Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Arif Perdana, Associate Professor Digital Strategy and Data Science, Monash University

Imagine a future where your phone pings with a message that your dead father’s “digital immortal” bot is ready. This promise of chatting with a virtual version of your loved one – perhaps through a virtual reality (VR) headset – is like stepping into a sci-fi movie, both thrilling and a bit eerie.

As you interact with this digital dad, you find yourself on an emotional rollercoaster. You uncover secrets and stories you never knew, changing how you remember the real person.

This is not a distant, hypothetical scenario. The digital afterlife industry is rapidly evolving. Several companies promise to create virtual reconstructions of deceased individuals based on their digital footprints.

From artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots and virtual avatars to holograms, this technology offers a strange blend of comfort and disruption. It may pull us into deeply personal experiences that blur the lines between past and present, memory and reality.

As the digital afterlife industry grows, it raises significant ethical and emotional challenges. These include concerns about consent, privacy and the psychological impact on the living.

What is the digital afterlife industry?

VR and AI technologies are making virtual reconstructions of our loved ones possible. Companies in this niche industry use data from social media posts, emails, text messages and voice recordings to create digital personas that can interact with the living.

Although still niche, the number of players in the digital afterlife industry is growing.

HereAfter allows users to record stories and messages during their lifetime, which can then be accessed by loved ones posthumously. MyWishes offers the ability to send pre-scheduled messages after death, maintaining a presence in the lives of the living.

Hanson Robotics has created robotic busts that interact with people using the memories and personality traits of the deceased. Project December grants users access to so-called “deep AI” to engage in text-based conversations with those who have passed away.

Generative AI also plays a crucial role in the digital afterlife industry. These technologies enable the creation of highly realistic and interactive digital personas. But the high level of realism may blur the line between reality and simulation. This may enhance the user experience, but may also cause emotional and psychological distress.

A technology ripe for misuse

Digital afterlife technologies may aid the grieving process by offering continuity and connection with the deceased. Hearing a loved one’s voice or seeing their likeness may provide comfort and help process the loss.

For some of us, these digital immortals could be therapeutic tools. They may help us to preserve positive memories and feel close to loved ones even after they have passed away.

But for others, the emotional impact may be profoundly negative, exacerbating grief rather than alleviating it. AI recreations of loved ones have the potential to cause psychological harm if the bereaved ends up having unwanted interactions with them. It’s essentially being subjected to a “digital haunting”.

Other major issues and ethical concerns surrounding this tech include consent, autonomy and privacy.

For example, the deceased may not have agreed to their data being used for a “digital afterlife”.

There’s also the risk of misuse and data manipulation. Companies could exploit digital immortals for commercial gain, using them to advertise products or services. Digital personas could be altered to convey messages or behaviours the deceased would never have endorsed.

We need regulation

To address concerns around this quickly emerging industry, we need to update our legal frameworks. We need to address issues such as digital estate planning, who inherits the digital personas of the deceased, and digital memory ownership.

The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) recognises post-mortem privacy rights, but faces challenges in enforcement.

Social media platforms control deceased users’ data access, often against heirs’ wishes, with clauses like “no right of survivorship” complicating matters. Limited platform practices hinder the GDPR’s effectiveness. Comprehensive protection demands reevaluating contractual rules, aligning with human rights.

The digital afterlife industry offers comfort and memory preservation, but raises ethical and emotional concerns. Implementing thoughtful regulations and ethical guidelines can honour both the living and the dead, to ensure digital immortality enhances our humanity.

What can we do?

Researchers have recommended several ethical guidelines and regulations. Some recommendations include:

• obtaining informed and documented consent before creating digital personas from people before they die
• age restrictions to protect vulnerable groups
• clear disclaimers to ensure transparency
• and strong data privacy and security measures.

Drawing from ethical frameworks in archaeology, a 2018 study has suggested treating digital remains as integral to personhood, proposing regulations to ensure dignity, especially in re-creation services.

Dialogue between policymakers, industry and academics is crucial for developing ethical and regulatory solutions. Providers should also offer ways for users to respectfully terminate their interactions with digital personas.

Through careful, responsible development, we can create a future where digital afterlife technologies meaningfully and respectfully honour our loved ones.

As we navigate this brave new world, it is crucial to balance the benefits of staying connected with our loved ones against the potential risks and ethical dilemmas.

By doing so, we can make sure the digital afterlife industry develops in a way that respects the memory of the deceased and supports the emotional wellbeing of the living.

Arif Perdana 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. An eerie ‘digital afterlife’ is no longer science fiction. So how do we navigate the risks? – https://theconversation.com/an-eerie-digital-afterlife-is-no-longer-science-fiction-so-how-do-we-navigate-the-risks-231829

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charlotte Gupta, Senior postdoctoral research fellow, Appleton Institute, HealthWise research group, CQUniversity Australia

Imagine arriving at your hotel after a long flight and being greeted by your own personal sleep butler. They present you with a pillow menu and invite you to a sleep meditation session later that day.

You unpack in a room kitted with an AI-powered smart bed, blackout shades, blue light-blocking glasses and weighted blankets.

Holidays are traditionally for activities or sightseeing – eating Parisian pastry under the Eiffel tower, ice skating at New York City’s Rockefeller Centre, lying by the pool in Bali or sipping limoncello in Sicily. But “sleep tourism” offers vacations for the sole purpose of getting good sleep.

The emerging trend extends out of the global wellness tourism industry – reportedly worth more than US$800 billion globally (A$1.2 trillion) and expected to boom.

Luxurious sleep retreats and sleep suites at hotels are popping up all over the world for tourists to get some much-needed rest, relaxation and recovery. But do you really need to leave home for some shuteye?

Not getting enough

The rise of sleep tourism may be a sign of just how chronically sleep deprived we all are.

In Australia more than one-third of adults are not achieving the recommended 7–9 hours of sleep per night, and the estimated cost of this inadequate sleep is A$45 billion each year.

Inadequate sleep is linked to long-term health problems including poor mental health, heart disease, metabolic disease and deaths from any cause.

Can a fancy hotel give you a better sleep?

Many of the sleep services available in the sleep tourism industry aim to optimise the bedroom for sleep. This is a core component of sleep hygiene – a series of healthy sleep practices that facilitate good sleep including sleeping in a comfortable bedroom with a good mattress and pillow, sleeping in a quiet environment and relaxing before bed.

The more people follow sleep hygiene practices, the better their sleep quality and quantity.

When we are staying in a hotel we are also likely away from any stressors we encounter in everyday life (such as work pressure or caring responsibilities). And we’re away from potential nighttime disruptions to sleep we might experience at home (the construction work next door, restless pets, unsettled children). So regardless of the sleep features hotels offer, it is likely we will experience improved sleep when we are away.

What the science says about catching up on sleep

In the short-term, we can catch up on sleep. This can happen, for example, after a short night of sleep when our brain accumulates “sleep pressure”. This term describes how strong the biological drive for sleep is. More sleep pressure makes it easier to sleep the next night and to sleep for longer.

But while a longer sleep the next night can relieve the sleep pressure, it does not reverse the effects of the short sleep on our brain and body. Every night’s sleep is important for our body to recover and for our brain to process the events of that day. Spending a holiday “catching up” on sleep could help you feel more rested, but it is not a substitute for prioritising regular healthy sleep at home.

All good things, including holidays, must come to an end. Unfortunately the perks of sleep tourism may end too.

Our bodies do not like variability in the time of day that we sleep. The most common example of this is called “social jet lag”, where weekday sleep (getting up early to get to work or school) is vastly different to weekend sleep (late nights and sleep ins). This can result in a sleepy, grouchy start to the week on Monday. Sleep tourism may be similar, if you do not come back home with the intention to prioritise sleep.

So we should be mindful that as well as sleeping well on holiday, it is important to optimise conditions at home to get consistent, adequate sleep every night.

5 tips for having a sleep holiday at home

An AI-powered mattress and a sleep butler at home might be the dream. But these features are not the only way we can optimise our sleep environment and give ourselves the best chance to get a good night’s sleep. Here are five ideas to start the night right:

1. avoid bright artificial light in the evening (such as bright overhead lights, phones, laptops)

2. make your bed as comfortable as possible with fresh pillows and a supportive mattress

3. use black-out window coverings and maintain a cool room temperature for the ideal sleeping environment

4. establish an evening wind-down routine, such as a warm shower and reading a book before bed or even a “sleepy girl mocktail”

5. use consistency as the key to a good sleep routine. Aim for a similar bedtime and wake time – even on weekends.

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. ‘Sleep tourism’ promises the trip of your dreams. Beyond the hype plus 5 tips for a holiday at home – https://theconversation.com/sleep-tourism-promises-the-trip-of-your-dreams-beyond-the-hype-plus-5-tips-for-a-holiday-at-home-231718

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

With a federal election due by May 2025, few doubt it will be fought over the high cost of living, with emphasis on energy policy and the punishing effects of electricity prices. But the underlying condition of the economy will determine the salience of these arguments with voters.

In other words, the “climatic” or structural conditions of the economy – which are largely beyond the control of politicians – will help either to validate or to neutralise the charges of the various parties, be they government, opposition, Greens or independents.

This matters given the centrality of climate and energy policy. A campaign fought on those issues might be expected to benefit the Greens and the Teal independents – but the Coalition believes it can turn these issues into hip-pocket concerns.

The language of election campaigns

Consider this scenario. It is February 2025 and what has felt to ordinary folk like a recession has lingered for two years. Now, however, things are looking up and attention is turning to an imminent federal election campaign.

Who would be winning in the opinion polls? In all likelihood, this would turn on how long inflation had persisted and on whether its abatement had brought material interest rate relief in time for the election season-proper.

Even if we assume the inflation dragon has been tamed – brought below 3%. How swiftly and decisively would the Reserve Bank move to ease the mortgage and rent pressure on households and businesses? Cautious to a fault, the central bank would want to be sure that prices stabilisation was robust.

Let’s say rates did come down. Even improving conditions carry with them fresh memories of hardship – and perhaps, exaggerated fears of an economic relapse. As Frank Bongiorno has previously observed, John Howard’s scything rhetoric from opposition, ahead of his 1996 election win, is a case in point:

Howard’s quip from opposition in 1995 – that the recovering economy was “five minutes of economic sunlight” – was effective politics. But it was not supported by the new government’s own records, which referred to a “generally favourable outlook”.

The lesson here is that political messaging resonates when it feels right to voters – even if it is not technically correct.

Conditions are ripe for the Greens and Teals

Leaving the vagaries of prediction and the power of negative rhetoric to one side, what we can clearly observe at the halfway point of 2024 is that both sides – indeed all sides – claim they will be delighted if the election contest in 2025 centres on climate change.

Of course, they can’t all be right. Inevitably, the politico-climatic conditions will suit some political critiques more than others.

For Adam Bandt’s Greens party, which quadrupled its holdings in the House of Representatives at the 2022 election, climate policy and environmental protection is core business.

The Greens have seized the initiative on soaring rents – a pivotal issue for younger voters. And the party has sharply criticised the Albanese Labor government’s approval of new fossil fuel projects, claiming it leaves Labor’s renewable energy policy fatally compromised – akin to stepping on the emissions brake and the accelerator at the same time. Some, perhaps many, voters will agree.

And what of the Teal independents? In 2022, they received funding support from Simon Holmes a Court’s funding vehicle, Climate 200. Clamour for a rapid transition to renewable energy was central to the Teals’ identity, and therefore, to their attraction of votes. Their astonishing success in seizing solid inner-urban Liberal seats was specifically enabled by the Morrison Coalition’s climate policy shortcomings, among its multiple failings.

Labor also grasped the climate challenge in both hands, although its promised 43% cut to emissions by 2030 was deliberately less ambitious than the policy it proposed in 2019. Now there are doubts even this commitment will be met, raising prospects for the Greens and Teals.

Peter Dutton’s high-risk wager

And then there’s Peter Dutton’s Coalition. Dutton has boldly sought to claim a relationship between Labor’s existing green energy transition and high electricity prices – a relationship which is largely fictitious.

“I’m very happy for the election to be a referendum on energy,” Dutton said, while committing his party to a radical nuclear power policy that is both costly and potentially decades away.

Dutton contends his capital-intensive nuclear option would get Australia to net-zero emissions by 2050. But will voters buy his new green muscularity? And what about his own colleagues? Some Coalition MPs are privately eyeing their leader’s high-risk nuclear adventure with trepidation. One told me it is an “all or nothing bet, with the odds favouring nothing”.

Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull is less circumspect. Twice cut down by the right for his efforts to “green” the Liberal Party, Turnbull has slammed as delusional the proposal to bring seven state-owned and operated nuclear reactors online in 20 to 30 years. As he wrote for Guardian Australia:

The first episode of the climate wars was a tragedy, the second is an expensive and dangerous farce.

A fascinating contest

Even if the 2025 election race had not acquired this nuclear energy flashpoint, it would already be a fascinating contest. That’s because Dutton, like his predecessor Tony Abbott, has sought to frame the Labor-Green-Teals push to reduce emissions as the cause of high household electricity prices.

However effective this may be, Dutton’s determination to drag the Liberal-National parties further to the right has nonetheless raised hopes the Teals will not merely retain their seats in 2025, but potentially double them. To that end, Climate 200 intends to financially assist pro-climate community candidates in three Victorian seats (Casey, Monash, Wannon), two New South Wales seats (Cowper, Bradfield) and four Queensland seats (McPherson, Moncrief, Fisher, Fairfax).

This matters in the overall election outcome. Intentionally or otherwise, the Teals have become a “Swiss Guard” for Albanese, making it difficult for Dutton’s Coalition to reach the 76 seats it needs to form majority government.

Difficult, but not impossible. As always, the economic outlook, both real and perceived, will be pivotal.

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. Climate and energy have emerged as a federal election flashpoint. But unless the economy improves, will voters be listening? – https://theconversation.com/climate-and-energy-have-emerged-as-a-federal-election-flashpoint-but-unless-the-economy-improves-will-voters-be-listening-232903

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Victor Gambarini, PhD Student in Marine Science, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Marine plastic pollution is a massive environmental issue, with a plastic smog of an estimated 170 trillion particles afloat in the world’s oceans. This highlights how urgently we need to develop strategies to mitigate this environmental crisis.

We know some microbes can break down certain plastics, but our new study finds no clear correlation between plastic pollution levels and the production of plastic-degrading enzymes by marine microorganisms.

To address this issue, we need to understand the varying properties and environmental impacts of different types of plastic.

Most plastics are not degradable

There are four main types of plastics: biodegradable, bio-based, fossil-based and non-biodegradable. The terms can be confusing and lead to misunderstandings about their environmental impact.

Biodegradable plastics can break down naturally through the action of living organisms such as bacteria. They are made from renewable sources such as corn starch or sugar cane and don’t linger in the environment for long periods. Examples of biodegradable plastics are polycaprolactone (PCL), polylactic acid (PLA) and polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB).

Bio-based plastics are also derived from natural materials such as plants. These plastics include polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which is widely used for clothing and containers for liquids and food. However, while PET can be made from renewable sources, most of its production is derived from fossil fuels.

Fossil-based plastics are made from oil and gas. They include common types like polyethylene (PE), which is used for single-use food packaging,
and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), commonly used for water pipes and wire insulation.

These plastics are generally not biodegradable. They do not decompose naturally and can persist in the environment for centuries, contributing significantly to pollution and global warming.

PE is the most manufactured plastic type in the world. It accounts for 103.9 million metric tonnes (mmt) per year, followed by PET (65.4 mmt) and PVC (50.5 mmt). However, globally only 9% of all plastic waste is recycled.

According to Plastics NZ, terms such as “bioplastic”, “biopolymer”, “bio-based” and “biodegradable” are being used interchangeably, even though they signify entirely different things.

Ocean microbes cannot break down plastics

Our study analysed genetic information from microorganisms in the ocean, using data from hundreds of water samples collected during expeditions.

This provided us with insights about the genes marine bacteria use to make enzymes, including the one they use to degrade some plastics. We can then track which enzymes these microbes use at any given time.

The idea is that if marine microorganisms are breaking down plastics, they have to produce the enzymes capable of doing it. Therefore, if microbes are biodegrading plastics in our oceans, locations with more plastic pollution should have higher levels of enzymes for plastic degradation.

Our study found no clear global connection between plastic pollution levels in the ocean and the enzymes produced by marine microbes to degrade plastics. This suggests the ocean microbiome hasn’t evolved efficient mechanisms to break down various types of plastic.

There are several reasons for this. Plastics are very different and complex. Each type of plastic has its own structure and properties, and microbes might not have had enough time or pressure to evolve special enzymes for each type.

Environmental conditions such as temperature, currents and nutrient availability could also play a role in influencing microbial plastic degradation.

Overall, our findings suggest the global ocean microbiome has not yet evolved to efficiently degrade the many types of plastic pollution plaguing marine ecosystems. This highlights the ongoing danger plastic pollution poses for marine environments.

Developing solutions will likely require dramatically reducing new plastic waste, recovering existing ocean plastic and shifting to biodegradable plastic types.

While disappointing from an environmental remediation perspective, the lack of widespread microbial plastic degradation confirms the durability of synthetic polymers and highlights the vast challenge we face to clean up the oceans.

Victor Gambarini was supported by a Ph.D. stipend from the George Mason Centre for the Natural Environment (New Zealand). Additional support was provided by the Aotearoa Impacts and Mitigation of Microplastics (AIM2) project (Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment).

– ref. Most plastics are made from fossil fuels and end up in the ocean, but marine microbes can’t degrade them – new research – https://theconversation.com/most-plastics-are-made-from-fossil-fuels-and-end-up-in-the-ocean-but-marine-microbes-cant-degrade-them-new-research-230530

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

Supermarkets guilty of anti-competitive behaviour towards suppliers will face large penalties under a mandatory Food and Grocery Code of Conduct the Albanese government will implement.

The government has accepted all the recommendations in the final report of an inquiry done by a former Labor minister Craig Emerson.

The investigation followed complaints of the big supermarkets squeezing small suppliers especially those producing fruit and vegetables.

Emerson’s central recommendation was to make mandatory the present voluntary code, with big penalties for serious breaches.

The planned maximum penalty will be the greatest of $10 million, three times the benefit gained from the contravening conduct, or 10% of turnover in the preceding 12 months.

Emerson says in his final report, released by the government: “Making the Code mandatory is essential to ensuring it is effective in addressing the heavy imbalance in market power between supermarkets and their suppliers, especially their smaller suppliers”.

He says the proposed penalties are the heaviest of any industry code.

There will also be better processes for resolving disputes.

Emerson says that although, constitutionally, a mandatory code can’t impose binding arbitration, Woolworths, Coles, ALDI and Metcash have agreed in principle to be bound by arbitration.

There will also be strengthened protections against the big supermarkets trying to extract retribution against small players that complain about them, as well as protections for suppliers of fresh produce.

The mandatory code would cover all grocery retailers and wholesalers with an annual turnover of more than $5 billion. This would at present be Woolworths, Coles, ALDI and Metcash. Emerson says Costco is in time likely to pass this threshold and so come under the code.

Amazon could also come under the code if it began offering a full range of groceries and fresh fruit and vegetables exceeding the $5 billion threshold.

Emerson says he considered the arguments to bring other businesses into the code, including Bunnings’ sale of nursery plants, alcohol sales by supermarket affiliates, and sales of non-prescription items by Chemist Warehouse.

But he decided the code should be limited to places for regular grocery shopping as well as Metcash as the largest grocery wholesaler. “This is the purpose for which the code was developed.”

Emerson says the biggest penalties “should apply to obligations on supermarkets to deal with suppliers lawfully and in good faith; have and retain written grocery supply agreements; train staff; and keep records.

“Supermarkets that do not comply with the new obligations to address retribution would also be liable for these highest penalties.”

Emerson recommends the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission establish an anonymous channel to receive complaints about retribution and other code breaches.

The government said in a statement that it was “cracking down on anti-competitive behaviour in the supermarkets sector so people get fairer prices at the checkout”.

The new measures will require changes to legislation and regulations.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is conducting a separate enquiry into the pricing practices of the supermarkets and the relationship between wholesale, including farmgate, and retail prices.

It will report to the government in February 2025 and deliver an interim report in August this year.

When Emerson’s interim report was released earlier this year, the National Farmers’ Federation’s Horticulture Council strongly supported the key recommendations for a mandatory code and hefty penalties.

NFF Horticulture Council Chair Jolyon Burnett said at the time: “If we are going to allow duopolies to exist, we need to make them accountable for any anti-competitive behaviour.

“The next challenge will be to ensure that when the ACCC identifies an abuse of market power, there is a realistic chance of success in court within a commercial timeframe. Otherwise, the announced fines will be futile.”

“For decades, fruit, vegetable and plant nursery growers have been forced to bear the brunt of a tilted playing field, but have been unable to speak out in fear of commercial retribution. To have a report identify these issues is an important milestone,” Burnett said.

The NFF Horticultural Council argued for the inclusion of Bunnings under the code, which hasn’t happened.

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. Albanese government will impose mandatory code and big penalties to stop supermarkets treating suppliers badly – https://theconversation.com/albanese-government-will-impose-mandatory-code-and-big-penalties-to-stop-supermarkets-treating-suppliers-badly-233071

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

Former Prime Minister Paul Keating has entered the nuclear debate, with a vitriolic attack describing Peter Dutton “a charlatan”, “wicked and cynical” and “an inveterate climate change denialist”.

In a Sunday statement Keating accused Dutton of “seeking to camouflage his long held denialism in an industrial
fantasy”. He was resorting “to the most dangerous and expensive energy source on the face of the earth – nuclear power”.

While the debate unleashed by last week’s Coalition release of its nuclear policy – still lacking crucial detail – involves claims and counter claims about a host of technical and economic issues, at another level it has descended into abuse and silly memes.

Speaking at the Liberal federal council on Saturday, Dutton launched a highly personal attack on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

“He’s a man with a mind still captured in his university years. He’s a child in a man’s body,” Dutton said.

“Our jet-setting prime minister is more interested in appeasing the international climate lobby than sticking up for the interests of everyday Australians.”

Last week senior Labor figures, including federal frontbencher Andrew Leigh and Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan, took to social media with posts of three-eyed fish. When Albanese was challenged about this he repeatedly told an ABC interviewer to “lighten up”.

In his statement Keating said Dutton was continuing “his party’s manic denialism, first articulated by Tony Abbott over a decade ago – turning his back on the most debated, most discussed problem of the Industrial Age – carbon and carbon sequestration.

“Dutton, like Abbott, will do everything he can to de-legitimise renewables and stand in the way of their use as the remedy nature has given us to underwrite our life on earth.

“Only the most wicked and cynical of individuals would foist such a blight on an earnest community like Australia,” Keating said.

“Dutton, in his low rent opportunism, mocks the decency and earnestness which recognises that carbon must be abated and with all urgency.”

Keating said that “by his blatant opposition to renewables, Dutton calls into question and deprecates all the government has done to provide Australian business with a reliable and dependable framework for investment in renewables” – what the country needed “to rely upon to lift the carbon menace off its back”.

“No person interested in public policy – regardless of their affiliations or beliefs, should consider, let alone endorse Dutton’s backwardness, his unreal world view that the most lethal technology of another age is a contemporary substitute for nature’s own remedy.”

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: Paul Keating labels Dutton a ‘charlatan’ as nuclear debate gets down and dirty – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-paul-keating-labels-dutton-a-charlatan-as-nuclear-debate-gets-down-and-dirty-233073

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Annabel Ahuriri-Driscoll, Associate Professor, School of Health Sciences, University of Canterbury

Adoption is often portrayed as a beautiful, loving act. It enables people to become parents to a child who is given a second chance at being part of a loving family. And a birth mother is relieved of a burden she was either unprepared for, or unable to carry.

Mother and child are later reunited, and joy ensues, happy endings all round. A nice story, right? Yes it is, and one can see why telecommunications giant One NZ chose to capitalise on the redemptive power of these adoption tropes with its “Let’s Get Connected” advertising campaign.

After all, closed adoption represents the epitome of disconnection for adopted people and their birth families. Under the current law, birth identity and relationships are legally erased while new adoptive identities and relationships are created.

So far, we have only seen one “episode” in what is clearly an ongoing story in the campaign. But for a number of us who have experienced adoption directly, this first episode all too easily glosses over the pain and loss at the heart of adoption.

Fantasy and reality

Until the Adult Adoption Information Act was passed in 1985, many adopted people in Aotearoa New Zealand were raised with little or no information regarding their birth origins. They had to wait until age 20 to access their original birth certificate.

So, for adopted people, the promise of connection is particularly poignant – as the advertisement depicts.

The “plot” of the One NZ campaign is unusual, however, in that it centres on a transracial adoptive family who have apparently not disclosed or discussed adoption. This is despite it being plainly apparent from the physical differences between the Māori son and his very Pākehā adoptive parents.

In real life, such late or non-disclosure of adoption and whakapapa would be unethical and out of step with current adoption realities or good practice. The fact this and other aspects of the adoptive experience are depicted for comic effect is deeply insensitive to those directly affected.

The adoptive parents in this scenario assure their son that biology makes no difference – except it does. For many adopted people, even if we are loved and cared for by the parents who adopted us, such assertions don’t negate our interest and investment in knowing our biological origins.

It is also our right, and something we should be free to decide the significance of, irrespective of the feelings or perspectives of others. Research shows that when adoptive parents deny the importance of biology, and the differences adoption can make, this can result in negative outcomes for adopted people.

Read more:
‘Nobody’s child’ – despite a compelling case for reform, NZ’s adoption laws remain stuck in the past

Changing the adoption narrative

The son at the centre of the One NZ campaign clearly does feel this tug. His quest for origins drives the narrative forward.

The vital clue to his parentage lies in a stone given to him by his unknown mother. He carries it around the world, asking random strangers if they know its provenance. The implication being, find the source of the stone, find my mother.

It is an advertisement, of course, and not an objective depiction of reality. But this portrayal also belies the angst and anguish that can often accompany an adoptee’s decision to search – let alone the vulnerability of approaching potential family members. The fear of rejection looms large for many adopted people.

A particularly jarring aspect of the advertisement is the birth mother’s recollection of the moment of her son’s conception: a fast-cut sequence of abandon and surprise, played for laughs.

In fact, our birth mothers carried us for nine months, and were then faced with the difficulty – often under pressure or coercion, and in a hostile and judgemental environment – of having to give us up to strangers. The pain of this is long-lasting, for mothers and adopted children.

For the many of us who are adopted, the commodification of these experiences to sell products and services will hit differently.

It may be that the campaign moves on to reflect some of those harder and more complex realities, which persist despite attempts to challenge and change that narrative. We will wait and see.

Annabel Ahuriri-Driscoll 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 One NZ’s new ad campaign connect? Many adopted people might not think so – https://theconversation.com/does-one-nzs-new-ad-campaign-connect-many-adopted-people-might-not-think-so-232972

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chin Moi Chow, Associate Professor of Sleep and Wellbeing, University of Sydney

It’s winter, so many of us will be bringing out, or buying, winter bedding.

But how much of a difference does your bedding make to your thermal comfort? Can a particular textile help you sleep?

Is it wool, or other natural fibres, such as cotton? How about polyester? With so much choice, it’s easy to be confused.

Here’s what we found when we reviewed the evidence – not just for winter, but also for the summer ahead.

The importance of bedding

We rely on our bedding to maintain a comfortable temperature to help us sleep. And the right textiles can help regulate our body temperature and wick away moisture from sweat, promoting better sleep.

In the cooler months, we’re mainly concerned about a textile’s insulation properties – keeping body heat in and the cold out. As the temperature climbs, we’re less concerned about insulation and more concerned about wicking away moisture from sweat.

Another factor to consider is a textile’s breathability – how well it allows air to pass through it. A breathable textile helps keep you cool, by allowing warmth from your body to escape. It also helps keep you comfortable by preventing build-up of moisture. By releasing excess heat and moisture, a breathable textile makes it feel cooler and more comfortable against the skin.

Different textiles have different properties

Some textiles are better than others when it comes to insulation, wicking away moisture or breathability.

For instance, cotton and wool have tiny air pockets that act as insulation to provide warmth in cold weather. Thicker fabrics with more air pockets tend to be warmer, softer and more breathable. But these factors are also affected by the type of fibre, the weave of the fabric and the manufacturing process.

Cotton and wool are also breathable fabrics, meaning they help regulate temperature.

While cotton absorbs moisture (sweat) from your skin, it doesn’t wick it away efficiently. This retained moisture can make cotton feel clingy and uncomfortable, potentially leading to chills in warm weather.

But wool is highly absorbent and wicks moisture effectively. In warmer weather, when we sweat, wool fibres allow for airflow and moisture transfer, promoting efficient sweat evaporation and cooling, and preventing overheating. So wool (in different thicknesses) can be a good option in both summer and winter.

Linen, although breathable and having moisture-wicking properties, provides less insulation than wool and cotton due to its hollow fibres. This makes linen less effective for keeping warm in winter but is effective for keeping cool in summer.

Polyester is a synthetic fibre that can be made to trap air for insulation, but it is not naturally breathable. Usually, it absorbs moisture poorly. So it can trap sweat next to the skin, causing discomfort. However, polyester can be specially treated to help control moisture from sweat.

Which sheets help you sleep?

As part of our review, we couldn’t find any studies that directly compared sheets made from different textiles (for instance, regular cotton and flannelette) and their impact on sleep when it’s cold.

However, linen sheets are particularly effective in warmer conditions. In one study, conducted at 29°C and high humidity, linen sheets promoted less wakefulness and fewer stages of light sleep than cotton sheets.

How about doonas?

If you don’t heat your bedroom at night in winter, a goose down doona (one made from fine, goose feathers) might be an option.

These promoted the longest, deep-sleep, followed by duck down, then cotton when sleeping at 11°C. This may be because down offers better insulation (by trapping more air) than cotton. Down also has lower thermal conductivity than cotton, meaning it’s better at keeping warmth in.

Choosing between a wool or polyester doona? In a wool-industry funded study two of us (Chow and Halaki) co-authored, there wasn’t much difference. The study in young adults found no significant difference on sleep at 17°C or 22°C.

So how do I choose?

The choice of bedding is highly individual. What feels comfortable to one person is not the same for the next. That’s because of variations in body size and metabolic rate, local climate, bedroom temperature and building insulation. These can also affect sleep.

This variability, and a wide range of study designs, also makes it hard to compare different studies about the impact of different textiles on sleep. So you might need to experiment with different textiles to discover what works for you.

Many factors can affect your sleep, not just your bedding. So if you’re having trouble sleeping, you can find more information from the Sleep Health Foundation. If symptoms continue, see your GP.

Chin Moi Chow received research funding from Australian Wool Innovation Ltd, which led to a published paper mentioned in this article.

Cynthia (Xinzhu) Li received a research scholarship from Australian Wool Innovation Ltd from 2020 to 2022.

Mark Halaki co-authored a wool industry-funded study mentioned in this article.

– ref. Why can’t I sleep? It could be your sheets or doona – https://theconversation.com/why-cant-i-sleep-it-could-be-your-sheets-or-doona-229604

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alice Neikirk, Program Convenor, Criminology, University of Newcastle

It’s hard to imagine now, but for almost 1,000 years, pregnant women in England could avoid the death penalty just by virtue of being pregnant. A pregnant woman sentenced to death would receive a stay of execution until the baby was born. It was called “pleading the belly” and often resulted the death sentence being reduced to a less severe penalty once the pregnancy was over.

Of course, anyone could say they’re pregnant without actually being with child. So how did courts determine whether it was true?

It was standard practice to assemble all-female juries, called “juries of matrons”, to determine whether a woman was pregnant and could therefore avoid hanging for capital offences. These were also features of Australia’s colonial legal system, with juries of matrons being used in trials until the early 1900s.

Exploring the history of these juries reveals how the roles of women in our legal systems have changed over time. It also shows a shift in beliefs about who is an expert in the female body, and who gets to make decisions about it.

Highly regarded medical experts

All-female juries existed as early as 1140 in England and persisted until 1931. Their role in the courts was highly regarded. They were medical experts. If they found the woman was “quick with child” (pregnant), their findings were not disputed.

In addition to determining whether a woman was pregnant, they helped evaluate inheritance claims, examined females to determine whether they bore the physical marks of witchcraft, and decide whether a woman accused of infanticide had given birth. They provided expert medical testimony for the courts but were not necessarily midwives.

These women were respectable, law-abiding women. Similar to their male counterparts, serving on a jury was a high-status privilege. There is evidence that from 1233 until 1435 in Newcastle upon Tyne, an official pool of matrons existed. They held an appointed position in the court.

Australia’s first civilian jury

Historically, we tend think of juries as only being comprised of males, yet these all-female juries also existed in colonial America and in Australia and New Zealand until the early 1900s. In fact, Australia’s first civilian jury was an all-female jury of matrons.

In 1789, Ann Davis was found guilty of stealing items of clothing. This theft was a capital offence. She “pleaded the belly”.

An all-female jury of matrons was convened to assess her claims, marking the first time a civilian jury was used in Australia. More than 200 years ago, the 76-year-old forewoman of that jury found, “Gentlemen! She is as much with child as I am”. Her plea unsuccessful, Davis became the first woman hung in Australia.

Another notable example of pleading the belly was Elizabeth McGree in South Australia. In 1883 she was charged with killing a man. The “powerfully built man” had been drinking with her husband that evening. After the husband passed out drunk, the man left the house, only to return in the early hours of the morning.

The forensic evidence demonstrated he kicked in the door, strangling McGree while also attempting to rape her. McGree’s 12-year-old son hit the man on the head with a hammer in an effort to stop the assault. After the initial blow, McGree started to beat the man with the hammer (who got up after her son’s first blow and wandered outside, promising not to touch her again) and stabbed him with a knife.

McGree was found guilty, despite the forensic evidence, largely because she allowed the man to drink liquor at the house with her husband. She was sentenced to hang.

Once found guilty, she pleaded the belly and a jury of matrons was called. They determined she was “quick with child”, and she dodged the noose. She later gave birth to her child in Gladstone Prison. Her death sentence was commuted to ten years.

Read more:
Health care offered to women in prison should match community standards – and their rights

If the pregnancy resulted in birth, a reprieve from the noose was fairly common. This raised the concern among men that women might falsely plead the belly to avoid a capital offence. They worried a jury of matrons, being “naturally” sympathetic, might grant them a reprieve from death.

While there is scant evidence this was the case, to address this concern, the laws around pleading the belly stipulated this plea could only be made once. If a pregnant woman was granted a reprieve from death to have the baby, she could be executed for any future crime – even if pregnant.

Women “too irrational” for courts

By the late 1800s, suspicion that juries of matrons were “soft” and that women were abusing the belly plea merged with concerns that women were “too irrational, too burdened by suckling infants, too sexually ignorant or too easily corrupted by sexual knowledge” to have a role in courts.

These concerns, along with the rise of medical professionals and the invention of the stethoscope, shifted the balance of power away from the jury of matrons and towards male medical officers.

Who had expert knowledge of the female body shifted. Until this point, women determined whether the fetus was alive by examining the women and feeling for signs of fetal movement or “quickening”. Quickening was considered the moment the fetus becomes animated with a soul, and thus fully human.

Now, the stethoscope could detect a fetal heartbeat. This was considered a more reliable method of establishing pregnancy.

The jury of matrons disappeared from the courts in Australia. It was another 50 years before women in Australia would be allowed to serve on juries. Progress, in terms of female representation, is rarely linear.

Juries of matrons were an extraordinary example of women having an official role in a justice system otherwise dominated by men. The examples of women pleading the belly provide a glimpse the role and interactions women had in Australia’s early legal systems.

Alice Neikirk receives funding from the History Council of South Australia.

– ref. Australia’s first civilian jury was entirely female. Here’s how ‘juries of matrons’ shaped our legal history – https://theconversation.com/australias-first-civilian-jury-was-entirely-female-heres-how-juries-of-matrons-shaped-our-legal-history-229283

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt Fernandez, Senior lecturer and researcher in chiropractic, CQUniversity Australia

Chiropractors in Australia will not be able to perform spinal manipulation on children under the age of two once more, following health concerns from doctors and politicians.

But what is the spinal treatment at the centre of the controversy? Does it work? Is there evidence of harm?

We’re a team of researchers who specialise in evidence-based musculoskeletal health. I (Matt) am a registered chiropractor, Joshua is a registered physiotherapist and Giovanni trained as a physiotherapist.

Here’s what the evidence says.

Remind me, how did this all come about?

A Melbourne-based chiropractor posted a video on social media in 2018 using a spring-loaded device (known as the Activator) to manipulate the spine of a two-week-old baby suspended upside down by the ankles.

The video sparked widespread concerns among the public, medical associations and politicians. It prompted a ban on the procedure in young children. The Victorian health minister commissioned Safer Care Victoria to conduct an independent review of spinal manipulation techniques on children.

Recently, the Chiropractic Board of Australia reinstated chiropractors’ authorisation to perform spinal manipulation on babies under two years old. But this week, it backflipped, following heavy criticism from medical associations and politicians.

What is spinal manipulation?

Spinal manipulation is a treatment used by chiropractors and other health professionals such as doctors, osteopaths and physiotherapists.

It is an umbrella term that includes popular “back cracking” techniques.

It also includes more gentle forms of treatment, such as massage or joint mobilisations. These involve applying pressure to joints without generating a “cracking” sound.

Does spinal manipulation in babies work?

Several international guidelines for health-care professionals recommend spinal manipulation to treat adults with conditions such as back pain and headache as there is an abundance of evidence on the topic. For example, spinal manipulation for back pain is supported by data from nearly 10,000 adults.

For children, it’s a different story. Safer Care Victoria’s 2019 review of spinal manipulation found very few studies testing whether this treatment was safe and effective in children.

Studies were generally small and were of poor quality. Some of those small, poor-quality studies, suggest spinal manipulation provides a very small benefit for back pain, colic and potentially bedwetting – some common reasons for parents to take their child to see a chiropractor. But overall, the review found the overall body of evidence was very poor.

However, for most other children’s conditions chiropractors treat – such as headache, asthma, otitis media (a type of ear infection), cerebral palsy, hyperactivity and torticollis (“twisted neck”) – there did not appear to be a benefit.

The number of studies investigating the effectiveness of spinal manipulation on babies under two years of age was even smaller.

There was one high-quality study and two small, poor quality studies. These did not show an appreciable benefit of spinal manipulation on colic, otitis media with effusion (known as glue ear) or twisted neck in babies.

Is spinal manipulation on babies safe?

In terms of safety, most studies in the review found serious complications were extremely rare. The review noted one baby or child dying (a report from Germany in 2001 after spinal manipulation by a physiotherapist). The most common complications were mild in nature such as increased crying and soreness.

However, because studies were very small, they cannot tell us anything about the safety of spinal manipulation in a reliable way. Studies that are designed to properly investigate if a treatment is safe typically include thousands of patients. And these studies have not yet been done.

Why do people see chiropractors?

Safer Care Victoria also conducted surveys with more than 20,000 people living in Australia who had taken their children under 12 years old to a chiropractor in the past ten years.

Nearly three-quarters said that was for treatment of a child aged two years or younger.

Nearly all people surveyed reported a positive experience when they took their child to a chiropractor and reported that their child’s condition improved with chiropractic care. Only a small number of people (0.3%) reported a negative experience, and this was mostly related to cost of treatment, lack of improvement in their child’s condition, excessive use of x-rays, and perceived pressure to avoid medications.

Many of the respondents had also consulted their GP or maternity/child health nurse.

What now for spinal manipulation in children?

At the request of state and federal ministers, the Chiropractic Board of Australia confirmed that spinal manipulation on babies under two years old will continue to be banned until it discusses the issue further with health ministers.

Many chiropractors believe this is unfair, especially considering the strong consumer support for chiropractic care outlined in the
Safer Care Victoria report, and the rarity of serious reported harms in children.

Others believe that in the absence of evidence of benefit and uncertainty around whether spinal manipulation is safe in children and babies, the precautionary principle should apply and children and babies should not receive spinal manipulation.

Ultimately, high quality research is urgently needed to better understand whether spinal manipulation is beneficial for the range of conditions chiropractors provide it for, and whether the benefit outweighs the extremely small chance of a serious complication.

This will help parents make an informed choice about health care for their child.

Matt Fernandez is a registered chiropractor.

Giovanni E. Ferreira receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). He trained as a physiotherapist.

Joshua Zadro receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). He is a registered physiotherapist.

– ref. Chiropractors have been banned again from manipulating babies’ spines. Here’s what the evidence actually says – https://theconversation.com/chiropractors-have-been-banned-again-from-manipulating-babies-spines-heres-what-the-evidence-actually-says-232721

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ty Christopher, Director Energy Futures Network, University of Wollongong

On the weekend, an area 20km off the Illawarra coast south of Sydney became Australia’s fourth offshore wind energy zone. It’s the most controversial zone to date, with consultation attracting a record 14,211 submissions – of which 65% were opposed.

The zone’s declaration has inflamed fierce debate over the pathway to decarbonisation, particularly in industrial regions. The Illawarra hosts heavy industries such as Australia’s largest steel manufacturer, BlueScope Steel.

In response to the announcement, National Party Leader David Littleproud declared Australia doesn’t need “large-scale industrial windfarms”. He argues the focus should instead be on household solar and battery storage.

So what is the role of offshore wind in our future energy mix? Here we argue offshore wind energy has three main advantages: scale, availability and proximity. It’s just what Australia needs.

1. Scale

Offshore wind has substantial energy-production potential. A single 100-turbine project is capable of generating up to 1.5 gigawatts (GW) of energy and the Illawarra zone could contain two projects (2.9GW).

To put this in perspective, Eraring, Australia’s largest coal-fired power station near Lake Macquarie in New South Wales, also produces 2.9GW.

Because offshore wind is more consistent than either onshore wind or rooftop solar, it is the most practical way to provide time-sensitive renewable energy grid security for large energy users.

This high-capacity, consistent energy source is particularly crucial for Australia’s industrial decarbonisation efforts. BlueScope Steel, for example, estimates it will need approximately 15 times its current energy consumption to transition to green steel-making operations in the Illawarra region.

2. Availability

Offshore wind blows more consistently than onshore wind. We can quantify this by comparing so-called “capacity factors”.

The capacity factor is the actual output of a power station over a given period of time, divided by the theoretical power that could be generated if the plant operated at full output for the same period of time.

Onshore wind has a capacity factor of 30%, meaning 1GW of onshore wind farms can be relied upon to deliver 0.3GW of output at any time.

Offshore wind has a capacity factor of at least 50%.

For reference, coal plants in Australia, due to their age and condition, have a capacity factor of 60% and this falls further every year.

It is a common myth that coal is reliable. The reliability of Australian coal fired generators is currently at an all time low and falling.

The Coalition’s plan for nuclear power plants announced on Wednesday might look like an alternative answer to the energy availability challenge. But the plan relies on coal in the meantime and coal-fired power plants have a limited lifespan. It’s highly unlikely those nuclear power stations could be built in time to take over from coal.

The International Atomic Energy Agency publishes a step-by-step guide to going nuclear. This internationally recognised manual says it takes 10–15 years for a country to go from initial consideration of the nuclear power option to operation of its first nuclear power plant.

So the first big problem with nuclear in Australia is, how do we ensure we have reliable power for the five to ten year gap between when most of the coal exits and the first nuclear power plant could possibly be commissioned?

3. Proximity

Most of Australia’s population and industry is near the east coast. Placing electricity generation near to where it is needed is more efficient. It also avoids having to construct many kilometres of new overhead electricity transmission lines to connect onshore wind farms far inland.

Australia is leading the world in the uptake of home solar panels and batteries. This is definitely worthwhile. But contrary to Littleproud’s suggestion, it’s not the whole solution to Australia’s decarbonisation effort. For example, it won’t solve the problem of the need to electrify heavy industry.

BlueScope has stated that to decarbonise its current steel-making operations, it will need 15 times more electricity. This is the equivalent of the solar exported by a staggering 3.6 million homes – more than one-third of the total number of homes connected to the National Electricity Market.

Putting this into perspective, the Illawarra region has 130,000 homes. By our calculations, the BlueScope steelworks currently uses the same amount of electricity each day as the total solar exported by 240,000 homes – assuming generous export of 10kWh per home and Bluescope’s daily use of 240,000 kWh of energy.

Even if the Illawarra had enough homes exporting solar power to electrify BlueScope’s operations, getting this electricity to where it’s needed is technically impossible. Home solar systems are connected to the lowest capacity part of the energy grid – the wires in the street. We simply don’t have the capacity to move gigawatts of power from rooftop solar to large energy users such as steel and aluminium plants.

Australia needs large-scale energy, including wind

Australia needs large-scale electricity generation. The Coalition has recognised this, and is now promoting large nuclear power plants as well as small modular reactors.

The clean energy transition requires multiple renewable energy sources to meet different needs. There is no “one size fits all” solution – and there is clearly an important role for offshore wind in this mix.

We can expect to see Australia’s first offshore wind farms operating in Victoria’s Gippsland by the end of the decade.

The Coalition remains committed to the Gippsland project. But it has signalled its intention to scrap proposed offshore wind zones in the Illawarra and Hunter, if elected.

This decision would have flow-on effects. An industry is emerging around the pipeline of potential wind energy projects. The latest announcement will almost certainly heighten tensions surrounding the already bitter debates raging in our communities.

Navigating the contested waters of offshore wind

It is common for the media and politicians to frame energy debates as a blunt binary of support versus opposition for different options, such as offshore wind. Yet genuine progress requires respectful dialogue and a commitment to finding common ground.

For the Illawarra, we argue much greater attention must be paid to the methods, models and outcomes of community engagement. We need to involve the community in constructive conversations about the nature, scale and scope of our future energy mix, which may include offshore wind.

Independent scientific research can provide the evidence base for such crucial decisions about the future of our communities and industries.

Ty Christopher is currently leading a project which has received funding from the Commonwealth government to establish an Energy Futures Skills Centre at the University of Wollongong in partnership with NSW TAFE. He also provides strategic advice to government departments and private sector companies on clean energy matters as a private consultant.

Michelle Voyer has led a number of projects that have received funding from the Commonwealth government and the NSW state government, including the Australian Research Council and the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, as well as the United Nations Environment Program and the Nippon Foundation. Michelle also receives philanthropic funding support through the Keira Endowed Chair in Energy Futures at the University of Wollongong. The Keira Endowed Chair funding is otherwise unencumbered with respect to the nature and/or direction of the research pursued and as such does not constitute an actual conflict of interest with any current or future projects.

– ref. Australia needs large-scale energy production – here are 3 reasons why offshore wind is a good fit – https://theconversation.com/australia-needs-large-scale-energy-production-here-are-3-reasons-why-offshore-wind-is-a-good-fit-232899

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Triggs, Visiting research fellow, Australian National University

Workers who were made redundant in coal-fired power plants between 2010 and 2020 saw their incomes plummet by 69% in the year after they lost their jobs.

This was the staggering finding of research by Dan Andrews, Elyse Dwyer and Lachlan Vass at the e61 Institute reported by The Conversation in 2023.

Andrews, Dwyer and Vass called for a national discussion about support for workers made redundant by Australia’s energy transition.

On Wednesday, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton offered his own form of support, saying the Coalition’s plan to put nuclear power plants on the sites of former coal-fired stations would help retain jobs in regions that had provided Australia with energy for decades.

But where replacement jobs can’t be easily found for former fossil fuel industry workers, an important question remains: which workers need specially targeted support? That’s what we set out to discover.

Our jobs study, based on a real coal mine

Some displaced coal miners and coal-fired power station workers will find new jobs easily.

As an example, there’s plenty of demand for electricians, meaning targeting support towards them makes little sense.

But others could be unemployed for years, or the rest of their lives.

To find out which displaced workers are most at risk of long-term unemployment, Rojan Joshi and I applied ten years of national job advertisement data to the hypothetical case of an actual New England coal mine closing.

The coal mine is real. It employs 766 people. The largest groups of employees are miners, truck drivers and fitters. Most live locally.

We modelled what would have happened if the mine had closed seven years ago.

The job advertisement data gave us an idea of how long it would take those workers to find new jobs, based on their occupations and whether they were willing to relocate within New South Wales or move interstate.

What happened depended on who would move

The results were mixed. Motor mechanics, metal fabricators, truck drivers and electricians would have had the easiest time finding new jobs, followed by shotfirers (they handle explosives), mechanical engineers and fitters.

Those who would have struggled the most to find new jobs were drillers, production managers, coal miners themselves, mine deputies and mining engineers.

But it all depended on whether they were willing to move.

Of workers not prepared to relocate, 28% of those in the 12 biggest occupations would have found a new job within one year, 35% within two years, 39% within three years and 43% within four years.

Put differently, most workers – 57% – wouldn’t have a new job without relocating, even after four years.

Of workers willing to relocate within the state, 52% would have found a job in one year, 67% in two years, 85% in three years and 100% in four years.

Of those willing to relocate anywhere in Australia, 99% would have found a new job in one year and 100% in two years.

Different occupations were impacted in different ways. The results suggested the government should focus on helping people relocate and pay particular attention to drillers, production managers, miners, mine deputies and mining engineers.

What we need to know to better support workers

Providing broader support to those who might not need it risked diluting the support available to those who needed it the most. It also risked deadening the incentives for workers who are able to find new jobs to do so.

But there are four limitations of our study to keep in mind.

First, we looked at only one coal mine in New England. Different mines have different workforces, as do coal-fired power stations fed by those mines.

Second, some mines have fly-in-fly-out workers. We picked a mine that did not.

Third, we didn’t examine retraining and re-skilling. Some workers who struggle to find a job in their existing occupation might be able to retrain and get a job in another one.

Fourth, we didn’t examine wages. People who would have found new jobs might not have been able to find them at the same pay.

Read more:
Here’s what happens to workers when coal-fired power plants close. It isn’t good

Despite these limitations, our results make clear that supporting workers who lose their jobs as a result of Australia’s energy transition will be complex.

Government forecasts predict a fall in Australia’s coal exports of 50% to 80% over the next two decades. By 2035, the two biggest remaining coal-fired power plants in NSW and the biggest in Victoria are scheduled to have closed.

If we want the energy transition to benefit Australians, we need to pay closer attention to those it could leave behind.

Adam Triggs 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. Australian coal mine and power station workers’ prospects look bleak – unless we start offering more targeted support – https://theconversation.com/australian-coal-mine-and-power-station-workers-prospects-look-bleak-unless-we-start-offering-more-targeted-support-232908

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeffrey McNeill, Honorary Research Associate, School of People, Environment and Planning, Massey University

The government’s Fast-track Approvals Bill has been widely criticised for potentially handing too much power to three cabinet ministers, and raising the risk of conflicts of interest and political interference in environmental management.

Ironically, the bill also helps demonstrate why the original Resource Management Act (RMA) was always doomed to fail – and what its replacement will have to get right.

The RMA has long been blamed for high compliance costs and red tape that delay mining, infrastructure and housing developments, and which make farming harder and less viable. Much of which is true.

But five major reviews of the RMA over the past 33 years have found the legislation itself was fundamentally sound – it has been its implementation that was flawed.

The previous Labour government sought to address these problems by replacing the RMA with the Natural and Built Environments Act. But the current government repealed this, and has reinstated the RMA while it conducts its own resource management reform.

But if the RMA’s main flaw was in its implementation, rather than its substance, what are the prospects for any replacement law?

Frog or coal?

The Fast-track Approvals Bill would give a troika of pro-development cabinet ministers the ability to decide what projects are put on the fast-track path.

The environmental impacts of approved projects may then be considered by technical advisory panels. The panels can recommend projects be declined, but the ministers can override those findings.

Many select committee submissions object to this politicisation of environmental resource management. But such objections also expose the intrinsic problem of the Resource Management Act in the first place: its failure to account for the reality that natural resource management is always political.

This should not be surprising – after all, politics is about who gets what, when and how. In short, and to paraphrase Resource Minister Shane Jones, does Freddy Frog get to keep his pond or does the mining company get to drain it for the coal underneath?

More widely, is economic growth supported more by an appeal to nature-based tourism (supported by the existence of Freddy’s pond) or from mining the coal? The answer is political: frog or coal?

Depoliticising resource management

The designers of the RMA sought to depoliticise such decisions. District and regional planning was required to follow a textbook policy analysis procedure sought by Treasury. This technocratic requirement was specifically intended to prevent political interference.

Decision makers also had to consider the environmental effects of proposed resource-use activities, underlining the importance of scientific knowledge. Plans and resource consent decisions can all be appealed to the Environment Court, adding another technocratic layer.

Also, local governments sought to avoid legal appeals and associated costs by appointing independent commissioners, rather than councillors, to decide resource consent applications.

Effectively, the RMA removes politicians from resource management decision making – but not politics. Instead, it privileges other types of knowledge and decision makers.

As a result, the resource management industry is now dominated by planners, scientists and lawyers. Together, they define what information and whose values are valid when making resource-use decisions. And for the main part, their decisions are unaccountable, except to the courts.

No avoiding politics

The Fast-track Approvals Bill upends this “post-political” consensus of the past 33 years by placing politicians once again at the forefront of environmental management decision making.

It reminds us that resource-use decisions affect people, prioritise some uses over others, and are always contentious. It also reminds us why the notion of depoliticising these processes was so attractive when the RMA was drafted in the late 1980s.

Back then, memories were fresh of large-scale state energy projects and environmental protest, including the damming of Lake Manapouri to generate energy for the aluminium smelter at Tiwai Point. West Coast beech forests and central North Island rimu and tawa stands were being clear-felled by the government Forest Service.

The 1975-1984 National government of Robert Muldoon saw the Taranaki synthetic fuels plant and Clyde Dam completed. Muldoon was using his own fast-track legislation, the National Development Act 1979, to force construction of another aluminium smelter at Aramoana (powered by the Clyde Dam) when he lost the 1984 election.

Critics are now comparing the Fast-track Approvals Bill to the old National Development Act. But the questions this raises go beyond whether history is repeating.

If we accept that politicians in democratic systems represent the interests of their constituents, how do we justify laws – such as the RMA – that are designed to disempower political decision makers?

The challenge for this and any government is how to reintroduce representational politics into New Zealand’s natural and physical resource management, while at the same time providing the necessary safeguards to avoid abuse of that political power.

Jeffrey McNeill 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. Resource management is always political – the Fast-track Approvals Bill is just honest about it – https://theconversation.com/resource-management-is-always-political-the-fast-track-approvals-bill-is-just-honest-about-it-232256

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brianna Le Busque, Lecturer in Environmental Science, University of South Australia

Another year, another movie with a shark in the leading role.

The new French thriller film Under Paris is currently ranked second in Australia’s Top 10 list and has broken records as one of Netflix’s most watched non-English films. It follows a giant shark that appears in Paris’s Seine river, seemingly out for blood.

For decades, filmmakers have placed sharks alongside some of the biggest names in Hollywood, including Blake Lively, Jason Statham and Roy Schneider. Shark movies can make hefty profits, too. The Meg (2018) made more than US$157 million globally (about A$235 million).

But the shark “characters” in these films are far from something to be admired or appreciated. Indeed, the film industry has helped galvanise a kind of collective villainisation of these creatures.

As was neatly summarised in a paper published in the journal Marine Policy:

contemporary narratives widely presented in popular mainstream media have attached an utterly negative connotation to sharks, propagating an unsubstantiated and fabricated image of them as voracious predators.

The effects of these narratives can linger long after viewers have left the cinema.

Jaws, the start of it all

While it’s often thought Steven Spielberg’s 1975 hit movies Jaws started the shark movie trend, there were a handful of similar prior examples, including
She Gods of Shark Reef (1958) and Shark! (1969).

That said, Jaws was certainly the first of these to become a blockbuster, with a gross worldwide earning of more than US$470 million (about A$704 million). For the few who haven’t seen it, the film is based on a white shark shown to be intentionally hunting and eating people at a seaside American tourist town.

In 2014, social scientist Christopher Pepin-Neff proposed a phenomenon called the “Jaws effect” which suggests people’s beliefs about sharks today – and even Australian policies concerning shark bite mitigation – can be linked back to this storyline.

These beliefs, Pepin-Neff says, include the idea that sharks intentionally bite and hunt humans, that human-shark interactions always lead to fatal outcomes and that once a shark gets a taste for humans it needs to be culled so it won’t continue to seek out human prey.

Jaws may have not been the first shark movie, but it is arguably the biggest and likely influenced movies that followed.

Many shark films now include even larger sharks than the six-metre one depicted in Jaws. Under Paris, for instance, portrays a seven-metre mako, while the shark in The Meg is supposed to be some 23 metres (larger than what real megalodons were thought to be).

These films don’t seem to be letting up, either. There’s currently an “untitled shark thriller” being filmed in Australia, along with potential discussions of a sequel to Under Paris.

Fact or fiction?

Some elements of shark films are true to fact. For instance, the size of the shark in Jaws was factually accurate, as was the portrayal of an incident in which surfer Bethany Hamilton lost her arm to a tiger shark in Hawaii in the film Soul Surfer (2011). Even so, creative licence is used liberally in the “sharksploitation” subgenre.

Statistically, shark bites are very rare and have even been described by experts as “statistical anomalies”. In 2023, the Florida Museum of Natural History counted a total 120 shark bites globally, of which 69 were “unprovoked”.

These bites tend to occur in the United States and Australia, which makes them even rarer in other countries where sharks reside, such as New Caledonia, Brazil and Egypt. Unsurprisingly, no shark bites have occurred in the Seine. And only five unprovoked bites have been reported in France since 1580.

Nonetheless, research shows people are generally afraid of sharks and perceive the risk of shark bites as being higher than it is (in part due to media portrayals).

Sharks are apex predators in their ecosystems and their presence is essential for healthy oceans, so exaggerated portrayals in media are far from trivial. It is important the public views sharks as more than human-eating machines.

Are there any friendly fish films?

In 2021, I conducted an analysis of 109 shark movies and found only one which did not include any potentially threatening interactions with shark characters.

This was the Disney film Finding Dory (2016), which has a whale shark character named Destiny. Whale sharks are filter-feeding fish that pose little-to-no threat to humans. This may be why Destiny got a positive edit.

Despite this, the official trailer for the 2012 Norwegian film Kon-Tiki implies a whale shark is at one point attacking a boat. The full movie scene is less dramatic and emphasises the shark’s curious side, in a more true-to-life depiction. But it still shows the shark swimming quickly towards the raft, which is inaccurate since we know whale sharks swim very slowly.

Even in Finding Nemo (2003) and Shark Tale (2004), the “friendly”, “vegetarian” shark characters of Bruce and Lenny are covertly portrayed as potentially threatening.

In my recent analysis of 638 “creature features” films – a subgenre of horror movies featuring non-human creatures – I found sharks to be the most commonly depicted non-human species (with snakes and spiders not far behind).

Is it all bad news?

The saying “all publicity is good publicity” probably isn’t true in the case of sharks.

The trophy hunting of white sharks increased following the release of Jaws in 1975 – something Director Steven Spielberg himself says he “regrets”. And while it’s hard to say how much such portrayals have impacted the species’ image and conservation, we can expect they have.

Read more:
‘Jaws’ portrayed sharks as monsters 50 years ago, but it also inspired a generation of shark scientists

We might find a silver lining in the fact Jaws also turned many people into shark fans and inspired a new wave of shark scientists. We’re also seeing the legacy of Peter Benchley, the author of the original 1974 Jaws novel, live on through the Peter Benchley Ocean Awards aimed at celebrating figures in ocean conservation.

Overall, however, negative portrayals continue to largely outweigh any positive or educational content. If only sharks had a really good PR team.

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

– ref. A huge shark terrorises people in new French hit Under Paris. When will we stop villainising these animals? – https://theconversation.com/a-huge-shark-terrorises-people-in-new-french-hit-under-paris-when-will-we-stop-villainising-these-animals-232156

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Kirkland, Professor of Geochronology, Curtin University

Our planet was born around 4.5 billion years ago. To understand this mind-bendingly long history, we need to study rocks and the minerals they are made of.

The oldest rocks in Australia, which are some of the oldest on Earth, are found in the Murchison district of Western Australia, 700 kilometres north of Perth. They have been dated at almost 4 billion years old.

In a new study, we have found evidence of rocks of a similar age near Collie, south of Perth. This suggests the ancient rocks of Western Australia cover a far greater area than we knew, buried deep in the crust.

The ancient continental crust

The ancient crust of Australia is crucial for understanding the early Earth, because it tells us about how the continental crust formed and evolved.

Continental crust forms the foundation of landmasses where humans live, supporting ecosystems, and providing essential resources for civilisation. Without it there would be no fresh water. It is rich in mineral resources such as gold and iron, making it economically significant.

However, exploring the ancient continental crust is not easy. Most of it is deeply buried, or has been intensely modified by its environment. There are only a few exposed areas where researchers can directly observe this ancient crust.

To understand the age and composition of this hidden ancient crust, scientists often rely on indirect methods, such as studying eroded minerals preserved in overlying basins, or using remote sensing of sound waves, magnetism or gravity.

However, there may be another way to peer into the deep crust and, with luck, even sample it.

Dragging crystals up from the depths

The crust of our planet is frequently cut by dark fingers of magma, rich in iron and magnesium, which can stretch from the upper crust all the way down to Earth’s mantle. These structures, known as dykes, can come from depths of at least 50 kilometres (much deeper than even the deepest borehole, which stretches a mere 12 kilometres).

These dykes can pick up tiny amounts of minerals from the depths and transport them all the way up to the surface, where we can examine them.

In our recent study, we have uncovered evidence of ancient buried rock by dating grains of zircon from one of these dykes.

Zircon contains trace amounts of uranium, which over time decays to lead. By precisely measuring the ratio of lead to uranium in zircon grains, we can tell how long ago the grain crystallised.

This method showed that the zircon crystals from the dyke date back 3.44 billion years.

Titanite armour

The zircons are encapsulated in a different mineral, called titanite, which is more chemically stable than zircon in the dyke. Think of a grain of salt, trapped inside a hard-boiled sugar sweet, dropped into a cup of hot tea.

The stability of the titanite armour protected the ancient zircon crystals through changes in the chemical, pressure and temperature conditions as the dyke travelled upward. Unshielded zircon crystals in the dyke were strongly modified during the journey, obliterating their isotopic records.

However, the grains armoured in titanite survived intact to provide a rare glimpse into Earth’s early history.

The dyke, itself dated to around 1.4 billion years old, has offered up a unique window into ancient crust that would otherwise have remained hidden. We also found similar ancient zircon grains further north in sand from the Swan River, which runs through Perth and drains the same region, further corroborating the age and origin of these ancient materials.

The results extend the known area of ancient crust, previously recognised in the Narryer area of the Murchison district.

One reason it’s important to understand the deep crust is because we often find metals at the boundaries between blocks of this crust. Mapping these blocks can help map out zones to investigate for mining potential.

Remnants of deep time

So next time you pick up a rock and some mineral grains rub off on your hand, spare a thought for how long those grains might have been around.

To come to grips with the time scale, imagine the history of our planet was a year long. Earth formed from swirling dust 12 months ago. Any handful of sand you pick up around Perth will contain a grain or two from about ten months ago. Most of Australia’s gold formed seven months ago, and land plants arrived only one month ago.

Two weeks ago, dinosaurs showed up. All of humanity has come in the past 30 minutes. And you? Soberingly, on this scale, your life would last about half a second.

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

– ref. A groundbreaking discovery: how we found remnants of Earth’s primordial crust near Perth – https://theconversation.com/a-groundbreaking-discovery-how-we-found-remnants-of-earths-primordial-crust-near-perth-231828

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

No one doubts Peter Dutton has a huge task to sell his radical nuclear plan, with many experts throwing buckets of cold water over it. But on Thursday the opposition leader received some welcome backing.

Ziggy Switkowski, who headed John Howard’s 2006 nuclear inquiry that reported favourably on the potential for nuclear energy in Australia, described Dutton as “a person of conviction” and said his blueprint was feasible.

While acknowledging details were needed, including costings, Switkowski, a former chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (and a nuclear physicist), said the scepticism about the plan was misplaced. “The strong positions some critics have taken in the last 24 hours are ridiculous.”

He said in the last 20 years the nuclear debate had been shaped by academics, the commentariat and junior politicians. Now it was being shaped by the leader of the opposition with an emerging coherent plan.

Peter Dutton and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien “are as well informed on things nuclear as any group I’ve talked to in the last 20 years in Australia,” Switkowski said, adding Dutton was “exactly right” is saying the nuclear generators should be government-owned.

In the timing of his announcement, Dutton is putting his nuclear power policy through an early stress test.

Politics often swings to and fro on the “vibe”. The vibe has recently been running against the Labor government, with polls in Nine newspapers this week suggesting Anthony Albanese doing poorly.

Parliament is about to start its final fortnight before a winter break, giving the government the chance for sustained king hits on the nuclear policy. If Labor can use the sitting to its advantage, and Dutton also takes a knock in the next polls, the “vibe” will change. The government could regain some momentum. It should be helped in this by the July 1 start of the tax cuts.

Labor is galvanised by the need to win the early post-announcement clash.
Albanese is energised, with crafted lines. “This is just a fantasy,” he said on Thursday. “Instead of Snow White and the seven dwarves, this is Peter Dutton and the seven nuclear reactors.”

And, “you would have us believe that a mob who’d struggle to assemble an IKEA flat-pack are going to start from scratch and be able to develop a nuclear energy industry in Australia”. It’s unclear whether he crafts his own zingers.

Both sides claim to welcome the election being a referendum on energy. It’ll be about much more than that but energy – the government’s transition progress, the opposition’s response – will be a central battleground. With nuclear firmly out there, the weaponry is being marshalled.

By announcing the seven proposed sites for reactors, Dutton is attempting to reduce uncertainty, and counter the “would you want a reactor in your backyard?” scare.

Indeed the Coalition proposes to put the reactors – all on sites of former or current power stations – in its own backyards.

Of the seven seats involved, five are Coalition (three held by the Nationals, two Liberal). The affected part of the one Labor seat, Hunter, would transfer under the draft redistribution boundaries into the New England electorate of former Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce (a great fan of nuclear). The remaining seat, Calare, is held by independent Andrew Gee, formerly a National.

Of the seats, the only one is on a margin of less than 5% (Flynn in Queensland).

Opposition sources say that in its polling, nuclear had more than 50% support in all these electorates. But the polling hasn’t been released.

Communities affected will be offered packages but there will still be local dissent over the plan. So local divisions will be running on two tracks in coming months – in the Dutton areas over the nuclear proposal, and in various other places over the rollout of transmission infrastructure and big renewable projects.

While naming the sites early is sensible, holding back the plan’s cost leaves the Coalition open to attack, especially given a major question over nuclear is that it’s so expensive.

There’s also the criticism the Coalition’s plan is pitched so far into the future it could create a big gap in the middle of Australia’s energy transition.

Dutton has abandoned Australia’s 2030 emissions reduction target; the renewed climate and energy wars are likely to hit investor confidence; and it’s not clear to what degree a Coalition government would slow the renewables rollout. All this could leave Australia in a limbo land in the late 2020s-early 2030s.

And history tells us it would be a miracle if the nuclear projects were on time or on budget (think Snowy Hydro 2).

The Coalition can thank Labor’s embrace of AUKUS for undercutting the safety argument. The planned nuclear-powered submarines with their attendant needs, facilities and waste have bipartisan support.

Nevertheless safety will be an issue for some people. In vox pops this week, there were mentions of Chernobyl and Fukushima.

On the other hand, views about nuclear have substantially softened over the years. In the 2024 Lowy poll 61% supported Australia using nuclear power to generate electricity. In 2011, in a related question, 62% were against Australia building nuclear power plants as part of its plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Regardless of polling, given the danger of big-target election pitches, Dutton’s nuclear radicalism is remarkable, albeit that it’s partly driven by a risk-averse desire to keep some climate doubting Nationals in the tent.

One mark of this radicalism is the pledge the generators would be government-owned. It’s a reminder the Coalition easily shrugs off its “small government” cloak, just like it did with all that spending during the pandemic.

Dutton’s nuclear plan has been likened to John Hewson’s Fightback, despite the many differences (including in the leader’s electoral prospects). Fightback might have prevailed if it had not been for then prime minister’s Paul Keating’s demolition skills. Labor has a similar mission now. It doesn’t have a Keating.

The government has to convince the public Dutton’s nuclear option is policy on the never-never, in cost and timing, plus being a form of climate change denialism.

Beyond that, however, between now and the election Labor will face many questions on its own energy transition, which is inevitably more bumpy than promised. The better it can credibly defend its record, the easier it will be to discredit the opposition alternative.

It’s too early to predict how voters will judge the energy face-off. Nationals MP Darren Chester, who holds the Victorian seat of Gippsland, which would host a nuclear plant where the Loy Yang coal-fired power plant is located, puts it this way: “We’ve run out onto the field, maybe tossed the coin, but we haven’t even played the first quarter yet”.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Peter Dutton is seated aloft the nuclear tiger, hoping not to get eaten – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-peter-dutton-is-seated-aloft-the-nuclear-tiger-hoping-not-to-get-eaten-232910

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marta Khomyn, Lecturer, University of Adelaide

The Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) has just seen the listing of its first bitcoin spot exchange-traded fund – “ETF” for short.

Issued by investment management firm VanEck, the new investment product is trading under the ticker symbol “VBTC”.

It’s not the first bitcoin ETF to launch in Australia, others have been available for some time on the smaller exchange Cboe Australia. But it is a first for the ASX, our largest stock exchange.

If international experience is anything to go by, the ASX’s new bitcoin spot ETF is likely to draw significant interest and could be the first of many similar products. In January, American investment manager BlackRock launched a similar product in the US – “IBIT” – which has since grown to manage almost A$30 billion in assets.

As Australia braces for a possible flood of new mainstream cryptocurrency investment products, it is important to know more about how they work and what risks they might entail.

Read more:
What do I need to know before investing in ETFs and what are the risks?

A basket of investments

ETFs are investment products that track the performance of an underlying asset. Like shares, they can be traded on a public stock exchange. But buying an ETF is like buying a basket of different investments, the contents of which can vary.

Bitcoin or gold ETFs, for example, track the price of just one commodity. But equity ETFs can track whole collections of stocks, combined in proportions that reflect a particular index.

It is important to understand the difference between “spot” ETFs which actually hold their underlying investments, and “futures” ETFs which invest in derivative securities to approximate the performance of their nominal investments.

For example, BlackRock’s IBIT product is a spot ETF, because it invests in bitcoin directly. A different ETF – ProShares “BITO” – is a futures ETF, because it invests in bitcoin futures (contracts to buy or sell bitcoin at a future date) in a way that tracks the price of the underlying asset.

Bitcoin ETFs are gaining momentum because they allow traditional investors to access a popular asset class that is still largely unregulated. Unlike buying cryptocurrency directly, the transaction is mediated by a large ETF issuer and takes place through a regulated stock exchange.

But they also create new costs, including management fees that can significantly impact returns.

Nowhere near the size of the US market

In the US, the watershed moment for spot bitcoin ETFs came on January 10 this year, when the US Securities and Exchange Commission approved 11 of them.

These funds have since accumulated more than A$75 billion in combined assets under management, and BlackRock’s IBIT – the most liquid (easiest to buy and sell) – regularly sees more than A$1 billion in trades in a day.

In comparison, existing Australian bitcoin ETFs are orders of magnitude smaller in scale. Global X’s “EBTC”, which has traded on Cboe Australia since 2022, manages just over A$100 million in assets and sees a mere fraction of the trade volume.

This means liquidity – the ease with which an asset can be bought, sold and converted to cash – is much higher in the US.

The contrast between the US and Australia on this front is driven in large part by the different degree of involvement by institutional investors. Ease of trade means big asset management funds around the world are more likely to trade in the US, further fuelling total assets under management over there.

This institutional involvement in bitcoin markets has become substantial. Some 12.5% of the currency’s 21 million coin supply cap is now held by just 90 institutional entities, including countries, publicly traded companies and ETFs.

Management fees matter

For huge institutional investors trading millions or billions of dollars at a time, liquidity is typically the main cost consideration when trading ETFs. Low liquidity can make it harder to buy and sell at a favourable price. But for smaller retail investors it’s management fees.

A management fee of 1% per year means that if an investment grows from $100 to $105 over the course of the year, an investor will only end up with $104 in their account. $1 goes to the ETF issuer.

It might not seem like a lot, but for a buy-and-hold investor, small differences in management fees can matter a lot.

For example, over ten years, a hypothetical starting investment of $10,000 with a constant annual return of 5% would earn $1,178 less by investing in an ETF with a 1% management fee compared to one with a 0.2% management fee.

Today’s ASX listing has already ignited a management fees “price war” between VanEck and rival bitcoin ETF provider Global X.

Global X will reduce their ETF’s management fee to 0.59% from July, to match VanEck’s new offering. But in the US, many bitcoin ETFs have lower fees, some in the range of 0.2%-0.25%.

Retail investors will be the key factor

The Australian market for bitcoin ETFs is smaller and – for now – significantly less competitive than its US counterpart.

Depending on the success of new launches like today’s, market dynamics will reveal whether the Australian market will eventually see lower fees, more liquidity, and other ETF issuers joining the Australian offerings.

That could end up hinging on the uptake of these ETFs by retail investors, as major institutions continue to face fewer hurdles in the US.

Marta Khomyn 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. It’s now possible to invest in bitcoin on Australia’s largest stock exchange. Is the currency going mainstream? – https://theconversation.com/its-now-possible-to-invest-in-bitcoin-on-australias-largest-stock-exchange-is-the-currency-going-mainstream-232718

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alana Lentin, Professor in Cultural and Social Analysis, Western Sydney University

Anchuli Felicia King’s new one-performer piece, American Signs, written for the talented Catherine Văn-Davies, thrusts us into the world of a campus hire at “The Firm”, one of the “Big Three” consultancies in the United States.

Waiting to be either “right-sized” (one of the innumerable euphemisms for “fired”) or hand-chosen for a mission, the protagonist’s fortunes flip when she is told to pack: she’s accompanying her “very attractive and very married” superior to Ohio, where a struggling firm has been forced to call in the big guns.

She can stop compiling “dickstistics” (statistics on equestrian penises) and live to see another day, leaving her Pakistani colleague – deemed too upper-class and, as we shall learn, of the wrong ethnicity to be seen as fuckable by the boss – to the “glue factory”.

The horsey theme that runs through the play serves as an analogy for the human expendability consultancy firms rely on and reproduce. The consultants themselves are expendable, but more so are the workers whose lives they, literally, destroy.

If the former’s expendability is to be avoided, our protagonist must take the stun gun and put it, just so, between the horse’s eyes.

In 21st century capitalism, the consultant stands between the bosses and the workers, thus obscuring the process described by Marx in Volume I of Capital:

the more alien wealth they [the workers] produce, and […] the more the productivity of their labour increases, the more does their very function as a means for the valorisation of capital become precarious.

Nefarious consultancies

King, of Thai-Australian descent, gives her protagonist a Vietnamese identity, the daughter of a workaholic Ba whose sole dream was for his daughter to attend Stanford. She dutifully does, but he has another string to his bow: he breeds horses in Sacramento.

King wants us to know you cannot and should not pigeonhole Asian people. Nods to an abusive relationship with Ba bubble under the surface but go unresolved. We are never sure whether it’s this relationship that breeds the protagonist’s ultimate ability to park her moral qualms about her job in which “you are paid three times as much in one year as the average worker is paid in five”, or whether it’s the nature of consultancy itself.

Certainly, we are left with no ambiguity about the fact that consultancies are nefarious, relying on their employees’ ability to alienate themselves from the effects of their rationalising number-crunching. Except, that is, in their most secretly held thoughts (“I never said this”, Văn-Davies repeats when voicing her qualms).

But in this play we never get a complete sense of what the system is that requires consultancies. Capitalism slips away. In particular, racial capitalism lurks out of sight.

An American story?

King chose to set her play in the US. Management consultancy, after all, is an American invention and setting the play there allows for it to be easily produced outside Australia.

However, this choice also allows the problems it wishes to highlight to be seen as uniquely American signs, to riff on the title. Problems can be looked upon from the Australian vantage point as happening “over there”. This raises at least two issues.

As a worker at an Australian university, the setting felt incongruous. Last year, the Sydney Morning Herald reported Australian universities had ramped up their spending at consultancy firms including PWC, the subject of a Senate inquiry for its role in helping its clients avoid tax, at the same time as universities laid-off (“right-sized”) thousands of employees and engaged in large-scale wage theft. The play felt all too real, yet consultancies’ outsized influence on pubic institutions in Australia is not just a mirroring of US capitalism.

Secondly, the play’s Americanness and the protagonist’s Vietnamese identity collide to produce the comforting idea that race, like capitalism, isn’t (white) Australia’s problem.

That King wants to trouble the binary of white perpetrators and racialised victims is well-taken. Ultimately, her protagonist, while clearly exploited by sexualised racism, chooses to become the embodiment of the perfect consultant that the ruthless pursuit of accumulation at all costs requires.

King makes it clear capitalism wears many faces. However, this troubling of the binary stops at the door of Blackness: the beleaguered boss of the Ohio company she is sent to “downsize” is a Black woman whose accent is uncomfortably reproduced by Văn-Davies who, despite her myriad talents, can’t quite get it right. What then of the inextricability of capitalism and racism?

Making an Asian woman the face of consultancy, encapsulating the industry’s racism in the ethnic preferences of a slimy boss, and taking the heat off Australia’s own central role in racial-colonial capitalism are all choices I’d put to King.

Nonetheless, American Signs is entertaining and astute by all measures. If nothing else, you’ll learn plenty of ways to say, “you’re fired”.

American Signs is at the Sydney Theatre Company until July 14.

Alana Lentin 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. New play American Signs looks at the nefarious world of consultancies – but leaves Australia off the hook – https://theconversation.com/new-play-american-signs-looks-at-the-nefarious-world-of-consultancies-but-leaves-australia-off-the-hook-229500