Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacquie Rand, Emeritus Professor of Companion Animal Health, The University of Queensland

Cats and milk often go hand in hand in popular culture. But on dairy farms, cats do much more than enjoy a saucer of milk – their mousing skills are essential. That’s because dairy farms often have a problem with rats and mice due to their large grain and feed stores and a continuous supply of water and shelter.

Cats are thought to have been domesticated to protect granaries from rodents some 9,000 years ago. In our time, cats are widely used to keep rat and mouse numbers down around houses, farms, horse barns and factories.

But while you can make tax deductions on the upkeep of your working cats in the United Kingdom and United States, Australia’s thousands of working farm cats are not eligible. By contrast, farm dogs and horses in all three countries are recognised for the work they do. Their care is a tax-deductible business expense.

Our new research explores how cats are used as working animals on dairy farms. We found many dairy farmers preferred using cats over using poison for rodent control. For all farmers, the cost of sterilisation was too much, which can create problems of unchecked breeding. Registration fees are also a barrier.

If the care and upkeep of working cats was tax deductible, Australian farmers could manage their cats better without extra financial strain.

Why are working cats needed?

Dairy farming is Australia’s third-largest agricultural industry after cattle and wheat, and Australia is the world’s fourth-largest dairy exporter.

Within the industry, there are major changes underway. Small dairy farms are declining due to economic pressures. Financial returns are dropping and recent natural disasters have taken their toll.

To find out about how small and medium scale dairy farms rely on cats, we interviewed 15 dairy farmers in New South Wales and Queensland who had between three and 60 cats on their farms. Our sample of farmers is not representative, as we restricted the study to dairy farmers who had enrolled their cats in a free desexing program.

The dairy farmers we interviewed had come to rely heavily on their cats for ratting and mousing. Cats were not optional – they were essential for pest control.

Dairy farms are increasingly automated, with automatic milking machines taking over from humans. But rodents can cause real problems by nibbling through crucial wiring and rubber hosing, causing expensive and disruptive equipment breakdowns. As one farmer told us:

cats are cheaper than an electrician bill.

Another said:

we haven’t had [an equipment] breakdown in seven years since the cats turned up […] That on its own is worth thousands, plus no [downtime] with the milking machines out of action […] yeah, the pluses are just massive.

Rodents also eat and contaminate cattle feed and can spread diseases to livestock and humans. More mice and rats means more snakes, posing risks to humans, working dogs and cattle.

One farmer told us:

the cats […] work everyday where baits are only ever any good while you’ve got bait out.

Most of the farmers we interviewed said they would never farm without cats. “We couldn’t do without them now. Otherwise, you’d be overrun with rats”, one said.

Of our 15 interviewees, ten had previously relied on rat poison. The farmers told us poison was less effective, expensive and unsafe. Rat poison poses risks to wildlife, working dogs, pets and children. Rats and mice are also developing resistance to some poisons. Rat poison has to be continuously applied and can be expensive.

One farmer said:

baiting’s not great for the other wildlife, and we’ve got dogs and I’d prefer not to use the baits.

By contrast, the farmers told us working cats offered a long-term, low-maintenance solution. Farmers reported fewer rodents and fewer snakes.

Farmers clearly saw their cats as working animals. As one said:

they’re dead set working cats because of […] the saving on repairs, the saving on baiting and yeah, the cats are doing their job, they’re basically working for
me.

While some farmers saw the cats as purely functional, others appreciated their companionship, especially during solitary early morning milking.

Is it time for cat deductions?

While our interviewees reported strong upsides to using working cats, there are downsides.

Registration fees and permits can cost thousands of dollars, as an average sized dairy might have 20 or more working cats. There are other costs too, from desexing to tick treatment to vaccination to microchipping. Our recent research suggests desexing would reduce the risk from cats going feral.

As one farmer said:

the cost is too great to have to get all those cats done [sterilised] ourselves.

For farmers, these fees may be having unintended consequences such as added stress from financial worries and damage to mental health if farmers are forced to euthanise cats and kittens for population control. Waiving registration costs for working cats and providing funding to ensure cats are desexed would reduce the impact on wildlife.

At present, the Australian Tax Office recognises horses and dogs as working animals – provided they have been “trained for their role from a young age” and are not pets.

State and federal laws would have to be updated so working cats would be considered domestic cats, not feral cats, and biosecurity laws in states such as Queensland would have to be clarified. Tax rules would have to be changed too, as working cats would not meet the training requirement for working animals, given cats are natural predators of rodents.

But if these changes were made and farm cats were legally recognised, dairy farmers would have clear incentives to ensure their working cats are desexed, vaccinated and cared for.

Jacquie Rand is a registered specialist veterinarian in small animal internal medicine and has an honorary position at the University of Queensland. She is the executive director and chief scientist of the Australian Pet Welfare Foundation, which is largely funded by philanthropic gifts but also receives funding from the Queensland government’s Gambling Community Benefit Fund, the city of Ipswich and from many state, national and international granting bodies. She is affiliated with the Australian Veterinary Association and the Australian and New Zealand College of Veterinary Scientists,

Caitlin Crawford is employed by the Australian Pet Welfare Foundation as a research officer.

Rebekah Scotney is affiliated with the Veterinary Nurses Council of Australia, the Australian and New Zealand Laboratory Animal Association and the Australian Psychological Society.

Pauleen Bennett and Vanessa Rohlf 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. Working dogs and horses have tax-deductible upkeep. But Australia’s thousands of working cats go unrecognised – https://theconversation.com/working-dogs-and-horses-have-tax-deductible-upkeep-but-australias-thousands-of-working-cats-go-unrecognised-248675

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nic Rawlence, Associate Professor in Ancient DNA, University of Otago

What actually was the biggest dinosaur?

– Zavier, 14, Tauranga, New Zealand.

Great question Zavier, and one that palaeontologists (scientists who study fossil animals and plants) are interested in all around the world.

And let’s face it, kids of all ages (and I include adults here) are fascinated by dinosaurs that break records for the biggest, the longest, the scariest or the fastest. It’s why, to this day, one of most famous dinosaurs is still Tyranosaurus rex, the tyrant king.

These record-breaking dinosaurs are part of the reason why the Jurassic Park movie franchise has been so successful. Just think of the scene where Dr Alan Grant (played by New Zealand actor Sam Neill) is stunned by the giant sauropod dinosaur rearing up to reach the highest leaves in the tree with its long neck.

But how do scientists work out how big and heavy a dinosaur was? And what were the biggest dinosaurs that ever lived?

Calculating dinosaur size

In an ideal world, calculating how big a dinosaur was would be easy – with a nearly complete skeleton. Standing next to the remarkable Triceratops skeleton on permanent display at Melbourne Museum makes you realise how gigantic and formidable these creatures were.

By measuring bone proportions (such as length, width or circumference) and plugging them into mathematical formulas and computer models, scientists can compare the measurements to those of living animals. They can then work out the likely size and weight of dinosaurs.

Every palaeontologist has their own favourite formula or computer model. Some are more accurate than others, which can lead to heated arguments!

In palaeontology, however, we are not always blessed with nearly complete skeletons. In a process called “taphonomy” – basically, what happens to the bones after an animal dies – dinosaur skeletons can be broken up and bones lost.

The more fragmented the remains of a dinosaur are, the more error is introduced into size and weight estimates.

Enter the titanosaurs

If we could travel back in time to South America during the Cretaceous period (about 143 million to 66 million years ago), we’d find a land ruled by a group of four-legged, long-necked and long-tailed, plant-eating sauropods. They would have towered over us, and the ground would shake with every step they took.

These were the titanosaurs. They reached their largest sizes during this period, before an asteroid crashed into what is now modern day Mexico 66 million years ago, making them extinct.

There are several contenders among the titanosaurs for the biggest dinosaur ever. Even the list below is controversial, with my palaeontology students pointing out several other possible contenders.

But based on six partial skeletons, the best estimate is for Patagotitan, which is thought to have been 31 meters long and to have weighed 50–57 tonnes.

A couple of others might have been as big or even bigger. Argentinosaurus has been calculated to be longer and heavier at 30–35 metres and 65–80 tonnes. And Puertasaurus was thought to be around 30 metres long and 50 tonnes.

But while the available bones of Argentinosaurus and Puertasaursus suggest reptiles of colossal size (the complete thigh bone of Argentinosaurus is 2.5 metres long!), there is currently not enough fossil material to be confident of those estimates.

Spinosaurus rules North Africa

An ocean away from South America’s titanosaurs, Spinosaurus lived in what is now North Africa during the Cretaceous period.

By a very small margin, Spinosaurus is currently thought to have been the largest carnivorous (meat-eating) dinosaur, weighing in at 7.4 tonnes and 14 meters long. Other Cretaceous giants are right up there, too, including Tyranosaurus rex from North America, Gigantosaurus from South America, and Carcharodontosaurus from North Africa.

Spinosaurus is unique among predatory dinosaurs in that it was semi-aquatic and had adapted to eating fish. You can see in the picture above how similar its skull shape was to a modern crocodile.

Palaeontology is now more popular than ever – maybe because of the ongoing Jurassic Park series – with a fossil “gold rush” occurring in the Southern Hemisphere.

Members of the public (known as “fossil forecasters”) are making new discoveries all the time.

So, who knows? The next discovery might turn out to be a new record holder as the biggest or longest dinosaur to have ever lived. There can be only one!

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

Nic Rawlence receives funding from the Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund.

– ref. Curious Kids: what was the biggest dinosaur that ever lived? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-what-was-the-biggest-dinosaur-that-ever-lived-250885

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Kenny, Professor, Australian Studies Institute, Australian National University

Signing off his 26-year parliamentary career three years ago, the retiring Labor MP Joel Fitzgibbon lamented a power imbalance that allowed the majority party routinely to railroad the national legislature.

In a refreshingly frank valedictory speech, the former minister claimed the House of Representatives had become nothing more than a rubber stamp for executive government.

And he criticised the practice of compelling MPs to vote in blocs, irrespective of their own judgement:

not only do governments typically hold the numbers; they are using them more ruthlessly within their party structures […] party discipline is strangling our democracy in an era when the world is changing so dramatically.

Voters apparently share his unease. The combined primary vote share of the Labor-Coalition duopoly has been declining since the 1980s from around 90%, to around 68%. The remainder is going to minor parties and independents.

Now, successive opinion polls suggest both major parties are likely to fall short of the 76 seats required for a simple majority. And Fitzgibbon has fretted in The Australian that the primary threat to national politics and governance may come from voters themselves. That is, if they should have the temerity to install crossbench MPs beyond the discipline of the two major parties.

Labor and Coalition supporters alike are now shaking in their boots, as are the parties of government. Of course, the minor parties have the champagne on ice, relishing the chance to hold the country to ransom. The Greens are salivating.

Holding the country to ransom? Salivating? It’s as if the voters have no deliberative intent.

What’s changed for Fitzgibbon? Perhaps this is nothing more than the familiar slouch into conservative chauvinism to which so many ex-parliamentary Labor men succumb.

The rightward drift of progressively-striped former legislators is a well-worn path, with names like Graham Richardson, Stephen Loosely, Gary Johns and John Black springing to mind.

Teal threat

Less openly canvassed are the unconscious gender biases, and the major party self-interests that are driving them.

One answer to “what’s changed?” is the electoral embrace of the Teals – seven conspicuously competent professional women defiantly occupying once blue-ribbon Liberal seats. These new MPs (six of whom came in at the last election) were successful because voters wanted to break free of the suited duopoly and the limited solutions it proffers.

While hardly radical, they have been outspoken on climate change policy, corruption in public administration, and the absence of serious structural taxation reform. To old-guard politicos for whom traditional binaries dominate, their needling from the crossbenches may seem almost insolent.

Their presence, which involved circumnavigation of the established party “meritocracies”, is viewed by many in the major parties as an existential threat to the two-party system. Yet it is the widely perceived mediocrity of the two-party dominance that is their very attraction to voters.

Denying people power

Fitzgibbon is hardly the first to hyperventilate about the perils of a hung parliament where crossbench MPs may have a role in assuring confidence and supply numbers to one side or the other. But his solution to this alleged problem is novel to the point of bizarre.

Despite calling Australia’s system “hyper-partisan”, he proposes that Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton might collude ahead of the election in order to agree

that whoever has the most seats post-election will be guaranteed supply and confidence for 18 months hence.

Leaving aside that the independent MPs are in fact, independent, Fitzgibbon’s fix flies in the face of the very chamber whose dwindling primacy he formerly eulogised. That is, he proposes an arrangement between two opposing blocs that would pre-emptively close out non-major party MPs, despite their authority deriving from the people.

This is not to say the question of any crossbench intentions in a hung parliament situation are beyond the limits of public conjecture. But a preventative neutering of their participation in the construction of a parliamentary majority (should it come to that) is a drastic and potentially counter-representative act.

Hung parliaments can work

Unlike many democracies, Australia has limited experience of minority governments at the national level.

The only recent example was the aforementioned Gillard-Rudd term (2010–2013). Notwithstanding leadership turbulence, a record number of bills were passed, despite the sense of numerical precarity and the need for clause-by-clause negotiation with cross bench MPs.

Legislating 561 bills – much higher than the previous Labor term – it also encountered higher resistance from the Coalition opposition, with 22% of bills opposed outright. Important legislative reforms included

• the carbon price
• Gonski school education reforms
• world-leading plain-packaging laws for cigarettes
• the creation of the Parliamentary Budget Office to provide independent costings for all MPs
• NDIS legislation and funding arrangements.

And many more.

That parliament’s reputation proved the old adage that history is written by the winners. By repealing the carbon price and hobbling other priorities, the subsequent Abbott government and its media enablers were able to depict the 44th parliament as extreme and dysfunctional.

It was neither.

Two-party cartel

In the current parliament, Teals like Allegra Spender have shown more interest in bold tax reform, while others like Zali Steggall have pushed harder on climate change and truth in political advertising.

It cannot be known which of the current crop of crossbench MPs will be re-elected or whether there will be more. But the trend in successive elections suggests Australians are tiring of the old parties and are looking for other options.

Suggesting clever tricks to freeze out these voters smacks of desperation and worse, cartelism. It is likely to hasten the demise of blocs which only recently combined to write new election campaign finance laws that give them the edge.

Voters are awake to this.

Mark Kenny 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. Independent MPs are elected for a reason – hung parliaments may be precisely what voters want – https://theconversation.com/independent-mps-are-elected-for-a-reason-hung-parliaments-may-be-precisely-what-voters-want-251900

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pascal Scherrer, Associate Professor, Southern Cross University

Luxury hiking developments are popping up around Australia – fancy lodges, hot showers and extensive walking infrastructure.

While many opt for these deluxe alternatives to a backpack and tent, they can also stop independent hikers with smaller budgets from accessing national parks if not carefully planned.

National parks are open to all and are arguably some of Australia’s least locked-up lands. They are fundamental to Australia’s tourism offerings with 53 million domestic visits to national parks in New South Wales alone.

National parks are meant to support nature and community. Can remaking sections of them for a select clientele get in the way of these goals?

Why do we have national parks?

The primary purpose of national parks is to conserve nature and cultural heritage. A secondary purpose is for people to engage with and enjoy nature.

Parks agencies use many tools to support conservation and recreation, including building infrastructure or limiting the number of visitors.

Outdoor infrastructure – such as raised boardwalks on hiking trails and cabins for accommodation – can increase visitor comfort and improve physical access. It also helps protect habitat and reduces soil damage and problem behaviours by visitors.

Capping visitor numbers can prevent crowding and lessen physical and social impact. For example, visitors to Lord Howe Island is limited to the number of guest beds.

Society is changing – and so is hiking

The number of Australians accessing national parks is growing. But society is changing and people are engaging with nature differently than they used to.

Today’s national park visitors come from diverse backgrounds. They increasingly use parks as meeting places and have less outdoor survival experience. There is also a growing number of people seeking – and willing to pay for – “hero” experiences – exciting luxury activities that showcase unique aspects of a place.

This means parks agencies must cater to a broad audience. To do this, they are diversifying their offerings from basic experiences to include higher-cost adventures.

An example of the latter includes multi-day hiking routes, such as the Three Capes Track in Tasmania and the Milford Track in New Zealand.

They take place on well-established, high-quality trails maintained by parks agencies and catering to a limited daily number of independent fee-paying walkers. can you please say how much they cost, with a link? Readers will be interested.

Often, the trips are guided by private operators at extra cost.

While these projects may boost tourism, some fear they may exclude visitors on a budget.can we please attribute this – who holds these fears, and can we please provide a link?

Privatisation by stealth?

One of the main concerns with these developments is that private businesses profit from public assets with little benefit to conservation, the primary purpose of national parks.

Private operators are building luxury lodges and being granted concessions to operate guided hiking experiences in national parks.

Independent hikers can still visit the Three Capes Track in Tasmania, though the experience is no longer as accessible, affordable or spontaneous as it once was.

The Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing master plan

People are raising similar concerns about the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing master plan.

This master plan proposes a multi-day walking experience across the Victorian Alps.

It is a clear example of the tension between tourism development and accessibility.

A 2022 community consultation by the Victorian government noted “high levels of concern” for the plan. It centred on increased visitor numbers, the prospect of unprepared and inexperienced walkers, environmental damage, and the costs to stay in huts.

The proposal includes a longer walk, environmentally sensitive track upgrades, and new campsites.

The inclusion of commercially operated huts “tailored for those who desire an added level of comfort” is a concern for those opposed to the development.

Are there pros to development?

Advocates argue private investments in protected areas can support well-managed, sustainable tourism opportunities while generating revenue for conservation.

License fees from luxury lodges and guided tours may help fund park maintenance. Visitor caps and track upgrades protect against environmental degradation and offer controlled access that minimises visitor impact and reduces seasonality of visitation.

But opponents worry these projects prioritise profit over public access.

If national parks become exclusive spaces for wealthier visitors, they risk losing their purpose as places for all Australians to enjoy.

Sustainable tourism

The primary and overriding purpose of national parks is nature conservation. Recreation and tourism are secondary and should not undermine the park’s environmental and cultural integrity.

Visitor caps and serviced experiences are part of the toolkit to cater to an increasingly diverse population while protecting the very attraction visitors come to see.

Tourism development in protected areas, however, needs a social license and local community engagement is an important sustainability principle.

For national parks to operate as they are intended, free or low-cost options and access must be available alongside premium experiences.

This means that low-cost experiences such as facilitated by tent platforms or simple shelters need to be part of the spectrum of offerings.

National parks belong to everyone and their management must reflect this.

While tourism developments can offer benefits, they must not come at the cost of accessibility, affordability, or most importantly, environmental integrity.

Often, taxpayer money is invested in establishing these experiences.

Pascal Scherrer has received research funding from the NSW NPWS in the past.

Isabelle Wolf has received funding from the NSW NPWS in the past.

Jen Smart receives funding from the NSW NPWS Hawkweed Eradication Program for her PhD Scholarship.

– ref. Luxury hiking developments look picture-perfect, but could stop everyday Australians from accessing national parks – https://theconversation.com/luxury-hiking-developments-look-picture-perfect-but-could-stop-everyday-australians-from-accessing-national-parks-250626

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samantha Schulz, Associate Professor, School of Education, University of Adelaide

Editor’s note: this article contains examples of offensive and abusive language.

Researchers have been reporting a disturbing rise in sexist, misogynist behaviour from students in school classrooms.

This includes Australian studies which show how the extreme views of the “manosphere” (online anti-women and anti-women’s empowerment communities) have infiltrated schools.

Last year, my colleagues and I reported on abusive behaviour of male students towards their teachers. This included students using language such as “slut” or describing women as “rapeable”. It also included reports of male students working in groups to physically intimidate female students and staff.

What is happening in Australian universities?

Read more:
‘Make me a sandwich’: our survey’s disturbing picture of how some boys treat their teachers

Our research

Following on from our research on schools, we are surveying university teachers about their experiences of antisocial language and behaviour.

So far, we have received 59 survey responses and done seven interviews. Most respondents so far are women and academics from minority backgrounds.

They are a mix of permanent and casual academic tutors and lecturers. They come from all around Australia, and teach mainly in education courses as well as the humanities, business, politics, health, human resource management and journalism.

Read more:
Victorian students will get ‘anti-Tate’ lessons – but much more is needed to tackle gendered violence in schools

Disrespectful and rude

Interviewees have spoken of a noticeable increase in disrespectful behaviour from some first- and second-year male students.

This includes examples of students watching sport or doing online betting during classes. As one respondent told us:

Young male students eat snacks during class and swing on chairs. They leave crumbs and rubbish behind and leave their chairs out and they leave all of the equipment. It’s someone else’s job to clean up after them.

Women in positions of authority are not respected. One respondent told us how male students question the teacher’s expertise in front of class members, saying “this has surged over the past year”.

Or as another respondent said:

They call their female tutor Miss. Hey Miss. Sorry Miss.

Intimidating and scary

But the behaviour can extend beyond rudeness to intimidation. As one interviewee told us:

During tutorials over the past three years, behaviour has grown progressively worse from [a] largely Anglo-Australian cohort of [education students]. They sit exclusively in groups (gangs) and isolate students from other cultural backgrounds.

Another respondent described how students will gang up after classes and physically intimidate her.

If one male has a question, they wait until after class. All of the males stay behind. They are tall. They surround me to ask their question. If they don’t like the answer they ask, ‘who is higher than you? I will take this higher’. The behaviour is designed to unsettle. They have the power as a group. They know it.

Read more:
Should misogyny be treated as a form of extremism?

Happy to express extreme, offensive views

Respondents also described a growing number of examples in which male students are readily expressing homophobic and sexist views during class discussions.

As one interviewee told us:

The anti-LGBTIQA+ backlash from students really shook me […]. There have been several examples of transphobia, homophobia and misogyny in my classes especially in recent years; managing these interactions in class is getting increasingly difficult as opinions are becoming more polarised.

Another academic described how misogyny and homophobia had become part of their classrooms:

Just last week, a student expressed their opinion that it was ‘OK to persecute lesbian and gay people’ because ‘they do not have children and contribute nothing to society, just like childless, single straight women’ and therefore do not ‘deserve the protection of the law’.

Problems with student evaluations

Previous Australian research has shown how anonymous student evaluations can be a platform for abusive comments against university staff.

This includes homophobic, violent and sexist commentary.

Academics in our study also singled out evaluations an an issue. One noted how she was described as “bossy” or “opinionated” for discussing diversity content with male teaching students.

Others described how they were changing the way they were teaching in relation to students’ aggression and potential feedback.

I have stopped challenging students for fear of the feedback as I am on probation. I can’t do a good job ethically and morally. I don’t want to teach any more. I am so sad about it. I grieve for it.

Another respondent explained:

Student evaluations are a real problem in this context, they have always been problematic, but with an ever more polarised discourse and the necessity to take firmer stands in class [this] make you inevitably unpopular with some students […].

Staff are not supported

A key theme from our research so far is that, on the whole, staff do not feel supported by their universities when they experience sexism, abuse or other threatening behaviour from students. There may be official policies and guidelines but these are not stopping problematic behaviour.

Respondents told us staff are “made to feel they don’t know how to handle the situation enough” or as though “I am the problem”.

Another tutor reported:

The culture is that we need to be soft in our approach and keep students happy. They have to work to survive, they are under pressure. As a tutor, there isn’t backup or support for behaviour issues.

Read more:
‘Not my boy.’ When teachers are harassed by students, some schools and parents fail to help

What next?

Our research is ongoing and draws on a modestly sized sample. Yet it suggests there are concerning trends not only in our schools but in our universities.

Universities should be places that nurture informed social critique and different viewpoints. But not to the point of abuse.

This suggests diversity education – around gender, race, sexuality and acceptance of differences – should be a core part of the university curriculum for all students.

Universities also need to do more to foster cultures that support and respect women and minority groups.

Professor Ed Palmer, Dr Sarah McDonald, Dr Eszter Szenes and Dr Daniel Lee all contributed to the research on which this article is based.

Samantha Schulz 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. ‘They eat snacks during class and swing on chairs’: the worrying, sexist behaviour of some young men at uni – https://theconversation.com/they-eat-snacks-during-class-and-swing-on-chairs-the-worrying-sexist-behaviour-of-some-young-men-at-uni-251702

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John McMullan, Screen Production Lecturer, Murdoch University

It feels like everything is slowly but surely being affected by the rise of artificial intelligence (AI). And like every other disruptive technology before it, AI is having both positive and negative outcomes for society.

One of these negative outcomes is the very specific, yet very real cultural harm posed to Australia’s Indigenous populations.

The National Indigenous Times reports Adobe has come under fire for hosting AI-generated stock images that claim to depict “Indigenous Australians”, but don’t resemble Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Some of the figures in these generated images also have random body markings that are culturally meaningless. Critics who spoke to the outlet, including Indigenous artists and human rights advocates, point out these inaccuracies disregard the significance of traditional body markings to various First Nations cultures.

Adobe’s stock platform was also found to host AI-generated “Aboriginal artwork”, raising concerns over whether genuine Indigenous artworks were used to train the software without artists’ consent.

The findings paint an alarming picture of how representations of Indigenous cultures can suffer as a result of AI.

How AI image generators work

While training AI image generators is a complex affair, in a nutshell it involves feeding a neural network millions of images with associated text descriptions.

This is much like how you would have been taught to recognise various objects as a small child: you see a car and you’re told it’s a “car”. Then you see a different car, and are told it is also a “car”. Over time you begin to discern patterns that help you differentiate between cars and other objects.

You gain an idea of what a car “is”. Then, when asked to draw a picture of a car, you can synthesise all your knowledge to do so.

Many AI image generators produce images through what is called “reverse diffusion”. In essence, they take the images they’ve been trained on and add “noise” to them until they are just a mix of pixels of random colour and brightness. They then continually decrease the amount of noise, until the correct image is displayed.

The process of creating an AI image begins with a text prompt by the user. The image generator then compares how the words in the prompt associate with its learning, and produces an image that satisfies the prompt. This image will be original, in that it won’t exist anywhere else.

If you’ve gone through this process, you’ll appreciate how difficult it can be to control the image that is produced.

Say you want your subject to be wearing a very specific style of jacket; you can prompt it as precisely as you like – but you may never get it perfect. The result will come down to how the model was trained and the dataset it was trained on.

We’ve seen early versions of the AI image generator Midjourney respond to prompts for “Indigenous Australians” with what appeared to be images of African tribespeople: essentially an amalgam of the “noble savage”.

Cultural flattening through AI

Now, consider that in the future, millions of people will be generating AI images from various generators. These may be used for teaching, promotional materials, advertisements, travel brochures, news articles and so on. Often, there will be little consequence if the images generated are “generic” in appearance.

But what if it was important for the image to accurately reflect what the creator was trying to represent?

In Australia, there are more than 250 Indigenous languages, each one specific to a particular place and people. For each of these groups, language is central to their identity, sense of belonging and empowerment.

It is a core element of their culture – just as much as their connection to a specific area of land, their kinship systems, spiritual beliefs, traditional stories, art, music, dance, laws, food practices and more.

But when an AI model is trained on images of Australian Indigenous peoples’ art, clothing, or artefacts, it isn’t also necessarily fed detailed information of which language group each image is associated with.

The result is “cultural flattening” through technology, wherein culture is made to appear more uniform and less diverse. In one example, we observed an AI image generator produce an image of what was mean to be an elderly First Nations man in a traditional Papuan headdress.

This is an example of technological colonialism, wherein tech corporations contribute to the homogenisation and/or misrepresentation of diverse Indigenous cultures.

We’ve also seen pictures of “Indigenous art” on stock footage websites that are clearly labelled as being produced by AI. How can these be sold as images of First Nations art if no First Nations person was involved in making them? Any connection to deep cultural knowledge and lived experience is completely absent.

Besides the obvious economic consequences for artists, long-term technological misrepresentation could also have adverse impacts on the self-perception of Indigenous individuals.

Read more:
Labelling ‘fake art’ isn’t enough. Australia needs to recognise and protect First Nations cultural and intellectual property

What can be done?

While there’s currently no simple solution, progress begins with discussion and engagement between AI companies, researchers, governments and Indigenous communities.

These collaborations should result in strategies for reclaiming visual narrative sovereignty. They may, for instance, implement ethical guidelines for AI image generation, or reconfigure AI training datasets to add nuance and specificity to Indigenous imagery.

At the same time, we’ll need to educate AI users about the risk of cultural flattening, and how to avoid it when representing Indigenous people, places, or art. This would require a coordinated approach involving educational institutions from kindergarten upwards, as well as the platforms that support AI image creation.

The future goal is, of course, the respectful representation of Indigenous cultures that are already fighting for survival in many other ways.

Glen Stasiuk received funding from Australian Research Council (ARC) in 2010 – project completed 2015

John McMullan 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. How AI images are ‘flattening’ Indigenous cultures – creating a new form of tech colonialism – https://theconversation.com/how-ai-images-are-flattening-indigenous-cultures-creating-a-new-form-of-tech-colonialism-246972

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Lavers (Métis Nation ᓲᐊᐧᐦᑫᔨᐤ), Lecturer in Ornithology, Charles Sturt University

We all know microplastics are bad for the environment and our health, but do we really know how bad?

Our new study, published this week in the journal Science Advances, compared changes in 745 proteins found in seabirds with and without plastics in their stomachs.

We focused on young sable shearwaters (seabirds, Ardenna carneipes). They were less than 90 days old and appeared healthy. Despite their young age, the birds with plastic in their stomachs had signs or symptoms of neurodegenerative disease, as well as kidney and liver disease.

We also found evidence of significant damage to the lining of the stomach, likely from microplastics that became embedded in the tissue. It meant proteins that should only be found in the stomach were detected circulating in the blood.

While our findings don’t directly relate to human health, this work paints a distinct picture of the insidious and slow impacts plastic can have on a bird’s health – even if it doesn’t kill them.

Harmful but not deadly?

Some studies have found health impacts of plastics (such as increased exposure to heavy metals), while others have not. Why is that?

An initial study looking at plastic exposure might start out by just looking at what’s known as a single response. This could be the condition of the animal’s body, for example.

While important, such studies don’t account for the diversity of conditions an animal could realistically experience. If you’ve recently been unwell, you might respond to a health test differently than if you were fully healthy. Birds will, too.

Recently, a handful of more in-depth studies have documented a range of plastic impacts on birds; these were harmful, but not severe enough to cause death. For example, birds that consumed plastic had higher cholesterol, were smaller and had shorter wings, and had plasticosis, an inflammatory condition that leads to scar tissue formation.

But consider a loved one with an invisible, chronic health condition. To a stranger they might appear healthy, but their quality of life is actually impacted by their condition. The same is true for birds and other wildlife.

Thankfully, we have more fine-grained tools at our disposal.

Studying proteins

Proteomics is the study of protein composition and regulation, and the role these play in the body. While commonly used in the medical field and other disciplines, omic technologies (including proteomics) are rarely used in wildlife studies.

Certain key proteins are well-known markers of disease. For example, we found low levels of a protein called albumin in the blood of birds with plastic. Having less albumin is a sign of poor liver function.

Birds with plastic also had less of a protein called brain-derived neurotrophic factor. This protein plays a crucial role in the growth and survival of neurons (nerve cells), including those involved in the development of the birds’ ability to recognise each others’ song.

Our results suggest while not all birds die from plastics exposure, they may have health issues and suffer from reduced cognitive functions, including those needed for courtship (such as song). This may make it more difficult for them to successfully find mates and produce chicks.

Many of the health impacts from plastic exposure have been documented beyond the point of exposure – that is, the stomach. While our findings revealed notable damage to the stomach lining, changes have now been reported in liver, kidneys, spleen and brain of these chicks.

This suggests ingested plastic can have wide-ranging, potentially whole body consequences, and we’ve barely scratched the surface.

We must listen closely

It’s important to remember that all the worrying health impacts we found via protein analysis were documented in very young birds that were seemingly healthy.

So what does this mean for other wild species that haven’t yet benefited from proteomics analysis or other in-depth studies? Could these findings change our understanding of how microplastic exposure affects human health? This is a task for future research, but it’s not an easy one.

The reality is, we may never have comparable data for most of the world’s wild species. For our lab alone, it’s taken a decade of laying the groundwork to understand the complexity of this problem in a single bird species, one that’s relatively accessible and easy to work with.

For humans, we may never be able to put a number on the impact of plastics because of the huge array of personal, environmental and social determinants of health.

So, there’s a lot we can learn from these birds. As a society, it’s in our best interest to listen to the story they’re trying to tell us.

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge research collaborator Alexander Bond from the Natural History Museum, UK.

Jennifer Lavers (Métis Nation ᓲᐊᐧᐦᑫᔨᐤ) receives funding from Detached Cultural Organisation and Pure Ocean Fund.

Alix de Jersey receives funding from Pure Ocean Fund, Holsworth Wildlife Endowment, the Natural History Museum, and Detached Cultural Organisation.

Jack Rivers Auty receives funding from The Pure Ocean Fund, Holsworth Wildlife Endowment, The Natural History Museum Science Investment Fund, and Detatched Cultural Organisation.

– ref. World-first analysis of seabirds who’ve eaten plastic reveals slow, insidious health impacts – https://theconversation.com/world-first-analysis-of-seabirds-whove-eaten-plastic-reveals-slow-insidious-health-impacts-222893

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Plum, Senior Research Fellow, Auckland University of Technology

Trans and non-binary people in New Zealand and elsewhere can be the targets of harmful rhetoric and violence.

Recent research found one in five trans and non-binary people in New Zealand were threatened with physical violence in the past four years.

Globally, trans and non-binary people still struggle to gain legal recognition. In the United States, their identities and rights are being actively eroded.

But we still don’t know a lot about the economic, employment and financial experiences of this community. Recent legal changes around how gender is administratively recorded in New Zealand may change this, however.

Our new research uses the growing body of data from a wide range of government agencies to look at the economic outcomes for people belonging to the trans and non-binary community – in particular in terms of employment and wage gaps.

The results should be a source of some concern for this already marginalised group.

Identifying the community

Our study focused on transgender individuals whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth, as well as those who do not identify as exclusively male or exclusively female. Different terms exist for this group, such as non-binary, transgender person of another gender, or gender-diverse.

Under the previous Labour government, New Zealand took steps to recognise people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. For example, the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021 introduced a new self-identification process for amending the sex on birth certificates.

And since 2013, Waka Kotahi (the New Zealand Transport Agency) has allowed people to define the gender they identify with on their driver license application.

We used data from the Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI), a database hosted by Stats New Zealand. The IDI uses data from agencies such as the Department of Internal Affairs, NZTA and Inland Revenue.

Stats NZ identifies and links the same individuals across different data sets using a particular characteristics (for example, name and birth date). Each person is then assigned a unique identifier.

To identify transgender and non-binary people, we used two datasets. The first was birth records, which contain assigned sex at birth. The second was self-reported gender in driver license applications.

We compared the driver license gender with birth-record sex to identify cisgender people (those whose birth record sex matches their driver license gender), transgender people (those whose birth record sex does not match their driver license gender which is either male or female), and gender-diverse people (those whose driver license gender is gender diverse).

Our research then mapped out socio-demographic characteristics of transgender and gender diverse people compared to cisgender people.

Measuring the gaps

Looking at the data, we found transgender and gender-diverse people were, on average, younger, less likely to be married or have children, and more often living in major urban areas when compared to cisgender people.

In addition, a substantially higher share of gender-minority people are prescribed medication for anxiety or depression.

Using various datasets from the IDI, we used empirical models to estimate two different economic outcomes for the period April 2022 to March 2023.

The first measured whether someone was categorised as “not in employment, education or training” (NEET). Our second indicator looked at differences in earnings from wages and salary.

We found individuals who identified as gender-minority were significantly less likely to be in employment, training or education compared to cisgender people. Transgender women and gender-diverse individuals were 10-12 percentage points more likely to be NEET than similarly situated cisgender men.

These trends also extended to earnings. Gender-diverse people earned around 60% less than cisgender men – in part due to less stable employment patterns.

Our findings overlap with results reported in overseas, which also show transgender earnings gaps.

More research to come

Our study has limitations, of course. For example, it relies on data from those who have driver licences, which can vary by age or location. In 2018, rural residents aged 25-64 had higher full-licence rates (88%) compared to their urban counterparts (77%).

Moreover, not all transgender and gender-diverse people change their gender when applying for or renewing their driver license.

But the 2023 Census questionnaires on sexual orientation, gender identity and variation of sex characteristics presents the opportunity to learn more and establish a much needed, robust evidence base about this population.

The authors thank Tabby Besley, Managing Director at InsideOUT Kōaro, for her feedback.

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

– ref. Trans and non-binary New Zealanders earn less and are more likely to be unemployed – new study – https://theconversation.com/trans-and-non-binary-new-zealanders-earn-less-and-are-more-likely-to-be-unemployed-new-study-247341

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

Anthony Albanese didn’t mince words in responding to Donald Trump’s refusal to grant Australia an exemption from the United States’ tariff on aluminium and steel. “This is not a friendly act,” the prime minister declared bluntly.

It’s hard to think when an Australian government has used such strong language about the United States.

The not-unexpected decision is less important for itself – we only export $800 million-plus worth of aluminium and steel annually to the US – than for its wider implications and portends. These are economic and political, but how far reaching they’ll be is near-impossible to predict.

Australia could be hit by future tariffs Trump has in mind. More generally, if the American tariffs trigger an international trade war, that will have serious fallout for us.

An even more basic question is: will the realignment the Trump administration is bringing to the US’s international outlook lead to a weakening in the Australian-American relationship?

There are differing views on how Australia should handle Trump.

One approach suggests assuming (or hoping) the Australia-US relationship is so grounded in common interest, military ties and history that things will return to normal after a few disruptive years.

Another view says we must accept the US is becoming an unreliable partner and that, while its national interest might mean it would come to Australia’s aid if needed, we have less reason than before to assume it would do so. On this view, Australia has to put aside the old “great and powerful friends” mindset and understand it is likely to be much more on its own than it has previously thought.

Crossbencher Jacqui Lambie says, “America is no longer a reliable ally – hopefully that will change, but in the meantime we can’t keep assuming that America has our back, Trump clearly doesn’t have anyone’s back except his own”.

Similarly, there are varying opinions on how an Australian government should approach the Trump administration. Some argue, don’t poke the bear. Others say, stand up to a bully.

Albanese started by attempting an accommodating stance. He said he wouldn’t provide a running commentary on the president’s statements. He emphasised the positives from his February phone call with Trump, in which he argued the case for an Australian exemption and Trump said he would consider it.

The softly-softly line was not surprising when Australia was hoping for a carve out. But having found the special Australia-US relationship doesn’t make us “special”, now Albanese and his government are not pulling their punches, at least in their rhetoric. Albanese said the tariff rebuff was “against the spirit of our two nations’ enduring friendship”. Industry Minister Ed Husic went a lot further: “Let’s call a spade a spade. I think this is a dog act after over a century of friendship.”

Wisely, the government won’t retaliate with reciprocal tariffs, which it rightly says would only be self-defeating, hurting Australian consumers.

The government insists it will fight on for the exemption but success is surely unlikely (with the caveat nothing is certain with Trump).

In the difficult economic times looming, Australia will need where possible to team up with friends. Lowy Institute’s lead economist Roland Rajah points to potential opportunities to work with like-minded countries, including the Europeans, Japan and Canada for common interests. He notes Australia’s collaboration with other nations during Trump’s first term to push for a Trans-Pacific trade agreement after the US pulled out.

The Coalition immediately jumped on the US rebuff to argue it showed Albanese’s weakness, highlighted by the PM being unable to obtain another call with Trump.

“I want to make sure that we’re a government that can deal with our trading partners effectively and clearly the prime minister hasn’t been able to do this,” Peter Dutton said.

Dutton points to the Coalition’s success in getting an exemption under Trump Mark 1. It’s a more convenient than convincing argument. Joe Hockey, who was ambassador, reported how unhappy American officials were with that carve out. Given the universality of this tariff, there is no evidence there was any way of avoiding it.

Trade Minister Don Farrell is likely right in saying the administration probably decided from the start against exemptions.

When pressed on how the Coalition would have dealt with the issue, Dutton said: “We would have looked at a more comprehensive trade deal with the United States, I think in relation to the civil nuclear industry, in relation to rare earths and critical minerals. There is an enormous play for us in that space.”

Dutton is presumably putting this forward as what the Coalition, if elected in May, would pitch to the Americans.

The longer-term response from either side of politics to the Trump administration on key issues is not clear.

How would the Albanese government deal with US pressure to lift defence spending more or faster than the present plan of taking it from about 2% of GDP to around 2.4% by 2033-34?

Former Labor defence minister Kim Beazley told The Australian, “we do have to bear in mind what Trump’s saying and the others are saying. We have to up our spending to 3, 3.5%”.

We don’t know how high the Coalition would push defence spending. It is committed to an increase beyond Labor’s, but is yet to provide detail.

Malcolm Turnbull, in a frank character assessment of Trump this week, sent a megaphone message that Australia must stand up to him.

Turnbull spelled out a shocking truth about Trump. “It appears the more dependent you are on the United States, the closer you are to the United States, the more he feels he can extract value from you […] stand over you, extort you.”

International affairs expert James Curran, professor of modern history at the University of Sydney, was amazed at the strength of Albanese’s “not a friendly act” words. Curran describes it as a “gross overreaction”, given that so many countries will be subject to Trump’s tariffs. He says there are far bigger issues at stake in the relationship.

Curran doesn’t believe the Australian-American relationship will be seriously undermined by the Trump administration – although things will be “rattled and unsettled for a while” – because it is “so thick and deep”. But, he says, “forget the sentiment and talk of mateship, because they don’t count with the president”.

“With Trump, “you have to find a middle path, between poking him in the eye and getting down on your knees.”

Not an easy brief, for whomever forms the next government.

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: tariff rebuff feeds into debate about how Australia handles Donald Trump – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-tariff-rebuff-feeds-into-debate-about-how-australia-handles-donald-trump-251624

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

The publication by the Newcastle Herald of a political advertisement by Clive Palmer’s Trumpet of Patriots party stating “there are only two genders – male and female” has provoked a backlash that has seen the advertisement removed from the paper’s online edition.

The publisher, Australian Community Media, has apologised for printing it in the first place, and a scheduled appearance of the ad in The Age has been cancelled.

This raises a question about freedom of speech, particularly political speech.

There are three reasons why this advertisement does not deserve the protection of the free-speech principle.

The first is that it is factually wrong. The second is that it attacks people for an attribute of birth, and the third is that it is unjustifiably harmful, being calculated to arouse prejudice for political gain.

It is factually wrong because there are people in the community who are trans or gender-diverse. The Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne has a Gender Service clinic to assist children and adolescents in this situation. It states on its website that being trans or gender-diverse is seen as part of the natural spectrum of human diversity.

The clinic’s website also draws attention to the risk of harm to these often vulnerable young people. It states that they experience considerably higher rates of depression, anxiety, self-harm and attempted suicide compared with their cisgender peers because of their experiences of stigma, discrimination, social exclusion, bullying and harassment.

More generally, the British philosopher A. C. Grayling has developed a scheme for assessing harm arising from prejudice against people on the grounds of certain attributes.

In his scheme, he identifies what he calls attributes of birth: race, nationality, skin colour, gender, sexual orientation and disability among them. This provides valuable guidance about the attributes that deserve the most robust protection.

It is not necessary for the editor of a newspaper to be familiar with any of this in order to see that an advertisement of the kind published in the Newcastle Herald was totally indefensible. All that had to be done was to substitute race or skin colour for gender and ask: would we publish such an advertisement?

On top of that, since 1984 Australia has had a Sex Discrimination Act, the latest iteration of which makes it an offence to discriminate against a person on the grounds of gender identity or intersex status, making it clear that these are protected attributes under the law.

Australian Community Media said it has checks in place for political advertising, “but on this occasion the process failed and the advertisement was not reviewed before publication”.

The obvious question is, why not? Even at face value the advertisement is factually wrong as a matter of general knowledge, which would be as good a starting point as any for making a decision about whether to publish it.

The ad goes on to say: “We must stop confusing children in schools. Give them a safe and normal environment to grow and develop in and let them decide who they are when they become adults.”

This is the purest humbug. It pretends to stand for the protection of all children from “confusion”, while exposing some children to the risk of serious harm.

Nor can the ad be defended as a statement of opinion. It is unambiguously purporting to be a statement of fact.

At The Age, journalists reportedly wrote a formal letter of complaint to management after discovering the same ad was booked for the front page of that paper on Wednesday March 12.

However, The Age and News Corp newspapers have published other Palmer ads that have aroused indignation. On March 7, the front page of the Age carried an ad that read: “We don’t need to be welcomed to our own country.” On March 11 the front page ad said: “Too much immigration destroys infrastructure.”

Race is clearly an undertone in both of these, but they are directed at practices and policies, not at people’s personal attributes. In this way, they are categorically different from the ad about gender.

In no civilised country is the right of free speech absolute, although political speech enjoys a high degree of protection.

The point at which, by convention as well as law, democracies draw the line at free speech is the point where the speech does harm to others.

These limitations are derived from the harm principle developed by that champion of free speech, John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty. It remains a relevant standard even in the coarsened political atmosphere in which we live.

The fact that certain views may arouse indignation or even anger in others is not on its own a ground for suppressing them. Where unjustifiable harm is done, however, the law and ethics step in.

Denis Muller 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. Newspapers cannot justify running Clive Palmer’s Trumpet of Patriots ads as freedom of speech – https://theconversation.com/newspapers-cannot-justify-running-clive-palmers-trumpet-of-patriots-ads-as-freedom-of-speech-252024

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

The 2022 election catapulted a new movement into Australian federal politics, with the election of six “teals”. The teals are part of a broader wave of “community independents” who are challenging the major parties, especially the Liberals and appealing to voters who want politics done differently.

As the 2025 election draws close, the Community Independents Project, which was founded in 2021 to support the grass root independents, will not only seek to retain the gains made but to increase the representation in the lower house.

We are joined on the podcast by the executive director of the Community Independents Project, Tina Jackson, who was a key figure behind Zali Steggall’s successful campaign against Tony Abbott in Warringah. Steggall was a forerunner of the teals.

On what makes a “community candidate” different from other Independents like Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Tasmania) or Dai Le, (Fowler, NSW) Jackson explains,

What distinguishes a community independent is that they’re selected by their communities through a grassroots process. It’s […] ground-up and not top-down. So communities decide they want better representation.

They listen to their communities. For example, they hold kitchen table conversations to find out what matters to them, their values and their issues, and then they search for a candidate that represents those issues and values. They run selection processes, then select and campaign for their chosen candidate. So every community has their own tweaks on this community-before-candidate theme, but at its heart, this bottom-up approach is what defines a community independent.

On the kind of issues these independents might be campaigning on now that the “Morrison” factor is gone, Jackson says each campaign will decide what issues to tackle, and a lot of the issues from the 2022 campaign aren’t going away,

The issues are not always the same. The need for climate action hasn’t gone away nor has the issue of integrity in politics nor equality. […] The community independents are already pursuing action on these in parliament. Concerns around cost of living obviously have grown [and] is going to be a much bigger issue this election.

In regional areas, they will be driven by their particular issues – might be education, might be health, local infrastructure and so on, and all of the community independents will be reflecting those issues and values that they’re told about by their communities. The other thing to say is there might not be the Morrison factor, but there is concern about Trumpian politics coming to Australia and there is a real sense that democracy is fragile and that we need to do everything to protect it. I think that is another layer this time around.

Jackson nominates three candidates she is most hopeful about and how they are challenging the notions of safe seats,

There are a lot of really exciting campaigns, but there are three in particular that I think [are] worth keeping an eye on. So one is Caz Heise in Cowper, and that’s in the mid-north coast of New South Wales around Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour. The second one is Alex Dyson in Wannon in rural southwest Victoria. And [there is] Nicolette Boele in Bradfield in Sydney’s north.

These three, I think, are three in particular to watch. But if I could also add, no matter how many community independents win, communities have already won by being engaged in the political process, they’re making their seats marginal and there’s now no such thing as a safe seat.

While funding from Climate 200 remains a strong asset for the group, Jackson says it’s the “people power” that helps the most,

Well, it’s important to clarify […] that Climate 200 is a crowdfunding platform, and they have around 35,000 donors, and [Simon Holmes à Court’s] contribution is relatively small. So it’s Climate 200, not Simon, that helps fund campaigns. But Climate 200 is only one source of funding, and [in] reality, the campaigns need to raise a huge amount themselves, and they raise that directly.

There are also other funding sources like the Regional Voices Fund for regional campaigns. Cash is important because there are hard costs like signs and tee-shirts and flyers and so on. But what really drives the movement is the volunteers. It’s their time and their talent, not the cash. The value of the human capital behind the movement, it really is immense. So I’m not trying to underestimate the funding, because funding is, of course, important, but the real driving force behind the movement are the tens of thousands of volunteers. So without this people power, campaigns simply would not get off the ground, let alone succeed.

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: Tina Jackson on the independents to watch this election – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-tina-jackson-on-the-independents-to-watch-this-election-252022

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa Toohey, Professor of Law, UNSW Sydney

“Unjustified” and “not the way that friends and allies should be treated”. That’s how Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong have described the latest shot in United States President Trump’s trade war.

Effective today, there is a 25% tariff on all imports of steel and aluminium into the US – including on Australian products.

Australia’s direct economic hit will be relatively small – less than A$1 billion of steel and aluminium was exported to the US in 2023, according to data from UN Comtrade.

But the tariffs pose a more fundamental challenge to Australia’s trade strategy and how we manage key alliances in an era of resurgent protectionism.

No longer a hypothetical

Trump’s plan was announced in February, but Australia was hoping to negotiate an exemption, as in the previous Trump administration. They have not been successful.

This development shifts analysis from hypothetical to immediate. Steel and aluminium exports to the US represent just a tiny fraction – 0.2% – of Australia’s total exports, so experts expect the impact will not be widely felt.

Australia’s few ageing aluminium smelters pose no threat to the US’ aluminium producers, contrary to claims from US trade adviser Peter Navarro.

Steel is slightly different. Bluescope Steel will experience the biggest direct hit. It exports around 300,000 tonnes of semi-processed steel annually to the US. It will now be subject to tariffs.

While BlueScope is Australia’s largest single exporter of steel to the US, it also has a plant in Ohio that employs 4,000 workers and will see some initial short-term benefits from the tariffs that will hike up the price of Canadian steel imports.

In the long term, however, tariffs are an “own goal” in the trade game. Data from tariffs in the last Trump presidency have demonstrated their limited impact on generating jobs and negative effects on domestic industries that rely on these inputs.

Ripple effects

The next challenge for Australian steel and aluminium exporters, as well as their upstream and downstream counterparts, is how to navigate the uncertainty in global markets, as global supply chains adjust.

China may increase exports of cheaper steel and aluminium to Australia, putting further pressure on local producers, and potentially sparking further anti-dumping investigations.

The 12,000 Australian companies that export to the US will be asking “what will be the next target?”

More than 40% of Australia’s high-tech engines, 50% of aircraft and space parts and almost 60% of machine tools are sent to the US. These industries are at significant risk.

It’s also a worry for services suppliers, who export $6.2 billion worth of professional and other services each year. Australia’s largest exports to the US are financial services, gold, meat, transportation services and vaccines.

Many more exporters are watching anxiously in case these tariffs spark a global trade war and Australia is caught in the crossfire. The overnight tariff skirmish between Canada and the US shows the dangers of escalation.

Read more:
What’s a trade war?

We’re not going tit-for-tat

The absence of Australian steel and aluminium from the US Trade Representative’s 2024 report on trade barriers highlights the arbitrary nature of this decision. Australian steel and aluminium have never been viewed as a threat to the US until now. They are inconsistent with the agreed tariffs between the two countries.

The Australian government might consider whether to bring a dispute to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), but due to the dismantling of its appeal body (also at the hands of the US), the WTO is currently something of a toothless tiger.

Australia’s commitment to (mostly) free trade means the government will refrain from imposing reciprocal tariffs on the US. This rationale makes sense: even reasonable retaliatory measures would be unlikely to protect Australian interests and instead merely escalate tensions.

While it’s cold comfort to affected Australian businesses, experts agree that Trump’s tariffs will become an “own goal” for the US, with prices certain to rise, causing additional pain for consumers and producers alike. Financial markets are already showing stress.

Damaging to the alliance

The failure to secure an exemption despite Australia’s strategic alliance with the US sends a concerning signal about how the US values its Australian relationship. Public support for the US alliance weakens in the face of apparent bullying and flouting of international rules.

What emerges is a trust deficit that extends beyond government relations to public sentiment. Many Australians may begin questioning whether the “special relationship” with the US delivers tangible benefits during times of economic tension.

Under the latest Trump administration, Australia has suffered a serious decline in trust that the US would act responsibly in the world, according to polls from the Lowy Institute.

In 2024, the same poll showed that an astounding 92% of Australians view political instability in the US as an “important” or “critical” threat to Australia’s vital interests.

Rethinking relations

Trump’s tariffs test Australia’s ability to balance different facets of its relationship with the US – security, cultural and economic interests.

It also raises questions about how Australia can best navigate an increasingly unpredictable global trade environment where traditional alliances provide less economic loyalty than they once did.

These tariffs are more than just a tax on specific materials. They are a timely reminder to Australian businesses of the importance of market diversification. But it also shows that the current US administration has thrown out the rule book. For at least the next four years, it is nothing like business as usual.

Lisa Toohey receives funding from the Australian Government for a research project on Weaponised Trade, funded under the Defence Strategic Research Grants Program.

– ref. With Australian steel and aluminium set to incur US tariffs, global uncertainty will be our next challenge – https://theconversation.com/with-australian-steel-and-aluminium-set-to-incur-us-tariffs-global-uncertainty-will-be-our-next-challenge-252021

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Whiteford, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

Over the past two years, there has been some progress in improving the JobSeeker payment. But payment levels remain below the poverty line.

That’s according to Australia’s Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee’s 2025 report, released this week a fortnight ahead of the federal budget on March 25. This committee advises the Federal Government on ways to enhance economic inclusion and reduce disadvantage.

The committee is chaired by former Labor minister Jenny Macklin. It comprises experts in social security and economics, as well as leaders from the community sector, advocacy organisations, unions, business, and philanthropy. I am one of its members.

This year’s report focuses on the adequacy of supports, including JobSeeker payments, Commonwealth Rent Assistance and Remote Area Allowance. It also looks at how systems could be reformed.

The report makes ten recommendations. Of these, the highest priority is for the government to substantially increase the base rates of JobSeeker and related working age payments.

Doing so could deliver big economic and social benefits. Research shows a possible return to society of $1.24 for every dollar invested in increasing the JobSeeker rate.

A wide range of voices

In forming its ten recommendations for 2025, the committee consulted with a wide range of people with lived experience of economic exclusion and the social security system.

This spanned groups across a wide variety of backgrounds and circumstances, including people experiencing homelessness or unemployment, those living with a chronic condition or disability, and women who have experienced domestic violence.

We also commissioned research on some important questions. These included the benefits of increasing income support payments, how much money it costs to support healthy living, how to address family and domestic violence, and other impacts and costs of poverty in Australia.

An investment in society

For this year’s report, the committee commissioned research from economics consulting firm Mandala to put a dollar figure on the possible social and economic returns from increasing the JobSeeker payment.

This research was the first of its type produced for Australia, and found society could earn a return of $1.24 for every dollar invested in increasing the JobSeeker rate.

This is because increasing the adequacy of JobSeeker payment would boost our national economic output through improved mental health, higher productivity and longer working lives.

It would also lead to decreased use of the healthcare system, and reduce levels of contact with the criminal justice system.

The cost of living

Further research by the University of New South Wales assessed levels of income support payments against “budget standards”.

These budget standards reflect the amount of money a family needs to purchase the goods and services required to enjoy an acceptable and healthy standard of living.

Researchers found single private renters in capital cities would need an increase of nearly 45% in total payments to cover their costs.

Single public renters in Fitzroy Crossing, a very remote town in Western Australia, would need an increase in support of nearly 67% to cover the extra costs of food and transport.

Other impacts of poverty

Other research examined the impact and costs of poverty to Australia. Some disturbing facts were uncovered.

Department of Social Services data show that despite two increases in Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) since 2023, more than 200,000 of the 1.35 million recipients of CRA in December 2024 were paying more than half their income in rent.

People receiving JobSeeker are 14 times more likely to lack a substantial meal at least once a day.

And analysis by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows that people receiving JobSeeker are significantly more likely to die by suicide than the general Australian population.

International comparison

Despite recent increases, Australia remains near the bottom of OECD advanced economic nations when it comes to the adequacy of out-of-work payments for the short-term unemployed.

We rank better for the long-term unemployed. But as a percentage of median household disposable income (adjusted for household size), our benefits have fallen by more than any other of 24 high-income OECD countries.

The JobSeeker payment, and related income supports, have mainly been indexed in line with the consumer price index (CPI).

This has caused their relative base rates to fall significantly below existing benchmarks like the Age Pension, creating severe hardship for our neediest citizens.

Increasing JobSeeker and other payments would improve the lives of Australians in poverty. There would also be big benefits for health and productivity, with flow-on effects for our national economy.

Addressing family and domestic violence

Family and domestic violence is a major health, economic, and welfare issue in Australia.

The committee commissioned research by Social Ventures Australia and Professor Roslyn Russell on the effect government payments have on a victim-survivor’s decision to leave a violent relationship.

The research found 45% of wage earners permanently leave a violent partner the first time they try to leave. But among those receiving income support, this figure falls to 26%.

Many victim-survivors do not access government emergency financial support payments when leaving a violent relationship.

The research shows how elements of the system’s current design and delivery create barriers for victim-survivors to access and maintain an income at a time of crisis.

The committee found making it easier for survivors of family and domestic violence to interact with the social security payments system should be a priority.

Peter Whiteford receives funding from the Australian Research Council, and has received funding from the Department of Social Services. He is a member of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. The Hon. Jenny Macklin AC is the Chair of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee and an Honorary Enterprise Professor of Social and Political Science at the University of Melbourne. She was Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (2007–2013) and Minister for Disability Reform (2011–2013).

– ref. Despite recent increases, JobSeeker still leaves people below the poverty line. Here’s why that affects us all – https://theconversation.com/despite-recent-increases-jobseeker-still-leaves-people-below-the-poverty-line-heres-why-that-affects-us-all-251915

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hunter Bennett, Lecturer in Exercise Science, University of South Australia

Ice baths have become increasingly popular over the past few years. Fitness enthusiasts and casual exercisers around the world are embracing this trend that was once reserved for elite athletes.

Ice baths (also known as “cold water immersion”) are exactly what they sound like. They involve immersing your body in cold water for a set amount of time.

Ice bath temperatures typically range from 10–15°C, though many people opt for water that’s literally icy.

Social media is filled with videos of people plunging into freezing water, claiming this helps with everything from recovery after exercise to mental health.

But do ice baths live up to the hype? Here’s what the evidence says.

Ice baths for recovery after exercise

One of the main reasons people use ice baths is to reduce muscle soreness and improve recovery after exercise. Athletes, including endurance runners, weightlifters and football players, commonly use ice baths.

And there’s plenty of evidence to suggest ice baths can improve recovery after exercise.

Research shows having an ice bath immediately after a bout of intense exercise can reduce muscle soreness in the following hours and days. Ice baths have also been shown to help with recovery in areas including muscle strength, power and flexibility.

Ice baths do this by reducing post-exercise inflammation, muscle swelling, and muscle damage, while improving the clearance of metabolites, such as lactate.

So, if you are someone who needs to perform bouts of intense exercise on back-to-back days, ice baths could be a good option.

But they shouldn’t be used all the time, even if you are an athlete.

As mentioned above, one of the ways ice baths work is by reducing inflammation in the muscle tissue that occurs after exercise. While this helps muscle recovery, this inflammation also acts as a signal that tells the body to adapt and become stronger.

For this reason, using ice baths too often (that is, after most training sessions) may blunt training-related increases in strength, endurance and power, as well as muscle growth.

Notably, ice baths don’t seem to harm aerobic fitness. This means you might be OK to use them as often as you want after aerobic training sessions.

Ice baths and general health

More recently, ice baths have gained traction in the broader fitness and wellness communities. Proponents suggest they can enhance mental health, immune function, and overall wellbeing.

But the research in this space is sparse.

We recently did a systematic review examining all the published research looking at ice baths and health outcomes in the general population (rather than athletes).

We found only 11 studies, some of which used cold showers instead of ice baths. The evidence suggested regular cold water immersion might lead to small reductions in stress, small improvements in sleep quality and self-reported quality of life, and might reduce how often people get sick (such as with a cold or the flu).

However, many of these findings came from single studies, so they should be interpreted with caution until more research is conducted. Also, we didn’t explore how ice baths (and cold showers) may have caused these effects, so we don’t know exactly how they work.

Are there any risks?

While there isn’t any research examining the dangers of ice baths at a population level, there are some possible risks.

In rare instances cold water immersion has been shown to lead to cold shock. This condition is caused by a rapid fall in skin temperature and can lead to gasping, hyperventilation, high blood pressure, and, infrequently, cardiac arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat), which can be fatal if not treated quickly.

There’s also some evidence to suggest staying in an ice bath too long (more than 30 minutes) can increase the risk of hypothermia, which is when body temperature falls dangerously low.

5 tips if you’re thinking of trying an ice bath

If you’re considering trying ice baths, there are a few things worth keeping in mind.

1. Don’t go too cold: Even though the word “ice” is in the name, most research has shown that 10–15°C is cold enough to optimise their effectiveness.

2. Don’t stay in too long: Ice bath durations vary quite broadly in the research, with some lasting as little as three minutes, and others as long as 30.

However, the most common range is 10–20 minutes, which seems to be more than enough to get any health and post-exercise benefits. So if you’re new to ice baths, starting with around 10 minutes total, broken up into 3–5-minute bouts, is a good place to start.

3. Enter slowly: Your stress response peaks in the first 30 seconds of cold water immersion, before fading away. To minimise your chance of getting severe cold shock, wait for this response to disappear before immersing your upper chest and face in the water (or even better, keep your face out of the water at all times).

4. Monitor how you’re feeling: Pay attention to how you’re feeling in the ice bath. While shivering is normal, dizziness or numbness might be a sign you should hop out.

5. Use them strategically: If you’re training to improve muscle strength, power, or size, consider using ice baths sparingly, rather than as a daily routine.

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

– ref. Ice baths are popular for exercise recovery and general wellness. But what does the science say? – https://theconversation.com/ice-baths-are-popular-for-exercise-recovery-and-general-wellness-but-what-does-the-science-say-250649

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Austin, Senior Lecturer in Theatre, The University of Melbourne

Set in 2042, new play The Robot Dog revolves around Janelle (Kristie Nguy), of Cantonese heritage, and her partner Harry (Ari Maza Long), a First Nations man.

Janelle’s mother, Wing Lam (Jing-Xuan Chan as a ghostly apparition), has recently passed. Janelle and Harry have temporarily moved back to Wing Lam’s home to finalise her belongings and reckon with her tragic death.

Part and parcel of the home is a robot dog called Dog (depicted by a real robot dog trundling around the stage), a therapy bot designed to be of service to humans, and an artificial intelligence (AI) smart house interface called Hus. Hus knows an alarming amount of information about the residents and is resolute at attempting to keep them on track with their daily tasks and responsibilities.

These two technological beings are in tension throughout. Hus works to maintain timelines and productivity (and offers inane daily motivational quotes); Dog seeks to understand the complexities humans experience in the face of grief and loss, despite his programming.

Part of the outstanding Asia TOPA Festival, which has transformed Melbourne’s cultural landscape into a vibrant and eclectic stage of storytelling and celebration, Melbourne Theatre Company’s education show The Robot Dog is co-written by Hong Kong born interdisciplinary artist Roshelle Yee Pui Fong and Luritja writer and technologist Matthew Ngamurarri Heffernan.

Through the vehicle of a family drama, the play emphasises the value of embodied knowledge and how this can never be replaced by artificial intelligence and technology.

Measuring values

The notion of robotic pets as a strategy for providing company and care for those who live alone or are elderly is not just a future imagining. It is a contemporary reality designed to battle an epidemic of isolation and loneliness.

Dog represents the best of AI with his aim to help the humans in his life. He appears to listen and learn from humans, evolving his emotional repertoire. Hus, on the other hand, represents the idea of AI as an omniscient and omnipresent being, wielding knowledge as power.

Both Hus and Dog are voiced by Chan in a masterclass performance of embodied knowledge, showcasing how nuanced vocal characterisation can create great emotion and context.

In the wake of her mother’s death, Janelle is struggling with complex emotions of anger, grief and disconnection. Her sense of cultural alienation seems compounded by the remnants of her mother’s life around her.

She finds herself frustrated at not being able to read the ingredients on a bag of salty Cantonese pork floss. She is again frustrated when the true value of her mother’s red Cheongsam cannot be calculated by the AI technology: Hus describes it as a mixture of polyester and mould, instead of understanding the garment as an invaluable material representation of her mother and her story.

To counter this feeling of disconnection, Hus encourages Janelle to use the “language augment” microchip that gives you instant fluency in your chosen language.

Eventually, in her frustration, she does. She becomes immediately able to read and speak the Cantonese language. But, of course, this approach has shortcomings. Some forms of knowledge cannot be passed down through the soulless automation of AI. They exist as spiritual, tactile and embodied understandings of equal and significant value.

Likewise, Harry ignores many calls from his mother because she speaks so fast in Language. He feels shame that he cannot keep up.

He experiences racial profiling in his workplace and uses the language augment to support his application for promotion, framing the idea of language acquisition as an economic benefit – rather than a personal reclamation of culture and belonging.

Intersecting cultures

The story moves through complex territory navigating cultural disorientation, systemic racism, dystopian AI futures and the ghosts and ancestors of our pasts.

At the centre of many narrative threads and ideas is a blending of two distinct cultures we don’t often see interwoven in this way. This intersection of Cantonese and First Nations Australians comes sharply and hilariously into focus in a debate about whose culture lays claim to the blue, red and white checkered plastic “Hong Kong/Blakfulla” bags that all Janelle’s mothers earthly belongings have been packed away in.

Reflecting the many intersecting complexities in the play, the bags function as a symbol of cultural tension and of grief, most notably when Harry attempts to “clean up” with little regard for what may be important to Janelle.

The Robot Dog is a frank look at a possible future relationship between humans and AI, suggesting we are unlikely candidates for easy programming and will resist subordination to the pulse and rhythm of technological apparatus.

At the core of the play is a proverb, a key line of text from the show, “to forget one’s ancestors is to be a brook without a source, a tree without roots”.

Perhaps this suggests we may respond and adapt to new technological possibilities in our environment, but we remain anchored to ancient wisdom which exists in places that technology may never be able to reach.

The Robot Dog is at the Melbourne Theatre Company’s Southbank Theatre until March 21, before touring to Ballarat and Mildura.

Sarah Austin works for the University of Melbourne, and the Melbourne Theatre Company is a department of the University.

– ref. New play The Robot Dog reminds us there are some knowledges we hold that AI will never have – https://theconversation.com/new-play-the-robot-dog-reminds-us-there-are-some-knowledges-we-hold-that-ai-will-never-have-251714

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Davies, Adjunct Professor of Disaster Risk and Resilience, University of Canterbury

The 2019 volcanic explosion on Whakaari/White Island, which killed 22 people touring the crater and severely injured 25, is one of New Zealand’s worst disasters.

But an even more devastating catastrophe could happen at one of New Zealand’s most iconic tourism destinations, Piopiotahi/Milford Sound. And it is unclear how this disaster can be prevented.

The outcome of the Whakaari tragedy was that tourism on the island ceased immediately. The risk of tourism-related deaths there was considered too high to be acceptable to New Zealand society.

This is also clear from the inquiry and prosecutions that followed the tragedy and the civil law suits initiated on behalf of those killed or injured.

Our new analysis backs this up. We estimate the risk to life on Whakaari in 2019 was more than a hundred times greater than international risk acceptability criteria used to calculate tolerable risk levels from natural hazards.

Our research also estimates the statistical risk of tourism-related fatalities at Milford Sound to be about 50 times higher than at Whakaari.

This is because an earthquake-generated landslide can fall into the sound and turn it into a violent, long-lasting maelstrom of waves up to 17 metres high. This would devastate the shoreline and any vessels present, including cruise ships.

Our hazard estimate is based on the 16 landslide deposits of more than a million cubic metres that lie on the bed of Milford Sound. All of these must have fallen since the sound became ice-free about 17,000 years ago.

The number of visitors (more than a million per year) and employees exposed to this hazard means that, on average, such an event could kill about 750 people every 1,000 years (based on visitor numbers at 2019 levels). Obviously, this would be catastrophic.

The consequences of this catastrophe would be much more severe and far-reaching than the Whakaari tragedy because of the large number of likely fatalities. Also, any cruise ships, with thousands on board, would be severely affected, perhaps even sunk.

An unpredictable, unpreventable disaster

Currently New Zealand has no specific regulations governing the degree of risk to which tourists may legitimately be exposed. But there is widespread international agreement that the maximum level of societally acceptable risk to life from natural hazards at a site is about one death per 10,000 years.

The occurrence of an earthquake-triggered landslide tsunami at Milford Sound cannot be predicted in advance. Nor can preventive measures ameliorate it.

The only warning would be the earthquake itself, giving people, at most, about seven minutes before the tsunami waves arrived. Because the wave run-up onto the shore would be about 100 metres high, escape would be impossible.

The only way to mitigate this catastrophe is to reduce the number of people exposed to the risk to about 1,000 per year, which in effect means closing Milford Sound to mass tourism.

This would, however, be an extremely contentious measure because of the international status of Milford Sound as part of a UNESCO world heritage area under New Zealand government auspices, and because the catastrophe might not occur for many centuries.

Stopping tourism has been the chosen solution at Whakaari. But the much smaller scale of the tourist operations there, and the correspondingly lower national impact of closure, contrast starkly with the Milford situation.

The alternative strategy at Milford would be for New Zealand society to collectively decide to accept the risk that, at any time in the future, hundreds of tourists could be killed. Beyond that, there would be the corresponding impacts on tourism and New Zealand’s reputation.

However, if we know a landslide-triggered tsunami at Milford Sound has the potential to kill hundreds of people and cause severe damage, the risk to life ought to be grossly unacceptable and only manageable by abandoning mass tourism at the site. These are the choices we face.

Tim Davies received funding from MBIE via GNS Science as part of the Resilience to Nature’s Challenges research programmes from 2014 to 2024.

– ref. Devastating landslides have hit Milford Sound in the past – if it happened today, the impact would dwarf Whakaari/White Island – https://theconversation.com/devastating-landslides-have-hit-milford-sound-in-the-past-if-it-happened-today-the-impact-would-dwarf-whakaari-white-island-251700

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dylan Hicks, Lecturer Active Communities & Social Impact / PhD Sports Biomechanics, Flinders University

For decades, sport coaching has been built on the idea that there is one correct way to perform a skill.

This has often been referred to as a gold standard technique that every athlete should replicate.

Whether it is basketball players trying to shoot like Steph Curry or Caitlin Clark or a runner attempting to sprint like Noah Lyles, aspiring athletes have generally been encouraged to copy the techniques of their heroes.

But research in biomechanics and motor learning suggests this approach may be misguided.

Is there an ‘optimal’ technique?

Traditional coaching has lent on the work of sports biomechanists to discover the “optimal” technique for skills in various sport disciplines.

These techniques, usually developed based on “averages” of what elite level athletes do, are used by sport coaches as the template against which all other athletes are measured.

That is, if we can replicate the technique of a higher-performing athlete, success will follow.

However, this approach ignores a crucial reality: no two athletes are built the same.

Every athlete has unique physical characteristics. Whether it is hand size, limb length, physical strength, running gait or neuromuscular coordination, they all contribute to how an athlete expresses their individual “movement signature”.

Forcing athletes to copy the technical features of the best athlete in the world may be unachievable.

The quick release, high arc shooting style of Curry has turned him into the leading three-point shooter in NBA history. But it is his unique expression of movement and his individual technique that allows him to knock them down from the logo (near half-way).

Yet, other long-range sharpshooters such as Luka Dončić (LA Lakers) and Kevin Durant (Phoenix Suns) have their own variation of shooting technique, which achieves the same thing: putting the ball in the basket.

If we forced them both to shoot like Curry, this variation would likely detract from their techniques and their shooting performance would almost certainly decline.

Variability is important

It is the “variability” in technique at the elite level of sport where the myth of a single optimal technique begins to unravel.

Many coaches have traditionally viewed deviations from what is considered optimal technique as an error, but researchers suggest movement variability – a concept that explains the natural changes in technique – is a normal part of skilled performance.

So, if elite athletes display a natural variation performing the same skill, even after years of training, why do we encourage our aspiring athletes to eliminate it?

And this variability is not exclusive to basketball.

For example, in sprinting, the top speed technique of Lyles, the Olympic 100m champion, is built on a powerful piston action of the legs and aggressive arm drive, which differs to that of rising Australian sprint star Gout Gout, whose technique relies on a more fluid stride pattern where he almost appears to be bouncing down the track.

The variation in Gout’s technique compared to that of Lyles’ is not a flaw, but a unique solution to the same movement challenge: maximising speed.

Read more:
‘Pressure makes diamonds’: how Australian sprint sensation Gout Gout can get even faster

Interestingly, a recent systematic review suggests movement variability is essential for athletes who need to adapt their existing technique to different environments or physiological conditions such as fatigue.

Consider a recent “buzzer-beater” by Curry, where he wrapped the ball behind his back before swishing a fade-away basket.

This is not a technique which has been engineered by focusing on what’s deemed optimal. It is exploiting the variability which lies within the athlete’s possible solutions.

If there is only one optimal technique in this situation, the highlight reel never emerges.

Lessons for coaches and athletes

So, what is the way forward for sport coaches?

Encourage athletes to explore a variety of techniques and discover what works best for them, based on their unique characteristics.

But it also relies on the coach placing the athlete in situations where they can be creative and expand their movement bandwidth.

This is not to say coaches should let athletes perform a series of random movements and expect good technique to just happen.

There remain key performance indicators for all skills which adhere to biomechanical principles of efficient and effective movement.

But these indicators sit on a continuum – they are not fixed.

Elite sport simply offers insight into the techniques of top performers, not a defining set of movement criteria essential to specific sport skills.

For sport coaches, the goal is not to develop athletes based on a rigid technical model of one size fits all, but rather for athletes to develop a technique that aligns with their own strengths and physical characteristics.

So the next time someone says “just shoot it like Steph or Catilin”, reconsider it and find a way to shoot it how it feels best.

This is where true mastery begins.

Dylan Hicks 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. ‘Shoot it like Steph’: why young athletes shouldn’t try to copy the world’s best – https://theconversation.com/shoot-it-like-steph-why-young-athletes-shouldnt-try-to-copy-the-worlds-best-250619

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Raquel Peel, Research Supervisor, University of Technology Sydney, Adjunct Senior Lecturer, University of Southern Queensland and Senior Lecturer, University of Notre Dame Australia

Some friendships outlast romantic connections and can prove to be more meaningful. Friends help us get through day-to-day challenges and make the tough stuff more bearable. For older people, a close circle of friends is associated with living longer.

But having close friends can also involve conflict and even break-ups. Breaking up with a friend can be as devastating as breaking up with an intimate partner.

For most of us, friendship is the first close relationship we will form outside of the home environment. Learning to communicate and manage conflict with friends starts in childhood, and shapes our personal and social development, as well as our self-esteem.

So how can deal with conflict in adult friendships in a healthy way? And how do you know if it’s time to call quits on the friendship?

How is conflict different in friendships?

Relationships with friends are often seen as needing less work to maintain than other kinds of relationships. They might be less structured than work relationships and less involved than romantic relationships. The dynamic of our friendships is often very different to how we relate to work colleagues and romantic partners.

Some of the characteristics we display with friends might be also very different to how we behave with others. Male friendships, for example, often involve using insults to show a close bond. For some people, it can be difficult to transition to a relationship where you can be yourself, be vulnerable and have difficult conversations.

Having these deeper conversations with friends means conveying concern, empathy and solidarity. Again, this might look different than in other relationships, especially among men, who often opt for a direct approach when communicating with friends. A direct approach is a way of showing concern, but might sound like an interrogation.

It’s also important to be able to regulate our emotions. This means being able to recognise, manage and respond to your own emotions (such as anger or envy), allowing you to de-escalate situations and avoid conflicts getting out of hand. Research has shown people with better emotional regulation tend to be more popular, have more friends and are more successful maintaining long-term friendships.

Are you ready to forgive?

If you’ve been fighting with a friend and want to repair the relationship, you will need to be open to forgiveness. This will help restore connection, security, happiness and meaning in your relationship.

But people’s willingness to forgive differs across gender and personality types, with some being more willing to forgive than others.

Our willingness to forgive will also depend on how we perceive the issue. Active transgressions (such as physical altercations, insults, lies and gossip) are often perceived as more severe and harder to forgive than passive transgressions (such as failing to act by not apologising).

However, if an interaction with a friend has left you feeling mistreated (physically or emotionally), consider what you are willing to stand for or let go. Weighing-up if the value of the friendship warrants the work to maintain it can be very difficult.

In some cases, conflict might be a result of you outgrowing the friendship. Letting the connection go might be better for your mental health.

I want to repair my relationship with my friend. But how?

Before you repair a relationship, you first need to acknowledge your own feelings, your friend’s experience, and how the interaction has affected the relationship.

When bringing up your grievances with a friend, initiate a conversation about the issue with honesty, discuss the issue in context and find a way forward together, using these core tenets:

Connection

Intimacy in friendships means having honest conversations and spending quality time together. Ask your friends real questions and give them honest advice. With a foundation of open communication, you can solve disagreements and differences when they arise.

Communication

Forming authentic friendships involves taking risks and feeling vulnerable.

Express your own feelings and views using “I feel like” statements rather than blaming the other person with “you do this” or “think that” statements. Instead, show empathy and acknowledge your friend’s perspective.

Forgiveness

When you’re ready, asking for and granting forgiveness can be a powerful way to reconnect. You can do this verbally or non-verbally, such as with a hug.

But try not to negotiate conditions (“I will forgive you when…”). This might be a sign you’re not ready yet.

Boundaries

If a friendship is hurting you, affecting your wellbeing and functioning, it may be beyond repair. Feeling physically unsafe or being subject to verbal abuse or manipulation are signs of victimisation, not healthy conflict. Consider creating distance and seeking support elsewhere from people you can trust.

Raquel Peel 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. Does conflict with friends make you squirm? Doing it right might make the relationship stronger – https://theconversation.com/does-conflict-with-friends-make-you-squirm-doing-it-right-might-make-the-relationship-stronger-248884

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

Australia has failed to win an exemption from Donald Trump’s 25% tariffs on aluminium and steel, but the government has vowed to fight on for a carve out.

The White House spokeswoman, Karoline Leavitt, told Australian media in Washington “there will be no exemptions” from the tariffs, which come into effect imminently. Pressed on why, she said “America First steel”.

She said, “If they want to be exempted, they should consider moving steel manufacturing here”.

Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles said the government would continue to lobby for an exemption. He pointed out it had taken the Coalition government many months to win a carve out from tariffs under the first Trump administration.

“Tariffs don’t make any sense, it’s an act of kind of economic self harm. We’ll be able to find other markets for our steel and our aluminium and we have been diversifying those markets. But we’re obviously really disappointed with this.

“I would say, though, we’ll keep advocating to the United States on this issue. Last time around it was nine months before we got an exemption in relation to steel and aluminium out of the Trump administration in its first term. So, we’ll keep pressing the case, we’ll keep diversifying our own trade. But look, there’s no hiding this, we’re really disappointed with this decision.”

Opposition deputy leader Sussan Ley said the government “just hasn’t done enough”.

“All of the other leaders of the Quad and AUKUS, Japan, India, the UK, travelled to the US, and they had face-to-face meetings, and they did what they needed to do. They advocated fiercely in their country’s interests, but this prime minister has been nowhere to be seen.”

But given no exemptions are being provided, a personal trip by the Albanese would likely have had little effect. The PM made the case for an exemption to the president in a call some weeks ago. In that conversation Trump indicated he would consider Australia’s case, but the government quickly became pessimistic about the administration giving it a special deal.

BlueScope, while expressing disappointment, saw one silver lining. “BlueScope produces more than 3 million tonnes of steel per annum at its NorthStar BlueScope plant in Delta, Ohio. As the US tariffs come into effect the company expects to see the positive impact from an improvement in steel prices.”

Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull this week predicted Trump would shy away from exemptions this time around. While some observers said Turnbull’s broad attack on Trump, whom he called a bully, could work against Australia’s lobbying, it almost certainly was irrelevant, given all representations were rejected.

The Australian concern is less the direct impact of the tariffs – our exports of steel and aluminium to the US are limited – but the fallout from an international trade war that could be sparked by Trump’s policies.

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. Australia – like everyone else – fails to win exemption from Trump’s tariffs on aluminium and steel – https://theconversation.com/australia-like-everyone-else-fails-to-win-exemption-from-trumps-tariffs-on-aluminium-and-steel-251623

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Tookey, Professor of Construction Management, Auckland University of Technology

New Zealand is struggling to stay ahead of its vital infrastructure needs, and the numbers show it.

The New Zealand Infrastructure Commission recently identified NZ$204 billion of required infrastructural spend, most of which is currently unfunded. At the same time, the nation’s debt-to-GDP ratio hit an all-time high of 44.4% in September 2024.

That’s not as eye-wateringly high as the United States (124%), the UK (101%) or Japan (216.3%) – but it’s bad enough at a time when crucial infrastructure spending is overdue.

The government wants to reduce that debt ratio to within the 20-40% range. Simultaneously, however, the coalition government is committed to income and possibly corporate tax cuts.

Some might label this a form of cognitive dissonance: high investment and growth, with low taxes and spending. But in the meantime, New Zealanders can look forward to possible solutions being presented at this week’s Infrastructure Investment Summit, a central plank in the government’s “going for growth” plan.

The aspiration is to attract crucial infrastructure investment from overseas wealth funds to leverage local economic and employment growth. The mostly Asia-Pacific investors attending manage funds collectively worth trillions – although convincing them to spend will be harder than inviting them to the summit.

Public-private partnerships revisited

Central to the desired outcomes will be public-private partnerships (PPPs). These generally consist of consortia of funders, builders, designers and managers which construct and operate public infrastructure.

For investing in asset construction and operation, funders receive guaranteed revenue from user payments, such as road and bridge tolls or school and hospital fees. The infrastructure can then operate on rolling service contracts, or transfer to public ownership after a fixed term (commonly 25 years).

In theory, infrastructure is built, government borrowing is minimised and public services improve. In reality, PPPs try to offset capital expenditure (borrowings) against operational expenditure, thus lowering the initial debt burden but extending the terms. In effect, a hire-purchase agreement for infrastructure.

These schemes have been popular for infrastructure investment across much of the developed world since the 1990s. But increasing reliance on PPPs has also been linked to disruption in the construction sector and serious questions about value for taxpayer money.

For all that, and given the parlous state of its infrastructure, New Zealand must find ways to fund major improvements to roads, rail, sanitation, drainage and housing.

The country will also need to combat a looming deficit of skilled professionals. As Engineering New Zealand noted in February, the current construction slowdown has led to a serious decline in qualified engineers.

What investors want

With the effects of climate change already being felt in the 21st century, much basic infrastructure still reflects its 19th century origins. Indeed, New Zealand has long suffered from lags between aspiration and investment.

For example, the Public Health Acts of 1848 and 1875 instigated substantial investment in mains water and sewerage infrastructure. Yet “night soil” removal remained commonplace into the 20th century – right up to the 1960s in Auckland.

Even now, Auckland’s rapid growth has seen new housing developments outpace the delivery of basic mains sewerage systems. Given the city’s population is likely to grow by 700,000 in the next 25 years, it’s arguable the country is still going backwards.

However, as political commentator Matthew Hooton rightly noted last week, “investors don’t put money into countries but into projects”. To secure the kind of investment needed, that means projects that can demonstrate minimal risk and high revenues.

The government will open registrations of interest for the first stage of the Northland Expressway at this week’s summit. But other projects in the mix – defence force camps, prisons, court buildings – seem unlikely to meet the minimum size requirements for funders.

PPP investors are in the risk management business. Negotiations can be time-consuming, sometimes lasting years. Risks are costed into concept proposals and preliminary design.

The process, from negotiation to actual construction, can easily outlive a term of government. And there is always the temptation for subsequent governments to renegotiate the scope of a project and its costs.

But once performance requirements are set and signed off, nothing changes without additional and usually high cost increases. The recent fiasco around the Interislander ferry replacements demonstrates the challenges inherent in government procurement.

Projects that outlive governments

The prime minister will no doubt point enthusiastically to his government’s PPP framework having qualified Labour Party support. But investors will still see a three-year electoral cycle and its risks: a 25-year PPP could outlast five or more governments – what impact will this have?

Similarly, New Zealand’s earthquake-prone geology will affect calculations. How does a PPP in an earthquake zone factor in 25-plus years of seismic risk?

There has also been a tendency to focus on the acquisition costs of major infrastructure projects, but not the ongoing maintenance and depreciation costs. And relying on PPP funding has seen public institutions such as Britain’s National Health Service lumbered with massive interest charges from private contractors.

Looking ahead to this week’s summit, New Zealand will need to offer projects with serious scale to attract serious investment: flood defences, major public housing, water and drainage assets, another Auckland harbour crossing, significant road improvement and replacement.

Such proposals are on the table, in theory at least. The real question is whether New Zealanders are comfortable with the dynamics of long-term contracts with substantial service charges that will last decades.

Because today’s politicians will be writing contracts our grandchildren will still be bound by.

John Tookey 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. Hey big spenders: what foreign investors will really want from the infrastructure summit – https://theconversation.com/hey-big-spenders-what-foreign-investors-will-really-want-from-the-infrastructure-summit-251798

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Naomi Smith, Lecturer in Sociology, University of the Sunshine Coast

Last Monday, March 3, the Bureau of Meteorology warned residents of Queensland and New South Wales that Tropical Cyclone Alfred was coming their way. The storm was expected to hit the coast on Thursday or Friday.

By Wednesday, landfall was expected on Thursday night, and residents braced for impact. And then the waiting began.

The storm stalled, dithered and eventually weakened before reaching land early on Saturday morning. But alongside punishing winds, rain and flooding, another kind of damage spread during the long wait: conspiracy theories and misinformation were rife on social media.

They were part of a growing worldwide trend. As climate change ramps up, extreme weather proliferates and trust in authorities declines. Every large natural disaster triggers a wave of conspiracy theorising.

Suspicions of ‘weather modification’

The most persistent theme among the conspiracy theorists is the idea that Cyclone Alfred was “geoengineered” – the result of human efforts to control weather or climate. “Weather modification is real,” one member of a Facebook community group ominously posted, linking to a site listing patents for geoengineering.

The post argued that the position of the cyclone as far south as Brisbane was due to deliberate human intervention.

Of course, tropical cyclones have crossed the coast of southeast Queensland before – and as recently as 2019 one came very close.

However, it is true that human activity may have played an indirect role in Cyclone Alfred’s behaviour. As the Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience has noted, human-driven global warming means cyclones are likely to move farther south more often.

The spectre of geoengineering

What is geoengineering exactly? Among climate experts, the word is often used to describe proposed actions to mitigate climate change, such as adding tiny particles to the upper atmosphere to reflect away sunlight or attempting to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

However, in conspiracy theories, geoengineering is more likely to refer to supposed secretive attempts to directly control weather. Like many conspiracy theories, these ideas often contain elements of the real and the fantastical.

A common element of the Cyclone Alfred theory (and others like it) is that the storm was created by the High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP). This project, originally created by the United States military and now at the University of Alaska, studies auroras by transmitting radio waves into a layer of Earth’s atmosphere called the ionosphere.

Though HAARP is real, there is no evidence that radio waves can create a weather event. Weather forms much closer to the ground, in a layer of the atmosphere called the troposphere.

Another theory claimed that Cyclone Alfred was the result of cloud seeding. This is the practice of “seeding” the atmosphere with tiny particles that trigger the formation of rain clouds under the right conditions. Cloud seeding has really been attempted, but the jury is out on how effective it is.

However, triggering some rain is quite different to creating a cyclone or changing the path of one. Experts say these are impossible, mainly due to the amount of energy it would take to produce and then control a cyclone’s path.

Despite the lack of scientific support for these theories, the seemingly endless wait between preparation and impact gave plenty of time for people to spread misinformation and conspiracy theories on social media.

This led some to declare the cyclone a “media beat-up”, or a fever dream based on media lies. It was, they claimed, “just like covid” – the government and media were conspiring to induce people to give up their freedoms.

A growing problem

Misinformation around natural disasters and climate change is a growing problem.

Last October in the US, Hurricane Milton hit Florida and caused catastrophic flooding in Georgia and South Carolina. Online conspiracy theories suggested Milton too was “seeded” or engineered. Social media was flooded with AI-generated clips and out-of-date media.

In January, the Los Angeles wildfires also saw disinformation, conspiracy theories and faked images run wild.

Unmoderated content

The problem of climate-related misinformation is getting worse. Last year, when the United Nations recommended urgent action to combat misinformation and disinformation, climate change was one key area of focus.

As online misinformation and conspiracy theories rise, social media companies such as Meta (owner of Facebook, Instagram and Threads) and X (formerly Twitter) are withdrawing from active content moderation strategies. Instead, they are shifting the burden onto users through community-driven fact checking.

The problem of misinformation is particularly pronounced in community groups on Facebook. These groups may have thousands of members and often only loose moderation.

In times of disaster, people flock to social media. Community groups and pages are important sources of help, information and reassurance.

However, they are increasingly becoming sources of misinformation and conspiracy theories intermingled with genuine information and sound advice.

Why conspiracy theories?

Why are we so compelled by misinformation and conspiracy theories?

Climate change is unpredictable, and is creating more intense weather events than before. In the face of such uncertainty it may be easier to retreat to the clear narratives offered by conspiracy theories.

If a cyclone was created by the government, it has a clear cause. Those affected have a clear place to direct their fear, frustration and anxiety.

What can be done?

There is plenty governments and social media platforms can do to combat the spread of misinformation, if they have the desire to do so. But the everyday user should be cautious.

In times of disaster, seek out trusted sources of information. Remember that nature is unpredictable and advice can and will change. Community groups can be excellent places for practical support, but they are not filled with experts.

Latching on to a conspiracy theory may feel good. It can create a clean-cut world of heroes and villains.

However, spreading these theories online does demonstrable harm. It limits our capacity to prepare for and respond to disaster events. What’s more, it erodes our trust in governments, and sometimes each other.

Naomi Smith 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 conspiracy theories and misinformation spread in the long wait for Cyclone Alfred – https://theconversation.com/why-conspiracy-theories-and-misinformation-spread-in-the-long-wait-for-cyclone-alfred-251899

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

Shortly after the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, the new government led by rebel leader Ahmed al-Sharaa pledged to unite Syrians and establish a “civil peace” in the country.

In recent days, this fragile peace has been tested. Late last week, clashes broke out between government security forces and the remnants of pro-Assad militias in the former president’s stronghold of Latakia province on the northwestern coast. More than 1,000 people were killed, mostly civilians.

In a positive sign, a major deal was struck on Monday between the government and another armed faction, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) of the semi-autonomous Kurdish region in northeastern Syria. The SDF has agreed to integrate all of its forces and institutions with the central government in Damascus.

Yet, the threat of more violence in the fractured country remains. This raises serious doubts about whether al-Sharaa’s vision can become a reality.

What caused the recent violence?

The unrest in Latakia was sparked by an ambush attack by pro-Assad gunmen against government security forces (composed primarily of former rebel fighters) last Thursday. This reignited old wounds from Syria’s 13-year civil war, triggering the deadliest violence since the fall of al-Assad in December.

According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, at least 1,068 civilians were killed in the violence – mostly members of the Alawite minority (a sect of Shiite Islam), as well as some Christians.

The United Nations said it had received “extremely disturbing” reports of entire families being killed, including children.

Many members of Assad’s family and his former regime’s high-ranking officials belong to the Alawite minority. Tensions have persisted between these Assad loyalists and the new government, which is dominated by Sunni factions with a history of jihadist and anti-Shiite leanings.

The government said its operations against the pro-Assad forces had ended by Monday. Al-Sharaa also acknowledged that human rights violations had occurred and announced an investigation to identify those responsible.

However, he placed primary blame on the pro-Assad groups for instigating the violence. While defending the crackdown overall, he stressed that security forces should not “exaggerate in their response”.

Following the violence, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed solidarity with Syria’s religious and ethnic minorities, calling on the interim government to hold the perpetrators accountable.

The European Union, which recently eased some restrictions on Syria to support an “inclusive political transition”, also condemned the violence.

Transitional justice is key

In a diverse and deeply divided country like Syria, the decades of dictatorship eroded national identity and fueled sectarian conflict. This is why a comprehensive process of transitional justice is essential.

Such a process would help bridge the divisions between different ethnic and religious communities. This would foster national unity, while respecting the unique identities of individual groups.

Although the new administration has emphasised the importance of social cohesion, its forces are accused of acting counter to this pledge and carrying out extrajudicial killings. Sectarian rhetoric from some pro-government figures has only further inflamed tensions.

Additionally, Alawites have faced increasing marginalisation, including dismissals from public employment, salary cuts and targeted persecutions.

These developments underscore Syria’s urgent need for an independent transitional justice committee. Without a structured approach to hold those accountable for crimes committed under the Assad regime and national reconciliation, the country risks replacing one cycle of repression with another. This will only deepen grievances, not heal them.

A well-designed justice process is crucial to help Syrians move beyond the trauma of the previous regime and build a stable, inclusive future.

Challenges to a united Syria

Amid the ongoing turmoil, the recent agreement signed between the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and al-Sharaa’s government has raised hopes the country may still have a chance to maintain its unity and avoid fragmentation.

However, the details of how the SDF forces will be integrated remain unclear. Will the Kurds finally achieve their long-held demand for semi-autonomy within a federal state? Or will this integration mark the end of their aspirations?

The situation is equally complex for the Alawites and Druze communities in the western and southern regions of Syria, given they have two powerful regional forces backing them.

Israel has made significant inroads in the Druze areas of southern Syria, offering to defend the Druze if necessary. Similarly, Iran continues to support the Alawites, with its leadership predicting an uprising against the new Syrian regime.

These dynamics present serious obstacles to Syria’s unity. In such a polarised environment, a federal system may be the last viable option to preserve the country’s cohesion. However, if the new regime continues to reject this idea, the country risks fragmentation and undoubtedly more violence.

Ali Mamouri 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. After mass killings in Syria, can a fragmented country stay united? – https://theconversation.com/after-mass-killings-in-syria-can-a-fragmented-country-stay-united-251903

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Keiran Hardy, Associate Professor, Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University

The recent discovery of a caravan full of explosives in Dural, in Sydney’s northwest, caused significant fear about the possibility of a mass casualty attack.

On Monday, the Australian Federal Police declared it and 14 antisemitic attacks a “con job” by organised criminals who were trying to distract police or use it as a bargaining chip to influence prosecutions.

Following dawn raids, more than 140 charges have been laid, including for arson, possessing prohibited weapons, and destroying property – but not terrorism.

On radio, New South Wales Premier Chris Minns said the acts had “unleashed terror” that was very real for the Jewish community, despite revelations about the true motive.

Minns did not say the explosives and attacks would qualify legally as terrorism, but his comments raise an important question: can “fake” terrorism still be terrorism, especially if it causes significant fear?

Terrorism requires a political, religious or ideological cause

Australia’s legal definition of terrorism is found in the federal Criminal Code. It triggers many offences and it targets both conduct and threats – but these must all be done for the purpose of advancing a “political, religious or ideological cause”.

This motive requirement is the main element that distinguishes terrorism from crimes such as murder, assault and property damage.

It is the major barrier to prosecuting these acts as terrorism. The apparent motive was to benefit organised crime interests. It cannot be terrorism if it was not intended to advance a political, religious or ideological cause.

There is another requirement that terrorism be designed to intimidate part of the community (or a government), but this is additional to the motive requirement, and both need to be proven. If any single element in a prosecution fails, the defendant will be found not guilty.

This does not lessen the significant impacts on the Jewish community. It just explains why terrorism charges have not been laid.

What about hoax terrorism?

In addition to the main terrorism offences, there are offences for hoax terrorist acts. These were created in 2002 as part of Australia’s first legal responses to terrorism.

They were prompted by anthrax attacks and scares in the United States after the September 11 2001 attacks.

These do not rely on the definition of the terrorist act, so the motive requirement explained above need not be proven. However, they apply only in very specific cases, similar to copycat anthrax attacks, in which someone uses the postal service to induce a false belief that an article contains an explosive or dangerous substance (for example, if someone sends a letter containing harmless white powder with a threatening note).

A similar offence applies where someone uses a carriage service to make a hoax threat. This could apply if an organised criminal group phoned in a fake bomb threat.

This sounds quite similar to recent events, but the offence relates to the use of a carriage service to make a fake threat – not the discovery of real explosives.

This might seem a ridiculous conclusion: that the threat was actually not fake enough. If an organised criminal group phoned in a “genuinely fake” threat, they could have been prosecuted under federal terrorism laws, but not if they planted real explosives.

This is a product of trigger-response lawmaking in terrorism. The postal hoax laws were drafted in direct response to events in the US after 9/11, and the legacy remains.

In any case, the hoax offences do not attract any higher penalties than the ones being charged. In NSW, destroying or damaging property with fire attracts the same maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment.

Political and community needs

It is important to remember that police and prosecutors will make decisions to pursue specific charges based on the evidence available and the likelihood of a successful conviction for the highest penalty.

This will be based on their previous experience. If they believe they can secure a conviction for arson or property damage, but a case for terrorism or hoax terrorism might fail, they will prefer the charges with the higher chance of success.

As members of the wider community, we may wish to see different or additional charges laid, but we will not know all the evidence behind a decision to allege one crime or another.

Police and prosecutors are not infallible, but we can trust they will aim to secure the highest available penalty.

It is understandable that governments, the opposition and the wider community want clear statements and answers about whether a crime is terrorism or not. Unfortunately, this level of clarity is not always available.

In the midst of a crisis, such as the Sydney Lindt Cafe siege or Wieambilla ambush, it can be difficult to know all the circumstances that gave rise to the event, and an offender’s motivations.

In the aftermath, it can take months – even years, through major inquests and inquiries – for consensus to arise. Even then, views on whether a given act was terrorism may still differ.

The most definitive answer comes when a jury of 12 community members finds an offender guilty of terrorism beyond reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, this sort of clarity is not always possible, because the evidence available means a terrorism charge was not pursued, or an offender was killed in the attack.

It is rarely an urgent question for governments and communities to know whether organised crime activities will be prosecuted under one law or another, but terrorism provokes a special, understandable concern – especially in the current environment. It reflects valid community needs to denounce antisemitism as terrorism and achieve justice for victims.

But justice can be achieved regardless of the specific charges that police and prosecutors pursue. Better that they secure convictions, even for “lesser” crimes in the community’s eyes, than they seek terrorism charges and fail.

Keiran Hardy receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a Discovery Project on conspiracy extremism.

– ref. Is ‘fake’ terrorism still terrorism? Here’s what the Sydney caravan incident tells us – https://theconversation.com/is-fake-terrorism-still-terrorism-heres-what-the-sydney-caravan-incident-tells-us-251908

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Roger Jones, Professorial Research Fellow, Victoria University

Ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred is the latest in a succession of extreme rainfall events to wreak havoc on coastal communities in New South Wales and Queensland.

Over 500 kilometres of coastline has been affected, with extreme rainfall and flooding reaching inland to Lockyer Valley and the northern rivers of NSW.

This is a massive area, affecting hundreds of thousands of households, with tens of thousands of people stranded. Similar numbers of properties are likely to be damaged.

It’s only been three years since the same general region was affected by major flooding. Many people are still recovering. So, how exactly do we think about and measure the cost of such catastrophes? What lessons have been learnt, and how well are they being practised?

Read more:
More households than ever are under-insured. Here’s what needs to be done

The costs of catastrophes

It’s too early to make a comprehensive estimate of the costs of Alfred, as some impacts are continuing to unfold. But previous natural disasters offer us a framework for thinking about them.

The costs of natural disasters can be accounted for in different ways. Impact costs include social, financial, economic, environmental and cultural values.

These can be broken down further into direct, indirect and intangible costs. Intangible costs are things with value that do not contribute directly to the market economy.

An assessment of the 2022 Queensland floods, produced by Deloitte Access Economics for the Queensland Reconstruction Authority, estimated the total cost of impacts to be A$7.7 billion.

Tangible economic costs were estimated at $3.1 billion, and intangibles at $4.5 billion. Intangible losses included mortalities, injuries and long-term changes in health and welfare caused by the event.

Some costs are hard to measure

Not so long ago, economic estimates were restricted to direct losses on property and infrastructure, and lost income for individuals and businesses, so we’ve come a long way.

Even though estimates are becoming more sophisticated, they generally cover social, financial and economic impacts. Environmental and cultural losses are often less of a focus, unless they are closely linked to income.

If you ask people why they love living in a particular place, they’ll often say its because a location is special to them. That might be because of the relationships they have with neighbours or community activities they take part in.

These things aren’t featured in measures of economic activity, but they are a feature of people’s lives.

This raises the issue of marginal costs. When we only look at the dollar cost of damage, we can lose sight of how disproportionately it can impact the more vulnerable groups in society.

This includes those who rent, those with limited incomes, the elderly, those with limited mobility or long-term medical conditions (mental and physical), recent immigrants and marginalised groups in society, including traditional owners.

Lasting damage from a natural disaster can include things like loss of identity, a place to live, treasured possessions, loss of a loved animal or family breakdown.

Insurance only goes so far

Another way to assess the cost of a catastrophe is through an insurance lens – losses that are recoverable through insurance and those that are not covered.

The Insurance Council of Australia has become much more proactive in recent years, recognising that preparedness and prevention can minimise these losses.

But insuring against major catastrophes relies on reinsurance, policies purchased by insurance companies themselves to cover peak losses.

The federal government has also established its own Cyclone Reinsurance Pool with the aim of pushing down premiums for consumers.

Well-targeted relief can bring benefits. One study examining the response to the 2010–11 Queensland floods found the government’s post-disaster relief payments were effective in aiding economic recovery.

A new reality

The governance arrangements surrounding disasters in Australia – national plans for how to prepare, respond and recover – are rapidly evolving. This has been largely driven by the disasters themselves.

Disasters in Australia have historically been bad, but infrequent. Now they are occurring on an almost annual basis.

Some locations are more exposed than others, including northeast NSW and southeast Queensland. The economic cost of the 2010-11 Queensland floods was estimated to be equivalent to 5.2% of the state’s gross domestic product (GDP) in that year.

Losses will continue to mount as such events become more frequent and severe.

That means we need to look at the full economic picture of the catastrophe life cycle. For climate events, this means looking not only at what we spend on insurance, preparation, prevention and recovery, but also the money invested in fossil fuels and subsidies.

The Climate Council has projected that parts of Australia might become uninsurable by 2030. A recent report by Climate Valuation looks at high-end flood risk down to suburb and address level.

Such projections are almost certainly underestimated because the models that are used do not adequately predict how fast extreme events are changing.

People need relief now, but we cannot continue to finance our own destruction over the longer term.

Roger Jones 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. In the wake of Alfred, how do we think about and measure the cost of catastrophes? – https://theconversation.com/in-the-wake-of-alfred-how-do-we-think-about-and-measure-the-cost-of-catastrophes-251704

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tania King, Associate Professor in Social Epidemiology, The University of Melbourne

A freeze on aid entering the Gaza Strip, imposed by Israel last week, means once again tons of urgent medical supplies and medicines are stuck at the border, with delivery uncertain.

But supplies are only one part of the picture, and their usefulness is limited without trained health-care workers who know how to treat and care for patients.

Health-care workers are the most critical component of any health system. Despite being protected under international law, they have been killed and injured at alarming rates in Gaza since October 7 2023.

There is also growing evidence of inhumane treatment and abuse of health-care workers in Israeli detention. This has serious implications for the health of Palestinians, in both the short and long term.

What is the state of the health-care system?

The health system in the Gaza Strip is in ruins. The Israeli Defence force has carried out at least 670 attacks on health services and facilities since October 7 2023.

The most recent World Health Organization update in February reported only 50% of hospitals were partially functional, and 41% of primary health-care facilities (for example, general practice clinics and pharmacies) were functional.

The latest report by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine indicates only four out of the 22 health centres it runs are operational.

This widespread and systematic destruction of health infrastructure and equipment puts health professionals and their patients in immediate danger. Shortages of medical supplies and lack of reliable electricity and water make it harder for health-care workers to provide care.

What about health-care workers?

More than 1,000 health-care workers – including nurses, surgeons and other clinicians, paramedics, pharmacists and technicians – have been killed in Palestinian territories in the last 17 months, according to estimates by the United Nations and Palestinian monitoring group Healthcare Workers Watch.

In September last year, a UN inquiry found Israeli security forces have deliberately killed, wounded, arrested, detained, mistreated and tortured medical personnel and targeted medical vehicles.

The latest report from Healthcare Workers Watch documents 384 cases of unlawful detention of health-care workers in Palestine since the current war began, 339 of them from Gaza.

Of these, 96 have provided testimonies of inhumane treatment. At least 185 are known to remain in detention and 24 are missing after hospital invasions.

Physicians for Human Rights Israel and The Guardian have also documented testimonies of medical personnel released from Israeli detention. Many say they were detained while carrying out medical duties.

They report being subjected to interrogations without legal representation, medical neglect and starvation, abuse and torture.

One senior consultant surgeon, Dr Issam Abu Ajwa, told journalists from The Guardian and Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism he was arrested while performing surgery and then detained for months without charge.

He alleges prison guards were given instructions to deliberately damage his hands: “They said they wanted to make sure I could never return to work”.

The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) did not respond to the individual allegations but told The Guardian “suspects of terrorist activities” have been arrested and detained during fighting in the Gaza Strip. In a statement, the IDF said: “Those who are not involved in terrorist activity are released back to the Gaza Strip as soon as possible”.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk has said Israel’s claims hospitals are being used for military purposes are vague, unsubstantiated and “in some cases, they appear to be contradicted by publicly available information”.

What does this mean for people in Gaza?

Before October 7, Gaza’s health system was already unable to meet the needs of its population. The escalation of those needs due to the bombardment and reduced sanitation in a shattered health system is catastrophic.

Losing health-care workers – whether they are killed, injured or incarcerated – further depletes an overburdened system. As a result, ordinary people have reduced access to skilled and qualified personnel. And so do junior medical staff, meaning they miss out on opportunities to learn from the experience of senior staff.

All residents of Gaza, including health-care workers and their families, face serious threats to their health. A lack of adequate sanitation, nutritious food and safe water compounds other issues, such as increased risk of respiratory and diarrhoeal diseases, as well as complications during pregnancy and birth.

The UN estimates 50,000 women are currently pregnant in the Gaza Strip, with about 5,500 due to give birth in the next month. About 1,400 of these will require a caesarean section.

What about the long term?

Israel’s freeze on humanitarian aid, and the threat of resuming aerial bombardments, makes the planning and delivery of health services increasingly difficult.

In a population of 2.1 million there are large unmet needs from pre-existing conditions. The UN estimates 45,000 people in Gaza have heart disease, 650,000 have high blood pressure, more than 2,000 are diagnosed with cancer each year and more than 485,000 have mental illnesses.

Many more diseases will emerge in the aftermath of war. We have already seen a resurgence of polio in Gaza.

Without enough health staff, there is reduced capacity for public health surveillance and control – for example routine screening services and immunisation programs – and this increases the risk of disease outbreaks.

Health workers also play a vital role in training the next generation of health professionals. Disrupting this chain makes it harder to rebuild the health workforce and the health system more generally.

The impacts of war can’t simply be calculated in terms of fatalities, injuries and damaged health-care centres or facilities.

What’s also damaged is a shared commitment to humanitarian principles and the respect for human rights and international law.

Tania King receives funding from the Australian Research Council, National Health and Medical Research Council, Medical Research Future Fund, veski and Suicide Prevention Australia.

Fiona Stanley receives current National Health and Medical Research Council and Australian Research Council funding as a mentor not Chief Investigator. I am retired University Professor and Institute Director – now only Patron.

Guy Gillor is a Jewish-Israeli-Australian researcher and policy analyst that has advocated for justice and equal rights in his homeland of Palestine/ Israel from a young age, and is currently involved with a number of Jewish-Australian anti-war campaigns. Guy currently works as Manager of Strategy Policy and Research for an Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation.

Rob Moodie is affiliated with the Medical Association for the Prevention of War (MAPW – national councillor) and Quit Nukes. He has received funding from National Health and Medical Research Council.

Tilman Ruff is affiliated with International Physicians for the Prevention of War (board member), International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Australia (board member, co-representative to International Steering Group), Medical Association for Prevention of War (international councillor), Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons Scientific Network (member), Initiative for Peacebuilding, University of Melbourne (board member).

– ref. Health-care workers should not be a target. In Gaza, their detention and death affect the entire population – https://theconversation.com/health-care-workers-should-not-be-a-target-in-gaza-their-detention-and-death-affect-the-entire-population-251146