, data access would be allowed only for researchers from established commercial or public organisations. Additionally, researchers would be compelled to only use data for ethical human health research and make no effort to identify donors.

Overall, Australians generally do support genomic research – they recognise its potential to give us much-needed new medical treatments and even cures.

But this support is undermined if people feel that genetic discrimination is a likely risk for themselves or their blood relatives.

Legislation that reduces this risk targets a main source of distrust that can make people unwilling to donate genomic data. A law preventing genetic discrimination could therefore indirectly benefit genomic research and support for a national biobank, should one exist in the future.

The author would like to acknowledge research collaborators Jarrod Walshe from Swinburne University of Technology, Dianne Nicol from the University of Tasmania and Mark Taylor from the University of Melbourne. The research project was based on a Medical Research Future Fund grant that was awarded to Professor Christine Critchley who sadly passed in 2020.

Brad Elphinstone received funding from a Medical Research Future Fund grant.

– ref. Risk of ‘genetic discrimination’ by insurance companies is ruining people’s trust in vital medical science – https://theconversation.com/risk-of-genetic-discrimination-by-insurance-companies-is-ruining-peoples-trust-in-vital-medical-science-230112

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rob Nicholls, Senior research associate, University of Sydney

Barely a day has gone by this month without politicians or commentators talking about online harms.

There have been multiple high-profile examples spurring on the conversation. There was the circulation of videos of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel being stabbed in the Sydney church attack. The normalisation of violent content online has also been central to the discussion of the domestic violence crisis.

Then, of course, there’s the expressions of disdain for the Australian legal system by X (formerly Twitter) owner Elon Musk.

Inevitably, there are calls to “do something” and broad public appetite for changes in regulations. A new parliamentary committee will explore what that change should look like, but will have to contend with a range of legal, practical and ethical obstacles along the way.

Read more:
Elon Musk is mad he’s been ordered to remove Sydney church stabbing videos from X. He’d be more furious if he saw our other laws

Ten busy days

On May 1 and May 10, the government made two major announcements.

The first was a Commonwealth response to some of the online harms identified by National Cabinet. At the May 1 meeting, the Commonwealth promised to deliver new measures to address violent online pornography and misogynistic content targeting children and young people. This included promised new legislation to ban deepfake pornography and to fund a pilot project on age-assurance technologies.

The second was an announcement establishing a Joint Parliamentary Select Committee to look into the influence and impacts of social media on Australian society. The government wants the committee to examine and report on four major issues:

1. The decision of Meta to abandon deals under the News Media and Digital Platforms Bargaining Code

2. the important role of Australian journalism, news and public-interest media in countering misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms

3. the algorithms, systems and corporate decision-making of digital platforms in influencing what Australians see, and the impacts of this on mental health

4. other issues in relation to harmful or illegal content disseminated over social media, including scams, age-restricted content, child sexual abuse and violent extremist material.

However, the final terms of reference will be drafted after consultation with both the Senate crossbench and the opposition, so they may change a bit.

Why would they do this?

Asking the committee to review the Meta decision is an odd move.

In practice, Financial Services Minister Stephen Jones can “designate” Meta without a referral to the parliament. That is, the minister can decide all of the obligations of the News Media Bargaining Code apply to Meta.

However, a sounding by the committee may help to ensure Meta keeps concentrating on the issue. It also provides the opportunity to restate the underlying principles behind the code and the parlous state of much of the Australian news media.

In relation to harmful or illegal content disseminated over social media, there is already a review of the Online Safety Act underway. The terms of reference seem to ask the committee to provide input into the review.

Read more:
This week’s changes are a win for Facebook, Google and the government — but what was lost along the way?

The issue of misinformation and disinformation has also been the subject of review. The government released a draft of a proposed bill to combat misinformation and disinformation in June 2023. It would give the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) power to enforce an industry code, or to make one if the industry cannot.

That draft was criticised by the opposition at the time. However, there have been shifts since then and the committee might be a vehicle for the introduction of an amended version of the bill.

An age-old issue

Online age verification is a simple idea that is hard to implement unless there are significant consequences for non-compliance on a service provider.

Work in this area by the UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom, and the UK Information Commissioner’s Office are often cited as leading practice. However, the commissioner’s website notes “age assurance is a complex area with technology developing rapidly”.

One approach is for the minor to identify themselves to a platform by uploading a video or to send a photograph of their ID. This is entirely contrary to the eSafety Commissioner’s messaging on online safety. The Commissioner advises parents to make sure children do not share images or videos of themselves and to never share their ID.

In practice, the most effective age identification for minors requires parents to intervene. This can be done by using software to limit access or by supervising screentime. If children and teenagers can get around the rules simply by borrowing a device from a school friend, age verification might not do much.

As the International Association of Privacy Professionals has found, age verification and data protection are far harder than they look. It is particularly difficult if the age barrier is not one already in place – such as the adult rights that those over the age of 18 possess – but rather a seemingly arbitrary point in the mid-teens. Other than online, the most important age to verify is 18 for things such as alcohol sales and credit. It is also the age at which contracts can be enforced.

Countries vs companies

One issue that is often raised about social media platforms is how Australia can deal with a global business.

Here, the European approach in the Digital Markets Act provides some ideas. The act defines companies with a strong market position as “gatekeepers” and sets out rules they must follow. Under the act, important data must be shared as directed by the user to make the internet fairer and to ensure different sites and software can communicate with each other. It also calls for algorithms to be made more transparent, though these rules are a bit more limited.

In doing so, it limits the power of gatekeeper companies, including Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple, ByteDance (TikTok), Meta and Microsoft.

Obviously, Australia can’t harness the collective power of a group of nations in the same way the European Union does, but that doesn’t preclude some of the measures from being useful here.

There is considerable public support for governments to “do something” about online content and social media access, but there are both legal and practical obstacles to imposing new laws.

There is also the difficulty of getting political consensus on such measures, as seen with the debate surrounding the misinformation bill.

But it’s clear in Australia, both citizens and governments have been losing patience with letting tech companies regulate themselves and shifting responsibility to parents.

Rob Nicholls receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Terry Flew receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Investigating social media harm is a good idea, but parliament is about to see how complicated it is to fix – https://theconversation.com/investigating-social-media-harm-is-a-good-idea-but-parliament-is-about-to-see-how-complicated-it-is-to-fix-229900

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexandra Allen-Franks, Lecturer and Co-director of the New Zealand Centre for Human Rights Law, Policy and Practice, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

At first sight, the battle between a Manawatū fish-and-chip shop and a Louisiana-based chicken joint over the name “Popeye’s” reads like a classic David and Goliath battle. An international giant pushing out the little guy with the threat of an expensive, and potentially lengthy, court case.

But in reality, it’s a little more complicated.

It’s a story about the intricacies of New Zealand’s trademark rules, missed opportunities, and just how proactive some international businesses have been in protecting their interests across the globe.

To understand why a small takeaway business in the middle of New Zealand was forced to change its name, it’s important to be aware of the intricacies of New Zealand’s trademark legislation, and what it means for global brands like In-N-Out Burger and local treasures such as Georgie Pie.

Protecting the brand

A trademark can be a whole range of things – a word, a name, a logo, a shape, a smell, a sound – as long as it provides a message to consumers that the trademarked item comes from a particular source. The makers of Mother energy drinks and V energy drinks, for example, battled it out in court for five years over a particular shade of green.

Anyone can apply to register a trademark with the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand IPONZ. Once the office receives an application, it’s checked against the register to see whether it’s similar in any way to other trademarks.

Dates are very important in trademark law. Older trademarks almost always take precedence over newer ones. One exception to this rule is that the older trademark’s owner can consent to registration of the newer trademark. The newer trademark holder can also try to prove “honest concurrent use” alongside the older mark.

Importantly, IPONZ publishes details of the applications it’s considering to allow for challenges from other businesses.

New Zealand law doesn’t tend to allow trademark registration if it’s simply descriptive of the goods or services being applied for. Someone couldn’t trademark the word “juice”, for example. But the owner of the Just Juice trademark will have provided evidence to show the public associates their brand name with their particular juice and not all juices in general.

Use it or lose it

A successful trademark application affords the owner the right to stop anyone else from using it on similar products for as long as renewal fees are paid.

But what happens if the owner of a trademark never uses it? Trademarks can be challenged and removed. One ground of challenge is where a company can show the owners of the trademark haven’t genuinely used the mark in the three-year period leading up to the challenge.

The fact registered but unused trademarks are vulnerable for removal is why New Zealand occasionally sees pop-up restaurants from companies that may be unlikely to permanently set up shop.

In-N-Out Burger has had a New Zealand trademark registration for its logo since 1991, for example. No other food-related business can call itself “In-N-Out”.

But there are no actual In-N-Out restaurants in New Zealand. The trademark continues to exist because every few years In-N-Out opens a temporary pop-up restaurant. This happened for six hours in 2023, for three hours in 2020, and for 90 minutes in 2013.

It’s also one of the reasons why McDonald’s, which has 21 trademarks related to its Georgie Pie brand, with the oldest dating back to 1976, occasionally has limited releases of Georgie Pie products.

International businesses with New Zealand trademarks know they are at risk of losing their rights if they don’t use their marks. The pop-ups and limited releases are steps to prevent that from happening.

NZ businesses must be vigilant

Popeyes’ trademark registrations in New Zealand date back to 1976. As Popeyes only recently opened in New Zealand, it’s likely there were significant periods over the past 48 years when the 1976 trademark wasn’t being used.

Had someone made an application to remove it, it’s likely it would’ve been removed from the register. But that didn’t happen and it’s now too late. Popeyes is officially using its trademark and can’t be removed for being inactive.

The lesson for New Zealand-based businesses is that it’s necessary to search the trademarks register to see whether there are existing claims over the name they want to use, and to be active if they believe a trademark has fallen dormant.

Once an international business gets a registration in New Zealand, it can keep that registration alive for decades – even if it only uses the mark for a couple of hours every few years.

Alexandra Allen-Franks 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. Popeyes battle shows how big businesses protect their trademarks – even when they have no plans to come to NZ – https://theconversation.com/popeyes-battle-shows-how-big-businesses-protect-their-trademarks-even-when-they-have-no-plans-to-come-to-nz-229721

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ryan Storr, Research fellow, Swinburne University of Technology

The topic of homophobia in sport has recently made headlines in Australia, with a series of homophobic incidents involving men’s AFL players.

These homophobic incidents are usually well-reported in news media, but research has rarely explored the impact on participation for LGBTQI+ people.

Fresh research into the problem

Our new research is one of the first pieces of academic research in Australia to document how many LGBTQI+ people play and engage with sport. We also explored current levels of discrimination across sport in Australia, and the barriers and enablers of participation for young LGBTQI+ people.

Our research focused specifically on LGBTQI+ people aged 16-25 across community sport and movement settings (including gyms and leisure spaces), and was funded by VicHealth.

Previous research has shown young LGBTQI+ people are targeted with homophobia and transphobia in school and youth sport environments, and this affects them in several ways.

Specifically, it affects their mental health, with an increased risk of depression and anxiety, and forces them to drop out of sport – with many choosing to not play sport as adults.

The decline of LGBTQI+ youth participation

Our research showed 47% of LGBTQI+ youth were registered to a sports club between 2019 and 2022. Then, in 2023, just 33% of our sample said they currently participate in some form of competitive sport.

Comparable data from AusPlay show around 60% of young people across the broader population play sport.

Within different segments of the LGBTQI+ community, our data show just 31% of gay men and 29% lesbians play competitive sport, and even fewer within trans and gender diverse groups.

Therefore, our data support previous research from the United States that show young LGBTQI+ people engage with sport at half the rate of non-LGBTQI+ youth.

Trying to find a reason why

There is often much discussion within media about why there are very few openly gay men in professional sport. Our data highlight one of the reasons – gay men are less likely to play sport in the first place.

Some of the key barriers identified by participants were a lack of safe spaces, negative or traumatic early experiences, and discrimination.

Of those participants who do play sport, only 49% openly share their LGBTQI+ identity with teammates and coaches.

Ongoing discrimination is a key driver of why LGBTQI+ youth disengage from playing sport, and a reason why young people reported little-to-no sense of belonging within sports environments.

Some improvements seen but not for gay men

Overall, our research showed 53% of LGBTQI+ youth have witnessed discrimination (through homophobia, biphobia or other transphobia), and 40% have experienced discrimination.

These levels of discrimination show some marked improvement since the last major study in 2014 exploring homophobia in Australian sport, in which about 80% of respondents reported witnessing homophobia.

This suggests increased efforts to promote inclusion for LGBTQI+ people in sport is having a positive impact.

However, our data showed 76% of gay men have witnessed homophobia in sport, which shows little marked improvement in a decade.

Across our focus groups, young people spoke of negative early experiences in school sport, and the negative effects of ongoing debates related to LGBTQI+ issues in sport (such as trans athlete bans, or participation in pride games).

Most striking across our focus groups was the desire for young people to be able to be themselves when playing sport and “just exist”.

The notion of having freedom and to not have their identity challenged, questioned, ridiculed or invalidated while navigating sporting spaces was discussed extensively.

Hopes for the future

Young people discussed the ways in which sport organisations could work towards making them feel safer and included.

They also had strong views towards pride efforts, raising issues with “rainbow washing”, a lack of engagement with LGBTQI+ communities, and minimal commitment to addressing discrimination.

One young person in our study expressed:

“I would like to see a little bit more effort, instead of chucking us in a box saying ‘it’s too difficult to work out’. ‘We’re going to include you’ would be a good next step. But I think a lot of work needs to be done to feel welcomed again.”

Our data show targeted efforts and programs are urgently needed to ensure sport and movement settings do not continue to cause harm and force LGBTQI+ youth to drop out from sport.

Additionally, the data raise significant challenges for the broader sport sector and its ongoing sustainability.

Every sport wants new players and fans, but the sport sector risks losing a whole generation of young people unless it fully commits to reducing and eradicating discrimination towards LGBTQI+ people.

This work should also complement and sit alongside other important work addressing gender-based violence, and work addressing backlash to feminism and gender equity among teenage boys in schools.

Sport organisations must take immediate steps to ensure their environments are fully inclusive of LGBTQI+ people.

This can be done through good policy development and effective implementation, anti-homophobia initiatives and campaigns, and engaging LGBTQI+ sport communities.

Ryan Storr consults to Proud2Play. He receives funding from VicHealth. He is affiliated with Proud2Play.

Carleigh Yeomans consults to and conducts research for a number of organisation across Australia. Her research has received funding from organisations including VicHealth.

Kath Albury receives funding from the Australian Research Council, FORTE (the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and VicHealth.

– ref. Sports are supposed to be for all – but new research reveals just how few LGBTQI+ people play sport – https://theconversation.com/sports-are-supposed-to-be-for-all-but-new-research-reveals-just-how-few-lgbtqi-people-play-sport-229482

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ryan Storr, Research fellow, Swinburne University of Technology

The topic of homophobia in sport has recently made headlines in Australia, with a series of homophobic incidents involving men’s AFL players.

These homophobic incidents are usually well-reported in news media, but research has rarely explored the impact on participation for LGBTQI+ people.

Fresh research into the problem

Our new research is one of the first pieces of academic research in Australia to document how many LGBTQI+ people play and engage with sport. We also explored current levels of discrimination across sport in Australia, and the barriers and enablers of participation for young LGBTQI+ people.

Our research focused specifically on LGBTQI+ people aged 16-25 across community sport and movement settings (including gyms and leisure spaces), and was funded by VicHealth.

Previous research has shown young LGBTQI+ people are targeted with homophobia and transphobia in school and youth sport environments, and this affects them in several ways.

Specifically, it affects their mental health, with an increased risk of depression and anxiety, and forces them to drop out of sport – with many choosing to not play sport as adults.

The decline of LGBTQI+ youth participation

Our research showed 47% of LGBTQI+ youth were registered to a sports club between 2019 and 2022. Then, in 2023, just 33% of our sample said they currently participate in some form of competitive sport.

Comparable data from AusPlay show around 60% of young people across the broader population play sport.

Within different segments of the LGBTQI+ community, our data show just 31% of gay men and 29% lesbians play competitive sport, and even fewer within trans and gender diverse groups.

Therefore, our data support previous research from the United States that show young LGBTQI+ people engage with sport at half the rate of non-LGBTQI+ youth.

Trying to find a reason why

There is often much discussion within media about why there are very few openly gay men in professional sport. Our data highlight one of the reasons – gay men are less likely to play sport in the first place.

Some of the key barriers identified by participants were a lack of safe spaces, negative or traumatic early experiences, and discrimination.

Of those participants who do play sport, only 49% openly share their LGBTQI+ identity with teammates and coaches.

Ongoing discrimination is a key driver of why LGBTQI+ youth disengage from playing sport, and a reason why young people reported little-to-no sense of belonging within sports environments.

Some improvements seen but not for gay men

Overall, our research showed 53% of LGBTQI+ youth have witnessed discrimination (through homophobia, biphobia or other transphobia), and 40% have experienced discrimination.

These levels of discrimination show some marked improvement since the last major study in 2014 exploring homophobia in Australian sport, in which about 80% of respondents reported witnessing homophobia.

This suggests increased efforts to promote inclusion for LGBTQI+ people in sport is having a positive impact.

However, our data showed 76% of gay men have witnessed homophobia in sport, which shows little marked improvement in a decade.

Across our focus groups, young people spoke of negative early experiences in school sport, and the negative effects of ongoing debates related to LGBTQI+ issues in sport (such as trans athlete bans, or participation in pride games).

Most striking across our focus groups was the desire for young people to be able to be themselves when playing sport and “just exist”.

The notion of having freedom and to not have their identity challenged, questioned, ridiculed or invalidated while navigating sporting spaces was discussed extensively.

Hopes for the future

Young people discussed the ways in which sport organisations could work towards making them feel safer and included.

They also had strong views towards pride efforts, raising issues with “rainbow washing”, a lack of engagement with LGBTQI+ communities, and minimal commitment to addressing discrimination.

One young person in our study expressed:

“I would like to see a little bit more effort, instead of chucking us in a box saying ‘it’s too difficult to work out’. ‘We’re going to include you’ would be a good next step. But I think a lot of work needs to be done to feel welcomed again.”

Our data show targeted efforts and programs are urgently needed to ensure sport and movement settings do not continue to cause harm and force LGBTQI+ youth to drop out from sport.

Additionally, the data raise significant challenges for the broader sport sector and its ongoing sustainability.

Every sport wants new players and fans, but the sport sector risks losing a whole generation of young people unless it fully commits to reducing and eradicating discrimination towards LGBTQI+ people.

This work should also complement and sit alongside other important work addressing gender-based violence, and work addressing backlash to feminism and gender equity among teenage boys in schools.

Sport organisations must take immediate steps to ensure their environments are fully inclusive of LGBTQI+ people.

This can be done through good policy development and effective implementation, anti-homophobia initiatives and campaigns, and engaging LGBTQI+ sport communities.

Ryan Storr consults to Proud2Play. He receives funding from VicHealth. He is affiliated with Proud2Play.

Carleigh Yeomans consults to and conducts research for a number of organisation across Australia. Her research has received funding from organisations including VicHealth.

Kath Albury receives funding from the Australian Research Council, FORTE (the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and VicHealth.

– ref. ‘Too difficult to work out’ – new research reveals just how few LGBTQI+ people play sport – https://theconversation.com/too-difficult-to-work-out-new-research-reveals-just-how-few-lgbtqi-people-play-sport-229482

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wendy Marie Cumming-Potvin, Associate Professor/ Director of Research (School of Education), Murdoch University

Despite social change, LGBTQI+ people still face discrimination at school and in the community.

Language for diverse genders and sexualities is continually changing. LGBTQI+ allyship is part of this change. But what is allyship?

Allyship refers to people outside of a group – say, straight people – who actively support and work with people inside a group – say, LGBTQI+ people.

It can also mean people from different groups working together to support each other’s goals. A key example of this was at the Stonewall riots in 1969, when lesbians, gay men and transgender people joined with Black Panthers and civil rights activists in New York City to protest against police brutality.

But defining allyship can be challenging. Some people disagree about who an ally is. Others disagree about what an ally does.

What is an ally?

The term “ally” first appeared in US universities among students in the early 1990s. It was used to describe how majority group members (straight students) helped minorities (gay, lesbian and bisexual students), by advocating to end sexuality-based oppression in higher education.

For many years, scholars have seen straight allyship for lesbian, gay and bisexual people as helpful for activism. Straight allies have played important roles in policy and in combating prejudice on high school and university campuses.

Research has shown university and high school gay–straight alliances have contributed to more positive campus environments and a reduction in gender- and sexuality-based discrimination.

Over many years, gay–straight teacher alliances have successfully used inquiry groups to combat homophobia and explore intersectionality (the way different facets of someone’s identity intersect) within their schools. These groups highlighted LGBTQI-themed literature in English class, and encouraged teachers to be outspoken in their support by attending community events, such as pride parades.

But allyship can be exclusionary. While early perspectives of allyship focused on helping gay or lesbian university students, transgender or non-binary folk were often ignored.

There is also contention about how much “work” a straight ally has to do to earn recognition. Some people say that for someone to be called an ally they need to actively work for change, not just say they support others.

As allies, we are continually learning. And sometimes we get it wrong. When we make mistakes, it’s important to apologise and continue supporting those we wish to serve.

Allyship from within the community

Many current definitions of allyship only encompass allies outside of the group they are supporting. But a broadened definition of allyship would be useful.

LGBTQI+ people, especially with leadership roles, can be strong allies in their communities. Laverne Cox uses her stardom to advocate for her community of transgender women of colour and other LGBTQI+ people. Georgie Stone made medical processes easier for transgender children in Australia.

Because identities can shift, identifying who sits inside and outside LGBTQA+ communities can be challenging. Sometimes, there are clear social group insiders. Sometimes, there are clear outsiders. Other times, things are less clear. A person might hover inside and outside minority groups. They may not identify as straight, but they may not live publicly as LGBTQI+. Or a bisexual person may live in a straight relationship for many years.

This means allyship is also dynamic. It shifts depending on power, privilege and life experiences. For example, in one social context, a white, heterosexual woman may have power as a LGBTQI+ ally. But in a professional setting where the majority of attendees are white heterosexual men, this same woman may not be as powerful.

An intersectional process

Allyship needs to understand that many people’s gender and sexuality interact with language fluency, class, geography, race, age and disability.

This means that despite victories such as marriage equality, LGBTQI+ people who are homeless, transgender or people of colour may face significant barriers in society. For example, as of May 2024, 550 anti-trans bills have been introduced in US legislatures.

Because of discrimination, racism and a silencing around Black queer history, LGBTQA+ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people can receive inappropriate services, for example, in healthcare and education.

Understanding the multiple identities of LGBTQI+ people will support strong allyship to reduce negative health outcomes for Aboriginal communities.

What’s next for allyship?

Recent Canadian work has grouped researchers, school boards and teacher federations to make ally resources for supporting trans and gender-diverse students in Ontario.

This tool kit includes modules for having conversations about gender identity and teaching about transgender policy. The final module introduces action plans for supporting transgender students through whole school approaches.

History has shown coming together can lead to social transformation and better outcomes for marginalised groups. In 2016, US President Barack Obama designated the Stonewall Inn a national US monument to celebrate gay history.

Apart from acknowledging evolving ideas about gender and sexuality, future LGBTQI+ allyship needs to be intersectional. This means that factors like age, social class, geography, race, language and disability count. And when barriers are broken down across sectors, like healthcare, education and housing, allies become stronger.

Wendy Marie Cumming-Potvin previously received research funding from the Young and Well Co-operative Research Centre.
Wendy is a volunteer for Out for Australia and a member of GLBT Rights in Aging Inc. She is also a member of the Ally Collective at Murdoch University and the Queering the Curriculum Community of Practice in WA.

– ref. What is allyship? A brief history, present and future – https://theconversation.com/what-is-allyship-a-brief-history-present-and-future-220668

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jakob Weis, Postdoctoral research associate, University of Tasmania

The Southern Ocean, a region critical to Earth’s climate, hosts vast blooms of microscopic ocean plants known as phytoplankton. They form the very basis of the Antarctic food web.

Using a fleet of robotic floats, our study published in Nature today reveals that windblown dust delivers enough iron to support a third of the Southern Ocean’s phytoplankton growth. Knowing this will help us understand how global warming will affect key climate processes phytoplankton are involved in.

The Southern Ocean acts as a climate “shock absorber”. Its cold waters and vast area capture up to 40% of human-generated carbon dioxide (CO₂) absorbed by the planet’s oceans each year.

Human-generated CO₂ mainly enters the ocean as it dissolves at the surface. However, biological processes that transfer vast quantities of CO₂ from the surface to the deep ocean play a critical role in the ocean’s natural carbon cycle.

Even slight changes to these processes in the Southern Ocean could weaken or strengthen the climate shock absorber. This is where phytoplankton play a key role.

Phytoplankton: tiny but mighty

Like plants on land, phytoplankton convert CO₂ into biomass through photosynthesis. When phytoplankton die, they sink into the deep ocean. This effectively locks away the carbon for decades, or even hundreds of years. This is known as the biological carbon pump, and it helps to regulate Earth’s climate.

Phytoplankton need nutrients and light to flourish. Nitrogen, in the form of nitrate, is one of these essential nutrients and is plentiful in the Southern Ocean. During the bloom period in spring and summer, phytoplankton consume nitrate.

This offers scientists a unique opportunity – by measuring how much nitrate disappears seasonally, they can calculate the growth of phytoplankton and the carbon sequestered in their biomass.

But there’s a twist. Iron, another essential nutrient, is in short supply in the Southern Ocean. This shortage stunts phytoplankton growth, lowering the efficiency of the biological carbon pump.

Read more:
Oceans absorb 30% of our emissions, driven by a huge carbon pump. Tiny marine animals are key to working out its climate impacts

Dust boosts life in the Southern Ocean

Iron is commonly found in soil. Winds carry iron-rich dust from the continents to the oceans. This supply of dust-derived iron can trigger phytoplankton blooms, greening stretches of the ocean and strengthening the carbon pump.

Historically, to study the effects of iron fertilisation on phytoplankton – whether the iron came from dust, other natural sources, or was deliberately added – scientists had to embark on expensive research voyages to the remote Southern Ocean.

However, insights from such experiments were restricted to small regions and short periods during certain seasons. Little was known about the impact of dust on phytoplankton all year round across the whole of the Southern Ocean.

To address this gap, we turned to robots.

Ocean robots follow the trail of dust

Over the past decade, research organisations have deployed a fleet of robotic ocean floats worldwide. These robots tirelessly track ocean properties, including the nitrate concentration.

In our study, we analysed nitrate measurements at 13,600 locations in the Southern Ocean. We calculated phytoplankton growth from nitrate disappearance and combined these growth estimates with computer models of dust deposition.

With this new approach, we uncovered a direct link between the supply of dust-derived iron and phytoplankton growth. Importantly, we also found the dust doesn’t just coincide with phytoplankton growth – it actually fuels it by supplying iron.

We used this relationship to build productivity maps of the Southern Ocean — past, present or future. These maps suggest that dust supports roughly a third of the phytoplankton growth in the Southern Ocean today.

During ice ages, a combination of drier conditions, lower sea levels and stronger winds meant dust deposition on the Southern Ocean was up to 40 times greater than today.

When we apply dust simulations of the last ice age to our newfound relationship, we estimate that phytoplankton growth was two times higher during these dustier times than it is today.

So, by fuelling phytoplankton growth, dust likely played an important role in keeping atmospheric CO₂ concentrations low during ice ages.

Why does it matter?

Global warming and land use changes could rapidly change dust delivery to the ocean in the future.

These shifts would have important consequences for ocean ecosystems and fisheries, and our research provides the tools to help forecast these changes.

To keep global warming below 1.5˚C, it is imperative that we find safe and effective methods for actively removing CO₂ from the atmosphere. One proposed and controversial strategy involves fertilising the Southern Ocean with iron, mimicking the natural processes that decreased CO₂ during ice ages.

Our results suggest such a strategy could boost productivity in the least dusty parts of the Southern Ocean, but uncertainties remain around the ecological consequences of this intervention and its long term effectiveness in capturing carbon.

By studying how nature has done this in the past, we can learn more about the possible outcomes and practicality of fertilising the ocean to mitigate climate change.

Read more:
Geoengineering the ocean to fight climate change raises serious environmental justice questions

Jakob Weis receives funding from the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes (CLEX).
Robotic floats used in the study were deployed mostly under the Southern Ocean Carbon and Climate Observations and Modeling project (SOCCOM), part of the international biogeochemical Argo (BGC-Argo) effort.

Andrew Bowie receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Antarctic Program Partnership through the Australian Government Antarctic Science Collaboration Initiative.

Christina Schallenberg receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS).

Peter Strutton receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Australia’s Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS).

Zanna Chase receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science (ACEAS).

– ref. Floating robots reveal just how much airborne dust fertilises the Southern Ocean – a key climate ‘shock absorber’ – https://theconversation.com/floating-robots-reveal-just-how-much-airborne-dust-fertilises-the-southern-ocean-a-key-climate-shock-absorber-225793

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kevin Dew, Professor of Sociology, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

One in three of us will develop cancer at some point in our lives. But survival rates have improved to the point that two-thirds of those diagnosed live more than five years.

This extraordinary shift over the past few decades introduces new challenges. A large and growing proportion of people diagnosed with cancer are living with it, rather than dying of it.

In our recently published research we examined the cancer experiences of 81 New Zealanders (23 Māori and 58 non-Māori).

We found survivorship not only entailed managing the disease, but also “wrangling” a complex health system.

Surviving disease or surviving the system

Our research focused on those who had lived longer than expected (four to 32 years since first diagnosis) with a life-limiting or terminal diagnosis of cancer.

Common to many survivors’ stories was the effort it took to wrangle the system or find others to advocate on their behalf, even to get a formal diagnosis and treatment.

By wrangling we refer to the practices required to traverse complex and sometimes unwelcoming systems. This is an often unnoticed but very real struggle that comes on top of managing the disease itself.

The common focus of the healthcare system is on symptoms, side effects of treatment and other biological aspects of cancer. But formal and informal care often falls by the wayside, despite being key to people’s everyday experiences.

The inequities of cancer survivorship are well known. Analyses show postcodes and socioeconomic status play a strong role in the prevalence of cancer and survival.

Less well known, but illustrated in our research, is that survival is also linked to people’s capacity to manage the entire healthcare system. That includes accessing a diagnosis or treatment, or identifying and accessing alternative treatments.

Survivorship is strongly related to material resources, social connections, and understandings of how the health system works and what is available. For instance, one participant who was contemplating travelling overseas to get surgery not available in New Zealand said:

We don’t trust the public system. So thankfully we had private health insurance […] But if we went overseas, health insurance only paid out to $30,000 and I think the surgery was going to be a couple of hundred thousand. I remember Dad saying and crying and just being like, I’ll sell my business […] we’ll all put in money. It was really amazing.

Assets of survivorship

In New Zealand, the government agency Pharmac determines which medications are subsidised. Yet many participants were advised by oncologists or others to “find ways” of taking costly, unsubsidised medicines.

This often meant finding tens of thousands of dollars with no guarantees. Some had the means, but for others it meant drawing on family savings, retirement funds or extending mortgages. This disproportionately favours those with access to assets and influences who survives.

But access to economic capital is only one advantage. People also have cultural resources – often described as cultural capital.

In one case, a participant realised a drug company was likely to apply to have a medicine approved. They asked their private oncologist to lobby on their behalf to obtain the drug through a compassionate access scheme, without having to pay for it.

Others gained community support through fundraising from clubs they belonged to. But some worried about where they would find the money, or did not want to burden their community.

I had my doctor friend and some others that wanted to do some public fundraising. But at the time I said, “Look, most of the people that will be contributing are people from my community who are poor already, so I’m not going to do that option”.

Accessing alternative therapies, almost exclusively self-funded, was another layer of inequity. Some felt forced to negotiate the black market to access substances such as marijuana to treat their cancer or alleviate the side effects of orthodox cancer treatment.

Cultural capital is not a replacement for access to assets, however. Māori survivorship was greatly assisted by accessing cultural resources, but often limited by lack of material assets.

Persistence pays

The last thing we need when faced with the possibility of cancer is to have to push for formal diagnosis and care. Yet this was a common experience.

One participant was told nothing could be found to explain their abdominal pain – only to find later they had pancreatic cancer. Another was told their concerns about breathing problems were a result of anxiety related to a prior mental health history, only to learn later their earlier breast cancer had spread to their lungs.

Persistence is another layer of wrangling and it often causes distress.

Once a diagnosis was given, for many people the public health system kicked in and delivered appropriate treatment. However, experiences were patchy and variable across New Zealand.

Issues included proximity to hospitals, varying degrees of specialisation available, and the requirement of extensive periods away from home and whānau. This reflects an ongoing unevenness and lack of fairness in the current system.

When facing a terminal or life-limiting diagnosis, the capacity to wrangle the system makes a difference. We shouldn’t have to wrangle, but facing this reality is an important first step.

We must ensure it doesn’t become a continuing form of inequity, whereby people with access to material resources and social and cultural connections can survive longer.

Kevin Dew receives funding from the Marsden Fund

Alex Broom receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Kerry Chamberlain receives funding from the Marsden Fund.

Chris Cunningham, Elizabeth Dennett, and Richard Egan 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. Cancer is increasingly survivable – but it shouldn’t depend on your ability to ‘wrangle’ the health system – https://theconversation.com/cancer-is-increasingly-survivable-but-it-shouldnt-depend-on-your-ability-to-wrangle-the-health-system-228774

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mona Nikidehaghani, Senior Lecturer in Accounting, University of Wollongong

Many Australians with disability feel on the edge of a precipice right now. Recommendations from the disability royal commission and the NDIS review were released late last year. Now a draft NDIS reform bill has been tabled. In this series, experts examine what new proposals could mean for people with disability.

At $14.4 billion over four years, the federal budget’s biggest savings come from efforts to rein in the cost of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The government also plans to invest $213.8 million to fight fraud and co-design NDIS reforms with people with disability. Previous estimates show up to 20% of NDIS expenditure may be fraudulent.

Alongside his “back on track” reform bill in March, NDIS Minister Bill Shorten, announced a taskforce to tackle overcharging that can mean participants pay more than people outside the scheme for the same product or service.

Chaired by the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC), the taskforce will collaborate with the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission and the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) to combat this so-called “NDIS tax”. But how does this taskforce work and will it be effective?

Overcharging NDIS participants

Currently, the NDIA (which administers the NDIS) provides individual funding to NDIS participants to purchase a range of reasonable and necessary goods and services from providers. The NDIA also has guidelines that set the maximum prices registered providers can charge NDIS participants for each item. For example, the capped price for cleaning services is around $54 per hour ($76 per hour in remote areas and $81 in very remote areas.)

However, there have been reports of providers charging the maximum price set by the NDIA as soon as a client is identified as an NDIS participant. Some providers employ a “twin pricing” strategy, charging an NDIS participant more than they would charge a non-participant. For example, a provider might charge an NDIS participant $130 for a waterproof mattress protector but charge everyone else $90 for the same item.

Previously, these activities were not necessarily fraudulent. However, the NDIS Code of Conduct was amended in December last year, making it illegal for the NDIS providers to charge a higher price for goods for a participant “without a reasonable justification”.

What can NDIS participants do?

NDIS participants are one of the key contributors to the operation of the new taskforce. They can report suspicious overcharging activities.

For example, if they are purchasing a shower chair, they could do a quick online search and obtain several quotes. If they believe they have been overcharged, they should double-check their service agreement to verify they have received the agreed-upon chair, then contact their service provider for an explanation. Ultimately, if they cannot resolve the issue, they can report the case to the taskforce.

Participants can also contact the ACCC if they receive a faulty product or one that does not match their agreement. And they can report providers who intimidate them into signing a contract or pressure them to purchase services they do not need.

What happens next?

Once the taskforce is tipped off, they can initiate an investigation, although the NDIS participant may not be notified of the process or the outcomes.

The taskforce will investigate suspected illegal overcharging of NDIS participants, misleading conduct, unfair contract terms, and anti-competitive agreements set by service providers.

Providers who are found in breach of the NDIS Code of Conduct may face unscheduled site visits, receive compliance notices, be permanently banned, incur financial penalties, and even face criminal sanctions where fraud is suspected.

Will the taskforce be effective?

Co-designed NDIS taskforces that operate mainly based on participant reports can certainly work. The Fraud Fusion Taskforce, established in 2022 to disrupt NDIS fraud and criminal activity, led to more than 2,000 tip-offs in February 2024 alone. Some of these investigations have led to prosecutions.

The ACCC taskforce could be particularly effective in combating price differentiation for tangible goods purchased by NDIS participants, such as wheelchairs, pillows and assistive technology for vision or hearing. But it is important to note some participants may lack the time, skills or capacity required to compare prices and report them to the taskforce.

Controlling price differentiation for services such as those provided by occupational therapists, in-home support and physiotherapists is more complicated.

Service providers may charge the maximum price for a variety of reasons. For one thing, becoming a registered NDIS provider is costly because of administrative expenses and costs related to quality and risk control. There are also expenses associated with registration, compliance and regular audits. And the price of services might depend on the provider’s level of experience and location. The flexibility of service providers and their reputation can also be factors.

Participants with more than one disability might require complex services, and providers could charge a higher price to serve participants with greater needs.

A pricing model that needs redesign

As part of its findings, the NDIS Review said the scheme’s pricing model did not encourage quality and efficiency, with price caps acting more like “price anchors” than “price ceilings”. The 2024–25 budget pledges $5.3 million to investigate pricing reforms to “strengthen transparency, predictability, and alignment”.

These are important because the current model can encourage service providers to focus on profitability rather than on improving service quality. And the fee-for-service approach can encourage over servicing that discourages capacity building, particularly for people with complex disabilities.

While the ACCC taskforce may well prove effective in controlling unfair overcharging of goods, a review of the pricing model for services is also needed to minimise exploitation of the system.

Mona Nikidehaghani 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. Choice and control: what can the ACCC do to stop NDIS price gouging and reduce costs? – https://theconversation.com/choice-and-control-what-can-the-accc-do-to-stop-ndis-price-gouging-and-reduce-costs-228512

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Belinda Smaill, Professor of Film and Screen Studies, Monash University

In 2017, then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull alighted from a helicopter to announce a grand plan: Snowy Hydro 2.0. It would turn the famous hydroelectric scheme into a giant battery, ready to power the green transition.

Turnbull no doubt expected his announcement would associate his leadership with the positive aura of the enormous post-war Snowy scheme, since mythologised as the foremost nation-building achievement of the 20th century.

But bad press has plagued Snowy 2.0. Recent news of a tunnel collapse is the latest episode in ongoing mechanical problems. There have been reports of environmental mismanagement, bogged tunnelling machines and cost blowouts. The constant stream of bad stories have outweighed any nation-building glow.

Or has it? Snowy 1.0 took 25 years to complete. It was a huge task to divert the Snowy River inland through tunnels, bolstering water supplies in the Murray and Murrumbidgee rivers and generating power through hydroelectricity. Workers died. Costs blew out. But the mythology of the project grew, partly driven by promotional films depicting the project as a source of national pride and power.

A tale of two projects

Snowy 2.0 is overseen by a government-owned corporation, Snowy Hydro. Its public relations program includes social media, an onsite Discovery Centre and a YouTube channel with monthly video updates narrated by Snowy 2.0 personnel.

To date, the biggest boon for the project has been the three-part SBS series, Building the Snowy, first broadcast in August 2023. While not formally a product of Snowy Hydro, the series has an upbeat tone. Extensive use of archival footage strongly links current works to the celebrated post-war scheme.

Despite these efforts, Snowy 2.0 is now nationally known for slow progress and cost blowouts. The negative perception is fair. Snowy Hydro bosses admit there have been unanticipated setbacks.

Is it too late to change these perceptions? Not necessarily. Energy projects can be powerfully reimagined and legitimated in the public sphere. The original Snowy Scheme of the 1950s offers a formidable template.

This wasn’t by accident. Sir William Hudson, an engineer tasked with managing the Snowy scheme, had witnessed the successful promotion of Roosevelt’s 1930s New Deal policies in the United States, including the construction of the monumental Hoover Dam.

Hudson decided to follow suit, investing heavily in promotion. This, it turned out, was wise. The scheme’s early years were fraught. Political wrangling meant the scheme was started under Commonwealth defence powers until it was formalised by state legislation in Victoria and NSW in 1959. It could easily have been cancelled or curtailed.

As the building progressed, workers began to die in accidents – a tally which would reach 121. States continued to disagree about the allocation of water for irrigation.

Hudson had to convince both the public and politicians of its merits. In addition to the usual press releases and newsreels, Hudson turned the works into a tourist attraction, taking people into the mountains by the busload.

Documentaries by the dozen

From the 1950s to the 1970s, the Snowy Mountain Authority sponsored a prolific photographic section, which put out huge volumes of photos – and around 130 documentaries.

Some of these weren’t aimed at a wide audience, such as safety training films or recruitment films to sustain the workforce.

But there were dozens which deliberately set out to create a favourable image of the scheme. The experienced cinematographer Harry Malcolm produced many of these films, which were shown at film festivals, schools and community group screenings.

The films made much of the spectacular alpine environment. Some showed the lives and accommodation of workers and their families in company towns such as Khancoban and Cabramurra. Only a few mentioned the multicultural workforce the scheme is known for.

Titles include Where Men and Mountains Meet (1963), Challenge of the Great Divide (1967) and Where the Hills Are Twice as Steep (1958). This last features a male narrator speaking from the perspective of Mt Kosciuszko, describing a chronology from deep time to colonisation to the problems of irrigation and electricity the scheme was meant to solve.

A high point was Conquest of the Rivers (1957), which won awards at film festivals and circulating internationally.

The semi-fictionalised documentary tells the story of Tom Carpenter who leaves his drought-affected home west of the Great Dividing Range with his small family and travels to Cooma to work on the Snowy.

Conquest of the Rivers emphasises a better future, created by the labour of male bodies as they carve paths inside mountains. The film draws on wartime tropes of capable masculinity.

Taken together, these documentaries offered a stabilising discourse for the nation against the massive social change brought by the large Baby Boomer generation.

By 1960, the films had done their work. There was widespread enthusiasm for the project and its future was guaranteed.

There’s a telling quote from Tom Mitchell, a critic of the scheme, in Margaret Unger’s Voices from the Snowy:

In 1960 Upper Murray people suffered from a strange disease known as ‘Snowyitis’ which consisted of an overwhelming enthusiasm for the Snowy Scheme, almost rising to the fervour of a Billy Graham crusade. And yet, if asked, no one could really define the benefits

These films were never meant to be even-handed. Instead, Harry Malcolm’s films were a potent mix of truth and illusion, distracting from real problems such as deficient safety standards, low worker morale, and alarmingly, no planning for floods until after devastating floods on the Murray in 1956.

Could history repeat?

Just like the original Snowy scheme, the future of Snowy 2.0 is not assured. Its original backer has left politics. Enormous engineering challenges have yet to be overcome.

Could Snowy 2.0 be reframed as 1.0 did? It is possible. But it would require a much more imaginative storytelling regime, beyond photos of large tunnelling machines or commentary from engineers.

To make it successful in the public eye, it should harness the new story of our time – the essential energy transition away from fossil fuels and the creation of a new grid. It should connect this project in the mountains to the needs of people around the nation, appealing to the senses and conjuring up the desired future.

And it cannot be only in the realm of PR – Snowy 2.0 must make our environmental plight better, not worse.

Read more:
I’m not an apologist for the Snowy 2.0 hydro scheme – but let’s not obsess over the delays and cost blowouts

Belinda Smaill receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Kate Fitch 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. Stirring films made the Snowy scheme a nationbuilding project. Could the troubled Snowy 2.0 do the same? – https://theconversation.com/stirring-films-made-the-snowy-scheme-a-nationbuilding-project-could-the-troubled-snowy-2-0-do-the-same-229365

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ray Nickson, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Newcastle Law School, University of Newcastle

Bullying by judges, magistrates and other judicial officers is a factor in many lawyers leaving the profession.

This month is the first anniversary of the Judicial Commission of Victoria’s conduct guideline about judicial bullying. Yet, as shown in our latest research published this week, judicial bullying remains an issue across all states in Australia.

Judicial bullying is conduct by judges and magistrates that is unreasonable in the circumstances and belittles, humiliates, insults, victimises, is aggressive or intimidating.

In 2023, lawyers across Australia shared in interviews that judicial bullying was a significant contributor to workplace stress. They remarked that it wasn’t clients or the law that might ruin their day – more often it was courtroom encounters with judges and magistrates.

Lawyers often likened this to getting “slapped” or “kicked”. As one lawyer told us,

I’ve seen lawyers leave […] and not gone back to work in criminal law because of what they’ve experienced, and the pressures and the judges and their comments.

Breaking the taboo

Interactions between lawyers and judges or magistrates typically represent an entirely one-sided power dynamic. In courtrooms, judicial officers have all the power, while lawyers and others have limited or no power to challenge bullying behaviour.

Bullying by judicial officers contributes to stress, depression, and burnout for lawyers. So far, Victoria is the only Australian jurisdiction to take formal steps to reduce judicial bullying.

Within the legal profession, judicial bullying has long been a taboo subject. It has traditionally been viewed as a rite of passage for lawyers. Some judges have taken the view that concerns about judicial bullying reflect that lawyers have become too fragile.

Judicial bullying not only affects lawyers but can diminish the health and wellbeing of other court staff and participants. It undermines the integrity of the justice system by giving the impression that judicial officers are biased. Bullying in the courtroom demonstrates a lack of professionalism that may negatively influence the behaviour of others in court.

Surveys of Australian legal practitioners show that judicial bullying is common. For example, 59% of Victorian barristers reported they experienced judicial bullying. That same study found that women barristers experienced judicial bullying more frequently: 66% compared to 55% of male barristers. In our own research, many lawyers observed a gendered dimension to the issue.

Former High Court justice Michael Kirby has acknowledged the issue of judicial bullying. Most judges and magistrates do not bully from the bench. As one lawyer told us “Judicial bullying has definitely gotten a lot better. Thirteen years ago, judicial bullying was the biggest problem.”

Justice Kirby has stated “there are a few serial judicial offenders in the judiciary, who are widely known in the legal profession.”

Judicial bullying is a cause of depression in lawyers. While barristers have reported high levels of job satisfaction overall, judicial bullying was observed as the most significant issue affecting their working life.

Combatting judicial bullying

The Judicial Commission of Victoria has taken steps to combat judicial bullying. They noted that a cultural change in courtrooms was required to develop safer, healthier, and more respectful workplaces. A lack of strong leadership on the issue has been observed as a challenge. There is also a lack of awareness among judicial officers about the effects of judicial bullying, and bad systems for reporting bullying.

Official responses to reduce bullying can include permitting anonymous complaints, allowing witnesses to make reports, and improving complaint processes. Last year, the Legal Practice Board in Western Australia created an online portal that would allow for anonymous complaints of judicial bullying.

Beyond institutional responses, there are measures lawyers can actively take to reduce the risk and impact of judicial bullying. Supervisors shared with us that management of caseloads for junior lawyers can reduce the risk of judicial bullying. Informal debriefing between colleagues, such as office conversations, chats walking to court, and during social gatherings, were the most important ways lawyers coped with workplace stress, including judicial bullying.

It is important to recognise that many lawyers represent vulnerable members of our community in court. This includes victims of domestic and family violence, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients, youth, people with disabilities, and people in custody. The professional expertise of these lawyers is an important legal and social resource in Australia. Steps should be taken to protect this resource from unhealthy working environments, which can include bullying inside and outside the courtroom.

Judicial bullying may itself be caused by professional stress. Ensuring that judicial workloads are manageable is another important feature of reducing the risk for judicial bullying. Judges and magistrates work in high-stress roles and must be provided with the resources and supports to lead healthy professional lives.

The legal profession continues to grapple with the challenges presented by bullying in the workplace. It is important to acknowledge the impact that a minority of judges and magistrates can have on lawyers. Victoria’s response in formally acknowledging the issue of judicial bullying is a positive step that should be adopted throughout Australia.

Ray Nickson is a member of the Law Society of NSW and a legal practitioner in that state. Ray Nickson previously practiced law in South Australia. The views expressed here are his own.

Alice Neikirk 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. Like being ‘slapped’ or ‘kicked’: judicial bullying is a problem in Australian courtrooms – https://theconversation.com/like-being-slapped-or-kicked-judicial-bullying-is-a-problem-in-australian-courtrooms-229501

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cassandra Goldie, Adjunct Professor and UNSW Law Advisory Council Member, UNSW Sydney

The government says the budget will help people doing it tough. But it has also opted not to increase JobSeeker and Youth Allowance, despite expert advice these payments should be the highest priority in a cost-of-living crisis.

At the same time, monetary policy is driving up unemployment to cut inflation, which is expected to put 100,000 more people out of paid work.

Despite correctly diagnosing the problems with the economy, the budget fails to deliver the solutions that are arguably needed most.

Instead, it tinkers at the edges while ignoring the gaping hole in Australia’s safety net. Genuine repair requires a substantial boost to the incomes of more than a million people who are trying to survive on JobSeeker, Youth Allowance and related payments of $55 or less a day.

The combined effect of the budget’s major “cost-of-living measures”, including the tax cuts, will deliver a $6-a-week increase to a single person relying on JobSeeker (or $15 for the minority who are eligible for rent assistance). Meanwhile, a single person earning $200,000 a year will receive an extra $93 a week.

Before each of the past two budgets, the government’s own Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee (of which I am a member) urged it to prioritise a big increase in JobSeeker, Youth Allowance and related payments. It made a small ($20 a week) increase in last year’s budget and there was none in this one.

This body, comprised of economists, social security experts, advocates, community service organisations, unions and business organisations, has been clear about its priorities, informed by rigorous research and analysis. First, lift JobSeeker by a substantial amount. Second, boost Commonwealth Rent Assistance.

The rent assistance increase in the budget is limited: it only helps a minority of people on the very lowest incomes, and is so modest it won’t lift people out of rental stress.

The increase will provide up to $9.40 extra a week for a single person getting the maximum rate of rent assistance. However, most people receiving JobSeeker and Youth Allowance do not receive rent assistance – and if they do, they’re likely to remain in deep housing stress. A single student paying median rent of $220 a week will continue to pay more than half their income support in rent alone because the Youth Allowance is so low.

The budeget’s changes to the Carer Payment will make it easier for people to take up paid work without being penalised.

Also welcome is money for homelessness services, Aboriginal family violence prevention services, the creation of 3,000 jobs in remote communities and help for Services Australia to reduce the shocking claims backlog. There are positive signals regarding employment services reform. But the automated payment suspensions still need to be fixed.

Handing $300 in energy bill relief to all households – regardless of income – is wasteful and fails to target those who most need help.

While billions are being pumped into renewables to deal with the climate crisis, people on low incomes are being left behind by the energy transition.

Wealthier homeowners may be able to switch to efficient appliances and rooftop solar, but renters on low incomes are stuck in inefficient homes that cost thousands each year to heat and cool.

Before the budget, the government tried to sideline the push to raise the rate of JobSeeker — from advocates receiving income support, leading economists and women’s safety experts – as worthy but unrealistic. In the government’s dismissal of the economic advisory committee’s report, it said it was not able to adopt every “good idea” in the budget.

Making sure people have enough money to eat three times a day is not a “good idea”. It is a basic responsibility of government. While finding a way to deliver $26 billion in tax cuts, including $4,500 extra a year to people on $200,000, the government hasn’t meaningfully raised the living standards of those most in need. The 2024–25 surplus is about the equivalent of lifting JobSeeker and related payments to the pension rate of $80 a day.

Of the more than one million people currently relying on JobSeeker and related payments, only 4,700 will receive an increase in their base rate. Those eligible have “partial capacity” to work, fewer than 14 hours a week, and will receive an extra $27.50 a week. Arguably, this group should have access to the higher Disability Support Pension anyway.

The Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee found that significantly raising the JobSeeker rate to 90% of the Age Pension, or $72 a day, would have a “small to negligible” effect on inflation. At $4.6 billion a year, the cost would represent a tiny fraction of GDP – 0.16% – or just 0.43% of total household spending.

Forcing people to live on incomes so low they eat one meal a day, go without medicine or freeze during winter will not help fight inflation. Inflation is being driven by people with cash to spare on restaurants, holidays and other discretionary spending.

The government insists it is serious about bolstering living standards, economic security and solving the housing crisis. Yet it has failed to provide targeted and long-term relief for the people who need it the most.

Cassandra Goldie is CEO of the Australian Council of Social Service. ACOSS receives a Commonwealth grant. Goldie is a member of the Independent Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee

– ref. The budget couldn’t include every ‘good idea’ but not boosting JobSeeker and the Youth Allowance were obvious misses – https://theconversation.com/the-budget-couldnt-include-every-good-idea-but-not-boosting-jobseeker-and-the-youth-allowance-were-obvious-misses-230094

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gwilym Croucher, Associate Professor, Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne

On one level, the 2024 federal budget brought few big surprises for universities.

The two key measures were already announced leading up to May 14: the changes to HELP indexation and payments for nursing, teaching and social work students during work placements.

But what we did see on budget night were some significant indications of where the government is going on higher education reform. In February the government released a wide-ranging report outlining a blueprint for higher education over the decades to come.

In the budget papers, we saw the government’s first major response to the Universities Accord final report.

This shows how the Albanese government intends to proceed with reform for the remainder of this parliamentary term and the next, should it be re-elected.

The changes to indexation and prac payments will naturally be of most concern to students now. But what comes next may shape Australian higher education for decades.

First, what else was in the budget?

The budget did have some other funding announcements. It set aside $350.3 million over four years to fund new fee-free courses at universities to help students prepare for study once they have been accepted.

It also contained measures to enhance student safety and wellbeing. This includes $19.4 million over two years to establish a national student ombudsman to “provide a single, national mechanism for higher education students to escalate complaints regarding the administrative actions of [their institution]”.

It also includes $18.7 million over four years to help establish a national higher education code to prevent and respond to gender-based violence.

A new commission

The government announced the long-anticipated Australian Tertiary Education Commission (or ATEC), which had been recommended by Universities Accord final report. It will start work on July 1, 2025.

We are still waiting for precise detail on the key functions of the commission. But we know it will have significant responsibilities, such as stewardship of Australia’s tertiary education system. It will also manage “delivery of funding arrangements for higher education”.

Many higher education stakeholders are nervous ATEC will have extensive powers to direct government funding to particular institutions. This would be a big change from the current system, which is based on legislation and established formulas to allocate funding to universities.

There is a fear this could lead to fewer choices for students because ATEC may concentrate resources in some areas and other universities might be asked to do more with less.

At the moment, Australian universities enjoy a great degree of autonomy over what and how they teach and what research they support. This is not always the case in other countries, where the government can be more prescriptive about university operations.

But we also know current policy arrangements haven’t worked on a number of other levels. They have not been able to encourage enough students from underrepresented backgrounds to enter higher education or develop sustainable education in regional areas.

Transparency will be key

There are some hard choices and trade-offs ahead. How can the number of places for underrepresented students be expanded and regional higher education provisions be sustained if resources are limited? How can the government shape the system as a whole, while maintaining autonomy for individual universities?

Transparency will be key to this. We need to make sure any ATEC advice on policy or funding allocations are clear for all to see and scrutinise.

New approach to funding

Following the Universities Accord final report, the government has also indicated it wants to see to greater higher education participation. The aspiration is for 80% of the working age population to have a tertiary qualification by 2050.

This means we will likely need new institutions or TAFEs to teach growing numbers of bachelor’s degree students and a new funding system will be required to do this.

The current system for funding education has evolved over decades, most recently changing through the former government’s Job-ready Graduates scheme. These policies raised the fees for many students, particularly in the liberal arts. But they failed to address the additional costs of regionally based education or offer courses to many students from underrepresented backgrounds.

To address this, the Albanese government has indicated it will develop a “needs-based” funding system from January 2026. This is aimed at better supporting First Nations students, students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, students with disability and students in regional and remote areas.

While this extra support will be welcomed, the silence about student contributions will come as cold comfort to current students, many of whom are faced with mounting debts. The changes to the way student debts are indexed will go some way to addressing the affordability of higher education, but unless the underlying student contribution is lowered, debts will continue to grow.

This is no small task. A reversal of the Job-ready Graduates scheme will likely cost close to a billion dollars a year.

More to come

Education Minister Jason Clare has repeatedly said the govenrment’s response to the Universities Accord will take more than one budget. So this is unlikely to be the final word on changes to universities.

The government has also set up an advisory committee to oversee the implementation of the new ATEC and needs-based funding. It will headed by Tony Cook, the Department of Education secretary.

As part of the process, the committee will consult with students, universities and states and territories about their role in shaping post-secondary education in Australia. They have a big job ahead of them.

Until more of the details are worked out, it is hard to know what the future will hold for higher education students.

Gwilym Croucher 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. Funding might change, but Job-ready Graduates stays for now. What does the budget fine print say about higher education? – https://theconversation.com/funding-might-change-but-job-ready-graduates-stays-for-now-what-does-the-budget-fine-print-say-about-higher-education-230104

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

Treasurer Jim Chalmers on Tuesday handed down his third budget. It had a second successive surplus and sweeteners, including relief on energy bills, and tax breaks for development of green hydrogen and critical minerals processing.

The opposition will back the energy bill subsidy but oppose the tax breaks in the Future Made in Australia policy.

In this podcast we were joined by Angus Taylor, who is shadow treasurer, and Chalmers.

On the $300 household energy relief, Taylor says it’s an acknowledgement of a government broken election promise:

Look, this is an admission of failure by Labor, who promised the $275 electricity price reduction. It’s clear now that it’s not going to be delivered. So, instead, they’re giving a government handout. They’re putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.

On the Coalition’s opposition to the tax breaks for the development of green hydrogen and critical minerals processing:

This is the biggest-ticket item in the budget, $13.7 billion. And, it’s a huge amount of money. It is inflationary to spend that kind of money at a time like this. It is part of creating what is a sea of red ink as we go out and across the budget. We do want to see a successful manufacturing sector in this country but the pathway to do that is not to subsidise every unit of production.

Chalmers tackles criticism levelled at the universal nature of the energy rebates:

First and most importantly, we work on the implementation of this with the states who receive the funding and the retailers who provide the credit. And so we’re always looking for the best way to do that.

It would have been complex and time-consuming to set up a whole new system [to determine income and thus eligibility]. Our focus here, our priority here, is on providing cost-of-living relief to millions of people doing it tough and this is the best way to go about it.

He also makes it clear that while some people will get the rebate more than once if they are paying the energy bill on more than one property, this is not the case where properties are rented out.

It’s whoever’s name is on the bill. That’s what happened last time. That’s the principle that we apply.

On the looming Senate fight on the Future Made in Australia tax breaks, Chalmers says:

We understand that any coalition led by Peter Dutton’s first instincts are going to be nasty and to be negative, and to say no and to oppose things. We’ve seen this movie before. We play the cards that were dealt in the Senate, we do our best, but our intention is to pass the package that we announced.

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. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Budget fight looms on Future Made in Australia tax breaks – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-budget-fight-looms-on-future-made-in-australia-tax-breaks-230095

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Griffiths, Deputy Program Director, Budgets and Government, Grattan Institute

This year’s budget has “something for everyone”, with very little in the way of cuts and no new taxes.

It’s a classic “good news” pre-election budget.

Whether it is too good to be true hinges on whether this budget represents not just good news but also good economic and fiscal management.

Throwing the dice on inflation

At the centre of the budget is a big gamble on inflation.

A surge of new spending when inflation is still above the Reserve Bank’s target range is a risky move.

Several of the government’s measures, among them energy rebates and extra Commonwealth rent assistance, will directly, mechanically, lower the Consumer Price Index, resulting in lower-than-expected inflation.

The gamble is how much more Australians will spend on other things as a result, and whether a cooling economy offsets that extra spending.

It is a big gamble, because a lot of extra consumer spending would delay interest rate cuts or even force another interest rate rise this year. Either of those outcomes could damage the government’s re-election prospects, so it’s a political as well as an economic bet.

Banking windfalls, until now

Every budget is a product of its time. Some treasurers are lucky enough to preside over stronger-than-expected economic growth, high prices for minerals, and the revenue windfalls that result. Other treasurers have been dealt a global pandemic or global financial crisis.

Good management is about what you do with the cards you are dealt.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has had good luck so far. His three budgets to date have delivered him net windfalls totalling $257 billion.

Until now, he has taken the fiscally responsible path of “banking” most of these windfalls – 76% across the three budgets – although more in his earlier budgets than this in one.

Little to fix the structural deficit

Banking windfalls is just one indicator of good management. This budget’s medium-term forecasts paint a bleak picture of ongoing structural deficits. Last year’s Intergenerational Report showed that in the absence of major policy changes, they will only grow.

So, what has this budget done to tackle the growing structural deficit? Very little.

The budget contains hardly any revenue-raising measures and no sign of tax reform. There is also little in the way of explicit spending cuts, although there is a promise to further rein in the growing cost of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

No single budget was ever going to fix the structural deficit. But this one raises big questions about how this government plans to tackle the structural problems.

Even to meet the current forecasts, formidable spending restraint will be required. Spending growth would need to be well below that of previous governments.

Spending pressures are only likely to grow

The spending forecasts only reflect the decisions the government has already taken – not those it is likely to want or need to make in the next few years, including in the lead-up to the next election.

There is growing pressure for further spending on several fronts, including the truly inadequate level of Australia’s unemployment payment and the ballooning cost of payments to the states to prop up the West Australian GST deal (now estimated to cost $52.9 billion over 11 years, with pressure to extend it).

And it is still to be seen whether this government can actually rein in growth in the cost of the NDIS. Its projected costs have blown out a further $15.6 billion since the December budget update.

The government insists it will be able to largely offset this with savings of $14.1 billion through legislative changes it calls Getting the NDIS Back on Track.

But we will need more than just spending restraint to fix the structural budget problem. It is incumbent on both the government and opposition to put forward some ideas, dare I say tax reforms, to consider at the next election.

When the luck dries up, good management will depend on them.

The Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute’s activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities as disclosed on its website.

– ref. The budget is full of good news, but good news isn’t the same as good management – https://theconversation.com/the-budget-is-full-of-good-news-but-good-news-isnt-the-same-as-good-management-230110

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher Ziguras, Director, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne

The federal government is due to introduce legislation on Thursday to enable new caps on the number of international student places at educational institutions in Australia. These include universities, TAFEs and private colleges.

The government is proposing that education providers wanting to go over their allocated limit would have to build new accommodation for international and domestic students.

As Treasurer Jim Chalmers noted in his budget speech on Tuesday night:

We will limit how many international students can be enrolled by each university based on a formula, including how much housing they build.

So, what’s been proposed and how did we get here?

What’s been proposed?

The legislation will:

• pause applications for registration from new international education providers and of new courses from existing providers for periods of up to 12 months

• require new providers seeking registration to demonstrate a track record of quality education delivery to domestic students before they are allowed to recruit international students

• prevent providers under serious regulatory investigation from recruiting new international students.

How did we get here?

For the last 40 years or so, successive federal governments have focused on developing the international education sector. That’s included national branding campaigns, regulation of international education providers, and creating favourable visa conditions that allow students to work part time during their studies.

It worked very well, making Australia one of the world’s leading destinations for international students.

International students enliven our campuses and cities, contribute to meeting our skills needs, and create lasting connections between Australia and our region. And, as the Universities Accord final report noted, international education is now Australia’s fourth largest export, supporting around 250,000 jobs and funding a significant proportion of our universities’ research.

But the rapid growth in student numbers post-COVID has the government worried about unscrupulous education providers and the shortage of rental accommodation in our big cities.

Many have argued that international students, who constitute only 4% of renters in Australia, are not a major cause of Australia’s housing shortage. Nevertheless, the accommodation shortage does significantly impact students, who often have great difficulty securing a place to live.

Strong recent growth after COVID

For the last couple of decades, enrolment of international students has dipped here and there but has been fairly consistent over the long term. Since 2005, the number of international enrolments has grown by less than 6% per year on average, according to official figures.

The international student enrolment numbers we see now are not an aberration from historical norms. The number of students last year was only slightly higher than five years earlier.

The issue right now is that year-on-year growth has been very strong as students return to Australia after arrivals were ceased for years during the pandemic.

The previous government put in place a range of settings, such as allowing international students to work more hours, to address labour shortages and to help attract students back after COVID. That also helped to diversify the student population, reducing dependence on China, attracting more students from countries in South Asia and Southeast Asia.

So the rate of growth has been quite fast in the last couple of years. That has spooked politicians and some sectors of the public.

People in the education sector have been saying this recent growth looks huge but that’s because we are coming from a low recent number of international students. As international education expert Jon Chew has written, “this is a textbook V-shaped recovery and catch-up rebound”.

According to this view, student numbers will soon stabilise.

What are other countries doing?

There is no easy way for governments to manage changes in the number of international students. And it’s not just an issue for Australia. Canada and the United Kingdom have also experienced rapid growth after COVID are similarly grappling with ways to quickly reduce the number of new students to sustainable levels.

The UK has restricted the ability of international students to bring accompanying family members. Canada has introduced caps on international students at a provincial level and limited access to post-study work visas.

So far, Australia’s approach to managing growth has been to quietly introduce new procedures for assessing visa applications, resulting in unprecedented numbers of refusals.

What about the issue of ‘ghost colleges’?

There has been extensive reporting in Australia on the problem of “ghost colleges”.

The government has promised to crack down on “dodgy operators” who are taking advantage of international students.

This is not the first time we have seen a small number of private colleges tarnish the reputation of the whole sector, and moves to improve quality assurance have been wholeheartedly supported by peak bodies.

What will it mean for universities and colleges?

Some parts of the tertiary education sector are expressing strong concerns about the potential impact of caps on students, providers and Australia’s reputation as a welcoming country.

The government has not yet announced how caps will be set. It has signalled that it wants to use caps to increase the proportion of students outside of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, because regional universities haven’t benefited as much from the surge in international enrolments.

This would require restricting student numbers at institutions in those cities while allowing those in the rest of the country to grow. But students may choose to go to different countries altogether.

As University of Sydney vice-chancellor, Mark Scott (who is also chair of The Conversation’s board) told the ABC:

If you send a message to international students that they’re not welcome, they have many other options.

What happens now?

The tertiary education sector is now waiting to see more detail in the legislation, which will obviously need to pass both houses of parliament.

At it’s heart, the government is trying to deal with multiple complex issues here. These include public perceptions about migration levels, a national housing crisis and universities’ reliance on international students to fund facilities and research.

In the past, governments were able to respond to such concerns by setting the rules and allowing education providers and students to make their own decisions.

Now the federal government is proposing an unprecedented level of micromanagement, giving it a much greater role in deciding where students enrol, what they study, and where they live.

Christopher Ziguras 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. Why is the government proposing caps on international students and how did we get here? – https://theconversation.com/why-is-the-government-proposing-caps-on-international-students-and-how-did-we-get-here-230003

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kylie Walker, Visiting Fellow, Australian National University

This year’s federal budget is making up for decades of lost time – both in our clean energy transition and in betting on new technological breakthroughs.

The Future Made in Australia Act holds tantalising potential for building Australian science, research and development. The aim is to turn Australia into an innovation and clean technology superpower.

It includes big climate change investments that would leverage our comparative advantage in net-zero technologies, such as green hydrogen and battery storage. There’s also the promise to jumpstart new industries by building on our critical minerals assets and growing advanced manufacturing.

Australia has natural advantages in these areas. We have resources such as mineral wealth, abundant sunlight and wind. We also have a solid research and development track record.

Despite this, historic underinvestment in Australian innovation means Australia is starting from the back of the pack compared to partners like the United States, Japan and Germany. These countries spend more than 3% of their GDP on the research and development that powers and future-proofs their economies.

Which raises the question: are the investments announced in this budget in the right places if we’re really going to prime a future-ready Australia underpinned by science and technology? Let’s get into the significant investments aimed at boosting key areas.

A future manufactured in Australia

With the Future Made in Australia policy, the government aims to directly invest in building Australian industry, particularly manufacturing. This would reduce our dependency on other countries and power the net-zero transformation. It would also build up our resilience to shocks, such as increasingly severe and unpredictable weather extremes or global pandemics.

The net-zero investments are promising:

• $549 million over eight years for battery manufacturing

• $8 billion in renewable hydrogen tax incentives over ten years

• $7.1 billion over 11 years in critical minerals processing tax incentives.

These are areas where we have a comparative advantage in the global supply chain. They are also fundamental for the clean energy jobs of the future.

Overall, it’s the start of strong investments in Australia’s green energy future. However, what will make or break the Future Made in Australia plan will be investment in research and development.

Reviving the innovation sector

Investment in the application of great Australian research, and in the creation and application of new knowledge has been woefully low for years. It remains so in this year’s budget.

Yet, it’s fundamental if we want thriving homegrown manufacturing, particularly in technologies where we have a clear comparative advantage, such as batteries, advanced computing and medical technologies.

Research is also important to create robust industries and support a skilled national workforce.

On this front, the budget contains a research and development review. It is welcome, but decades overdue.

The review will need to be accompanied by action, including greater investment from both government and industry to overcome a decade of falling research and development investment.

The budget does contain some measures for bolstering modern research and research infrastructure. One example is the recently announced PsiQuantum quantum computer to be built in Brisbane.

Our future prosperity and security depend on investment in the underpinning skills, knowledge and infrastructure that produce discoveries, along with a highly trained future workforce.

Educating our future science and technology innovators

With this in mind, STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) education is also a mixed bag in this year’s budget.

New payments for students with study placements in teaching, nursing and social work are a positive move – but many more degrees with practical placements are not covered, including engineering. We urgently need more engineers, and this shortage will only grow as we transition to clean energy.

Diversity in STEM industries will also be fundamental to addressing our national skill shortages. A welcome measure is the promise of $38.2 million for programs to increase diversity in STEM. These will build on proven initiatives, alongside the Elevate scholarship program delivered by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering.

On the negative side, new restrictions on international student numbers are short-sighted and unmeasured. This decision came with little consultation and will likely reduce the funding universities have available for infrastructure upgrades, research and support for high-quality education.

Overall, the budget provides welcome backing to build clean energy systems and return to homegrown manufacturing. But if we’re really serious about claiming our place as a global innovation and clean energy player, we need to invest properly in Australian science, innovation and people.

Kylie Walker is the CEO of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) which receives funding from the Department of Industry, Science and Resources. She is the chair of Aged Care Research and Industry Innovation Australia which receives funding from the Department of Health and Aged Care.

– ref. For a ‘future made in Australia’, we need more innovation and diverse people in science and tech – https://theconversation.com/for-a-future-made-in-australia-we-need-more-innovation-and-diverse-people-in-science-and-tech-229717

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jaana Dielenberg, University Fellow, Charles Darwin University

Australians have more pet cats than ever before – more than 5 million in total. With the growing number, expectations on pet owners are shifting.

Many cat owners are now voluntarily keeping their cats indoors or in secure runs, and local governments mandate it in some areas. But most pet cats in Australia still roam local streets and gardens.

Broader adoption of keeping cats safe at home would have large benefits for cat welfare, human health, local wildlife and even the economy. So, should pet owners be required to keep their pets contained to their property, as dogs are?

We put that question to thousands of people in a national survey in late 2023, and recently published the results.

We found most people support requiring owners to contain cats. Just one in 12 people (8%) are opposed. The time might be right for nationwide change in how we manage our pet cats.

Local councils are embracing cat containment

From November 1, Geelong City Council will join a fast-growing group of local governments in urban and regional areas that require pet cats to be securely contained 24 hours a day.

More than a third of local councils in Australia now require cats to be contained overnight or 24 hours a day. Most are in the ACT and Victoria.

Given how good cats are at climbing and jumping, containing cats usually requires keeping them indoors or in secure runs.

The main reasons cited by local govenments for these regulations are:

• improving pet welfare: contained cats live longer and healthier lives with fewer vet bills because they are protected from traumatic injuries from car accidents, dog attacks and cat fights, infections, diseases and other misadventures.

• saving wildlife: four out of five cats allowed outside will hunt and kill an average of two to three animals per week. With millions of pet cats in Australia, each year this adds up to 6,000–11,000 animals killed in our suburbs per square kilometre and 323 million native animals killed nationally. Night curfews only protect nocturnal species such as possums.

• reducing nuisance to neighbours: containment results in less disturbance from cat fights and prevents the neighbour’s cat killing the birds and lizards living in your backyard or nearby park, which many community members value.

The public health toll of roaming cats

Another major benefit is less talked about. Stopping pet cats from roaming would greatly reduce rates of cat-borne diseases.

Several diseases which could not exist without cats can be passed to humans. These cost Australia more than $6 billion a year based on costs of medical care, lost income and other related expenses.

The most widespread of these diseases is toxoplasmosis, a parasitic infection that can be passed to humans but must complete its life cycle in cats. Australian studies have reported human infection rates between 22% and 66% of the community.

Cat-borne diseases cause considerable community harm, with an estimated 8,500 hospitalisations and 550 deaths from acute infections and also from increased rates of car accidents, suicides and mental health issues in infected people.

Pet cats are crucial to the rates of these diseases in the community. In suburbs that do not require containment, you’ll find up to 100 roaming pet cats per square kilometre.

Eliminating stray cats from our suburbs is also important to reduce disease rates – just one of the reasons why people should not feed stray cats.

Read more:
Cats carry diseases that can be deadly to humans, and it’s costing Australia $6 billion every year

Most of us support containment

A policy requiring all cats to be contained has clear benefits. But would it have support? Rules only produce benefits if people follow them.

This is why colleagues at Monash University and I surveyed more than 3,400 people on whether they would support policies that “require cat owners to keep their cat contained to their property”.

We found a clear majority (66%) of people support cat containment. A strikingly small proportion of people, about one in 12 people (8%), are opposed. The remaining 26% were ambivalent, selecting “neither support nor oppose”.

Other surveys have found almost half (42% or 2.2 million) of Australia’s pet cats are already kept contained by their owners.

Some councils can’t legally require cat containment

Our findings suggest communities would broadly support their local councils if they moved to require cats to be contained.

While councils are responsible for pet issues, state and territory laws greatly influence what councils can and can’t do.

In New South Wales and Western Australia, state laws actually prevent local councils from requiring cat containment (except for in specific circumstances, such as in declared food preparation areas in NSW).

Rules are just the start

To boost compliance, councils need to invest in communicating new rules and the reasons for them. After a grace period, council officers will also need to monitor and enforce the rules.

Communities may need support too, especially if there are costs involved. Councils could, for example, offer rebates for flyscreens to stop cats slipping out of open windows.

Working with other colleagues in 2020, we surveyed Australia’s local governments about their approaches to cat management. Most reported tiny budgets for cat management.

Local governments should not be left to shoulder the cost alone. Federal, state and territory governments are also responsible for Australia’s wildlife (and human health). These governments have a range of projects covering both feral and pet cats.

The Australian government collects A$3 billion a year in GST from spending on pets. Diverting a small proportion into responsible pet ownership programs would make an enormous difference.

Containment has wide backing

Our research shows the community is ready for widespread reform of how we manage all these cats.

Requiring pet cats to be contained is a sound policy choice. But to realise the full benefits, we also need to invest in effective communication for communities, provide rebates to help contain cats, and make sure the rules are followed.

Kim Borg, Melissa Hatty and Emily Gregg contributed to the national survey, and Sarah Legge, John Woinarski and Tida Nou contributed to research on cat impacts and management.

Jaana Dielenberg works for the Biodiversity Council and The University of Melbourne, and previously worked for the National Environmental Science Program Threatened Species Recovery Hub. Jaana is a pet cat owner.

– ref. Two-thirds of us support banning pet cats from roaming. A ban would save millions of native animals – and billions of dollars – https://theconversation.com/two-thirds-of-us-support-banning-pet-cats-from-roaming-a-ban-would-save-millions-of-native-animals-and-billions-of-dollars-229180

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Campbell, Lecturer, Performing Arts, UniSA Creative, University of South Australia

Symphonie of the Bicycle is a tour de force. Actor and writer Hew Parham takes the audience through comic and heartfelt parallel stories about the trials and triumphs of the quest to win and to find purpose in life, as seen from the seat of a bicycle.

Symphonie celebrates the life of Italian champion cyclist Gino Bartali, winner of the Tour de France in 1938 and again ten years later in 1948. A parallel story follows a contemporary character, “Hew”, who is warmly and recognisably pathetic, alone and adrift from his track in life.

Bartali is a champion who rejects fame and wants only to ride and make a good life; Hew desperately wants to be noticed and remembered.

In this contrast between the desire to be great and the desire to live a life with great meaning, Parham creates an extensive cast of supporting characters, effortlessly switching between them to great comic effect, or to create moments of breath-holding pathos.

It is a fast-paced, captivating piece and Parham doesn’t miss a beat. I felt joy throughout, and delighted in the small moments of comedy and the huge bellyaching laughs we in the audience shared.

The moments of genuine heartfelt loss and sacrifice were equally effective: Parham’s moments as Bartali where he smuggles documents in his bicycle to help Jewish people escape during the second world war are keenly felt.

An actor’s delight

Chris Drummond directs deftly and with genuine humanity. It is a manically energetic, multi-layered story; Drummond and dramaturg Caleb Lewis have shaped a nuanced and insightful ride over a perfectly paced 90 minutes.

Parham delights in the moments of clowning, switching between a hysterical crying Hew and the “winner coach” Gavin Chestnut. Equally impressive is his physical ability to literally ride through whole scenes, especially in the parallel final races of Bartali and Hew.

Parham creates each character with an actor’s delight in, and love for, their unique humanity. Parham’s extraordinary skill means the audience is with him every step of the way, whether he is narrating the story of Karl von Drais – the volcano-eruption-inspired inventor of the bicycle – or bringing to life Cheryl, the unsuspecting and love-inspired cheese shop attendant.

The collaboration of theatre

The aura of genuinely collaborative work is evident, especially in the delicious sound design and composition of Will Spartalis, incorporating classical music so important to Parham’s clown comedy.

The use of these monumental and profound pieces of music, set against the absurd and profound moment of human life, is a hallmark of Parham’s work. The so-well-known-they-are-almost-clichéd classical works – the Lachrymosa from Mozart’s Requiem, Handel’s Lascia ch’io pianga, Mussorgsky – create an immediate inner world.

A bare stage dominated by a monolithic dark block is brought to life by Wendy Todd’s astonishingly beautiful lighting design. Todd creates gorgeous and rich worlds from deceptively simple designs for each of Parham’s characters to inhabit.

The use of noir-inspired black-and-white moments, the actor fading into shadows and mist, hard white blocks of light on the floor becoming train platforms, a wrestling-ring spotlight for the piñata, the changing weather conditions for the parallel races: this is a masterful element of the storytelling.

Parham uses his voice like an opera singer. The low bass-resonance, gruff Italian-accented English of Bartali is a truly beautiful and memorable rendering of character. His use of the higher, lighter range conveys both calm strength in Bartali’s wife-to-be, and then wife, Adriana, and ruthless comedy in former best friend, and cycling- and life-nemesis, Jake Johnson.

Voice coach Anna McCrossin-Owen brings out the virtuosic contrasts in Parham’s voice, finding nuance in each character. Coupled with Parham’s sometimes bouffon-inspired, sometimes subtle physicality, this enables the audience to create relationships with each character that endure through the story.

Humanitarian comedy

I saw this piece in its first sprint up the mountain, as Symphonie de la Bicyclette, during the Tour Down Under in 2023. There have been some subtle changes and tightening of the script, but it remains a delight of theatre and humanitarian comedy.

The journey of this piece is a testament to how important this kind of high-level collaboration and development time is to an artist and to refining and shaping work for an audience.

The opening night audience saw a well-oiled feat of theatrical engineering; the only noticeable imperfection was a slight echo effect in the actor’s microphone, rapidly and unobtrusively remedied after the first scene.

Symphonie of the Bicycle is a tribute to the value of laughter and comedy and the power of theatre in these ruthless times. May it see many tours and winner’s jerseys.

Symphonie of the Bicycle, from the State Theatre Company of South Australia and Brink Productions, is at the Adelaide Festival Centre until May 25, then touring regionally.

Catherine has previously worked alongside Hew Parham as a cabaret performer as part of the Adelaide Cabaret Festival.

– ref. Symphonie of the Bicycle: on the desire to be great, and the desire to live a life with great meaning – https://theconversation.com/symphonie-of-the-bicycle-on-the-desire-to-be-great-and-the-desire-to-live-a-life-with-great-meaning-228013

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Theresa Larkin, Associate professor of Medical Sciences, University of Wollongong

Why is blood red?

– Asher, 6 years 11 months, New South Wales

What a great question about something in our body, Asher.

Blood is inside our body, but we see it on the outside when we bleed, like when we get a cut or a nose bleed.

Blood is red because of something called haemoglobin. Haemoglobin is red and this makes our blood red.

But what is haemoglobin for? Well, we need haemoglobin to carry oxygen in our blood.

This might sound a bit complicated, so let’s look more closely at why we need oxygen, and why we need haemoglobin to carry oxygen in our blood.

Everyone needs oxygen to stay alive

We need oxygen for our body to work.

Our body is made up of millions and millions of tiny cells. All the cells in our body need oxygen from the air we breathe and nutrients from the food we eat.

Cells use oxygen and nutrients to make energy so they can do their job. For example, cells in our muscles need energy to move us, and our brain cells need energy so we can learn.

Every time you take a breath in, you breathe oxygen into your lungs. Our heart pumps blood to the lungs to pick up this oxygen.

The heart then pumps the blood with this oxygen to all our body’s cells.

After the blood drops off oxygen for the cells to use, it travels back to the heart and lungs to pick up more oxygen again.

Our cells need oxygen all the time because they are always working.

So where does haemoglobin come in?

Oxygen travels in blood to our cells in tubes called blood vessels. But oxygen doesn’t dissolve very well in blood.

If we just had oxygen on its own in our blood, we could get air bubbles. These bubbles would stick to the sides of the blood vessels. This means the oxygen could get stuck and not travel to our cells.

Luckily, haemoglobin carries oxygen in our blood so it doesn’t form air bubbles and get stuck.

We can think of this like trying to move a stone down a river. A stone can’t float down a river because it will sink to the bottom. But if we put the stone in a container that floats, the container can float down the river and carry the stone with it.

Haemoglobin is like a red coloured container for oxygen. It’s our oxygen carrier.

So, because we have red haemoglobin in our blood to carry oxygen, our blood is red.

Blood can be bright red or dark red

When haemoglobin carries more oxygen, it is a brighter shade of red.

This means blood travelling from the heart and lungs to the cells with lots of oxygen is bright red.

After haemoglobin drops off its oxygen to the cells, it is a dull, dark red. This means blood travelling back to the heart and lungs with less oxygen is darker red.

We can see some of our veins (the blood vessels that carry blood back to the heart) just under our skin. For example, on the back of our hands.

The blood in these veins can appear a green-blue colour. That’s because we are looking at this blood through our skin. This changes what colour we see.

But we know when we bleed, our blood is not blue or green – it’s definitely red.

Not all animals have red blood

An octopus can have blue blood and some lizards even have green blood.

This blue and green blood is also because of the colour of their oxygen carrier. These animals don’t have red haemoglobin like we do. They have a blue or green oxygen carrier. This makes their blood blue or green.

If you could choose to have blood of any colour, what colour would you choose?

Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au

Theresa Larkin 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. Curious Kids: why is blood red? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-is-blood-red-229121

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin Wilson Mountford, Associate Professor in History, Australian Catholic University

Around 90 years ago, two-thirds of Western Australian voters voted in favour of leaving the Commonwealth at a state referendum.

This 1933 result – often seen as a protest vote against the economic and political disadvantages imposed on WA and exacerbated by the Great Depression – was never enacted.

After the referendum, WA secessionists turned to the British parliament, hoping London would intervene to free them from the Australian federation. Despite some sympathy for WA, however, the British government was reluctant to involve itself in a stoush between Perth and Canberra.

Today, WA secessionists are often regarded as more of an amusing curiosity than a serious political movement. But, as our research explores, the curious tale of WA secession in the 1930s resonated well beyond Australian shores, and was taken more seriously overseas.

Internationally, it threatened to undermine the idea of political federations, at a time when they seemed crucial to the future of international relations.

For the British, it represented an unpleasant thought: if you couldn’t keep somewhere like WA happy, what hope did you have in holding the British empire together?

Read more:
Republic of Western Australia: how the west has always charted its own course, from secession to COVID

The secessionists go to London

In 1934, a year after the referendum result, the WA government sent a delegation to London. The delegation included members of the leading secessionist organisation at that time, the Dominion League of Western Australia.

The delegates petitioned the British government to legislate to liberate WA from the federation of Australia, and to enable the state to revert to its former status as a self-governing British dominion.

“Westralia shall be free!” was their rallying cry.

It would have been a major intervention by London in Australian affairs.

Once there, the delegation unfurled the homespun flag of a new “Dominion of Western Australia” on the roof of the Savoy Hotel in central London.

They carried a printed 489-page analysis of the “Case for Secession”, which was to be presented to all British parliamentarians who would take it.

Meanwhile, three copies of WA’s petition had been painstakingly written out by hand. They came upon rolls of sheepskin, some 26 feet long, and were each encased in wooden caskets made of jarrah.

But after all the hype, the situation came to a resounding anti-climax. A joint parliamentary committee at Westminster eventually ruled WA’s petition could not even be received by the British parliament. The decision was fatal to the secessionist cause.

With time, improving economic conditions, political change and the new geopolitical realities of the later 1930s, WA moved on. The broader impact on imperial and international politics, however, was more significant.

A fraught issue at a fraught time

For Britain, the issue of WA secession was fraught for a number of reasons.

First, it carried implications for imperial integrity and governance, near and far.

News of the referendum result had been keenly watched in parts of Tasmania and South Australia.

More broadly, WA secessionist sentiment came to be seen by some as inspiration for challenging existing political arrangements in other parts of the British Empire.

As Canadian researcher Christopher Besant put it:

The movement has to be seen in the context of the growing problem of nationalism within the British Empire itself between 1919-1935.

At the very time that the Western Australian secession petition was presented to parliament, the Irish under Eamon De Valera were straining against their ‘treaty’ with Great Britain, the Scottish National Party were agitating for Scotland’s liberation, Indian reformers were demanding self-government, and South Africans had their own demands. The very Statute of Westminster which recognised the reality of nationalist spirit in Canada and Australia was but three years old, and not yet ratified in Canberra.

In this world, WA secession mattered. It focused attention on a recurrent concern of interwar British imperial policy-making. That was the fear federations – a common British response to challenges to imperial authority – didn’t work or were, at the very least, beset with problems.

WA’s situation soon interacted with debates on the future of India. Two days after the flag of the Dominion League was unfurled in London, the Government of India Bill was introduced into the British parliament. This legislation proposed a federal model for governing India, as Britain’s attempt to contain the forces of Indian nationalism.

The hearings on the merits and demerits of receiving the WA secession petition took place in the middle of the heated parliamentary debate over the India Bill.

In other words, much of the attention the WA delegation received in London was because of its implications for one of the central political issues of the day – Indian reform.

For Tory diehards like Winston Churchill and George Lloyd – who hoped to resist attempts at Indian reform – the secession of WA was useful ammunition against the argument India should get greater autonomy. It showed the difficulties associated with political federations.

The WA secessionists also came to the attention of Canadians at the time. F. Maclure Sclanders, a commissioner in New Brunswick, referenced WA’s case in his own investigation into the “inequalities” of federation in Canada.

The Scottish National Party also expressed interest in the “Westralian” cause. It offered to set up meetings with those “interested in the self-government movement” both in Scotland and abroad.

For London, the consequences of WA secession were hard to predict and even harder to control.

So while WA’s secession movement foundered, it nonetheless sparked a series of debates around London’s obligations to overseas Britons, Britannic identity, and the future of imperial relations.

Read more:
Breaking up is hard to do: why Western Australia would find it difficult to divorce Canberra

Benjamin Wilson Mountford has received funding from ACU.

Robert Fletcher has received funding from the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council and the University of Missouri.

– ref. ‘Westralia shall be free!’ How Western Australia’s secessionists stoked British fears the Empire was at risk – https://theconversation.com/westralia-shall-be-free-how-western-australias-secessionists-stoked-british-fears-the-empire-was-at-risk-219222

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Parmeter, Research Scholar, Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies, Australian National University

The Gaza war has now entered its eighth month and a resolution to the conflict still seems far off.

Israel claims to have killed 13,000 Hamas militants so far. If that figure is correct, one can assume the number of wounded or incapacitated militants is at least twice or maybe three times that number.

Prior to the war breaking out, Israel estimated there were around 30,000 Hamas fighters in Gaza. If this total can also be taken at face value, then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may be correct in arguing the removal of the last battalions in the southern city of Rafah would likely thwart the group’s ability to be a threat to Israel.

However, there are flaws in this reasoning. Israel has not explained how it calculates the number of militants the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has killed. Given the chaotic conditions in Gaza, it’s not difficult to believe the 13,000 figure is merely an estimate based on the approximate number of military-aged men (18-40 years) among the 35,000 Palestinians killed in total.

In addition, if the remaining militants are hiding in tunnels beneath Rafah, as Netanyahu claims, what is to stop them from using the tunnel network to move north out of harm’s way? There is some evidence this is already occurring. The IDF and Israeli media say Hamas has regrouped in areas in central and northern Gaza that Israel claims to have “cleared” months ago.

More importantly, the IDF has been unable to locate and eliminate the two primary Hamas leaders – political leader Yahya Sinwar, who masterminded the October 7 attacks, and military leader Mohammed Deif. While these two remain at large, Israel cannot claim victory.

On top of that, Israel has not succeeded in rescuing the remaining hostages held by Hamas. Only three of the approximately 240 hostages seized by Hamas on October 7 have been freed by military action. Just over 100 other hostages have been released through negotiations and unilateral action by Hamas.

And international anger over Israel’s conduct of the war is growing exponentially, as demonstrated by the growing university sit-ins around the world and even the loud booing directed at Israel’s entrant in the Eurovision song contest.

US President Joe Biden has also held back a delivery of heavy-duty munitions to Israel due to Netanyahu’s decision to press ahead with the Rafah assault. However, this is symbolic. The Biden administration is still moving forward with US$1 billion (A$1.5 billion) in new weapons deals for Israel, as reported by the Wall Street Journal this week.

Pressure growing on Netanyahu

Although Hamas has not given reasons for its shocking attack that started the current war, it’s reasonable to assume they were along the following lines:

• to get the Palestinian cause to the top of the Middle East agenda at a time when Saudi Arabia was on the verge of reaching a peace agreement with Israel

• to draw international attention to the appalling conditions in Gaza, which has been described as the world’s largest open-air prison

• to stoke Israel’s anger to such an extent, it responds with excessive force and draws widespread international criticism.

On this logic, Hamas set a trap for Israel, and Israel walked into it.

Given the current situation, with Netanyahu far from achieving his stated aims in the war and international criticism only getting worse, where does this leave Netanyahu? He’s facing pressure from three sides, with no good options.

First, he leads the most right-wing government in Israeli history. The more extreme among his coalition partners, particularly Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, have been clear they will walk out of the government and cause fresh elections if Netanyahu agrees to a lengthy ceasefire.

With 71% of Israelis wanting Netanyahu to resign, according to a recent poll, he would almost certainly lose an election held any time soon.

Second, the families and supporters of the remaining 130 or so hostages believed to be held by Hamas – of whom Israeli intelligence estimates about a quarter have died – are applying relentless pressure on Netanyahu to accept a ceasefire in return for their release.

And third, Biden, his chief ally, wants the war over as quickly as possible due to the upcoming US presidential election. Biden is well aware of the risk that progressives and Arab Americans may not turn out to vote in November – handing the presidency to Donald Trump by default.

Withholding the munitions shipment earlier this month was just one of many signals Biden has sent to Netanyahu that his patience is wearing thin.

The tragic irony is that negotiations led by Egypt and Qatar for a ceasefire and release of hostages have come remarkably close to success. The failure to close the deal has led The Economist to ask if Netanyahu actually wants to accept a deal.

Power vacuum emerging

The longer the war has dragged on, the more it has highlighted that Israel, which has been under Netanyahu’s almost continuous rule since 2009, has no long-term strategy for living side-by-side with its Palestinian neighbours.

Even if a ceasefire could be agreed to, Netanyahu’s government hasn’t articulated a plan for the “day after”. Already, this lack of a plan is creating a dangerous power vacuum in northern Gaza that has been filled by gangs, clans and criminals.

The US deputy secretary of state, Kurt Campbell, this week warned the current situation is reminiscent of what the US faced in Iraq and Afghanistan after invading in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks:

[…] after civilian populations had been moved and lots of violence […] the insurrections continue.

So, what is the plan for Gaza? Neither Israelis nor Palestinians would support the IDF reoccupying the strip for the long term.

Netanyahu has also made clear his government would not accept a reformed Palestinian Authority, which currently governs part of the West Bank, from taking control of Gaza. And Netanyahu’s preferred option – persuading non-aligned clan leaders to manage the strip on Israel’s behalf – is a recipe for corruption and score-settling between rival families.

Options involving outside forces from the region or the United Nations have also failed to gain traction.

Where does this leave the people of Gaza? As they flee from one conflict zone to another, Palestinian residents are losing hope. As one community leader in Rafah recently said,

The war has changed everything but most of all there is now no security. There is nothing now for the weak. Only the strong can survive now.

Ian Parmeter 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. Israel’s invasion of Rafah will not eliminate Hamas or end the war. So, what is Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan? – https://theconversation.com/israels-invasion-of-rafah-will-not-eliminate-hamas-or-end-the-war-so-what-is-benjamin-netanyahus-plan-229995

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Raven Cretney, Postdoctoral Fellow, Environmental Planning, University of Waikato

Adaptation to climate change will challenge New Zealand politically and economically. As such, it becomes a problem of imagination. We will need to fund things differently, build differently, restructure aspects of our economy, and develop innovative new policies.

As the government launches a new cross-party inquiry into adaptation policy, it will be important to move beyond politics as usual. We’ll need to think creatively about what is politically possible, and better communicate how climate adaptation can benefit different groups.

In 2022, the previous government launched the first National Adaptation Plan (NAP) for consultation. The plan sets out the vision, purpose, goals and priorities for change. It includes a focus on difficult decisions, such as managed retreat. And it establishes the Rauora framework to allow “planning for Māori, by Māori”.

Our new research analysed all 294 public submissions on the NAP. But rather than focus on answers to individual questions (as the government might), we aimed to identify deeper patterns across the entire range of submissions.

By mapping zones of agreement and disagreement among various groups, we can reveal how new coalitions of interest might form to support adaptation policies and actions.

4 imagined futures

Climate change can be a contentious and politically partisan issue. But our analysis identifies promising areas of broad agreement on future action – albeit sometimes for different reasons.

We distill these into four collective themes of “imagined futures”. They represent key areas of alignment that could inform future cross-party considerations on climate adaptation.

1. Data-driven resilience

Almost everyone was supportive of the government increasing investment in science to provide both authoritative national data sets, and more local and culturally specific information.

For the business sector, data helps strategic growth or investment decisions. For nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), it helps understand risks and responses. For communities, it can stimulate the conversations needed for local adaptation.

Data was seen as fundamental to empowering action and monitoring progress, regardless of who took that action. This is crucial – the more people and businesses feel they are able to act now, the lower the potential liability for future governments.

2. Growth and opportunity

This had a strong economic focus, and was characterised by business sector submissions. The more imaginative responses involved climate-resilient construction, regenerative agriculture or digital innovation. Others simply positioned their sector as a crucial part of the solution and called for more economic support.

Perspectives on government regulation varied. Some called for less compliance to allow agility. Others wanted more regulation to create certainty for investment.

While this theme broadly sought to create change within existing political and economic systems, it gives some insight into how private sector interests see the opportunities and value of adaptation action.

3. Nature-society change

There was significant cross-sector support for working with the natural environment.

Strong agreement existed on using nature-based solutions, such as enabling sponge cities, to help manage the effects of climate change. Others went further, advocating for restoring the health of ecosystems and enabling biodiversity.

Some submissions from local government emphasised opportunities for linking nature to wider policy goals, such as providing health and amenity benefits, alongside urban densification.

4. Flaxroots transformation

The most radical submissions represented a desire to transform society to tackle the underlying drivers of climate change, including colonisation and the more extractive aspects of capitalism.

This came through strongly in many individual and NGO submissions. These stressed how adaptation is connected to wider societal issues such as political power and resources, and the need to move away from business as usual.

There was a clear call for removing barriers to Māori self-determination and empowering communities to implement local solutions. Many noted there were excellent initiatives, such as zero-waste schemes, already happening.

Political possibilities

There were also areas of disagreement. The most stark involved the scale of required change.

The diagram below represents each of the four themes on a continuum, representing differing degrees of social and political adaptation.

Many – particularly in the business sector – wanted to see adaptation occur within existing economic systems, with new tools, incentives or guidance used to address problems.

This contrasted with those emphasising the need for transformative political change. They saw this as inseparable from addressing broader societal issues such as poverty, inequality or colonisation.

As we move away from the status quo we can see how more transformative futures may require deeper public engagement or stronger political leadership.

Our analysis also showed how the consultation process is skewed. There was strong representation from industry and local government, but significantly fewer submissions from young people or youth organisations.

Some noted the lengthy and technical submission process. Others highlighted the need to go beyond traditional consultation to better involve those on the front lines of climate impacts. This was particularly highlighted by Māori, Pasifika and disabled communities.

Nonetheless, looking across the submissions to identify patterns provides a timely insight into the political possibilities. This will be important if we are to shift away from conventional left-right dynamics and make progress on developing an enduring adaptation policy.

It shows us where differing groups can agree, how we can communicate the policy benefits in different ways to different groups, and where more fundamental disagreement or disengagement will require more thought.

Raven Cretney receives funding from the Resilience to Nature’s Challenges National Science Challenge: Kia manawaroa – Ngā Ākina o Te Ao Tūro, and from the Biological Heritage National Science Challenge: Ngā Koiora Tuku Iho.

Christina Hanna receives funding from the National Science Challenge: Resilience to Nature’s Challenges: Kia manawaroa – Ngā Ākina o Te Ao Tūroa, and from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Endeavour Fund.

Iain White receives funding from the National Science Challenge: Resilience to Nature’s Challenges: Kia manawaroa – Ngā Ākina o Te Ao Tūroa, from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Endeavour Fund, and from Toka Tū Ake EQC. He is New Zealand’s National Contact Point for the European Union Horizon Europe program for the Climate, Energy, and Mobility research cluster.

– ref. New Zealanders have had their say on climate adaptation: here’s where we agree and disagree – https://theconversation.com/new-zealanders-have-had-their-say-on-climate-adaptation-heres-where-we-agree-and-disagree-229799

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Breadon, Program Director, Health and Aged Care, Grattan Institute

Health was a centrepiece of last year’s budget, based on a new vision for Medicare. This year, there is less health reform, but the budget does set the foundation for a new approach to community-based mental health care.

The themes of reducing cost-of-living pressures, and expanding care in the community to keep people out of hospital, span several key initiatives. Here’s what the budget means for the health system and Australians’ access to care.

A new approach to mental health services

Many Australians are missing out on the mental health support they need, with the biggest problems in disadvantaged areas that have higher needs but far fewer services:

A 2022 evaluation of the Better Access initiative – which provides Medicare-subsidised mental health services – found it was not very well targeted to people with mild to moderate illness, was often ineffective, and often didn’t reach those on the lowest incomes.

The government’s new approach appears more promising. It will spend A$361 million over four years to better target support to people’s level of need:

• for those with mild mental health concerns, from January 1 2026, there will be a new free digital health service which can be used without a referral

• for those with moderate-to-severe mental health needs, the government is beefing up and rebranding the Head to Health network, which will bring it up to 61 free walk-in community mental health services

• for those with more complex needs, Primary Health Networks (bodies responsible for improving primary care) will be funded to work with GPs to build a team of mental health nurses and other allied health professionals to provide free coordination and support.

This more targeted approach is welcome, and could ensure fewer people fall through the cracks in the system. But getting the design and implementation of this new system right will be crucial. And given workforce constraints, including the short supply of psychiatrists, it may be a struggle to meet demand.

New urgent care clinics

Twenty-nine more urgent care clinics will be built, at a cost of $227 million, bringing the total to 87. These clinics provide relatively straightforward care for urgent problems, such as sprains or fevers, and are intended to keep people out of overflowing emergency departments.

Shifting care out of hospitals is important because hospital demand and costs keep surging higher. But the way these new clinics are designed and run must be informed by evaluations of the ones that have already been built, to ensure they reduce pressure on hospitals and are good value for money.

Supporting older people to get out – and stay out – of hospital

Older people can get stuck in hospital for too long because they can’t get the support they need in the community.

The federal government will work with the states to better tackle this issue in multiple ways, including more hospital outreach services and virtual care, adding up to $882 million over five years. If done well, this would not only improve quality of life for older people, but also help to free up hospital beds.

Freezing medicine costs

Patient medicine costs have already fallen because of previous cuts to patient fees and the introduction of 60-day dispensing. This budget does a bit more by freezing maximum prescription fees at $31.60 for non-concession card holders for one year, and at $7.70 for concession card holders for five years, at a total cost of $318 million over five years.

The longer freeze for poorer patients makes sense, because they are about twice as likely as the wealthiest people to say that cost stops them getting prescribed medicines. And concession card holders didn’t get a fee cut when a $12.50 reduction was given to other Australians in the 2022–23 budget.

This year’s budget also allocates $3.4 billion to adding new drugs to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, while pharmacists will be funded to provide free vaccinations to aged care residents in their homes.

But one measure goes against the cost-of-living grain. The $1 discount that pharmacies can offer on prescriptions will gradually fall to zero, further dampening price competition, which is already limited in the highly regulated community pharmacy sector.

Other investments

As always, there are dozens of other health items. Some of the more notable ones include:

• more money for medical research, with $1.4 billion over 13 years, including spending on existing initiatives and two new focus areas from 2027–28: low-survival cancers and reducing health inequities

• $90 million over three years to help get overseas-trained doctors into Australia, in line with a review

• $70 million over four years to make MRI scans more accessible and affordable

• a focus on women’s health, including nearly $50 million over four years on gynaecology consultations for women with complex conditions, and more spending on women’s sexual and reproductive health services, including longer midwife consultations, and indemnity insurance cover for privately practising midwives supporting homebirths.

What’s missing?

There is some spending on prevention, including measures to prevent and treat HIV, new vaccine funding, expansion of bowel screening to people aged 45 to 50, and funding to continue a range existing programs. But the new investment is limited given how far Australia lags behind other wealthy countries in funding to keep people healthy, and there is no sign that Australia will be building the strong Centre for Disease Control we need.

Some areas where costs are a barrier to care for many got little attention, including dental care and specialist care. And while there were measures to boost the health-care workforce, and improve rural health, new funding in these areas was limited.

Perhaps the biggest black hole is public hospital funding. Last year, the federal government agreed to pay a bigger share under a new five-year deal, but the budget papers on health spending don’t take this into account.

Even so, federal public hospital spending is predicted to grow by about $2 billion a year. This will be higher under the deal that the federal and state governments are close to finalising. When the deal is done, hopefully it will come with a new approach to national health reform that tackles some of the problems that weren’t addressed in this budget.

Grattan Institute, has been supported in its work by government, corporates, and philanthropic gifts. A full list of supporting organisations is published at www.grattan.edu.au.

Anika Stobart 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. Cheaper medicines and a new approach for mental health care. Will the budget make us healthier? – https://theconversation.com/cheaper-medicines-and-a-new-approach-for-mental-health-care-will-the-budget-make-us-healthier-229612

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Walker-Munro, Senior Lecturer (Law), Southern Cross University

Over the weekend, Queensland University of Technology PhD student Xiaolong Zhu became national news – and not for a good reason. Zhu is a Chinese citizen, and his visa to study in Australia has been denied on the grounds of being “directly or indirectly associated with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction”.

The story begins in October 2019, when the university offered Zhu a scholarship to undertake a PhD in robotics. His research would focus on how drones navigate in urban environments without access to GPS.

But in June 2020, Zhu was told the foreign minister had ruled him a risk of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, specifically missiles and rockets. That decision may be in part motivated by Zhu’s prior education at Beihang University, an institution closely aligned with China’s military and a lead developer of ballistic missiles and stealth aircraft.

Zhu’s appeal is ongoing, and he has done nothing obviously wrong and has not been charged with or convicted of any crime. So why is his story such a big deal? Zhu’s case, the fifth in which a researcher has been barred from the country on suspicion of links to weapons of mass destruction, is just the latest outcome of Australia’s patchy and irregular approach to “research security”.

Australia’s approach to research security

Australia’s approach to protecting certain types of research from national security threats is inconsistent and out of step with that of many of our allies.

The United States, United Kingdom, Canada, the European Union and New Zealand all have national policies on research security. Australia does not.

Read more:
Australia risks falling behind allies on research security. Will it take a spy scandal in our universities to catch up?

Instead, we have voluntary University Foreign Interference Taskforce guidelines, first written in 2019 and updated in 2021. These guidelines were originally written before COVID, the US–China “chip war” and the announcement of AUKUS.

One of Australia’s biggest funders of university research – the Australian Research Council – has only just published a research security framework in the past six months. Our other major research funders, CSIRO and the National Health and Medical Research Council, don’t appear to have anything similar.

At the same time, most, if not all, Australian universities are increasingly turning to foreign funding in response to government cutbacks.

Blunt instruments

At present, the Australian government seems intent on using blunt instruments to regulate research security.

For example, the foreign minister can refuse or cancel a visa if a person poses a risk to security, fails the “good character” test or (as in Zhu’s case) is deemed to be potentially associated with weapons of mass destruction. Since April 2024, the foreign minister can also refuse or cancel visas if the person poses “an unreasonable risk of an unwanted transfer of critical technology”.

Such controls can be incredibly risky when universities are also facing potentially crippling limitations on international student numbers, and where international education is one of Australia’s biggest exports.

Australian university researchers also face export controls. They must seek a permit if they share or publish military or “dual use” technology (research with both military and civilian applications, such as radar).

Many countries have similar controls, but the definition of “dual use” technologies can be incredibly subjective. In 2012, a Dutch researcher was infamously taken to court after publishing influenza research that allegedly could have been used to make biological weapons.

Universities in Australia are also required to publicly list every arrangement with a foreign government entity. A recent study of these arrangements found a disturbing number of potentially high-risk ventures at our universities.

Disclosure doesn’t appear to stop questionable research associations going ahead. A parliamentary inquiry has even found the public register to be no longer fit for purpose.

What Australia could be doing better

There has been a lack of consolidated action on research security.

Two years ago, a parliamentary inquiry heard of sustained and repeated acts of foreign interference at our universities. To date, fewer than a quarter of the committee’s recommendations have been acted upon.

The final report of the Universities Accord, released this year – which Federal Education Minister Jason Clare called “a blueprint for the next decade and beyond” – doesn’t mention research security at all. In fact, it mentions national security only three times in 408 pages.

Another problem is the complete secrecy surrounding these kinds of cases. Had Zhu not appealed, we might never have heard about it.

Neither the government nor the university made substantial public statements about the case. And Zhu himself will probably never even know what information the minister considered to ban him. Instead, the government issued a variety of certificates to protect “lawful methods for preventing, detecting, and investigating breaches or evasions of the law” and “confidential sources”.

Where to from here

Australia could take some lessons from our allies.

In Canada, any federal funding involving a “sensitive technology” will be refused if it involves association with anyone on a list of specific organisations. In New Zealand, high-risk research can be secured by the use of encrypted devices, security clearances, and keeping all research data offline. In the US, universities can be fined or even have their funding suspended if they do not comply with disclosure rules.

That said, our universites are unlikely to welcome more regulation. Such rules may infringe on academic freedom – the protection of academics’ rights to pursue risky or controversial topics.

Universities already complain they are one of the most “over-regulated” sectors in the country. Worse yet, universities say stifling international competition could stunt our innovation and “leave us worse off”.

But these objections shouldn’t be the end of the story. In 2021, ASIO head Mike Burgess said that “taking a sensible approach to national security risks shouldn’t stop [universities] from getting on with their core roles”.

Three years on, even discussion of this “sensible approach” seems to have fallen by the wayside. It needs to start again – or any “Future Made in Australia” might stall before it even gets started.

Brendan Walker-Munro is affiliated with Southern Cross University, the Australian Cyber Defence Alliance and the Social Cyber Institute. The views expressed here are personal and are not necessarily the views of any institution or organisation.

– ref. A student’s visa has been cancelled for links to ‘weapons of mass destruction’. What’s going on with Australian research security? – https://theconversation.com/a-students-visa-has-been-cancelled-for-links-to-weapons-of-mass-destruction-whats-going-on-with-australian-research-security-230002

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Linda Gallo, Lecturer in Biomedical Sciences, School of Health, University of the Sunshine Coast

Growing a healthy baby relies on getting enough nutrients while pregnant.

But rather than following a healthy diet to provide those nutrients, we’re concerned too many people are relying on “pink” multivitamins.

These supplements are widely promoted for people who are pregnant or breastfeeding, and those who are planning to become pregnant. They contain folic acid, iodine, iron, vitamin D, vitamin B12, calcium, and a shopping list of other vitamins and minerals.

Multivitamins during pregnancy are, for the most part, a waste of money. At worst, there’s a risk they can harm you and your baby.

Most need only folate and iodine

Official dietary advice recommends only two nutrient supplements before and during pregnancy: folic acid (folate) and iodine.

A folic acid supplement is recommended from the month before conception and during the first three months of pregnancy. The recommended dose is 400 micrograms a day to reduce the risk of neural tube defects (such as spina bifida) in the newborn. Requirements for folate remain high for the whole pregnancy, and some people may be prescribed higher folic acid doses or other forms of folate based on their individual medical needs.

Due to mild iodine deficiency in Australia, people who are pregnant, breastfeeding or considering pregnancy should also take an iodine supplement at 150 micrograms a day to support the baby’s brain development. People with thyroid issues should speak to their doctor first.

However, individual circumstances may need someone to take other nutrients while pregnant. For instance, on advice from their health-care provider, people who are vegetarian or vegan may need to take vitamin B12 and iron supplements. People diagnosed with deficiencies such as vitamin D or iron will be prescribed a supplement to build up their levels. Those at risk of certain health conditions, such as pre-eclampsia, may need to take a calcium supplement from mid-pregnancy.

So why are multivitamins so popular?

Multivitamins are advertised as an essential part of the pregnancy toolkit, and maternity care providers often prescribe them.

In Australia, we found more than four in five people take multivitamins while pregnant. People see this as “insurance” to ensure they get adequate nutrition.

Our study, which uses data from a Queensland cohort of pregnant families, suggests socioeconomic factors influence the likelihood of using multivitamins in pregnancy. We found those with access to private obstetric care and health insurance, and who eat more meat (all associated with having more money) were more likely to use them.

This is not surprising given the hefty price tag. The most popular pregnancy multivitamin costs, at minimum, A$180 when taken from the month before conception and throughout pregnancy. Compare this with less than $40 for a supplement that contains only folic acid and iodine when taken for the same length of time.

Expensive brands are not better. Price is largely determined by public perception of brand quality, which is influenced by strong marketing. For most vitamins, any excess is excreted via your urine, making it, at best, expensive wee.

What happens if you have too much?

Our study found a very high dependence on supplements, particularly for folic acid, iron and iodine, to meet nutrient requirements.

If people’s diets are already providing adequate levels of those nutrients and the supplements give them extra, there’s a risk of nutrient overload.

For instance, more than one in 20 people in our study had high levels of folate intake (more than the safe “upper level of intake”). Almost half of all those in the study surpassed the upper level of intake for total iron. Virtually all of these were taking a multivitamin and had higher-than-usual blood levels of the respective nutrients.

Taking folic acid above the upper level of intake has been associated with babies being shorter at birth, lower levels of children’s cognitive development and a higher risk of childhood asthma. Folic acid supplementation, at the recommended daily dose of 400 micrograms after the first trimester, however, could be beneficial for child cognitive development although further trials would be necessary before this is routinely recommended.

High doses of iron increase the risk of high red blood cell concentration in the expectant mother. This condition increases the risk of pregnancy complications, including the baby being small for gestational age, stillbirth, gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia and low birth weight.

When we look at iodine, about one in four expectant mums taking a multivitamin in our study had very high intakes, which has been linked to lower neurodevelopmental scores in children.

Chances are, you’re getting enough nutrients

In low- and middle-income countries, multivitamins have a place; they improve weight gain while pregnant, newborn weight and might reduce the risk of preterm birth.

In high-income countries, such as Australia, food is abundantly diverse. There are also mandatory fortification programs – folic acid and iodised salt have been used in conventional breadmaking since 2009.

In these countries, frequent multivitamin use may pose risks to both maternal and fetal health. These include developing gestational diabetes (which might be due to high iron intake) and autism spectrum disorder in children.

There are some people, however, who do not take any supplements in pregnancy. Our study, which looked at supplement intake at around 28 weeks of pregnancy, found those under 30 years old and those with a lower household income were least likely to be taking a supplement. These are the same groups that generally have a poorer diet.

What should I take?

People should look for a supplement that contains only folic acid and iodine at the recommended dose, or take these as individual supplements.

They should work closely with their maternity providers, and perhaps an accredited practising dietitian, to focus on eating enough from each of the five food groups.

Supplements should not substitute a wholefood diet. There are benefits to eating a variety of foods, which contain many complementary nutrients and other compounds we cannot obtain from supplements. Following the dietary guidelines might also save you money.

Health-care providers also need to stop routinely recommending these expensive “pink” multivitamins, and instead focus on encouraging people to eat a healthy diet. Besides folic acid and iodine, supplements should only be prescribed according to someone’s specific needs. Multivitamins don’t have a place in everyone’s pregnancy toolkit.

Shelley Wilkinson is a project officer, Department of Obstetric Medicine, Mater Mothers’ Hospitals, Brisbane. She is also the director and principal dietitian of Lifestyle Maternity, a telehealth private practice for preconception, pregnancy and postnatal care.

Linda Gallo 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. I’m pregnant. Do I need a multivitamin? – https://theconversation.com/im-pregnant-do-i-need-a-multivitamin-228190

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Neal, Senior lecturer in Economics / Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney

Last night’s budget is another missed opportunity to arrest the poor and deteriorating state of the Australian environment.

Subsidising green industry in Labor’s Future Made in Australia policy may offer economic advantages if implemented well, but there is nothing in this budget to help address the immediate environmental crisis facing Australia.

The story so far

After being elected in 2022, Labor made a number of good promises. The new government legislated an emissions reduction target – a 43% cut by 2030 on 2005 figures and net zero by 2050. Last year, Labor reformed the Coalition’s only emissions monitoring program, the safeguard mechanism, to help deliver these reductions. (Recent research has cast doubt on the integrity of the system’s carbon credits). And the government signed an international biodiversity pact, which commits us to protect 30% of our land (currently at 22%) and halt biodiversity loss by 2030.

But Labor also promised to rewrite Australia’s main environment laws, the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which governs the protection of places and species, and approvals for significant projects. This was motivated by the horrendous bushfires in 2019–20 and a damning review, which found the laws were not up to the task of stopping environmental decline.

In the lead-up to tonight’s budget, Labor announced that the stronger laws had been indefinitely delayed. Instead, Australia would get a national environmental protection agency, Environment Protection Australia. While a strong and independent agency would improve compliance and monitoring, it will be enforcing ineffective laws until reforms are passed. Labor also shocked environmental groups by supporting a future for fossil gas, including opening up new gas fields.

Made in Australia

So if we’re not getting new environment laws, what is in the budget for the environment?

A whole lot for green industries. The 2024 budget’s centrepiece is the Future Made in Australia policy, a series of initiatives costing A$23 billion over ten years that focuses on subsidies for manufacturing industries including solar panels and green hydrogen.

Here, the Government is actively intervening in the market to push the economy towards specific ends – boosting green industries and making supply chains more resilient. As the budget papers state, one goal is to make Australia “an indispensable part of global net zero supply chains.”

In recent years western governments have embraced industrial subsidies, most notably seen in the CHIPS and Science Act and Inflation Reduction Act in the United States.

So what’s the government planning? Included in the announced package is:

$3.2 billion over ten years in additional funding to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. This includes $1.7 billion in grants for innovation in green metals, low carbon liquid fuels, and batteries.

$1.7 billion over 10 years for an additional round of Hydrogen Headstart. This will fund the difference between the cost to produce renewable hydrogen and the current market price for eligible firms. Also planned is an additional $2 a kilogram tax incentive for renewable hydrogen produced from 2027–28.

$7 billion over the medium term for tax incentives in critical mineral production. Firms will be eligible to rebate 10% of refining and processing costs of 31 critical minerals from 2027-28.

$1.5 billion over ten years for solar PV and battery manufacturing. This will fund grants to firms for manufacturing solar PV components at all stages of the supply chain and batteries.

Is this the right thing to do? Economists are usually pessimistic about government efforts to guide industry in this way, pointing to the difficulty of picking winners and the potential for funding to flow in the direction lobbyists want rather than on merit.

Nevertheless, there’s recent evidence industry policy can be effective in spurring long-term structural change to an economy – when done well. After all, targeted assistance and direction by government may have played a role in how East Asian nations such as Japan, Korea and China became manufacturing titans.

But what about the environmental outcomes of these subsidies? Will they turn Australia into a green export giant, shipping green hydrogen instead of LNG and make homegrown solar panels a reality? Will they help drive the green transition?

This is even less clear. Australia’s once-significant manufacturing sector began its sharp decline after we dropped tariffs and opened up to international competition from the 1980s.

Could Labor turn the tide? That will depend on whether the subsidies succeed in creating manufacturing sectors able to compete with international competition. It’s far from guaranteed. But it is possible.

And what about trade-offs between green industry and conservation? In the rush to secure lithium and critical minerals for the green transition, the government has invested $566 million to give mining companies free data and maps. This could do further damage to the environment, if new projects are built on land home to threatened species.

Where’s the “Conserved in Australia” policy?

Nothing is in the budget to tackle our biodiversity and extinction crisis.

This is another missed opportunity. The postponed environment laws aside, the government could have addressed the severe lack of funding for conservation.

What about the goal of protecting 30% of land and seas by 2030? This will take funding to expand protected areas – and to actually conserve species in existing protected areas. Invasive species from deer to blackberries run riot in many national parks.

How much should the government be spending and for what? To give some examples:

– $5 billion would fund the purchase of private land for conservation and long-term management. Australia previously had a fund like this, which is why our protected area estate has grown so much.

– $1.7 billion a year is the expert estimate for how much it would cost to bring all of Australia’s threatened species under active management and recover their numbers.

– $2 billion a year for 30 years would restore 13 million hectares of degraded land, without touching farms or urban areas – about twice the size of Tasmania.

Our natural environment affects our national identity, our mental health, and even our future economic prosperity.

Yes, conservation costs money. But the costs may turn out to be very small relative to the benefits, not only for the diverse species we share Australia with but for its people too. People don’t just need manufacturing jobs – they need nature, too.

Read more:
It’s time to strike an environmental grand bargain between businesses, governments and conservationists – and stop doing things the hard way

Timothy Neal 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. Green industry yes, conservation no: a budget for people, not for nature – https://theconversation.com/green-industry-yes-conservation-no-a-budget-for-people-not-for-nature-229904

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Trelease, Senior Lecturer in Communication Studies, Auckland University of Technology

Television producer and screenwriter Shonda Rhimes has come a long way since being a scriptwriter for the 2002 film Crossroads.

Her production company Shondaland now shines in its delivery of romance shows, with Bridgerton (on which she is an executive producer) being a major recent success. With season three hitting Netflix tomorrow, it wouldn’t be a surprise if Shondaland landed another surefire hit.

Rhimes understands romance as a technical art form. But beyond that, she shows us love doesn’t necessarily always exist between two people; it also exists between people and their passions, and in the way they view themselves.

The art of romance

First airing in 2005, Rhimes’ debut primetime TV series Grey’s Anatomy (still in production today) leaned heavily into the soap opera elements of romance and drama.

Rhimes masterfully executes romance in a contained setting – whether it’s a hospital, a social season in Regency era London, a Seattle firestation, or the political scene of Washington DC.

She also upholds one of most important characteristics of soap opera: there shall be no ending in sight. We’re still following Meredith Grey’s love life from that first fateful meeting with McDreamy, dropping in even now to get updates about her and Nick.

In Bridgerton, viewers have waited with bated breath for Colin and Penelope’s union. Will their relationship reach its climax in season three? Rhimes’ ability to effectively carry such story lines is what keeps us coming back.

Bridgerton’s spinoff Queen Charlotte also delivers the show’s backstory in a way that frames it as having no end and no set beginning.

Marrying familiar with foreign

The romance genre is often relegated to two categories: romantic drama or romantic comedy.

Both, unfortunately, may be perceived by audiences and critics as being “for women” and largely lowbrow. However, the key characteristics of romance afford audience as much a sense of connection as any other celebrated genre.

Romance tends to follow a narrative “masterplot”. This predictable structure emulates the natural milestones of a relationship: meet someone, fall in love and live happily ever after.

But the narrative may also include a range of difficulties, such as love triangles, unrequited love or forbidden love. The obstacles tend to cover such a range that viewers will likely identify with at least one.

This balance of predictability and conflict allows the viewer to escape into an exciting fantasy, while also knowing all will end well (or that even if the couple doesn’t end up together, it will still be the “right” ending).

In any given Shondaland series, there are multiple masterplots taking place simultaneously. These are often at different milestones, and staggered across the season (or multiple seasons).

Bridgerton’s period-setting helps enhance the tribulations faced by the characters. It adds to the escapism, while depicting all-too-familiar relationship issues.

Music is the key

One way to put viewers in characters’ minds is through the use of music, and Rhimes does this expertly.

Incorporating a recognisable music track can add more layers to an already emotional scene. One example from Rhimes’ early years is the use of Snow Patrol’s Chasing Cars in the Grey’s Anatomy season two finale.

The track features alternating musical notes that build aural tension, echoing the visual juxtaposition of formal wear/frivolity with the coolness of the hospital.

Izzy’s confession confirms her love for Denny while also destroying her career. The questioning lyrics, “would you lie with me?”, are heard as Meredith decides between two suitors. These visual and aural signs strengthen an already emotional scripted narrative.

Five years later, Rhimes references this scene once more in the show as Dr Callie Torres fights for her life (and her unborn child’s).

In an out-of-body experience, Callie sings the lyrics to Chasing Cars and her colleagues join in. This time, however, the focus is on the lyrics as they communicate the characters’ heightened emotional state.

Bridgerton also excels in using modern music in a period setting, by incorporating classical covers of chart-topping hits. These tracks are carefully placed to help communicate characters’ feelings.

In previous seasons, viewers will have recognised Madonna’s Material Girl, Alanis Morrisette’s You Oughta Know and Miley Cyrus’ Wrecking Ball.

Season three will bring a fresh lineup of covers including Billie Eilish’s Happier Than Ever, BTS’s Dynamite, Sia’s Cheap Thrills and Taylor Swift and Lana Del Rey’s Snow On The Beach.

In love with the craft

While romantic plot points are often at the heart of Rhimes’ shows, these aren’t always between a couple. Rhimes has always placed a focus on women who love their work and find a sense of romance in it.

In Scandal, Olivia Pope says, “I am very good at what I do. I am better at it than anyone else.” And while her torrid romance with Fitz spans the series’ entire seven seasons, she is not defined by it. Similarly, in How to Get Away with Murder, Annalise Keating is a troubled yet future-proofing mentor to her students.

Rhimes’ viewers are always following principal characters loving their work, their mentees and their legacy.

Even Bridgerton’s Queen Charlotte shows a commitment to the “work” of romance by identifying the most flawless debutante of the coming season. Through this process she reinforces her ability and authority as a matchmaker.

Viewers also share in Lady Whistledown’s immense pleasures of publishing. Julie Andrews’ narration highlights the absolute joy Whistledown feels in scouting, writing and delivering gossip.

Two decades ago, romance plots tended to feature a protagonist with a fabulous big-city job (often in publishing), but their occupation would come second to the goal of finding “the one”. How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, Never Been Kissed and 13 going on 30 are just some examples.

Meanwhile, in Shondaland, a romance masterplot can be superseded by the trials and tribulations of a woman’s career and her journey of self-fulfilment. The joy of escapism now twists into watching women excel in their own right alongside the expectation of the happy ending, or at least the “right” ending.

It’s no wonder we’re still hanging around for Rhimes’ stories in 2024.

Rebecca Trelease 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. From Bridgerton to Grey’s Anatomy, Shonda Rhimes is the queen of romance. Here’s how she gets our hearts pounding – https://theconversation.com/from-bridgerton-to-greys-anatomy-shonda-rhimes-is-the-queen-of-romance-heres-how-she-gets-our-hearts-pounding-229005

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

The government has handed down its budget for 2024–25. It’s delivered a $9.3 billion surplus for the financial year just about to finish but is forecasting a $28.3 billion deficit for next year. Here’s the key points:

– ref. At a glance: the 2024 federal budget split four ways – https://theconversation.com/at-a-glance-the-2024-federal-budget-split-four-ways-227451

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

Jim Chalmers has produced a benign third budget aimed at soothing hard-pressed voters agitated about their high cost of living and punishing interest rates.

At the same time he has walked a tightrope, trying to avoid the handouts making things worse rather than better.

Despite its appearance, this is unlikely to be THE pre-election budget. With the poll due by next May, Anthony Albanese is still anticipated to run full term.

His very narrow parliamentary majority and voters’ grumpy state of mind would make an election this year a risk. That means another budget can be expected around March. Indeed, the prime minister has flagged it.

An early ‘election budget’

But this budget still has the election firmly in mind. The voters’ mood has to be improved, and Chalmers is hoping its relatively substantial assistance will help do the trick. And the government desperately needs interest rates to fall – hence the stress on caution, so that the projected fall in inflation materialises.

What the Reserve Bank thinks of this budget looms as almost as important as what the average voter thinks of it.

So, as Chalmers has been telling us, the treasurer has had to juggle the economics and the politics.

Read more:
Relief on energy bills for all in a federal budget that bets on lower inflation

The universal help on energy bills and the extra rent assistance fit both requirements nicely. They give relief which cut inflation (at least in the short term) rather than adding to it.

The biggest relief, of course, comes from the tax cuts, which are in themselves the equivalent of a reduction in interest rates. The government’s decision early this year to recalibrate the Stage 3 tax cuts, meaning all taxpayers get a prize, has been long vindicated – the broken promise has faded from most memories.

Apart from hard-pressed households, the government has had a careful eye in the budget to particular constituencies, including women (superannuation on paid parental leave and more) and young people (changes to HELP indexation and payments for placements).

Handouts aplenty, negatives hard to find

Many welfare advocates, however, will be disappointed. While they’ll welcome the rent assistance, the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee’s recommendation for a big boost to the overall level to JobSeeker has not been met (although there is an increase for Australians with only a partial capacity to work).

With an emphasis on handouts, the budget is also notably light on negatives. Whatever nasties it has are limited or well-hidden.

Its future large deficits indicate the government has deferred a serious attack on the structural deficit to another day. Or another term.

The budget launches the prime minister’s signature Future Made in Australia policy, which is costed at $22.7 billion over the next decade.

Read more:
At a glance: the 2024 federal budget split four ways

The government hopes voters will make their immediate judgements about the budget on the criterion of “what’s in it for me?” With Future Made in Australia, it is relying on people responding to the “vibe” – the idea of Australia becoming an energy superpower, or making more things.

Chalmers and Albanese justify the policy, which includes expensive tax incentives, largely on the basis other countries are playing on this ground, and Australia can’t be left behind. Perhaps. But many respected economists condemn it as little more than old-fashioned interventionism and picking winners.

Read more:
Budget 2024: Chalmers fights inflation, will it be enough for a rate cut?

However it will be years before the wisdom of some of the policy’s investments can be properly assessed, so the government will feel reasonably confident any backlash is likely to be a long time coming.

Albanese told the Labor caucus on Monday this was “a Labor budget through and through”.

It’s a pretty accurate description. It’s generous in spending,with an ideological tinge. The critics will say it’s too “Labor” for the times.

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. View from The Hill: What the Reserve Bank thinks of Chalmers’ budget will be nearly as important as the voters’ opinion – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-what-the-reserve-bank-thinks-of-chalmers-budget-will-be-nearly-as-important-as-the-voters-opinion-229271