Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Scott, Professor of Health Economics, Monash University

Deciding whether to wait and see if your health condition improves or go to a GP can be a difficult task. You might be unsure about where to go, whom to see, how much it will cost and whether you’ll need to take time off work.

These choices can create significant barriers to accessing health care in Australia. There is often limited information available about the pros and cons of the different options. Often, we stick to what we know, unaware of better alternatives.

But making the wrong decision about how to access care can impact both your health and finances. So what are your options? And what policy reforms are needed to improve affordable access to care for all Australians?

How quickly can I be seen?

Access depends on how long it takes you to speak to a GP, or be seen in an emergency department, or by a community pharmacist, or a nurse practitioner whom you can see directly. Access depends on where you live and the time of day.

The rise of telehealth means GPs now get paid to talk to you on the phone, which is great for many minor ailments, medical certificates, repeat scripts or getting test results. Call centres such as Healthdirect have been available for some time and now virtual emergency departments can also see you online.

There are even GPs who only provide their services online if you can pay. A phone call can save you valuable time. Before COVID, you needed to take half a day off work to see a GP, now it takes five to ten minutes and the GP even calls you.

Things get more tricky outside of normal working hours and at weekends – appointments are harder to come by, it is unlikely you will be able to see a GP whom you know, and out-of-pocket costs might be higher.

If you can’t wait, your local emergency department is likely to be more accessible, or you might be lucky enough to live near a bulk-billed Medicare urgent care clinic, where you don’t need an appointment. Tomorrow’s federal budget will include funding for another 29 urgent care clinics, on top of the 58 already operating.

But things are much worse if you live if a rural or remote area, where choice is limited and you need to wait much longer for GP appointments or travel long distances. Telehealth helps but can be expensive if it is not with your usual doctor.

Who will I see?

Access depends on who you will see. At the moment, this will usually be your GP (or, depending on the severity of your health concern, your community pharmacist or local emergency department staff). But to see your preferred GP you might need to wait as they are usually very busy.

But a review of “scope of practice” in primary care aims to free up GPs’ time and use their skills more effectively.

So in future, you could receive more of your health care from qualified nurses, nurse practitioners, pharmacists and other health professionals.

But which tasks can be delegated to other health professionals is a significant bone of contention for GPs. For GP practices facing significant cost pressures, safely delegating tasks to other less costly health professionals also makes good business sense.

Read more:
We’re only using a fraction of health workers’ skills. This needs to change

How much will it cost?

Access depends on out-of-pocket costs. Bulk billing of GP services reached a peak of 89.6% in the September quarter of 2022 but plummeted to 76.5% by the September quarter of 2023.

Last November, bulk billing incentives for children under 16 and those on concession cards were tripled, and between November and December 2023 bulk billing had increased from 76.5% to 77.7%.

They key issue for patients is that it remains uncertain whether a GP will bulk bill you. You often don’t know this until you get into the consultation, at which point you can’t back out. Unless the whole practice bulk bills and so it is guaranteed, it’s entirely up to the GP whether you are bulk billed. It’s difficult to think of any other service where you don’t know how much you will pay until after you have used it.

How can policymakers improve access to care?

Government policies to strengthen primary care have focused on giving patients improved access through telehealth, urgent care clinics and Strengthening Medicare initiatives, which are currently being developed.

But uncertainty surrounding out-of-pocket costs can deter people from seeking medical attention, or delay care or go instead to the emergency department or urgent care clinic where there is no out-of-pocket cost.

Cost is a factor that leads to 20% of those with a mental health problem and 30% of those with chronic disease to delay or avoid visiting a health professional. Those most in need are more likely to miss out on necessary visits and prescriptions, sometimes with disastrous consequences. A recent study shows people can die if they stop heart medications due to increased out-of-pocket costs.

The next task for policymakers should be developing policies to guarantee there are no out-of-pocket costs for those on low incomes. This could be a worthwhile investment in our health and should be included in tomorrow’s budget.

Anthony Scott is currently a member of the Strengthening Medicare Implementation Oversight Committee and the Expert Advisory Panel for the Review of General Practice Incentives and the Review of Primary Care After Hours Programs for the Department of Health and Aged Care for which he receives sitting fees. The views are those of the author and not the Department of Health and Aged Care.

– ref. It’s so hard to see a doctor right now. What are my options? – https://theconversation.com/its-so-hard-to-see-a-doctor-right-now-what-are-my-options-229191

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jodi Gardner, Professor, Law School, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Last week’s headlines warning of electricity shortfalls brought the issue of access to energy into (increasingly chilly) homes around the country.

The threat of power cuts due to an unseasonable cold snap and low wind generation was averted by a nationwide effort to reduce consumption. But winter has not even begun in earnest.

Ensuring households can access fuel to warm living areas of the home has been ranked a basic human right by scholars, advocates and some at the United Nations. In a recent survey in the United Kingdom, 97% of survey respondents classified it as a “necessity” to live an adequate life.

And yet an estimated 40,000 New Zealand households had their power cut due to unpaid bills in 2023. And one in five had trouble paying their monthly power bill.

How have we ended up with so many people unable to access such a basic necessity – particularly when energy companies are making near-record margins? Meridian, Contact, Genesis and Mercury made a combined NZ$2.7 billion profit in the 2023 financial year.

The answer goes back to New Zealand’s market structures and the fact so many basic necessities – food, housing and electricity – are provided by private companies.

The rise in fuel poverty

Fuel poverty (also known as fuel hardship) is an ongoing challenge in Aotearoa New Zealand – particularly when it comes to heating.

According to the UK government, a household experiences fuel poverty if it has to spend more than 10% of the total household income on electricity, gas and other fuels to achieve a satisfactory indoor environment. This is defined as meaning at least 21°C in the living areas and 18°C in other parts of the house.

The situation has been exacerbated by COVID-19, increasing inequality, and the cost-of-living crisis.

According to the government, 110,000 households could not afford to keep their house adequately warm in 2022. Māori and Pacific households, renters and low-income households were more likely to experience hardship.

Inadequately heating homes, or having to disconnect electricity, does not just mean people are cold. There are many related, serious social, health and economic consequences.

Damp and mould become a problem, children do not get adequate nutrition due to money going on heating, people’s physical and mental health conditions worsen, food in fridges and freezers can spoil.

According to Consumer NZ, 19% of households had trouble paying their monthly power bill in 2023 but still didn’t meet the threshold of “energy hardship”. Those in dire straits can apply for a Work and Income grant. But these are essentially a loan and can cause financial strain while being repaid.

Private responsibility for a public problem

The political system has almost completely wiped its hands of any overriding duty to ensure people have access to electricity. Instead, it is provided through a contract between the consumer and the energy company.

If someone cannot afford to pay their electricity bill, they run the risk of being judged for not being financially responsible and forced to pay additional disconnection (and reconnection) fees. This approach ignores the fact that the minimum wage rose by only 2% in April but inflation sat at 4% in the first quarter of 2024.

The problem is exacerbated by significant fluctuations in the cost of electricity. This is based on both wholesale cost and the amount of electricity used by households. As the country heads into winter, hundreds of thousands may not be able to heat their homes adequately.

The government has previously offered piecemeal solutions, such as the (now disbanded) Warmer Kiwi Homes programme. A small number of the most vulnerable households also receive up to $31.82 per week to help pay for electricity.

But the statistics on struggling households and financial hardship around the country show these responses are really only a drop in the bucket.

The ‘social tarrif’ solution

One solution would be to return to state ownership of electricity, but that is far from realistic in this political environment.

A simpler – and more appropriately targeted – approach is to implement “social tariffs” for electricity. These are targeted discount energy deals funded by the government for qualifying low-income consumers.

There are examples of social tariffs being used overseas to reduce the harm being caused by profit-driven companies operating in essential sectors.

In the UK, for example, a number of private telecommunications providers have voluntarily chosen to implement subsidised social tariffs for broadband and telephone for people on certain welfare benefits. This is because access to the internet, like electricity, is seen as a basic human right in developed countries.

In light of the profits being made by New Zealand’s biggest energy providers, a serious reconsideration of the system is surely justified. Cost-of-living pressures are ongoing, while temperatures are falling.

If we believe energy is a human right, and all New Zealand houses deserve to be comfortable this winter, now would be the time to act.

I am a co-author with Mia Gray and have worked with her on a number of projects on this topic

– ref. NZ’s big chill was an early winter warning: power should be subsidised for struggling households – https://theconversation.com/nzs-big-chill-was-an-early-winter-warning-power-should-be-subsidised-for-struggling-households-229795

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jess Carniel, Associate professor in Humanities, University of Southern Queensland

Every year claims to be the most controversial year in the Eurovision Song Contest’s history, but it will take a lot to beat the 68th contest.

The 2024 Eurovision contest, which took place in Malmö, Sweden, was marked by conflict, boycotts, protests, harassment and disqualification. Ironically, it was also the year the organisers, the European Broadcasting Union, chose to establish a permanent slogan: United By Music.

Upon announcing the slogan in late 2023, Eurovision’s executive supervisor, Martin Österdahl, said:

By establishing a permanent slogan, we will have consistency in our message that music unites us all. It’s the perfect slogan to underline our values of inclusivity, equality, universality and celebrating diversity through music.

But the backdrop of the October 7 attacks by Hamas on southern Israel and the ongoing war in Gaza have cast a long shadow over Eurovision 2024.

Calls for Israel’s exclusion

Despite the implicit politics of Eurovision’s new slogan, the contest maintains it is a non-political event. Participating broadcasters and artists are required to ensure the contest is not

[…] politicised and/or instrumentalised and/or otherwise brought into disrepute in any way.

But is it possible for a contest of nations to be non-political?

Just as the conflict in Gaza has divided the international community, Eurovision fans, artists and broadcasters were also divided regarding Israel’s participation.

The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, a founding member of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, called for “all participating broadcasters, national competitors, finalists, production crews and viewers” to boycott the event.

Numerous open letters, co-signed by members of the creative industries, were also published in the lead-up to the contest. Some called for Israel to be excluded and/or the event to be boycotted, while others expressed support for Israel and for the contest as a “celebration of unity”.

Many compared the situation to 2022, when Russia was excluded from the contest following its invasion of Ukraine. In response, the European Broadcasting Union emphasised “the Eurovision Song Contest is a competition for broadcasters” (not states), and the Russian broadcasters were suspended from the organisation and contest for “repeated violations of membership obligations and violation of the rules of the public media”.

So as long as KAN, the Israeli broadcaster, adhered to the membership and contest rules, it would be permitted to remain in the contest.

Some suggest the broadcasting union’s decision itself has brought the contest into disrepute, while an anonymous X account has dedicated itself to documenting allegations against KAN regarding adherence to the rules.

Netherlands gets disqualified

Further controversy emerged in the 24 hours ahead of the grand final broadcast. The Dutch act was disqualified for inappropriate behaviour towards a member of the Swedish production team. The European Broadcasting Union said it maintained

a zero-tolerance policy toward inappropriate behaviour […] and are committed to providing a safe and secure working environment for all staff at the contest.

With this affirmation of policy in mind, prior to the dress rehearsal, Irish artist Bambie Thug lodged a complaint
against the Israeli commentators over remarks made during their performance, claiming they breached the rules of the contest. Bambie Thug also said they had been harassed by Israeli fans.

The 2024 grand final opened with two powerhouse countries: Sweden and Ukraine. Sweden was represented by Norwegian twins Marcus & Martinus and their song Unforgettable, while Ukraine’s alonya alyona & Jerry Heil sang the powerful Teresa & Maria.

Together with Luxembourg, which returned to the contest for the first time since 1994, Ukraine is the only country to maintain a 100% grand final qualification record.

Victory for Switzerland

Israel performed fifth. Eden Golan’s song, Hurricane, was entered into the contest following two revisions of the lyrics to remove political references, including its original title, October Rain (a reference to the October 7 attack).

The crowd’s fractured response was audible in the broadcast, and footage posted by audience members on social media provides evidence of widespread booing. Despite this reaction in the arena, Israel placed second in the public televote.

Israel was surpassed in the popular vote by crowd favourite Baby Lasagna, from Croatia. Rim Tim Tagi Dim is a catchy metal song about the impact of economic emigration on young Croatians, their connection to family and their cultural identity.

However, despite leading the betting odds for most of the contest season, Croatia was pipped at the post by jury favourite, The Code, by Nemo from Switzerland. They are the first non-binary artist to win the contest, notably with an artistically impressive and engaging celebration of their non-binary gender identity.

In their victory speech, Nemo said:

I hope this contest can live up to its promise and continue to stand for peace and dignity for every person in this world.

With Nemo’s victory, next year’s hosting duties are passed on to Switzerland, the home of the European Broadcasting Union. The country last won the contest in 1988, when it was represented by a little-known French-Canadian artist named Celine Dion. It also hosted (and won) the first Eurovision contest in 1956.

Tensions run high

Many are questioning Eurovision’s future. Österdahl was almost drowned out by audience boos while verifying the results. A planned skit dedicated to him was cut from the final broadcast, as was the use of the Dutch song title, Europapa, to introduce him.

The audience response to Österdahl is illustrative of the growing disquiet among fans and member broadcasters with the union’s management of the contest. This includes concerns about its partner sponsors (such as Israeli company Moroccanoil), whether it’s effectively safeguarding freedom of the press, and doubts about its capacity to maintain the contest as “non-political”.

The stakes are now high for the union, in collaboration with the Swiss broadcaster SRG SSR, to convince the world it can be united in music after all.

Read more:
Hind’s Hall is Macklemore’s bold new pro-Palestine anthem. What might it actually achieve?

Jess Carniel is currently a Research Fellow at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

– ref. Boycotts, protests, harassment: Eurovision’s future is on the line after its most controversial year yet – https://theconversation.com/boycotts-protests-harassment-eurovisions-future-is-on-the-line-after-its-most-controversial-year-yet-229369

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Schmidt, Professor of Chemistry, UNSW Sydney

Last week, a huge solar flare sent a wave of energetic particles from the Sun surging out through space. Over the weekend, the wave reached Earth, and people around the world enjoyed the sight of unusually vivid aurora in both hemispheres.

While the aurora is normally only visible close to the poles, this weekend it was spotted as far south as Hawaii in the northern hemisphere, and as far north as Mackay in the south.

This spectacular spike in auroral activity appears to have ended, but don’t worry if you missed out. The Sun is approaching the peak of its 11-year sunspot cycle, and periods of intense aurora are likely to return over the next year or so.

If you saw the aurora, or any of the photos, you might be wondering what exactly was going on. What makes the glow, and the different colours? The answer is all about atoms, how they get excited – and how they relax.

When electrons meet the atmosphere

The auroras are caused by charged subatomic particles (mostly electrons) smashing into Earth’s atmosphere. These are emitted from the Sun all the time, but there are more during times of greater solar activity.

Most of our atmosphere is protected from the influx of charged particles by Earth’s magnetic field. But near the poles, they can sneak in and wreak havoc.

Earth’s atmosphere is about 20% oxygen and 80% nitrogen, with some trace amounts of other things like water, carbon dioxide (0.04%) and argon.

When high-speed electrons smash into oxygen molecules in the upper atmosphere, they split the oxygen molecules (O₂) into individual atoms. Ultraviolet light from the Sun does this too, and the oxygen atoms generated can react with O₂ molecules to produce ozone (O₃), the molecule that protects us from harmful UV radiation.

But, in the case of the aurora, the oxygen atoms generated are in an excited state. This means the atoms’ electrons are arranged in an unstable way that can “relax” by giving off energy in the form of light.

What makes the green light?

As you see in fireworks, atoms of different elements produce different colours of light when they are energised.

Copper atoms give a blue light, barium is green, and sodium atoms produce a yellow–orange colour that you may also have seen in older street lamps. These emissions are “allowed” by the rules of quantum mechanics, which means they happen very quickly.

When a sodium atom is in an excited state it only stays there for around 17 billionths of a second before firing out a yellow–orange photon.

But, in the aurora, many of the oxygen atoms are created in excited states with no “allowed” ways to relax by emitting light. Nevertheless, nature finds a way.

The green light that dominates the aurora is emitted by oxygen atoms relaxing from a state called “¹S” to a state called “¹D”. This is a relatively slow process, which on average takes almost a whole second.

In fact, this transition is so slow it won’t usually happen at the kind of air pressure we see at ground level, because the excited atom will have lost energy by bumping into another atom before it has a chance to send out a lovely green photon. But in the atmosphere’s upper reaches, where there is lower air pressure and therefore fewer oxygen molecules, they have more time before bumping into one another and therefore have a chance to release a photon.

For this reason, it took scientists a long time to figure out that the green light of the aurora was coming from oxygen atoms. The yellow–orange glow of sodium was known in the 1860s, but it wasn’t until the 1920s that Canadian scientists figured out the auroral green was due to oxygen.

What makes the red light?

The green light comes from a so-called “forbidden” transition, which happens when an electron in the oxygen atom executes an unlikely leap from one orbital pattern to another. (Forbidden transitions are much less probable than allowed ones, which means they take longer to occur.)

However, even after emitting that green photon, the oxygen atom finds itself in yet another excited state with no allowed relaxation. The only escape is via another forbidden transition, from the ¹D to the ³P state – which emits red light.

This transition is even more forbidden, so to speak, and the ¹D state has to survive for about about two minutes before it can finally break the rules and give off red light. Because it takes so long, the red light only appears at high altitudes, where the collisions with other atoms and molecules are scarce.

Also, because there is such a small amount of oxygen up there, the red light tends to appear only in intense auroras – like the ones we have just had.

This is why the red light appears above the green. While they both originate in forbidden relaxations of oxygen atoms, the red light is emitted much more slowly and has a higher chance of being extinguished by collisions with other atoms at lower altitudes.

Other colours, and why cameras see them better

While green is the most common colour to see in the aurora, and red the second most common, there are also other colours. In particular, ionised nitrogen molecules (N₂⁺, which are missing one electron and have a positive electrical charge), can emit blue and red light. This can produce a magenta hue at low altitudes.

All these colours are visible to the naked eye if the aurora is bright enough. However, they show up with more intensity in the camera lens.

There are two reasons for this. First, cameras have the benefit of a long exposure, which means they can spend more time collecting light to produce an image than our eyes can. As a result, they can make a picture in dimmer conditions.

The second is that the colour sensors in our eyes don’t work very well in the dark – so we tend to see in black and white in low light conditions. Cameras don’t have this limitation.

Not to worry, though. When the aurora is bright enough, the colours are clearly visible to the naked eye.

Read more:
What are auroras, and why do they come in different shapes and colours? Two experts explain

Timothy Schmidt receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.

– ref. What causes the different colours of the aurora? An expert explains the electric rainbow – https://theconversation.com/what-causes-the-different-colours-of-the-aurora-an-expert-explains-the-electric-rainbow-229899

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Ordway, Associate Professor Sport Management and Sport Integrity Lead, University of Canberra

Sport has a role to play in creating a culture of respect, yet women in sport are often seen as “less than” on almost every measure: salaries, sponsorship, broadcasting, leadership, access, media, coaching, officiating, uniforms and support.

Research shows three out of four Australian men are gender equality supporters, but very few (17%) prioritise taking any action.

As Australia grapples with a “national crisis” of violence against women, what can men in sport do to help?

What does the research tell us?

Rigid gender norms can play a part in fuelling male violence against women and children. And sport is an arena, excuse the pun, where rigid gender norms flourish.

When it comes to sport and gendered violence, a special level of toxic attack and misogyny is reserved for women who “dare” to play, watch and work in sport, and this is particularly heightened for women of colour and/or presumed to be from the LGBTQI+ community, whether identifying or not.

Sport also regularly promotes alcohol and gambling, with evident impacts on women and children – whenever there are big sporting events, violence against women by spectators increases.

Players, coaches, commentators and officials repeatedly avoid sanctions, or get a slap on the wrist, and go on to secure leadership roles in sport, sometimes despite allegations of serious gender-based offences.

The message this sends to younger players and fans is that misogyny is acceptable and that “heroes” are beyond reproach. This green-lights sexism, and completely undermines any messages around equality.

Tracey Gaudry has held a trifecta of roles relevant to this discussion. Not only was she previously a former champion cyclist, and former CEO of Hawthorn Football Club, she has also been Respect Victoria’s CEO.

Back in 2020 she nailed the confluence of issues:

“Gender inequality is a driver of violence against women and it can start out small. Because sport comes from a male-dominant origin, those things build up over time and become a natural part of the sporting system and an assumed part.”

What are sports codes and teams doing?

Professional sport organisations and clubs have been trying to address abusive behaviour towards women for decades. Both the AFL and NRL began developing respect and responsibility programs and policies 20 years ago, yet the abuse, and the headlines, continue – against both women in the game, and at home.

There are also opportunities for clubs to take action even if their governing bodies don’t. Semi-professional rugby league club the Redfern All Blacks, for example, are showing leadership: players who are alleged to be perpetrators are banned from playing until they’re prepared to talk about it openly, and prove they are committed to changing their behaviour.

Education is also vital.

At the elite level, most codes are trying to educate those within their sports – the NRL’s Voice Against Violence program, led by Our Watch, is the same organisation the AFL has recently partnered with.

The NRL also implements the “Change the Story” framework in partnership with ANROWS and VicHealth, which includes a zero tolerance education program for juniors transitioning into seniors.

What more should be done?

The AFL’s recent minute silence gesture to support women affected by violence does not go far enough.

Men, especially those in leadership positions, can take action by actively dishonouring the men who have abused women.

Some of the men we celebrate around the country for their service as players, presidents, life members and coaches have been abusive towards women and children.

Recently, the AFL demanded Wayne Carey – who has a long history of domestic violence allegations and assault convictions – be denied his NSW Hall of Fame Legend status. The next step is to see Carey struck off his club and AFL honour rolls.

The same treatment should apply to other convicted abusers such as Jarrod Hayne and Ben Cousins – the list goes on.

To take a stand on violence against women, award winners who have been convicted for, or admitted to, abuse against women should be explicitly called out with an asterisk next to their names – “dishonoured for abuse against women”.

And current and future awards must be ineligible to abusers. Serious crimes should mean a life ban for all roles in sport.

If there is a criminal conviction, or an admission of disrespectful behaviour (abuse, sexism, racism, ableism or homophobia), then action must immediately be taken to strip them of their privileges.

What about the grey area of allegations?

One tricky challenge for sport organisations is how to deal with allegations that don’t result in criminal convictions.

The legal system has systematically failed to protect women from sexual predators, so we can’t rely solely on a conviction to act.

In 2019, the NRL introduced a discretionary “no fault, stand down” rule for players charged with serious criminal offences, and/or offences involving women and children. Under this rule, players must stand down from matches until the matter is resolved.

All sports should, as a baseline starting point, be following suit.

Where to from here?

It’s time sport organisations and fans acknowledged two things can be true: good, even great, athletes, coaches or administrators can be bad humans.

Sporting codes need a zero-tolerance approach for abuse of women which should apply to fans, players, coaches, umpires, referees and administrators.

All codes should strongly consider implementing the “no fault, stand down” rule similar to the NRL. Perpetrators should not be allowed back into high-profile roles. Supporters must also be held to account – if fans can be banned for racism, they can be banned for sexism.

At all levels and across all sports, we must send the message from the ground up: misogyny is unacceptable and the consequence for your bad behaviour is that you are no longer welcome.

The University of Canberra and Sport Integrity Australia have an MoU in place to support a number of research projects, including a research project titled: “Online Harm: Women working in the sports industry.”

Ginger Gorman 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 minute’s silence is fine but when it comes to violence against women, being quiet isn’t enough – https://theconversation.com/a-minutes-silence-is-fine-but-when-it-comes-to-violence-against-women-being-quiet-isnt-enough-229718

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sean Buckley, Lecturer in Molecular Ecology and Environmental Management, Edith Cowan University

The southern pygmy perch hadn’t been seen in Bendigo Creek since the mid-19th-century goldrush, when a booming town sprang up around the central Victorian waterway. This attractive small fish, which displays bright colours when breeding, is no more than 6–8cm long. Once widespread, the species eventually became locally extinct across the Loddon River catchment, which includes the creek.

But today, thanks to the efforts of community volunteers, scientists and local authorities, there are several thriving local populations of this small fish.

Reintroducing species to their old habitat is complicated. For animal species, we need good information about where to source them from and how many to move. It’s essential to have good habitat ready for the newly restored population.

We should also know how genetically diverse the population is because that can affect its long-term success.

A successful reintroduction depends on researchers, environmental managers and local communities working together. That’s exactly what happened in Bendigo.

Pygmy perch range has shrunk

The southern pygmy perch (Nannoperca australis) was once found in many rivers and streams across New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. However, the combined pressures of habitat loss and degradation, invasive species such as redfin perch, carp and eastern gambusia, drought and drawing too much water for farming drove many populations to local extinction.

In 2015, recognising the importance of collaboration across management groups and communities, six regional bodies formed the Tri-State Murray NRM Alliance. They developed the “Magnificent Six” project to reintroduce six native freshwater fish species – all small and endangered – in the Murray-Darling Basin, which includes the Loddon River. The southern pygmy perch was first in line.

In 2018, through the tri-state alliance, a partnership between local government, environmental managers, an aquarium business, local community and fish hobbyists was formed. The Molecular Ecology Lab at Flinders University was brought in to provide guidance and genetics expertise. The lab had experience of successful captive breeding and reintroduction of southern pygmy perch in South Australia.

Everyone came together to plan the most effective course of action. We consulted local community members. We discussed where best to collect fish from and to move them. We planned planting efforts to restore suitable habitat.

Building up new populations

In September 2018, local volunteers – guided by environmental managers – collected more than 100 wild fish. These came from three creeks in two nearby river systems: the Campaspe and Avoca Rivers.

They took these fish to the Middle Creek Farm, a private aquarium business in Stratford, Victoria, to set up a captive breeding program. The aim was to make sure we had enough fish to sustain new populations. Over the next year, volunteers helped to breed and raise more than 600 fish for release.

At the same time, volunteers created new homes for these fish in three local wetlands by planting aquatic vegetation and building woody habitat. The combination of woody debris and dense reeds provides refuge from predators like aquatic birds and are particularly important nurseries for juvenile fish.

In January 2020, 800 fish from all three creeks were released across four wetlands, including restored urban wetlands and national parks. The team came back in September that year to monitor how they were doing.

A triumph for community action based on expert advice

Local communities can play an integral role in programs like this. To date, relatively few conservation programs include active public participation. Even fewer consider genetic information.

At every stage of the Bendigo reintroduction, we collected DNA from the fish by taking a small clipping of the tail fin. Our aim was to see how well the program had maintained genetic diversity. This is important for populations to persist in the long term.

We showed the genetic diversity of the parents was maintained. This diversity has helped the new populations to thrive.

Interestingly, we found the different source populations had unique genetic variation and the breeding program had caused some fish to become “mixed” (like hybrids). When we monitored the populations after release, we found more of these mixed fish surviving. That suggests genetic mixing might be important for southern pygmy perch.

This information helped us to make recommendations for future reintroductions elsewhere.

Everyone benefits

The program was a huge success. All three populations are thriving – so much so that 2,800 fish were taken from our release sites to start a new population in another site within the Gunbower Forest along the Murray River last September. The species was last recorded there in 1997.

With their voracious appetite for mosquito larvae, these populations of pygmy perch may offer a natural solution for pest management. They are also a key food source for many native freshwater fish and waterbird species.

The community benefited too. Seven new landcare groups and more than 20 landholders are now part of reintroduction programs for other fish species. Volunteer organisations increased their social media and public footprint. Pygmy perch have also become popular fish in dams and backyard ponds.

Aquariums of southern pygmy perch are being used in high schools to teach students about fish conservation, pest management and water chemistry.

How can you get involved?

Communities are working tirelessly to restore lost biodiversity across Australia. To help bring back a lost local species you can:

• get involved with your local community “Friends of” conservation groups as well as regional groups, which are great for driving change in your area

• approach local councils and government to provide support and contact relevant stakeholders

• call in university researchers, of course. Many of us would love to provide our expertise and skills to conservation efforts.

Together, we can improve the conservation status of threatened species and restore our declining biodiversity.

We acknowledge the contributions made by Chris Lamin (Middle Creek Farm), Peter Rose (North Central Catchment Management Authority) and Chris Brauer (Flinders University) to this article and research.

Luciano Beheregaray receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. How a long-lost fish species was brought back to Bendigo – https://theconversation.com/how-a-long-lost-fish-species-was-brought-back-to-bendigo-225800

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tracey Clement, Lecturer in Visual Art and McGlade Gallery Director, Australian Catholic University

I slip the needle through a small loop of black thread, pull it tight and snip. Done. I have just tied off the very last stitch on an embroidered scroll that has taken me more than 500 hours across 19 months to complete.

All of my artwork is extremely labour-intensive. But I have to admit, this is a bit excessive, even for me. It’s not surprising that I have been asked more than once “why not just outsource the labour?” and even “what is the point?”

I always sigh and think enviously of plumbers. I am 100% sure hardworking tradies are never asked to justify the point of their work.

Why do I work so hard? There is no one easy answer, it’s different every time. The labour intensity of my processes adds time into the equation and this both carries meaning and can change the meaning of the work as it goes on (and on and on). I always learn something unexpected.

I put my little scissors down and, before busting out the bubbles, I snap a picture for Instagram because #selfpromotion, but also because this is news, albeit of a very slow-breaking kind. This is what I’ve learned after stitching for seemingly endless hours: while no news may be good news, “slow news” is even better.

My embroidered scroll is titled Impossible Numbers. It started as my attempt to memorialise the estimated 3,000,000,000 non-human lives lost in the devastating bushfires of 2019–20, a number impossible to actually comprehend.

Doomscrolling an emergency

During that long and awful summer Sydney was often shrouded in an eerie orange haze. You could smell smoke. Ash fell. But, like many Australians, I experienced the worst of it by doomscrolling fast news.

I was both horrified and fascinated by images of fires so huge and hot they generated their own weather, by pictures of houses reduced to smoking skeletal outlines that somehow remained standing, by headlines comparing the fires to armageddon and the apocalypse.

This hyperbolic language implies we are locked in a war of good versus evil. Even headlines in the vein of “Firefighters battle blazes” pit us (people) against them (the forces of nature). And in the heat of the moment the language of war feels right. I’ve succumbed to it myself. But it is dangerous. This language reinforces the idea we can dominate nature; it frames the fires as a conflict that we can end by winning.

I will admit watching a goat-toting woman berate a sitting prime minister left me with a short-lived, but mildly satisfying, feeling of shared righteous indignation. But mostly doomscrolling just fuelled my sorrow and left me feeling impotent as, inevitably, the fast news cycled on to the next crisis (and the next, and the next).

Slowing it down

In October 2022, I finally stopped trying to process the bushfires, and all their terrifying implications, through the fast-news language of war. I picked up a needle instead.

Of course 3,000,000,000 stitches would be too many, even for me, so I decided to stitch a grid of some 15,000 squares, which I filled with innumerable stitches – a nod to the endless stream of pixels that usually deliver our news.

I started wanting to honour the 3 billion dead, that impossible number, but after months of stitching I realised I was “writing” a kind of slow-news story. It may sound ridiculous, but this tactic has been used before. The Bayeux Tapestry is a slow-news story that documents the Norman conquest of England through embroidery. It took years to stitch, and some 950 years later it is still in circulation.

As an alternative to doomscrolling easily digestible fast-news stories of good triumphing (or not) over evil, I have created an actual fabric scroll which depicts a stylised firestorm building in intensity until it becomes all-consuming.

Despite mimicking pixels, Impossible Numbers is resolutely handmade. It is too messy, too crude, to be anything else. It is bleedingly obvious (and there was blood) the will of a person is inextricably stitched into this image of devastating fire. Human labour is literally entangled in this artwork; it shows us as part of the picture, part of nature. And this is good news

Impossible Numbers doesn’t have a victorious ending, or any ending at all. The scroll is not fully unrolled. There is no end in sight: the story isn’t over, it’s ongoing.

In this way it points to the future; a future in which we are not fighting nature. And this is good news too.

If you don’t have a spare 500 hours to process the news into slow news, don’t worry. By the time I finally tied my last knot, I found I had transformed my fear and rage into something tangible, something both magnificent and beautiful (if I do say so myself), no longer about me.

It is now a slow-news story that is no longer about a particular event; something everyone can share. This is why I do the work.

Impossible Numbers is on display as part of The Blake Prize at the Casula Powerhouse, Sydney, until July 7.

This article is part of Making Art Work, our series on what inspires artists and the process of their work.

Tracey Clement 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. 15,000 squares, 500 hours, 19 months: how I used embroidery to make sense of Australia’s catastrophic fires – https://theconversation.com/15-000-squares-500-hours-19-months-how-i-used-embroidery-to-make-sense-of-australias-catastrophic-fires-227907

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jochen Kaempf, Associate Professor of Natural Sciences (Oceanography), Flinders University

From around 1996 to 2010, Australia was gripped by the millennium drought. As water shortages bit hard, most of Australia’s capital cities built large seawater desalination plants – Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth. Remote towns have also built smaller desalination plants.

Most cities didn’t actually use them much. The drought broke in 2010, and desalinated water is expensive. The exception is Perth, which has been hit by declining rainfall, a drying climate and overuse of groundwater. The city will soon open its third desal plant.

As climate change intensifies, other states are also looking to build more desal plants. In South Australia, for instance, there are plans to build one urgently in response to looming water shortages. The Eyre Peninsula, for instance, is expected to run out of drinking water within two years as groundwater runs dry.

But beyond the expense, many of these plants bring environmental problems of their own.

How does desal work?

A desalination plant pipes in seawater, filters out the salt (usually using a process called “reverse osmosis”), and then flushes the salt back out to sea. This creates plumes of hyper-salty brine.

If you position a desal plant near a strong current, this isn’t a big issue – the salt is quickly diluted. But if you pump brine into a gulf or bay without much natural turnover of water, it can lay waste to entire ecosystems. And unfortunately, South Australia has two large gulfs – and two planned desal plants that could kill off giant cuttlefish or decimate mussel farms.

When BHP Billiton was looking to expand its lucrative Olympic Dam uranium and copper mine in the mid-2000s, it had a problem: not enough water. To solve it, the mining giant announced plans to build a desal plant at Point Lowly, in the upper Spencer Gulf.

This was immediately controversial. Point Lowly is very close to the breeding grounds of the famous giant Australian cuttlefish (Sepia apama), a tourist drawcard.

My research suggested the brine outflow from the desal plant would cause environmental harm to these spectacular breeding grounds.

Despite environmental concerns, the Olympic Dam expansion was eventually approved in 2011, and the approval for the Point Lowly desal plant carried forward to the new Northern Water partnership between the state government and the private sector, which involves BHP as a key player.

This, the government states, is designed to:

provide a new, climate independent water source for the Far North, Upper Spencer Gulf and Eastern Eyre Peninsula regions of South Australia, to enable the growth of industries crucial to achieving net-zero goals, including the emerging green energy and hydrogen industries

The government recently changed the preferred location to Cape Hardy, much further down the Spencer Gulf. From as early as 2028, it will produce up to 260 million litres (megalitres) of desalinated water a day for use in mining and green industries.

A separate smaller desal plant (24 megalitres a day) is also planned for Billy Lights Point near Port Lincoln, to provide water for the lower Eyre Peninsula.

If the government was hoping to avoid controversy by moving away from the cuttlefish, it did not succeed. Opposition has come from the local council, First Nations groups, and fishing and aquaculture industries.

The problem with the location at Billy Lights Point is, once again, what happens to the brine. Salty outflows could damage mussel farms, fisheries and ecosystems.

Super-salty brine is pollution

My research suggests these concerns are well founded.

While we might think brine is harmless – it’s salty, like the sea – this is not correct. Desalination produces brine that is twice as salty as seawater. When you pump it back into the sea, it can form a layer of heavier water that creeps along the seafloor as a so-called brine underflow.

Desal brine can be dangerous, especially in waters that don’t mix rapidly. Without sufficient mixing, the oxygen content of the brine underflow falls over time. Eventually, the brine underflow can turn into a dead zone where very little can survive.

Desalination plants also pump out harmful chemicals with the brine, including pre-treatment chemicals, anti-fouling agents, heavy metals, nutrients, organics, chlorine and acids.

This means we should think very carefully about where to build desalination plants. The Spencer Gulf is full of seagrass meadows, the nurseries of the sea, home to leafy seadragons, giant cuttlefish, king prawns and millions of larval and juvenile fish.

The brine can degrade or even destroy marine ecosystems. In the Arabian Gulf, where about half the world’s desal plants are located, researchers have found the pulses of brine “greatly threatens sensitive species”.

Given this marine pollution, any move to discharge desal brine into calm seas that have high ecological significance and do not flush rapidly is extremely risky.

At present, South Australia’s two planned desal projects do not seem to properly value environmental principles.

For instance, while the large Northern Waters project lists Cape Hardy as the preferred site, Point Lowly is still on the list of options. This ignores previous evidence showing the Spencer Gulf flushes slowly, which means a higher risk of environmental damage. And Cape Hardy is still within valuable and vulnerable marine habitats.

The smaller Port Lincoln desalination plant is expected to be operational by 2026 on Billy Lights Point, which borders Proper Bay and Boston Bay in the lower Spencer Gulf.

These bays are ecologically important, as they provide safe havens to marine larvae. They’re also part of the region’s coastal upwelling, a vital source of nutrients for whales and tuna.

The proposed intake and discharge locations of the Port Lincoln plant are within a few kilometres of valuable mussel and tuna farming operations.

Looking forward

While Cape Hardy is environmentally more suitable for desal discharge than Point Lowly, it is still within the sheltered waters of Spencer Gulf. Hence, some environmental degradation is likely to occur here as well.

If authorities are determined to stick with brine-releasing desal, they should urgently look at sites outside Spencer Gulf, such as Ceduna or Elliston. Here, brine would be quickly diluted by the currents.

But there are other options not yet considered.

It is likely we will need more desalination plants as climate change intensifies. The best solution is a desal plant fully powered by renewables – and without brine discharge. How? By cleaning the brine and turning it into a valuable product: salt.

Read more:
Desalinating seawater sounds easy, but there are cheaper and more sustainable ways to meet people’s water needs

Jochen Kaempf 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. More desalination is coming to Australia’s driest states – but super-salty outflows could trash ecosystems and fisheries – https://theconversation.com/more-desalination-is-coming-to-australias-driest-states-but-super-salty-outflows-could-trash-ecosystems-and-fisheries-229629

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maria O’Sullivan, Associate Professor of Law, Deakin Law School, Deakin University

Students have been protesting on university campuses across Australia for several weeks now, calling on their institutions to cut ties with weapons manufacturers supplying arms to Israel. Some have noted their intention to stay for months if necessary.

So far, these protests have been largely peaceful. But there have been concerns about student safety. And universities have become increasingly concerned about some of the terms used by some protesters.

Last week, some university leaders sought advice from Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus about whether they should act to remove protesters (Dreyfus replied that he did not provide legal advice).

Police in Victoria have also expressed concerns about the camps escalating into violence.

This raises important legal questions: what does the law say about protests at universities and at what point could either the police or university authorities remove protesters from their campuses?

Freedom of speech and the right to protest

The right to protest – made up of the freedom of speech and assembly – is a central component of a functioning democracy.

Australian universities are a part of this structure as they are established to facilitate learning, knowledge and debate. Additionally, many universities recognise they should promote critical and free enquiry, informed intellectual discourse and public debate.

Most universities in Australia are public institutions and campuses are open to the public. So students and non-students are permitted on university land to protest.

However, the right to protest is also subject to limitations in human rights law. First, the right to protest is limited to peaceful assemblies.

The United Nations has clarified that the right of peaceful assembly cannot be exercised using violence. This includes acts such as physical force against others that is likely to result in injury or death or serious damage to property.

What about hate speech?

But what about the use of hate speech on campuses? Would this be grounds for closing down the protests? There has been concern about the use of terms such as “intifada” during the protests and phrases such as “from the river to the sea”.

In my view, it would be unlawful under human rights law to close down an entire protest simply on the basis that some protesters are using that language.

Human rights law requires limitations on protests to be reasonable and proportionate. Removing entire encampments could be considered a disproportionate response in this case.

How could individuals respond?

Some Jewish students say they do not feel safe on campuses where these protests are happening.

Individuals can lodge complaints to federal and state human rights commissions about the use of hate speech.

For example, section 18C of the federal Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful as a civil matter to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” a person in public on grounds of their race, colour, national origin or ethnicity.

Individuals can make a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission, which will investigate the allegation and conduct a conciliation process.

But it does not constitute a criminal offence, which would be grounds to remove the entire protest.

How could police respond?

The powers of police to deal with protests is governed by different state and territory laws. But, generally, police have powers to deal with breaches of the peace and other public disorders.

For instance, in New South Wales, police have special powers to respond to “a riot or other civil disturbance that gives rise to a serious risk to public safety”. Criminal offences such as property damage, assault and physical violence would also allow the police to intervene. So, police could intervene in the protests when criminal acts are taking place.

However, the police would still be expected to react with a proportionate response, and criminal offences by a few protesters would not warrant the removal of the entire encampment.

On top of this, police in the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria and Queensland would be required to consider the human rights charters that exist in those jurisdictions.

At what point could universities limit the protests?

The power of universities to intervene is more complicated. This is because Australian public universities are established under federal and state legislation and so they are not wholly private institutions. This means they are not free to stop people coming onto their property in the same way that a private company is.

But as a place of work, they also have legal obligations to ensure the safety of all people who work and study at their campuses.

In addition, most have academic freedom policies where they commit to allowing freedom of speech on campuses, as well as codes of conduct governing appropriate behaviour, which would apply to staff and students participating in the protests.

So, university heads would need to consider the complexities of all of these laws and policies in planning any intervention.

Essentially, the power of universities to intervene would depend on the nature of the protests.

For example, if the protests are disrupting classes or exams, this would not be grounds to remove the entire encampment, but may empower the university to ask the protesters to move to an area that is less disruptive. Importantly, universities in the ACT, Victoria and Queensland would be obliged to act in accordance with their human rights charters and not act disproportionately when dealing with protesters.

On a practical level, given the numbers of protesters involved, universities would probably need police to help disperse them. They do have university security, but not at the levels required to move protesters safely.

So, if there is going to be any limitation or removal of the protests in a lawful manner, it needs to happen only where necessary, reasonable and proportionate to do so.

Maria O’Sullivan 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. Can university protest camps be removed? What does the law say? – https://theconversation.com/can-university-protest-camps-be-removed-what-does-the-law-say-229806

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Hail, Adjunct Associate Professor, Torrens University Australia (ref. https://www.torrens.edu.au )

Wolfilser/Shutterstock

This article is part one of The Conversation’s “Business Basics” series where we ask leading experts to discuss key concepts in business, economics and finance.

For the most part, economists continue to believe a story of money told to generations of students by a series of textbooks over the past 150 years.

This story asks us to imagine a pre-monetary barter economy, where people bought goods and services by trading them for other goods and services.

Eventually a suitable commodity – perhaps gold or silver – emerged as both an acceptable means of exchange for conducting trade and a convenient unit of account for expressing value.

Later, coins were issued – eventually to be monopolised by governments – and later still paper money, credit, and banking systems.

The problem with this story is that there is no historical evidence to support it. As was noted by prominent anthropologist Caroline Humphreys:

No example of a barter economy, pure and simple, has ever been described, let alone the emergence from it of money … all available ethnography suggests that there has never been such a thing.

So where did money come from exactly? One difficulty we face is that writing about money – what gives it value, and how monetary systems work – is not something young economists are generally encouraged to do.

As a consequence, among the best articles ever written about money are two now more than 100 years old by British economist Alfred Mitchell-Innes, entitled “What is Money?” and “The Credit Theory of Money”.

These papers, until recently almost completely ignored by the economics profession, tell a different story, rejecting the idea that money evolved naturally from barter.

We can now be confident this version is closer to the truth. And it has big implications for how we think about the role of governments within monetary systems, and what gives money value. Acknowledging the true story of money would force a paradigm shift among economists – no wonder a lot of them don’t want to think about it.

Actually, early governments invented money

The truth is that money predates markets. Governments invented money – it did not emerge independently from pre-existing barter systems.

Market economies simply could not develop until money existed. For much of history, the currency tokens people regarded as money had little or no intrinsic value, taking the form of clay tablets, hazelwood tally sticks, base metals, shells or paper.

The earliest forms of what Keynes called “modern money” – to distinguish it from gift tokens used for ceremonial purposes in communal groups – go back to the origins of taxation, accounting, and even literacy and numeracy. These early currencies were units of account used to assess the tributes that had to be paid to early governmental institutions in the Middle East.

The word shekel is still used as a currency unit, but dates to ancient Babylon and the emergence of money itself, over 5,000 years ago.

The idea that the need to pay taxes is what creates a demand for a currency was well understood by colonial governments. They knew how to introduce their currencies into countries they had invaded. To force locals to supply labour or goods to the government, they imposed a tax liability – often, a hut tax. This tax could only be paid using the currency of the colony.

Locals had to either work for the colonial government or supply goods to others who did, else they wouldn’t have the specific currency needed to pay taxes. This created a demand for the colonial power’s currency, which the government could then spend.

If such a government spent more overall than it withdrew in taxation – running a budget deficit – the community could add the remaining currency to its savings. Taxation and the legal system created a demand for the government’s money and provided the impetus for the development of a monetary economy.

Even today, it’s the tax system that drives the monetary system. Demand for a government’s money is guaranteed because people need it to pay federal taxes.

But banks create money too

Actual physical cash makes up a tiny proportion of the money in circulation. Most of what we regard as money is held in our bank deposits, effectively a bunch of numbers on a ledger. Most of these bank deposits are created by banks when they make loans to us, and this is not government money at all – it is private money, created by the banks themselves.

When a bank makes a loan to you, that loan becomes an asset for the bank, because you have to pay it back with interest. But at the same time, the loan appears as a deposit of funds in your account, which is a liability for the bank. Technically, you both owe each other.

On paper, this means there’s now money in the system that wasn’t there before. The bank hasn’t actually lent you someone else’s money, the loan deposited in your account represents an IOU to the bank’s other depositors.

Both the loan and the deposit are created by the bank, using nothing more than a computer keyboard. The bank has promised to use its holdings of government money to make payments on your behalf, including tax payments to the government, or to provide you with government money in the form of physical cash.

As economist Hyman Minsky once said, “anyone can create money – the problem lies in getting it accepted”.

Obviously, private banks don’t issue government currency. The Commonwealth government and its agent, the Reserve Bank of Australia, sit at the top of our own monetary system.

Government-issued currency will always have value because it’s the unit of account needed to assess and pay our taxes. How much value the currency holds depends on how much the economy produces, how difficult it is to obtain the currency and on how much tax we have to pay.

Here is some food for thought. If we accept that money and markets did not emerge naturally but had to be created by governmental institutions and legal systems, this means that there is no such thing as a genuinely free market, no such thing as a natural rate of unemployment, and no such thing as a natural distribution of income and wealth.

The theory that money emerged naturally in the private sector encourages people to believe that free markets are natural systems in which governments only interfere. But in truth, early governments invented the very institutions of money and markets, and the regulatory frameworks that determined how those markets work and in whose interests.

Exchange economies have always depended on systems of law and they always will. The more pertinent question concerns who writes those laws – and in whose interests those regulations are applied.

I helped the director of Finding the Money on an Australian tour in March 2024. I have no financial stake in the film, however.

– ref. Where did money come from? – https://theconversation.com/where-did-money-come-from-229481

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julian Koplin, Lecturer in Bioethics, Monash University & Honorary fellow, Melbourne Law School, Monash University

If you search Google Scholar for the phrase “as an AI language model”, you’ll find plenty of AI research literature and also some rather suspicious results. For example, one paper on agricultural technology says:

As an AI language model, I don’t have direct access to current research articles or studies. However, I can provide you with an overview of some recent trends and advancements …

Obvious gaffes like this aren’t the only signs that researchers are increasingly turning to generative AI tools when writing up their research. A recent study examined the frequency of certain words in academic writing (such as “commendable”, “meticulously” and “intricate”), and found they became far more common after the launch of ChatGPT – so much so that 1% of all journal articles published in 2023 may have contained AI-generated text.

(Why do AI models overuse these words? There is speculation it’s because they are more common in English as spoken in Nigeria, where key elements of model training often occur.)

The aforementioned study also looks at preliminary data from 2024, which indicates that AI writing assistance is only becoming more common. Is this a crisis for modern scholarship, or a boon for academic productivity?

Who should take credit for AI writing?

Many people are worried by the use of AI in academic papers. Indeed, the practice has been described as “contaminating” scholarly literature.

Some argue that using AI output amounts to plagiarism. If your ideas are copy-pasted from ChatGPT, it is questionable whether you really deserve credit for them.

But there are important differences between “plagiarising” text authored by humans and text authored by AI. Those who plagiarise humans’ work receive credit for ideas that ought to have gone to the original author.

By contrast, it is debatable whether AI systems like ChatGPT can have ideas, let alone deserve credit for them. An AI tool is more like your phone’s autocomplete function than a human researcher.

The question of bias

Another worry is that AI outputs might be biased in ways that could seep into the scholarly record. Infamously, older language models tended to portray people who are female, black and/or gay in distinctly unflattering ways, compared with people who are male, white and/or straight.

This kind of bias is less pronounced in the current version of ChatGPT.

However, other studies have found a different kind of bias in ChatGPT and other large language models: a tendency to reflect a left-liberal political ideology.

Any such bias could subtly distort scholarly writing produced using these tools.

The hallucination problem

The most serious worry relates to a well-known limitation of generative AI systems: that they often make serious mistakes.

For example, when I asked ChatGPT-4 to generate an ASCII image of a mushroom, it provided me with the following output.

   .--'|
   /___^ |     .--.
       ) |    /    
      / |   |      |
     |   `-._    /
             `~~`
      `-..._____.-`

It then confidently told me I could use this image of a “mushroom” for my own purposes.

These kinds of overconfident mistakes have been referred to as “AI hallucinations” and “AI bullshit”. While it is easy to spot that the above ASCII image looks nothing like a mushroom (and quite a bit like a snail), it may be much harder to identify any mistakes ChatGPT makes when surveying scientific literature or describing the state of a philosophical debate.

Unlike (most) humans, AI systems are fundamentally unconcerned with the truth of what they say. If used carelessly, their hallucinations could corrupt the scholarly record.

Should AI-produced text be banned?

One response to the rise of text generators has been to ban them outright. For example, Science – one of the world’s most influential academic journals – disallows any use of AI-generated text.

I see two problems with this approach.

The first problem is a practical one: current tools for detecting AI-generated text are highly unreliable. This includes the detector created by ChatGPT’s own developers, which was taken offline after it was found to have only a 26% accuracy rate (and a 9% false positive rate). Humans also make mistakes when assessing whether something was written by AI.

It is also possible to circumvent AI text detectors. Online communities are actively exploring how to prompt ChatGPT in ways that allow the user to evade detection. Human users can also superficially rewrite AI outputs, effectively scrubbing away the traces of AI (like its overuse of the words “commendable”, “meticulously” and “intricate”).

The second problem is that banning generative AI outright prevents us from realising these technologies’ benefits. Used well, generative AI can boost academic productivity by streamlining the writing process. In this way, it could help further human knowledge. Ideally, we should try to reap these benefits while avoiding the problems.

The problem is poor quality control, not AI

The most serious problem with AI is the risk of introducing unnoticed errors, leading to sloppy scholarship. Instead of banning AI, we should try to ensure that mistaken, implausible or biased claims cannot make it onto the academic record.

After all, humans can also produce writing with serious errors, and mechanisms such as peer review often fail to prevent its publication.

We need to get better at ensuring academic papers are free from serious mistakes, regardless of whether these mistakes are caused by careless use of AI or sloppy human scholarship. Not only is this more achievable than policing AI usage, it will improve the standards of academic research as a whole.

This would be (as ChatGPT might say) a commendable and meticulously intricate solution.

Julian Koplin 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. AI-assisted writing is quietly booming in academic journals. Here’s why that’s OK – https://theconversation.com/ai-assisted-writing-is-quietly-booming-in-academic-journals-heres-why-thats-ok-229416

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin O’Brien, Associate Professor, School of Government and International Relations, Griffith University

University campuses around the world have become the site of tiny tent cities in recent weeks, with student activists protesting the ongoing conflict in Gaza.

Though the protests on Australian campuses have been largely peaceful, tensions are starting to rise. There have been allegations of hate speech and clashes between student groups in recent days. And in the US, there have been disturbing scenes of police interventions to break up similar protests nationwide.

The students, and many others, are protesting the loss of life and worsening conditions in the current Gaza conflict. Many Israeli hostages taken in last year’s assault by Hamas have yet to be returned, while the Palestinian death toll from the Israel Defence Forces’ response is believed to have exceeded 34,000. Many Palestinians are also experiencing what the United Nations has termed a “full-blown famine”.

The situation in Gaza is undoubtedly severe and requires urgent international attention and a peaceful resolution. Yet it is not the only armed conflict or humanitarian crisis in the world – far from it.

Why, then, has the Gaza war generated such passionate and sustained interest, particularly among young people? Why are people motivated to protest on this specific issue, but not others?

A strong narrative that shocks us

There are many factors that explain why people choose to protest. Personal, family or community impacts are strong motivations to become an activist. But even for those without an obvious connection to a cause, news coverage and stories shared to social media can be enough to catalyse action.

Researchers have found some stories or narratives are more effective than others at mobilising political activism. In the case of the Gaza war, I believe three factors in the narrative have helped fuel the significant protest movements we are seeing globally.

First, narratives are powerful motivators of action when they combine elements of what social movements scholars call “breach” and “resonance”.

A crisis narrative, like the one in Gaza, attracts and holds people’s attention because it shocks us. It represents a “breach” with our expectations of how life should be and what we deem acceptable.

A powerful narrative must also be “culturally resonant”, which means it is consistent with our understanding of how the world works. That is to say, it must reflect a familiar story.

The images of children and families who have been harmed by the Gaza war tell a horrific, yet recognisable, tale. And this has motivated protesters to act to try to right the wrong, and correct the breach.

The recognition of an ‘ideal victim’

Second, protesters are often motivated to engage in collective action to defend or protect an “ideal victim”.

While the term “ideal victim” is far from ideal, the concept itself is ever-present in awareness campaigns and protest movements, due to the power of this central figure to compel action. In academic terms, ideal victims are those seen as being innocent and powerless.

Historically, campaigns on behalf of the Palestinian people have not achieved the same support or urgency that we are seeing now. In the current Gaza conflict, the military strength of the Israel Defence Forces, contrasted with the vulnerability of the civilian population in places like Rafah, highlights the “ideal victim” in need of protesters’ urgent actions.

Of course, there are many “ideal victims” in conflicts and crises around the world whose stories are not catalysing collective action.

This is, in part, because their stories are not being showcased through news outlets and on social media. While the “ideal victim” must be recognised as powerless, they must also be able to tell their story to motivate others to act, either themselves or through their advocates. Many victims of conflict are rendered invisible by inattention.

Read more:
Divesting university endowments: Easier demanded than done

The ability to have a tangible impact

Third, protest or collective action is often more sustained when there is a clear call to action and activists can see a role for themselves within the narrative.

The “real time” nature and urgency of the Gaza war is an important motivator for action. While the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not new, the current situation has played out in front of our eyes since October, when Israelis were kidnapped and killed in the Hamas assault and the government responded with military force.

With a ground assault on Rafah seemingly now imminent, activists may be motivated by the sense this is a critical juncture in the conflict where their protest may have a real impact.

The motivation to protest also rises exponentially when other types of activism fail to bring change. For example, when political leaders ignore petitions and representations from community groups, protest movements emerge. And when legislatures fail to act, protesters call for action from others.

In the current protests, for instance, many students are calling for their universities to divest from weapons manufacturers profiting from the conflict, or Israeli companies linked more broadly with the occupied West Bank and Gaza, as a symbolic protest.

This is part of the wider boycott, divest and sanction (or BDS) campaign, which uses political consumerism and political investorism as protest tactics.

The conflict in Gaza may seem intractable, but the divestment demand gives protesters an achievable aim with a localised target – their own universities. Protesting at this important time, with an achievable demand, allows activists to write themselves into the narrative. They can contribute something to the push for peace.

Read more:
What students protesting Israel’s Gaza siege want — and how their demands on divestment fit into the BDS movement

In recent days, this action has led to tangible results. Trinity College Dublin in Ireland agreed to divest from three Israeli companies linked to settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. After the university made the announcement, students began dismantling their protest camp.

Protest is not always about achieving specific demands, though. Protests also have significant symbolic value in raising awareness and bringing others to the cause. Whether student protesters are motivated by powerful stories, a need to protect victims or the chance to have an impact, they exemplify a wider narrative message that protesting for peace is a worthwhile pursuit.

Erin O’Brien receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is affiliated with the Australian Political Studies Association and the T.J. Ryan Foundation.

– ref. What is it about Gaza? Wars are raging around the world, so why are young people so passionate about this one? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-it-about-gaza-wars-are-raging-around-the-world-so-why-are-young-people-so-passionate-about-this-one-229499

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Holly Seale, Associate Professor, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney

Australia’s childhood immunisation program gets very good uptake every year – almost 94% of five-year-olds have had all their routine vaccinations. But our influenza vaccine coverage doesn’t get such a good report card.

Looking back over recent years, for kids aged six months to five years, we saw a peak in flu vaccine coverage at the beginning of the COVID pandemic at 46%, which then declined to 30% by the 2023 season.

While we’re still relatively early in the 2024 flu season, only 7% of children under five have received their flu shot this year so far.

Although young children are a particular concern, flu vaccination rates appear to be lagging for the population as a whole. Reports indicate that from March 1 to April 28, 16% fewer people were vaccinated against the flu compared with the same period last year.

So what’s going on, and what can we do to boost uptake?

Why do we vaccinate kids against the flu?

Last year, reported cases of flu were highest in children aged five to nine, followed by those aged zero to four. This is not a new trend – we record a high number of flu cases and hospital admissions in kids every year. So far this year children aged zero to four have had the highest number of infections, marginally ahead of five- to nine-year-olds.

While kids are more likely to catch and spread the flu, they’re also at greater risk of getting very sick from it. This particularly applies to children under five, and the flu vaccine is available for free for this age group.

The flu vaccine isn’t perfect – it may not prevent infections entirely – but it’s definitely our best chance of protection. Research has shown influenza-related visits to the GP were more than halved in vaccinated children compared with unvaccinated children.

So why are kids not receiving the vaccine?

Often, it comes down to misunderstandings about who is eligible for the vaccine or whom it’s recommended for. But we can address this issue by nudging people via a text message reminder.

Some parents report concerns about the vaccine, including the old dogma that it can cause the flu. The flu vaccine can’t give you the flu because it doesn’t contain live virus. Unfortunately, that myth is really sticky.

For some parents, the challenge can be forgetting to book or accessing an appointment.

It’s not just kids at higher risk

Adults aged 65 and over are also more vulnerable to the flu, and can receive a free vaccine. For this group, we usually get around 65% vaccinated. So far this year, around 35% of over-65s have received their flu vaccine.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are likewise eligible for a free flu vaccine. While previously coverage rates were higher among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples compared to the overall population, this gap has narrowed. There’s even some movement backwards, especially in younger age groups.

The flu vaccine is also free for pregnant women and anyone who has a medical condition such as heart disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes or kidney disease.

Past studies have found flu vaccine coverage for pregnant women varies around the country from 39% to 76% (meaning in some jurisdictions up to 60% of pregnant women are not getting vaccinated). When it comes to adults with chronic health conditions, we don’t have a good sense of how many people receive the vaccine.

The reasons adults don’t always get the flu vaccine overlap with the reasons for children. Often concerns about side effects are cited as the reason for not getting vaccinated, followed by time constraints.

We also know accessing medical services can be difficult for some people, such as those living in rural areas or experiencing financial hardship.

Filling the gaps

In Australia, GPs offer flu vaccines for all ages, while flu vaccination is also available at pharmacies, generally from age five and up.

While some people make a conscious decision not to get themselves or their children vaccinated, for many people, the barriers are related to access.

Programs offering vaccination outside the doctor’s office are increasing globally, and may assist in filling gaps, especially among those who don’t have regular access to a GP.

For some people, their only point of contact with the medical system may be during emergency department visits. Others may have more regular contact with a specialist who coordinates their medical care, rather than a GP.

Offering vaccine education and programs in these settings has been shown to improve immunisation rates and may play a pivotal role in filling access gaps.

Outside medical and pharmacy settings, the workplace is the most common place for Australian adults to receive their flu vaccine. A survey showed Australian adults find workplace vaccination convenient and cost-effective, especially where free or subsidised vaccines are offered.

Expanding vaccination settings, such as with drive-through and mobile clinics, can benefit groups who have unique access barriers or are under-served. Meanwhile, offering vaccination through faith-based organisations has been shown to improve uptake among racial and ethnic minority groups.

Eleftheria Lentakis, a masters student at the School of Population Health at UNSW Sydney, contributed to this article.

Holly Seale is an investigator on research studies funded by NHMRC and has previously received funding from NSW Ministry of Health, as well as from Sanofi Pasteur, Moderna and Pfizer for investigator driven research and consulting fees.

– ref. Too many Australians aren’t getting a flu vaccine. Why, and what can we do about it? – https://theconversation.com/too-many-australians-arent-getting-a-flu-vaccine-why-and-what-can-we-do-about-it-229477

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

As it looks to an election next year when holding up Labor’s female vote will be vital, Treasurer Jim Chalmers has declared Tuesday will bring “a budget for mums and middle Australia”.

“The primary focus of our economic plan is to help ease inflation and the cost of living, with a big focus on delivering more help for middle Australia and more help for mums,” Chalmers said on Sunday, in rhetoric targeted to match mothers’ day.

“Whether it is a bigger tax cut for more than 90% of women, paying superannuation on paid parental leave, wiping HELP debt, or funding wage increases in aged care and childcare, the women of Australia will be big beneficiaries of the budget.”

While women will be a prime political target, economically the budget – the Albanese government’s third – will be substantially judged on its implications for inflation.

Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock stressed this last week, when she flagged the bank would lift rates if that became necessary. The government needs a rate cut before the election.

New forecasts released by Chalmers on Sunday show inflation has moderated faster than treasury expected in its December mid-year budget update. Then, treasury forecast inflation to be 3.75% through to the June quarter 2024. The most recent annual figure showed inflation already ahead of this forecast, at 3.6% through the year to the March quarter. The budget now has annual inflation at 3.5% through the year to the June quarter 2024.

The government said its cost-of-living policies were helping the moderation in inflation.

“As a result of our policies. Treasury is forecasting that headline inflation could return to the [Reserve Bank] target band [2-3%] by the end of 2024. This would be earlier than the 2025 timeframe they forecast” in the mid-year update.

While the new forecasts show inflation returning to the Reserve Bank’s target band slightly sooner than the December forecasts, they show it remaining higher for longer – staying at 2.75% in the year to June 2026, rather than falling to 2.5% as forecast in December.

Both sets of forecasts are good deal more optimistic than the Reserve Bank’s forecasts released on Tuesday last week.

These have inflation staying above the Reserve Bank’s 2-3% target band until late 2025. The forecasts in Tuesday’s budget will have it returning to the top of the target band late this year.

In the papers accompanying the release of its inflation forecasts, the bank said the unwinding of legislated electricity rebates was expected to add 0.25 percentage points to year-ended headline inflation in the year to December.

Any decision in the budget to extend or replace the rebates would mitigate this effect, taking pressure off inflation. Some energy cost relief is expected although Chalmers has indicated it is likely to differ from the earlier relief.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has credited the increases in Commonwealth rent assistance in the 2023 budget with taking 1.7 percentage points off the rent increases in the consumer price index, producing recorded increases of 7.8% in the year to March this year instead of 9.5%.

Any further increase in rent assistance in this budget will take further pressure off increases. Some more help is expected although it could be less than. last year.

Chalmers said the difference between the Reserve Bank and budget forecasts on inflation was due to the bank’s figures coming before the budget and so not taking its measures into account.

The budget downgrades growth forecasts compared to the mid year update. Real GDP is forecast to grow 2% in 2024-25 and 2.25% in 2025-26. This is a quarter of a percentage point lower in both years than in the December update.

The budget papers say there is “considerable uncertainty around the outlook for the domestic and global economy”. Given the uncertainty about inflation, forecasting is even more difficult than usual.

Emphasising how the budget will assist women, Chalmers said the recently announced decision to pay superannuation on Commonwealth paid parental leave will cost $1.1 billion over four years from 2024-25, and an ongoing $623.1 million a year.

Of the about $3 billion in HELP debt expected to be written off under the rejigged indexation arrangements, about $1.75 billion is expected to be written off for women.

The budget will also make a multi-billion dollar provision towards wage increases for early childhood education and aged care workers. But details will be settled later and there will be phase in arrangements.

Chalmers told Sky he expected the government would run full term – the election is due by May next year – and he would deliver a fourth budget before it.

“The reason why that is less relevant to me than you might anticipate is because what I’ve tried to do with this budget […] is to make the budget right for he economic cycle rather than the political cycle.”

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. “A budget for mums and middle Australia’: Jim Chalmers – https://theconversation.com/a-budget-for-mums-and-middle-australia-jim-chalmers-229887

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marlene Longbottom, Associate Professor, Indigenous Education & Research Centre, James Cook University

This article contains information on deaths in custody and the violence experienced by First Nations people in encounters with the Australian carceral system. It also contains references to and the names of people who are now deceased.

As the country reels from women being killed due to violence, government has responded by calling urgent meetings and roundtables to address this national crisis. This must properly include Indigenous women, who experience shocking levels of family and domestic violence, and sexual assault.

It must be recognised women are not a homogenous, collective group. The issues experienced by non-Indigenous women are not always the same as those experienced by Indigenous women. As such, it is imperative the voices of Indigenous survivors, researchers and advocates in addressing violence are fully heard and respected in the current debate.

According to recent research led by Kyllie Cripps, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are 32 times more likely to be hospitalised for injury associated with violence than non-Indigenous women. They are eight times more likely to be a victim of homicide. This figure is higher in some areas, such as Western Australia, which recorded Aboriginal mothers as 17.5 times more likely to be a victim of homicide.

Recently, the Domestic Family and Sexual Violence Commission convened an emergency roundtable. However, we are still concerned the outcomes of the roundtable do not respond to the serious and ongoing structural and systemic barriers Indigenous women face.

There are also concerns a significant investment recently announced in Western Australia will not support Indigenous women. They’re based largely on an expansion of existing services, police, child protection and corrections, and non-Indigenous service responses. These decisions were made contrary to the states own Aboriginal family violence policy and in the absence of research or evidence base.

Potentially harmful reforms

Indigenous women’s sustained advocacy, as well as coronial inquests, and the senate inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women, have all shone a light on how Indigenous women and children experience violence at alarming rates, even after formal inquiries and royal commissions over the past two decades.

However, as was identified in the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Queensland Police Service’s responses to domestic and family violence, reforms are often reactive and short lived. Key recommendations have been ignored, while governments have made services mainstream.

White feminists have pursued a law and order agenda that has been proven not only to be ineffectual, but potentially even harmful to Indigenous women. For example, coercive control laws risk misidentifying Indigenous women as the perpetrators of violence for not presenting as “ideal victims”.

As Aboriginal women with lived experience of violence, we continue to point out the urgency of addressing the abhorrent rates of violence through the inclusion of our voices at national forums. For years, Indigenous researchers, survivors, advocates and allies have called for action. This advocacy, and expertise, is often overlooked.

Failures of policing

Governments promise to address the issue. Emergency services promise to do better. Yet in coronial inquests, inquiries and specialist investigations, we continue to see the services with the mandate to protect the community failing Indigenous women. Indigenous women are reluctant to call the police for many reasons, including ongoing racism and prejudice.

Indigenous women know police may not take their reporting of violence seriously. This is common knowledge in Indigenous communities. Calls are often downgraded in urgency or not responded to at all, even after a victim has repeatedly calling triple zero for support. In many cases, Aboriginal women are wrongly identified as perpetrators, situations that have also resulted in their being murdered.

The Northern Territory coroner is currently examining the role systemic racism played in the murders of four Aboriginal women. The Queensland Commission of Inquiry also found racism, misogyny and sexism contributed to the negative experiences of victim-survivors. Cripps further found in her study coroners have previously identified systemic racism as being significant in the deaths of Indigenous women.

And while Aboriginal women are at an elevated risk of violence and homicide, culturally safe family and domestic violence services are critically underfunded or non-existent. This is neglectful. The National Family Violence Prevention and Legal Services has funding tied to federal government cycles and is unable to meet demand. It’s currently awaiting the government’s response to a review into the National Legal Assistance Program. This was finalised in March and called for an increase in recurrent funding to enable their services to provide crucial support to Indigenous women and children nationally.

One size doesn’t fit all

Indigenous women have long argued for systemic reforms that address the underlying drivers of violence, support victim-survivors, ensure justice and demand accountability for offenders. This means not every support service can be for all women. They need to be tailored to meet the specific needs of Indigenous women.

The presumption that one size fits all omits the unique factors in different communities across the nation. For example, some regional and remote communities face significant difficulties in accessing telecommunication services. At the same time, the connectedness of cities doesn’t automatically make support easily accessible.

The lives of Indigenous women are at further risk with delays due to distance and access to funds to escape unsafe situations. This was demonstrated through evidence supplied to the Queensland Commission of Inquiry. It found a high likelihood of death in some remote areas. Centralised call centres can be thousands of kilometres away, delaying access to help.

Research jointly led by Marlene Longbottom found accessible services need to ensure Indigenous women are not retraumatised as they share their stories. We should also remember the first responders in these situations are ultimately families. As a result of helping a woman fleeing a violent situation, families also become targets for perpetrators and their networks.

A key deterrent to reporting violence is that police are mandatory reporters of child abuse. Indigenous women know if they report violence against them, police and child protection working together can decide children are at risk and remove them into state care. There is a real risk of child removal as a consequence for Indigenous women who report violence, causing immense harm and trauma to mothers and their children.

While there have been changes that include service integrations and high-risk teams, the implementation of these services can often let Indigenous women down because they are not based on their needs.

As Indigenous women are rightly reluctant to seek support, systems continue violence. Not only must Indigenous women consider the safety of themselves and their children, they also have to navigate multiple services. These service systems are often challenging and overwhelming, and can also offer contradictory advice. This makes decision-making difficult.

When it comes to sexual assault, there are virtually no culturally appropriate services available to Indigenous women and girls, who are at high risk of such violence. According to the World Health Organization, one in three Indigenous women globally will be a victim of rape in their lives. This is certainly true of First Nations women and girls in Australia.

Increasingly, our homicide research is finding links between sexual violence perpetration and subsequent domestic and family violence deaths. It is crucial more research is done in this space to ensure we are identifying casual links and preventive opportunities.

Growing the knowledge base

A recent study by Hannah McGlade with the Australian National Research Organisation on Women (ANROWS), highlights the violence as systemic and structural, also constituting Indigenous femicide. Research on murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls by Indigenous researchers has been neglected by the state, yet is critical to understanding and responding effectively.

Greater investment is required in research by Indigenous researchers. We are part of a new research initiative that aims to address this knowledge gap.

Given the lack of government action over many years, Aboriginal women, including the former Social Justice Commissioner, have led national policy change. Indigenous women’s calls for a separate national action plan, also supported by United Nations treaty bodies and experts, were finally heard.

This plan must be underpinned by Indigenous-led efforts in each state and territory, and including the establishment where needed of Aboriginal family and domestic violence state peak bodies. We say again “nothing about us, without us” and call for genuine engagement with the state and sector. There’s a lot of work to do to save the lives of First Nations women and it must start now.

Marlene Longbottom is a DAATSIA Research Fellow funded by the Australian Research Council.

Hannah McGlade is affiliated with the Noongar Family Safety and Wellbeing Council.

Kyllie Cripps receives funding from the Australian Research Council and other state governments to conduct research and evaluations.

– ref. Indigenous women are most affected by domestic violence but have struggled to be heard. It’s time we listened – https://theconversation.com/indigenous-women-are-most-affected-by-domestic-violence-but-have-struggled-to-be-heard-its-time-we-listened-229720

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

Tuesday’s budget will respond to the deepening public agitation over Australia’s housing shortages by pouring new money into crisis accommodation for women and children, social housing and infrastructure.

A specially-convened national cabinet late Friday ticked off on the package, much of which is delivered through the states and territories.

It allocates $1 billion for crisis and transitional accommodation for women and children fleeing domestic violence, and youth under the National Housing Infrastructure Facility.

This includes increasing the proportion of grants for this investment from $175 million to $700 million in the budget to support crisis and transitional housing.

In the debate over violence against women that has taken centre stage in recent weeks, there have been constant calls for more accommodation to enable women to leave dangerous situations.

A further $1 billion is to be provided to “get homes built sooner”. This will be money for states and territories for roads, sewers, energy, water and other community infrastructure.

The government also announced a new $9.3 billion five year national agreement, starting July 1, on social housing and homelessness.

This is for states and territories to address homelessness, provide crisis support, and build and repair social housing. It includes a doubling of Commonwealth homelessness funding to $400 million annually, matched by state and territory governments.

The government’s statement on the housing package was very short on detail, with no indication on the timing through the forward estimates of the various funding allocations. Nor did it say whether any part of the money had been repurposed.

The government also said it will work with the higher education sector on regulations requiring universities to boost their supply of student housing for local and foreign students.

.
It says the new budget money will build on the more than $25 billion in new housing funding it has committed to in various programs over the next decade.

It has a goal of building 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade.

But demand continues to run far ahead of supply, with high migration intakes – which the government is cutting – and shortages of labour and materials adding to the problem.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the housing issue “isn’t about one suburb or one city nor one state. It’s a challenge facing Australians everywhere and it needs action from every level of government”.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the government was delivering billions more dollars in the budget to build more houses “because we know that to address this housing challenge, we need to boost supply”.

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. Budget to pledge billions more in funds and fresh effort to tackle intractable housing crisis – https://theconversation.com/budget-to-pledge-billions-more-in-funds-and-fresh-effort-to-tackle-intractable-housing-crisis-229818

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sara Dehm, Senior lecturer, international migration and refugee law, University of Technology Sydney

The High Court unanimously ruled today that the Australian government can keep asylum seekers in immigration detention indefinitely in cases where they do not “voluntarily” cooperate with their own deportation.

This includes, for example, when a person refuses to apply for travel documents due to a longstanding fear for their life if returned to their home country.

At the crux of today’s ruling is the legal fiction that indefinite immigration detention can remain “non-punitive” and legitimate if a person is detained for the “purpose” of their eventual removal from Australia – even if the human effects of this detention are harmful and experienced as punishment.

The decision places a significant limit on the precedent set by last year’s landmark High Court ruling that indefinite immigration detention is unlawful if there is “no real prospect” of a person’s deportation in the foreseeable future.

Read more:
The government wanted to avoid an inquiry into its deportation bill. Given the findings, it’s easy to see why

What did the case involve?

The case centred around “ASF17”, a bisexual Iranian man who has been held in closed immigration detention in Australia for more than ten years. Although Iran criminalises homosexual activity, ASF17 was found not to be a refugee under Australia’s fast-track asylum claim process, which many experts have deemed to be flawed and discriminatory.

Under Australian law, the government is required to deport ASF17 as soon as reasonably practicable back to Iran – or release him from detention if there is “no real prospect” of deportation.

The government argued before the court, however, that it was not required to release him because he was not cooperating in his own deportation. He had refused to seek the required travel documents from the Iranian government.

The Australian government argued that ASF17 could bring his indefinite detention to an end at any time by voluntarily returning to Iran, or by taking the necessary steps to allow the government to deport him.

ASF17’s lawyers argued he had “good reason” for not cooperating with his own deportation – he feared for his life if he returned to Iran. As he stated during cross-examination during the case:

if I didn’t fear harm, I wouldn’t have stayed in this camp for 10 years. I would have quickly gone back to begin with the first day. Who […] will leave their family and prefer the prison?

ASF17 was prepared to be deported to any country other than Iran. And Iran would not have even allowed him to return, as it does not accept forced or involuntary deportations of its citizens from other countries.

The Australian government acknowledged there was no reasonable prospect of him being sent anywhere else.

What did the High Court decide?

The court found there was still a “real prospect” of ASF17’s removal, given it depended in part on his conduct. Central to the court’s verdict was how it characterised ASF17’s position:

He has decided not to cooperate. He has the capacity to change his mind. He chooses not to do so.

The court held that in such circumstances, detention remained “non-punitive” and therefore lawful. By making this finding, the court was basically saying that the constitutional limit on the government’s power to keep a person in indefinite detention does not apply in such cases.

The court emphasised the language of choice and capacity, saying it has to be within “the power” of the detainee to decide not to assist in their own deportation. The court left open an exception for those who are medically incapacitated.

Although it was an unanimous verdict, Justice James Edelson did provide a separate reasoning that stressed the possible “gaps” in the Migration Act for recognising refugees. This included where the asylum process might have overlooked key issues. Or, in cases where a decision to refuse refugee status is “flawed” but upheld for other reasons, such as the person travelled to Australia on a forged document.

While Edelson stressed the High Court could not revisit the “factual basis” of ASF17’s asylum case, he noted the immigration minister could still exercise discretion to allow his claim to be reassessed or grant him a visa.

Edelson said this was an alternative to keeping ASF17 in detention until he provided consent

to be returned to a country where he might be executed if he were to express, privately and consensually, what has been found to be his genuine sexual identity.

Implications of the decision

Today’s decision reflects the government’s relentless campaign to limit the effects of last year’s High Court ruling that indefinite immigration detention was unlawful. This decision led to the immediate release of over a hundred people.

The controversial draft legislation now before parliament is widely seen as a direct response to ASF17’s case. If passed, the legislation will compel a person in immigration detention to cooperate in their own deportation. The bill goes much further than the High Court’s decision, however, by making refusal to cooperate in deportation a criminal offence.

The ASF17 case also highlights the moral contradictions between Australia’s international and domestic politics.

Australia has imposed sanctions against members of the Iranian regime responsible for egregious human rights abuses and violations. In 2022, a Senate Committee report recommended the Australian government increase the number of visas offered to Iranians with a:

particular focus on women, girls and persecuted minorities seeking to escape the regime. Iranians in Australia on temporary visas who cannot safely return to Iran due to the current crisis and policies of the [Iranian regime] should not be required to do so.

Yet, rather than doing just that in ASF17’s case, the government continues to treat Iranian asylum seekers with suspicion. In fact, the bill before parliament would even make it possible for the immigration minister to apply a blanket ban on all people from countries that refuse to accept the return of deported citizens, such as Iran.

As a result of today’s decision, up to 200 people may remain indefinitely detained. The decision also impacts thousands of others who have been denied asylum by the flawed “fast-track process” and have been living in the Australian community for over a decade, but fear returning to their home nations due to persecution.

Ultimately, the decision is a missed opportunity to move away from Australia’s harmful use of immigration detention that allows for some people to be detained their entire lives.

Sara Dehm receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Anthea Vogl receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Commonwealth Departure of Health and Aged Care.

– ref. High Court dismisses key challenge to indefinite immigration detention. What does it mean? – https://theconversation.com/high-court-dismisses-key-challenge-to-indefinite-immigration-detention-what-does-it-mean-229628

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kim Munro, Lecturer, Creative Industries and Digital Media, University of South Australia

Twenty-four hours after the release of Macklemore’s pro-Palestine protest song Hind’s Hall on social media on May 7, the video had already notched up over 24 million views.

In two minutes and 49 seconds, the music video uses found footage gleaned from social media feeds intercut with the songs lyrics in white text on a black background.

Much of the footage is of pro-Palestine encampments unfolding on the grounds of US universities. We also see images of popular Palestinian journalists Bisan Owed, Motaz Azaiza and Wael Al Dahdouh, footage from the Israeli bombing in Gaza, and older footage, such as N.W.A.’s Fuk Da Police (1988).

Much of the imagery is illustrative of the lyrics and polemic in messaging.

This use of found, gleaned and archival footage is a continuation of a long tradition in video art where artists have used existing footage to comment on and amplify social, political and environmental issues.

What is found footage?

Found footage filmmaking is a strategy used by artists and filmmakers who take audiovisual material from its original source and re-contextualise it.

Removed from its original context, this footage allows the artists to create new associations and critical perspectives on the material, culture and circulation of meaning. This process is also called remediation.

Prior to the proliferation of digital media, found footage artists found inspiration in newsreels, films and archives. Tracey Moffat worked with editor Gary Hillberg from 1999–2017 in creating a series of films call Montages, which reflect on tropes in Hollywood films.

Christian Marclay’s The Clock (2010) was a 24-hour video installation compiled from hundreds of films with scenes of clocks, watches and other timepieces.

Adam Curtis’ feature films draw on the vast BBC archives, which meditate on politics, power and psychology.

The advent – and plethora – of user-generated content on social media has given rise to new possibilities for video content.

With an endless flow of images and information through social media scrolls, the question of how to interrogate this material underpins how video artists approach found footage today.

Amplifying truths – and misinformation

The launch of YouTube in 2005 brought the ability to participate in the creation and sharing en masse of self-made video content.

Artist Natalie Bookchin saw this outpouring and sharing of personal testimonies through vlogs as an opportunity to reflect on the the contemporary social, cultural and political landscape in the United States.

Editing these vlogs, Bookchin created choral-like multiscreen video installations. Bookchin’s 2009 work Testament, a three-chapter multi-screen video installation, meditates on the shared vulnerability, isolation and collective experience of prescription medication, job loss and sexual identity.

Surrounded by the multiple voices in the gallery, the individual voices become a collective outpouring, giving voice to feelings of doubt, shame, anger and resignation. The multitude of voices transform an individual experience into one that reflects the impact of social and political pressures.

Bookchin’s follow-up work, Now he’s out in public and everyone can see (2012), similarly uses YouTube vlogs – but this time focused on the perception of African American men as threats.

Originally an 18-screen installation, the video excerpts speculate and comment on incidents involving famous African American men. This creates a collective narrative where there is always contradiction and never a singular agreed-upon truth.

In doing so, this work comments on how social media circulates and reinforces rumours, stereotypes and misinformation.

Montage and juxtaposition

Political commentary can also be made through juxtaposing unexpected images and sound. Montage editing is a technique first used by Soviet-era filmmakers in the 1920s through which the “collision” of images creates a new meaning.

American artist and filmmaker Arthur Jafa uses this technique to great effect in Love is the Message and the Message is Death (2016).

In this eight-minute video, Jafa takes up the question of the representation of African Americans through the 20th century through montages of found footage from film, music video, sports broadcasts and vlogs to the soundtrack of Kanye West’s Ultralight Beam.

The video oscillates between the hopes, dreams and great creative and sporting successes of Black Americans, undercut by the pervasive threat of systemic violence and white supremacy.

Long sequences of music, dance and sporting prowess, backed by West’s melodic anthem, are suddenly replaced by sounds and images captured on a mobile phone.

This footage feels familiar whether we have seen it or not. A scene taken from inside a car of a Black woman being pulled over by the police crying out for her children sits between that of gospel singing and the civil rights movement, demanding us to question what progress has been made.

While Macklemore’s found footage practice might seem unsubtle, given his platform, that’s also the point. Accompanied by unambiguous lyrics, re-presenting these images to a broad audience aims for maximum impact in a screen environment where attention is in constant demand.

Found footage gives video artists strategies to challenge dominant ways of thinking and reflecting on socio-political issues. When we see footage we know from social media, the news or films, we are given the opportunity to bring disparate ideas together, and challenged to see the world anew.

Kim Munro 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 brief history of found footage video art – and where Macklemore’s Hind’s Hall fits in – https://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-found-footage-video-art-and-where-macklemores-hinds-hall-fits-in-229638

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Helal, Assistant Dean (Sustainability), The University of Melbourne

Since ancient times, people have built structures that reach for the skies – from the steep spires of medieval towers to the grand domes of ancient cathedrals and mosques. Today the quest is to build the world’s tallest skyscrapers, such as Burj Khalifa in Dubai. Soaring above the rest, its decorative spire accounts for 29% of its total height – 4,000 tonnes of structural steel just for aesthetics.

Burj Khalifa isn’t unique in this respect. “Vanity height” – the extra height from a skyscraper’s highest occupied floor to its architectural top – shapes city skylines around the globe.

In a world where environmental concerns are paramount, is such architectural vanity justifiable?

Our research shows the pursuit of “vanity height” makes this a pressing issue. Even a modest spire increases the carbon emissions from the production of materials for a skyscraper’s structure by about 15%.

Building tall is not just about architecture; it’s big business. Being ranked among the world’s tallest buildings can transform an otherwise ordinary skyscraper into a globally recognised icon. This creates an incentive to add vanity height.

Our proposed solution is to rethink the global standard for ranking the world’s tallest buildings.

A matter of measurement

The way we measure the height of skyscrapers is at the heart of this issue. The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) is the ultimate authority on skyscraper heights. It bestows the coveted title of “world’s tallest building”.

Historically, there wasn’t much debate over skyscraper heights as early buildings typically had flat roofs. The first significant issue arose in 1929 when the Chrysler Building in New York City installed a last-minute spire, securing the self-proclaimed title of the “world’s tallest building” over the Bank of Manhattan.

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, founded in 1969, established criteria in the early 1970s that included decorative spires. This formalised a practice that would be contentious time and again.

A landmark moment in the council’s history was the 1998 showdown between Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur and Sears Tower in Chicago, now known as Willis Tower. Imagine these two giants side by side: the pointy spires of the Petronas Towers, with 88 floors, and the flat-topped Sears Tower, with 108 floors. But the council uses “height to architectural top”, which includes decorative spires. As a result, it declared Petronas Towers the tallest building in the world, outstripping Sears Tower for the title.

Back in Chicago, this was not a popular verdict. Picture the folks on the 108th floor of the Sears Tower looking down at the celebrations on the 88th floor of the Petronas Towers, perplexed by how those extra metres of spire made the difference. The decision even made its way into popular culture with Jay Leno joking on The Tonight Show:

All the council does is, once every ten years, they look up in the sky and say, ‘Yep, that’s the tallest!’

Even if extra height does not secure a place among the world’s top 100 tallest buildings, height still matters. Skyscrapers gain valuable prestige as the tallest in their city, region or country, or by earning use-specific accolades like “world’s highest restaurant” or “world’s highest religious space”.

The hidden cost of vanity height

Sixty years ago, the renowned Bangladeshi-American architect and engineer Fazlur Rahman Khan demonstrated the exponential impact of a building’s height on the amount of material needed to build it. Indeed, doubling the height of a building could triple the structural materials required. A stronger structure, using more materials, is needed to withstand greater wind and earthquake loads on taller buildings.

This means there’s a large “embodied carbon premium for height”. This premium is the additional greenhouse gas emissions from producing the extra materials needed for a taller skyscraper.

A telling example from our study shows that even a modest spire, making up 16% of a building’s total height, can increase the embodied carbon of a 90-storey skyscraper by 14%. In maximising the building’s height for aesthetic, status or financial reasons, designers are prioritising these concerns over environmental sustainability.

We took a detailed look at Dubai, a city celebrated for its towering skyline. We found the collective vanity height of its 100 tallest buildings adds up to more than 3.5 kilometres.

We estimate these decorative elements contributed at least 300,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. That’s both the direct embodied carbon of the spires and, much more importantly, the embodied carbon added by reinforcing the buildings to support the extra structural loads.

To put this impact into perspective, 300,000 tonnes of emissions is equivalent to the embodied carbon associated with building about 2,400 average Australian homes. It’s a hefty price to pay, simply to adorn 100 skyscrapers with pointy hats that inflate their heights and status in global rankings.

Redefine heights to set more sustainable standards

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, which champions the motto “Towards Sustainable Vertical Urbanism”, has a crucial opportunity to lead change. What if it revised how we measure and rank tall buildings to better reflect this commitment to sustainability?

In light of our findings, we call on the council to remove the incentive for vanity height. We propose the “height to highest occupied floor” be adopted as the main standard for ranking skyscrapers by height.

Such a change may be controversial. Burj Khalifa would keep its title as the world’s tallest, but One World Trade Center with a vanity height of 155 metres, for example, would drop nine places, losing its status as the tallest in North America.

However, for every building that falls in the rankings, others will rise. Our research shows there are more winners than losers among the 100 tallest buildings worldwide. So support for this change could outweigh resistance.

Cities continue to grow and environmental challenges are becoming more acute. The need to re-evaluate our approach to architectural design is becoming ever more pressing. In particular, vanity architecture features like excessive decorative spires burden not only our skylines but also our environment.

Ultimately, we’re all better off if we change how we rank the world’s tallest buildings.

Dario Trabucco is a member of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat Europe Scientific and Advisory Group.

James Helal 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. Sky-high vanity: constructing the world’s tallest buildings creates high emissions – https://theconversation.com/sky-high-vanity-constructing-the-worlds-tallest-buildings-creates-high-emissions-229183

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jenny Williams, Professor of Economics, The University of Melbourne

At the end of this month, a senate inquiry by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee is due to hand down its report on a bill to legalise cannabis.

Legalisation aims to redirect profits away from organised crime, safeguard people aged under 18, and protect public health through strict safety and quality regulations. To achieve these goals, the newly legalised market would need to draw current cannabis consumers – particularly those who use large amounts – away from the illegal market and its established network of suppliers.

A legal market can also be taxed, and the revenues generated could help fund much-needed public spending – for example, on mental health and substance use treatment services. Australia’s Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) estimates a legalised market would deliver a $28 billion windfall for the public purse in the first decade.

But we think the PBO’s estimate is too high, and based on the current patterns of cannabis use, $13 billion is a more credible estimate.

So how do we know how big the cannabis market is, and how much revenue it could deliver?

How much cannabis do Australians consume?

Assessing the size of an illegal market is – by its very nature – hard. Criminal enterprises do not lodge tax returns or collect GST, and cash transactions leave no digital trace.

However, there are two key ways we can try to estimate it:

• a supply-side approach, which looks at production
• a demand-side approach, which looks at consumption.

Most countries, including Australia, collect survey data on cannabis use, which lends itself best to a demand-side approach.

We can estimate the size of the market – in total annual consumption – by multiplying the number of expected users by the amount they use. But frequent users of cannabis consume very differently to infrequent users, so our approach is to estimate the consumption of different user types separately and then add them up.

The National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS) collects data on the kinds of illicit drugs Australians are using, and how often.

To estimate the number of users of different types, we take the percentage of Australians who reported a particular frequency of use in the latest National Drug Strategy Household Survey and multiply it by the total number of Australians aged over 14 – the population sampled for the survey.

This is in contrast to the Australian Parliamentary Budget Office, which used data from a survey of Canadians aged over 15 and the size of the Australian adult population. But these particular differences don’t turn out to matter much in practice.

We then adjust for the expected rate of under-reporting in the survey and an anticipated 15% growth in demand due to legalisation.

All up, we estimate that a new legalised market could attract 3.4 million cannabis users in its first year.

Next, we need to calculate the amount of cannabis each of the user types consumes in a year.

We can do this by multiplying the annual number of “use days” by the amount consumed on each use day. For example, daily users have 365 use days per year, whereas for those who use once or twice a year, we use a value of 1.5.

This is where our approach differs from that of the Parliamentary Budget Office, which multiplied the amount consumed on each use day by seven, to obtain weekly use, and then by 52 to get annual use, for all user types.

Did you spot the problem? By multiplying the use day amount by seven and then 52, all users are assumed to use 364 days a year, even if they only use once or twice a year!

The amount consumed on a use day is itself difficult to estimate because the National Drug Strategy Household Survey does not collect information in grams, but rather the number of cones, bongs or joints.

To solve this problem, the Parliamentary Budget Office followed the approach of its Canadian equivalent and used survey data from US think tank RAND, which presented survey respondents with images of different quantities of cannabis to help them estimate their personal use accurately. We also follow this approach.

As can be seen in the above chart, more frequent users consume more on a typical use day. Over the course of a year, a daily user consumes 36 times as much as someone who uses one to three times per month.

The last step is to multiply the number of users by the amount used for each user type. We estimate that Australia consumes 441 tonnes of cannabis per year.

Averaged across the 3.4 million users, this is around 2.5 grams each per week.

The Parliamentary Budget Office’s estimate is much bigger – 6 grams per week – because it assumes all users use 364 days per year.

It’s important to point out that our figure of 441 tonnes per year is based on a number of estimates. Our statistical method means we can only be reasonably certain that it is between 243 and 633 tonnes per year.

But the above chart also tells us a lot about the market’s composition. Together, daily and weekly users account for 98% of consumption even though they account for just 36% of cannabis users. To reduce illegal trade, a new legal market must attract these users.

Can a legal cannabis market work?

In other jurisdictions around the world, frequent users have been attracted to the legal market by high-quality, contaminant-free and THC-labelled cannabis. Leakage to and from the illegal market has also been reduced by seed-to-sale systems that track where cannabis is grown, processed and sold.

But pricing is one of the most important factors. The Parliamentary Budget Office supposes a price of $16.95 per gram, of which $3.55 would be tax – 10% GST and 15% excise. How does this compare to the illegal market?

The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) estimates that one gram typically costs $22.50. So at first glance a legalised price of $17 seems competitive, especially given the quality guarantee.

But the daily and weekly users typically don’t purchase by the gram. They are much more likely to purchase by the ounce – 28 grams. ACIC estimates put the price of an ounce at $300, which works out at around $11 per gram. This means switching to legal cannabis might not appeal on price to most of the current market.

For this reason, we base our estimated tax revenues on a retail price of $12 per gram, of which $2.51 would be tax.

At this price, and using our market size estimate of 441 tonnes, our ballpark figure for the tax revenue generated in the first ten years of legalisation is around $13 billion. This of course assumes that leakage to and from the illegal market is reduced by a seed-to-sale tracking system.

Policymakers should therefore think carefully about pricing, taxation and providing discounts for buying in bulk. Implementing seed-to-sale monitoring systems could also help protect the legal market.

Otherwise, legalisation might not deny profits to organised crime – or deliver a substantial tax windfall – after all.

Read more:
As many states weigh legalising cannabis, here’s what they can learn from the struggles of growers in Canberra

Jenny Williams’ research has been supported by the Australian Research Council.

Christiern Daniel Rose receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. How can we measure the size of Australia’s illegal cannabis market – and the billions in taxes that might flow from legalising it? – https://theconversation.com/how-can-we-measure-the-size-of-australias-illegal-cannabis-market-and-the-billions-in-taxes-that-might-flow-from-legalising-it-229287

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Edward Musole, PhD Law Student, University of New England

Recent trends show Australians are increasingly buying wearables such as smartwatches and fitness trackers. These electronics track our body movements or vital signs to provide data throughout the day, with or without the help of artificial intelligence (AI).

There’s also a newer product category that engages directly with the brain. It’s part of what UNESCO broadly defines as the emerging industry of “neurotechnology”:

devices and procedures that seek to access, assess, emulate and act on neural systems.

Much of neurotechnology is either still in development stage, or confined to research and medical settings. But consumers can already purchase several headsets that use electroencephalography (EEG).

Often marketed as meditation headbands, these devices provide real-time data on a person’s brain activity and feed it into an app.

Such headsets can be useful for people wanting to meditate, monitor their sleep and improve wellness. However, they also raise privacy concerns – a person’s brain activity is intrinsically personal data. This is particularly concerning when it comes to EEG headsets and wearables designed for children.

The subtle creep in neural and cognitive data wearables are capable of collecting is resulting in a data “gold rush”, with companies mining even our brains so they can develop and improve their products.

A serious privacy concern

In a background paper published earlier this year, the Australian Human Rights Commission identified several risks to human rights that neurotechnology may pose, including rights to privacy and non-discrimination. Legal scholars, policymakers, lawmakers and the public need to pay serious attention to the issue.

The extent to which tech companies can harvest cognitive and neural data is particularly concerning when that data comes from children. This is because children fall outside of the protection provided by Australia’s privacy legislation, as it doesn’t specify an age when a person can make their own privacy decisions.

The government and relevant industry associations should conduct a candid inquiry to investigate the extent to which neurotechnology companies collect and retain this data from children in Australia.

The private data collected through such devices is also increasingly fed into AI algorithms, raising additional concerns. These algorithms rely on machine learning, which can manipulate datasets in ways unlikely to align with any consent given by a user.

What does the privacy law say?

Users should have complete transparency over what data their wearables collect, and how it is being used.

Currently, the Privacy Act and the Australian Privacy Principles govern the collection, use and disclosure of personal information in Australia.

Right now, Australians don’t have any legal protections from privacy infringement on their brain and cognitive data. Technology companies can mine the neural data of Australians – including children – and store this information outside Australia.

We urgently need to update the laws to provide more robust privacy protections for when neurotechnology comes into play. This would proactively protect the privacy of Australians of all ages at all times.

How should we change the laws?

One potential solution would be to update our privacy legislation to work in conjunction with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which regulates the supply of medical devices in Australia.

This would ensure wearables compatible with mobile apps and software that currently circumvent the TGA would fall within their stringent oversight. Such devices include fitness trackers and smartwatches, but also EEG headbands.

Doing this would mean these privacy-invasive technologies have to align with the TGA’s regulations, protecting the cognitive and neural data of Australians.

We could also establish additional data collection oversights to monitor neural data collection by companies within and outside Australia. This way, we could ensure compliance with privacy regulations and put into place measures that prevent unauthorised data collection or surveillance through wearables.

Such changes should also provide users with the right to access their neural and cognitive data. For example, users should always have the option to have their data permanently erased. Doing this would ensure that Australians’ data is treated in a transparent, ethical and legally sound manner.

Australia is at a pivotal crossroads. We need to address the risks associated with data harvesting through neurotechnology. The industry of devices that can access our neural and cognitive data is only going to expand.

If we make these reforms now, Australia could become a global leader in privacy protection. And we could all enjoy the benefits of wearable tech while knowing our privacy rights are stringently protected.

Edward Musole 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. Wearable devices can now harvest our brain data. Australia needs urgent privacy reforms – https://theconversation.com/wearable-devices-can-now-harvest-our-brain-data-australia-needs-urgent-privacy-reforms-229006

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yousuf Mohammed, Dermatology researcher, The University of Queensland

You wake up, stagger to the bathroom and gaze into the mirror. No, you’re not imagining it. You’ve developed face wrinkles overnight. They’re sleep wrinkles.

Sleep wrinkles are temporary. But as your skin loses its elasticity as you age, they can set in.

Here’s what you can do to minimise the chance of them forming in the first place.

How side-sleeping affects your face

Your skin wrinkles for a number of reasons, including ageing, sun damage, smoking, poor hydration, habitual facial expressions (such as grinning, pouting, frowning, squinting) and sleeping positions.

When you sleep on your side or stomach, your face skin is squeezed and crushed a lot more than if you sleep on your back. When you sleep on your side or stomach, gravity presses your face against the pillow. Your face skin is distorted as your skin is stretched, compressed and pulled in all directions as you move about in your sleep.

You can reduce these external forces acting on the face by sleeping on your back or changing positions frequently.

Doctors can tell which side you sleep on by looking at your face

In a young face, sleep wrinkles are transient and disappear after waking.

Temporary sleep wrinkles can become persistent with time and repetition. As we age, our skin loses elasticity (recoil) and extensibility (stretch), creating ideal conditions for sleep wrinkles or lines to set in and last longer.

The time spent in each sleeping position, the magnitude of external forces applied to each area of the face, as well as the surface area of contact with the pillow surface, also affects the pattern and rate of sleep wrinkle formation.

Skin specialists can often recognise this. People who favour sleeping on one side of their body tend to have a flatter face on their sleeping side and more visible sleep lines.

Can a night skincare routine avoid sleep wrinkles?

Collagen and elastin are two primary components of the dermis (inner layer) of skin. They form the skin structure and maintain the elasticity of skin.

Supplementing collagen through skincare routines to enhance skin elasticity can help reduce wrinkle formation.

Hyaluronic acid is a naturally occurring molecule in human bodies. It holds our skin’s collagen and elastin in a proper configuration, stimulates the production of collagen and adds hydration, which can help slow down wrinkle formation. Hyaluronic acid is one of the most common active ingredients in skincare creams, gels and lotions.

Moisturisers can hydrate the skin in different ways. “Occlusive” substances produce a thin layer of oil on the skin that prevents water loss due to evaporation. “Humectants” attract and hold water in the skin, and they can differ in their capacity to bind with water, which influences the degree of skin hydration.

Do silk pillowcases actually make a difference?

Silk pillowcases can make a difference in wrinkle formation, if they let your skin glide and move, rather than adding friction and pressure on a single spot. If you can, use silk sheets and silk pillows.

Studies have also shown pillows designed to reduce mechanical stress during sleep can prevent skin deformations. Such a pillow could be useful in slowing down and preventing the formation of certain facial wrinkles.

Sleeping on your back can reduce the risk of sleep lines, as can a nighttime routine of moisturising before sleep.

Otherwise, lifestyle choices and habits, such quitting smoking, drinking plenty of water, a healthy diet (eating enough vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, healthy fats, yogurt and other fermented foods) and regular use of sunscreens can help improve the appearance of the skin on our face.

Yousuf Mohammed receives funding from the United States Food and Drug Administration. Views expressed here do not reflect the official policies of the FDA nor do they imply endorsement by the US government. ​

Vania Rodrigues Leite E. Silva receives funding from the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, CNPq, for the Productivity Scholarship in Technological Development and Extension Innovation – DT (CNPq, Process 302153/2023-3).

Khanh Phan 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. Sleep wrinkles are real. Here’s how they leave their mark – https://theconversation.com/sleep-wrinkles-are-real-heres-how-they-leave-their-mark-217380

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By César Albarrán-Torres, Senior Lecturer, Department of Media and Communication, Swinburne University of Technology

As one of billions of bilingual individuals in the world, it disappoints me when a film or TV show with characters of a non-English-speaking background is spoken entirely in English. This is specially the case when the production has been distributed globally.

It is even more disappointing – borderline insulting – when the lines are delivered by a native English speaker in a fake, over-the-top accent.

That said, there are some encouraging signs linguistic diversity is finally being portrayed in a more faithful and respectful manner. Acapulco, an Apple TV+ comedy now entering its third season, is a good example of how English can be used as a common language in a show without quashing language diversity and authenticity.

Half-baked attempts at diversity

The screen industry’s practice of using fake accents and English-only dialogue is longstanding. Classic Hollywood actors such as Katherine Hepburn, Charlton Heston and Marlon Brando have all played Asian or Latino characters and spoken English in fake accents.

Rather than ditching the accent altogether – such as in Shakespearean adaptations where actors are dressed as Romans but still sound British – we’ve seen several examples where A-listers put on fake accents in a setting where English isn’t the everyday language.

Take the recent Disney+ hit Shōgun. While the Japanese characters speak Japanese among themselves (points for that), the Portuguese and Spanish settlers communicate in English, and do so in heavily imposed accents. This half-baked attempt at linguistic diversity might be because Shōgun is an American show. But as Screen Rant features editor Marcelo Leite points out:

a fully accurate portrayal of the story would be entirely in Portuguese and Japanese, and all of Shōgun would have to include subtitles.

Another example comes from Ridley Scott’s 2021 film House of Gucci, which featured Lady Gaga, Adam Driver and Jared Leto, among others. The film takes place in Italy with characters who would normally speak Italian. Yet the film is spoken mostly in English. Audience reactions to the cast’s heavy, cartoon-like “Italian” accents were quite negative.

Why does Hollywood tend to be monolingual?

English-only productions are made under the premise Hollywood produces content mainly for American audiences, and that these audiences are monolingual.

As of recently, however, two factors are changing how movies and TV shows are conceptualised and brought to life. The first is that the vast linguistic diversity within the United States is increasingly being represented by directors and showrunners who are bilingual themselves.

The second is the global distribution of content through streaming services. It means audiences across the globe are getting used to watching content with subtitles in languages other than English, and other than their own.

As streaming inches us towards a global TV culture, cultural and linguistic representation is becoming an important topic. And this awareness is driving multilingual productions, such as Acapulco, in English-speaking countries.

Some of these productions even explore issues of language and culture loss in diverse communities. For instance, Vida and Gentefied both focus on the impacts of gentrification in Los Angeles – one of which is the loss of bicultural and bilingual character in Mexican-American enclaves. Both shows, created by Latinx showrunners, use English when it is logical to do so, and Spanish (or Spanglish) when non-white characters converse among themselves.

Another mainstream show, ABC’s Jane the Virgin, has a character (Jane’s abuela, Alba) who speaks almost entirely in Spanish.

The linguistic tide is turning

Recent television shows have demonstrated multilingual scripts can be both successful and dignified.

Acapulco, which has been compared to Ted Lasso, sets a precedent for what inclusivity can look and sound like. This light-hearted comedy counters the linguistic complacency that has dominated TV cultures for so long, whereby English is used as a standardising tool that is detrimental to diversity.

Acapulco is shot in Mexico with Latino talent, but also includes white English-speaking actors and a cross-national star, Eugenio Derbez. It is spoken in Spanish, English and Spanglish in a dignified and organic way.

The setting is an all-inclusive resort in the Mexican Pacific. Employees are forced to speak in English among themselves while on the premises, but speak in Spanish outside of the hotel. This in itself is a critique of labour practices in the Global South’s hospitality industry.

Nothing to lose, much to gain

Normalising language diversity onscreen forces creators to seek more multicultural talent behind and in front of the camera, particularly when it is these people’s communities being portrayed.

Beyond this, audiences will be empowered by seeing their own languages represented, or will otherwise benefit from being exposed to new languages they haven’t heard before. Indeed, research has found watching shows and films in foreign languages can help viewers learn them.

The growth in multilingual scripts will also inevitably lead to the normalisation of subtitles, which will help more broadly in making film and TV accessible for all.

Shows like Acapulco demonstrate the paradigm shift that’s taking place across Hollywood and other entertainment industries. And with streaming, it’s easier than ever for this content to go global.

César Albarrán-Torres 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. No more bad accents, stereotypes or cringe: why the rise of multilingual TV is good news for everyone – https://theconversation.com/no-more-bad-accents-stereotypes-or-cringe-why-the-rise-of-multilingual-tv-is-good-news-for-everyone-229113

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leah Ruppanner, Professor of Sociology and Founding Director of The Future of Work Lab, Podcast at MissPerceived, The University of Melbourne

A recent report from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows US fertility rates dropped 2% in 2023. With the exception of a temporary increase in the fertility rate at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the US fertility rate has been falling steadily since 1971.

Australia exhibits a similar pattern. Fertility has declined since 2007 despite government attempts to invest in a “baby bonus” to encourage Australian women to have more children.

Taking a more global perspective, we can see similar patterns across other industrial nations: Japan, South Korea and Italy have some of the lowest global fertility rates.

So, what is going on here? Despite highly valuing children and our roles as parents, why are women having so few babies? And, importantly, why should we care?

How much fertility is good for a country?

On my recently launched podcast MissPerceived, I discuss why fertility rates rule the world. For a population to maintain its current size – that is, neither shrink nor grow – the total fertility rate needs to be above 2.1 births per women. This is because we need to have enough babies to replace both parents after they die – one baby to replace the mother and one to replace the father, and a little extra to account for infant mortality.

In short, if we want a population to grow, we need women to have more than two children. This was exactly what happened in many Western nations, such as Australia, the UK and US, following the second world war. Women were having more than 2.1 births, which resulted in a baby boom. Many families grew to three or more children.

This type of population structure, replacement or some growth, is critical to creating a healthy-working age population to support the young and old.

But, in many countries, the fertility rate is less than replacement level, which means the population is shrinking. In the US and Australia the current fertility rate is 1.6. In the UK it is 1.4. And in South Korea it is 0.68.

So, these countries are shrinking, and in the case of South Korea, shrinking quickly. What this means is that more people are dying in these countries than being born. As a result, the population is getting older, poorer and more dependent on others for their care.

For a country like South Korea or Italy, this is a problem for the present. And, in Australia, this will be a problem for the near future. Someone will have to care for the ageing population. The question of who and how will be of increasing policy importance.

Why is fertility declining?

So, why aren’t women having more babies? Well, there are a few answers:

1. Women are better educated now than ever before. Women’s education has been rising steadily for decades, with Australian women now better educated than men. Australia has some of the most educated women in the world.

Education delays fertility for multiple reasons. First, it pushes out the age of first birth since women are spending a longer time in school. Second, it gives women more resources they then want to trade on the market after finishing a degree. Simply, women are often not having babies in their teens and early 20s because they are getting their education and launching their careers.

2. Young people are being delayed in, well, everything. It is much harder for young people to achieve the traditional markers of adulthood – stable jobs and buying a first home. Often these are factors that are identified as critical to having a first child. So, many young people are delaying fertility due to economic and housing insecurity.

Further, we now have safe and effective contraception, which means sex outside of marriage is feasible and sex without procreation can be almost guaranteed. All of this means parenthood is delayed. Women are having babies later and fewer of them.

3. Children are expensive and time-consuming. In many industrialised nations, the cost of children is astronomical. Average childcare costs in Australia have outpaced inflation. School tuitions, even for public schools, absorb a significant portion of parents’ budgets.

If you multiply this by more children, the costs go up. Intensive parenting norms, which guide how many people parent, emphasise significant time investments in children that are one-on-one. Simply, we spend more time interacting with our children in intense ways than previous generations.

And all of this is on top of greater time spent in paid employment. So, to do parenting “right”, according to current social norms, is to be deeply invested in our children in terms of time, energy and resources, including money.

4. Workplaces and policies are slow to adapt to supporting caregiving. Our workplaces still expect significant face-to-face time at work and long hours. Although the pandemic ushered in more remote work, many workplaces are rolling back this provision and mandating people return to work in some capacity. This is despite Australians highly valuing access to remote and flexible work, in part because they spent less time commuting and report significantly higher levels of burnout.

A nuanced approach is needed

Because the reasons behind declining fertility are not simple, the solutions can’t be simple either. Offering baby bonuses, as Australia and other nations have done, is pretty ineffective, because they don’t address the complexity of these interlocking issues.

If we are serious about supporting care, we need better career and housing pathways for young people, more investment in child and aged care infrastructure, technological innovations to support an ageing population, and workplaces that are designed with care at the core. This will create a culture of care to support mothers, fathers, children and families alike.

Leah Ruppanner receives funding from the Australian Research Council. This research is featured on MissPerceived.

– ref. Women in rich countries are having fewer kids, or none at all. What’s going on? – https://theconversation.com/women-in-rich-countries-are-having-fewer-kids-or-none-at-all-whats-going-on-229185

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amy Corderoy, Medical doctor and PhD candidate studying involuntary psychiatric treatment, School of Psychiatry, UNSW Sydney

Picture two people, both suffering from a serious mental illness requiring hospital admission. One was born in Australia, the other in Asia.

Hopefully, both could be treated on a voluntary basis, taking into account their individual needs, preferences and capacity to consent. If not, you might imagine they should be equally likely to receive treatment against their will (known colloquially as being “sectioned” or “scheduled”).

However, our research published in British Journal of Psychiatry Open suggests this is not the case.

In the largest study globally of its kind, we found Australians are more likely to be treated in hospital for their acute mental illness against their will if they are born overseas, speak a language other than English or are unemployed.

What we did and what we found

We examined more than 166,000 episodes of voluntary and involuntary psychiatric care in New South Wales public hospitals between 2016 and 2021. Most admissions (54%) included at least one day of involuntary care.

Being brought to hospital via legal means, such as by police or via a court order, was strongly linked to involuntary treatment.

While our study does not show why this is the case, it may be due to mental health laws. In NSW, which has similar laws to most jurisdictions in Australia, doctors may treat a person on an involuntary basis if they present with certain symptoms indicating serious mental illness (such as hallucinations and delusions) which cause them to require protection from serious harm, and there is no other less-restrictive care available. Someone who has been brought to hospital by police or the courts may be more likely to meet the legal requirement of requiring protection from serious harm.

The likelihood of involuntary care was also linked to someone’s diagnosis. A person with psychosis or organic brain diseases, such as dementia and delirium, were about four times as likely to be admitted involuntarily compared to someone with anxiety or adjustment disorders (conditions involving a severe reaction to stressors).

However, our data suggest non-clinical factors contribute to the decision to impose involuntary care.

Compared with people born in Australia, we found people born in Asia were 42% more likely to be treated involuntarily.

People born in Africa or the Middle East were 32% more likely to be treated this way.

Overall, people who spoke a language other than English were 11% more likely to receive involuntary treatment compared to those who spoke English as their first language.

Some international researchers have suggested higher rates of involuntary treatment seen in people born overseas might be due to higher rates of psychotic illness. But our research found a link between higher rates of involuntary care in people born overseas or who don’t speak English regardless of their diagnosis.

We don’t know why this is happening. It is likely to reflect a complex interplay of factors about both the people receiving treatment and the way services are provided to them.

People less likely to be treated involuntarily included those who hold private health insurance, and those referred through a community health centre or outpatients unit.

Our findings are in line with international studies. These show
higher rates of involuntary treatment among people from Black and ethnic minority groups, and people living in areas of higher socioeconomic disadvantage.

A last resort? Or should we ban it?

Both the NSW and Australian mental health commissions have called involuntary psychiatric care an avoidable harm that should only be used as a last resort.

Despite this, one study found Australia’s rate of involuntary admissions has increased by 3.4% per year and it has one of the highest rates of involuntary admissions in the world.

Involuntary psychiatric treatment is also under increasing scrutiny globally.

When Australia signed up to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, it added a declaration noting it would allow for involuntary treatment of people with mental illness where such treatments are “necessary, as a last resort and subject to safeguards”.

However, the UN has rejected this, saying it is a fundamental human right “to be free from involuntary detention in a mental health facility and not to be forced to undergo mental health treatment”.

Others question if involuntary treatment could ever be removed entirely.

Where to from here?

Our research not only highlights concerns regarding how involuntary psychiatric treatment is implemented, it’s a first step towards decreasing its use. Without understanding how and when it is used it will be difficult to create effective interventions to reduce it.

But Australia is still a long way from significantly reducing involuntary treatment.

We need to provide more care options outside hospital, ones accessible to all Australians, including those born overseas, who don’t speak English, or who come from disadvantaged communities. This includes intervening early enough that people are supported to not become so unwell they end up being referred for treatment via police or the criminal justice system.

More broadly, we need to do more to reduce stigma surrounding mental illness and to ensure poverty and discrimination are tackled to help prevent more people becoming unwell in the first place.

Our study also shows we need to do more to respect the autonomy of someone with serious mental illness to choose if they are treated. That’s whether they are in NSW or other jurisdictions.

And legal reform is required to ensure more states and territories more fully reflect the principal that people who have the capacity to make such decisions should have the right to decline mental health treatment in the same way they would any other health care.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Researchers from the University of NSW, University of Sydney and NSW Ministry of Health conducted the research mentioned. I would like to acknowledge and thank my PhD supervisors (Grant Sara, Matthew Large, Christopher Ryan and Kimberlie Dean), three of whom co-authored the published research.

– ref. We looked at over 166,000 psychiatric records. Over half showed people were admitted against their will – https://theconversation.com/we-looked-at-over-166-000-psychiatric-records-over-half-showed-people-were-admitted-against-their-will-226820

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Treby, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, RMIT University

Peatlands store more carbon per square metre than any other ecosystem on Earth. These waterlogged, mossy bogs beat even dense rainforests for their ability to act as carbon reservoirs.

Under the right conditions, peat soils accumulate from carbon-rich, semi-decomposed plants. But if things go wrong, the carbon balance can be tipped in the other direction, releasing carbon into the atmosphere.

We wanted to know if feral horse grazing and trampling is reducing the amount of carbon Australia’s alpine peatlands can store. These peatlands are found in alpine and mountainous regions of Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. But they’re quite rare on the mainland, restricted to areas such as those frequented by feral horses in the Snowy Mountains.

In our new research, we sampled peat soils from areas with and without feral horses in Kosciuszko National Park, NSW. We found peatlands untouched by feral horses store almost 50% more carbon. In degraded peatlands, where horses had trampled all of the plants leaving bare soils at the surface, carbon storage was even lower.

Brumby numbers are booming

Australia has more feral horses than any other country and their numbers have been growing.

A 2020 survey estimated the alpine horse population was increasing at 23% a year. A more recent survey published in December 2022 estimated there were more than 18,000 horses in Kosciuszko National Park alone.

Unfortunately, these large, hard-hooved animals are causing soil erosion and compaction.

In peatlands, where soils are soft and wet, the damage from grazing and trampling is even more pronounced.

Horses travel through peatlands to access drinking water in creeks and pools. This has degraded peatlands in the Australian Alps.

In March 2022, we sampled soils from 12 alpine and subalpine peatlands in Kosciuszko National Park. Seven of these sites had been degraded by feral horses and five hadn’t.

Where there was no evidence of horse activity, the peatlands were storing 45% more carbon in their soils than peatlands with evidence of horses. In heavily trampled areas, where all vegetation had been removed by horses, carbon storage was 16% lower than where vegetation remained.

Why are brumbies bad for carbon storage?

When peatlands are intact, healthy sphagnum moss and other plants capture atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) through photosynthesis. Over time, carbon-rich plant material including decaying plant matter builds up as the peat soil.

But if the plants are grazed or trampled, they can no longer capture CO₂.

We also found degraded peatlands also had higher soil nitrogen concentrations, likely due to inputs (fertilisation) from horse waste.

In agricultural systems, having more nitrogen in the soil is generally a good thing. Unfortunately the opposite is true for peatlands, which are naturally low in nitrogen. Even small increases in nitrogen can reduce moss growth and survival and allow other types of plants to displace them, while also promoting the growth of microbes that break down carbon-rich plant matter and release yet more CO₂.

Increased peat nitrogen can also lead to higher emissions of nitrous oxide (N₂O), a very potent greenhouse gas. This means the global warming potential of degraded peatlands might be even higher than previously thought.

We know from our previous research that much of the peat carbon lost from horse-impacted peatlands is emitted as CO₂. Peatlands degraded by horses are losing CO₂ to the atmosphere, while intact peatlands are taking up CO₂.

Peatlands can recover but they need our help

Our findings support land managers’ efforts to protect and restore these peatlands, which are recognised as a threatened ecosystem under national environmental law. Facilitating long-term peatland carbon storage is a nature-based climate solution – we need to ensure our peatlands can perform at their best now, more than ever before.

Australia’s alpine peatlands deserve our protection. They are important for many reasons. These include controlling freshwater flows at the source of our most valuable water catchments. Peatlands also provide vital habitat for rare and endangered species such as the corroboree frog, alpine water skink and broad-toothed rat.

The good news is we know, through this study and our previous research, that grazed and degraded peatlands can recover over time. The peatlands we sampled that didn’t have evidence of feral horses had historically been grazed by sheep and cattle, which were widespread throughout the Australian Alps last century.

In the decades since domestic livestock grazing ended in the NSW Alps, a thick healthy layer of moss and other peatland plants has regenerated. High concentrations of peat soil carbon are building up again.

Recovering soil carbon, however, is not quick. In the midst of the climate crisis, we don’t have 50 years to wait for our peatlands to regain their carbon storage function while they recover from degradation by feral horses.

We have already lost about half of our peatlands, mainly through grazing and fire. Many may never recover.

The best way to ensure the health of Australia’s remaining peatlands is to protect them from harm to begin with. We need to keep horses and other large feral animals out of our peatlands.

Protect and restore Australia’s alpine peatlands

Under the Kosciuszko National Park Wild Horse Heritage Management Plan, adopted in 2021 and amended in 2023, the NSW government is taking steps to protect the alpine environment. However, horses will remain in defined in “retention areas” (albeit in lower numbers). This will require extensive fencing of peatlands within the National Park to protect them from horses.

In most situations, other interventions are needed to restore peatlands such as slowing drainage to keep water within the peatlands. This will encourage peatland plants to regrow.

Where surface vegetation has been removed, mosses can be transplanted from healthy peatlands. Shading may help speed their recovery.

By protecting Australia’s alpine peatlands from feral animals, we can help them fight climate change, while looking after our water catchments and threatened species.

Sarah Treby received funding from Parks Victoria’s Research Partners Program to carry out this research.

Samantha Grover received funding from the veski inspiring women grant scheme.

– ref. Feral horses in Australia’s high country are damaging peatlands, decreasing carbon stores – https://theconversation.com/feral-horses-in-australias-high-country-are-damaging-peatlands-decreasing-carbon-stores-228990

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephanie Wescott, Lecturer in Education, Monash University

Earlier this week, two students were expelled from a Melbourne private school for their involvement in creating a spreadsheet that ranked girls using sexist and violent categories (from “wifeys” and “cuties” to “unrapeable”).

There has been a necessary focus on the school and its response and significant community outrage about the actions of the young men involved. But this incident is not an isolated one.

Our ongoing research has found sexism, sexual harassment and misogyny are rife in Australian schools.

This is influenced by the rise in popularity and ubiquity of figures from the “manosphere” (an overlapping collection of extreme men’s communities that are anti-women and against women’s empowerment) on social media. This includes Andrew Tate, the “misogynist influencer” who is facing trial in Romania on charges of human trafficking and rape (which he denies).

At the same time, Australia is confronting shockingly high rates of violence against women. Last week, the federal government announced a range of measures to respond to the crisis and quell the public’s understandable anger.

Although the package contains measures aimed at preventing young people being exposed to misogynistic content online, it largely overlooks the crucial role of education in tackling sexist attitudes that enable and drive the current high rates of violence. To make real change, schools must be included.

Our research on schools and Andrew Tate

Our research explores the influence of anti-women and anti-feminist online figures such as Tate on boys’ behaviour and attitudes towards women in Australian schools.

In mid-2023, we interviewed 30 women teachers working in schools across the country. The women described a sharp increases in sexism, misogyny and sexual harassment in their classrooms.

Teachers also identified the explicit influence of Tate on their students’ attitudes and behaviours. This included setting images of Tate as their computer desktop backgrounds, provoking teachers with Tate’s ideas (for example, asking teachers whether they agree women shouldn’t be allowed to drive), and using his body language (such as a hand gesture he often displays when photographed).

One teacher spoke of the transformation of a student she had known for several years:

I taught [a] boy in Year 7 and he was a wholesome, creative [child]. This boy does dance competitions and is in a dance troop and is always polite to me […] and yet is [now] writing these disturbingly misogynistic messages, literally saying, ‘No, Andrew Tate is being vilified. He’s in the right.’ I’m like, who is that boy? That’s not the boy that I’ve seen for the last couple of years.

The response needs to be urgent

This is happening within a broader culture of backlash to gender justice gains achieved via feminist activism – including the #metoo movement. Teachers in our study said their students believe women have achieved unequal power over men.

Despite these worrying trends and teachers requesting help from school management, the women we spoke to reported schools were not responding in a meaningful or urgent way.

Our study findings have been echoed by an April 2024 survey of Adelaide school teachers, who described how misogynist language and physical intimidation are commonplace in their schools. They are also part of a much longer history of research showing an ongoing culture of sexism in Australian schools.

We need a national campaign…

If we are serious about changing the way our culture sees and treats women, we need to view schools as sites of primary prevention. This means they are places where we intervene to help stop the problem of gendered violence happening in the first place.

First, we need the federal government to lead a national campaign calling for a zero-tolerance approach to violence against women and girls in schools. It needs to specifically use the words “sexism”, “misogyny” and “violence against women”.

In our research teachers reported their schools will often stay away from using such language. Instead, “disrespect” or other ways of classifying this behaviour are used to explain what are obviously sexist incidents. This reluctance could be due to fears of controversy.

But this risks reducing the problem to simply being about individual behaviour and takes gender out of it. Naming and confronting sexism directly can be the first step in creating safer and more inclusive learning environments for women, girls and gender-diverse people in schools.

…and national guidelines

Second, we need national, consistent guidelines and advice for schools on how to respond to incidents of sexism, sexual harassment and misogyny.

At the moment, it is largely left up to schools to handle this and teachers are telling us they are falling short. With all the other pressures schools are under, clearly they need more support and guidance to respond to incidents adequately.

Other researchers have also suggested a national code of conduct for sexism and sexual harassment in schools with reporting guidelines.

This would ensure consistent approaches to incidents, give us a clearer picture of what is happening, and allow us to tell when things start to improve.

We also need more education

Third, respectful relationships education should be mandatory across all Australian schools.

Although it is mentioned in the Australian Curriculum, it is up to states and territories to decide how it is delivered. Even though respectful relationships is mandatory in Victorian government schools, teachers in our study described its presence in their schools as diluted. They said they would like to see it expanded.

The messages and attitudes should also be implemented across the whole school, including in school policies, school leadership and teaching approaches. This means there is greater recognition of schools as safe workplaces, places for learning and parts of the community.

Australia is in the grips of a national crisis of violence against women. Schools, as microcosms of broader society, deserve much more meaningful, long-term interventions to contribute to a change that is urgently needed.

Steven Roberts currently receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian government that does not pertain to the content of this article. He is a board director at Respect Victoria. This article is written independently from this role.

Stephanie Wescott 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. Andrew Tate’s extreme views about women are infiltrating Australian schools. We need a zero-tolerance response – https://theconversation.com/andrew-tates-extreme-views-about-women-are-infiltrating-australian-schools-we-need-a-zero-tolerance-response-229603

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Goss, Adjunct Associate Professor, Health Research Institute, University of Canberra

Government spending on health has been growing so rapidly that a decade ago the then health minister Peter Dutton called it “unmanageable” and “unsustainable”.

Health spending grew in real terms by 44% in the ten years to 2021–22. Real GDP grew by 26% in that period, so we have been spending increasing amounts on health as a proportion of GDP.

Until recently, we had little idea of whether that extra spending was value for money – whether it was making Australians healthier, and whether each dollar was making Australians more healthy over time.

In other words, we have had very little idea of the productivity of the healthcare system. The Bureau of Statistics doesn’t measure it in the national accounts.

As with defence, we have only ever known what we have spent on health, without necessarily knowing what we actually get for this money, and whether our value for money is improving or not.

Health productivity has been a mystery until now

Piecemeal attempts to get a better handle on the productivity of healthcare services have defined their outputs as the number of medical or hospital services delivered or pharmaceuticals delivered for each dollar spent. These attempts have shown only small increases in productivity.

But the problem with these estimates is they haven’t measured the outputs that matter, which are greater health-related quality of life and longer lives that result from health treatments.

Now, for the first time, the Productivity Commission has attempted to measure what actually matters. And what it’s come up with is startling.

The commission has found that between 2011-12 and 2017-18, at a time when the market-sector productivity growth for the economy as a whole grew by 0.7% per year, the productivity of the healthcare sectors it examined grew by 3% per year.

The sectors the commission was able to examine were those that treat cancer, cardiovascular disease and “blood, endocrine and kidney disease”.

The commission says its findings suggest:

[…] the additional spending in the parts of the healthcare sector we studied has been ‘worth it’ – it has delivered net benefits for society.

But its finding of average growth of about 3% per year conceals marked differences in productivity growth by disease.

For cancer treatment, the productivity growth has been about 9% per year, much more than economy-wide productivity growth. But for treating cardiovascular disease, productivity has shrunk by about 4% per year.

Cancer treatments work better

The large improvement in the productivity of cancer treatment is not surprising. Cancer survival rates continue to improve, from a five-year survival rate of 52% in the early 1990s to 70% in 2014-2018.

It’s an improvement more than big enough to offset the relatively high growth in real cancer expenditure of 36% over the period studied.

More surprising is the decline in the productivity of cardiovascular treatment.

Partly this is because a good deal of the decline in cardiovascular premature mortality rates of 21% in the period studied has been due to things other than health treatment expenditure, reduced smoking among them.

Remaining heart attacks might be harder to treat

As well, our successes in preventing cardiovascular disease in recent decades may be making the treatment of those who succumb to it more difficult.

Fewer people suffering heart attacks and strokes might mean the remaining cases admitted to hospitals are more complex and more expensive to treat, reducing the apparent productivity of treatment.

It is also possible that there are data errors in the productivity estimates. And it is likely some cardiovascular disease treatments are cost-effective and others are not, making the mix of treatments push down overall productivity.

The commission quite rightly calls for more research and better data to find out.

Difficult decisions ahead

The commission has examined only about one-third of health treatments.

The remaining two-thirds include important diseases like mental illness, dementia, infectious diseases and musculoskeletal disorders.

The commission has done some work on mental illness. It determined that outcomes would be improved if resources were shifted from hospital treatment to cost-effective treatments in the community and improving things such as inadequate incomes, employment, housing, social support and justice services.

As the commission does more, it will also need to assess the productivity of interventions that prevent diseases, as well as interventions that treat them.

The commission’s findings are good news for the health system in that they indicate it is getting more productive than previously assumed.

But the variation in productivity between different sectors shows room for further improvements.

Some improvements will require taking resources from poor-performing treatments and giving them to emerging, more cost-effective treatments. That won’t be popular with the providers of those existing treatments.

But it is what we will need if we are to further improve health outcomes without even bigger increases in health expenditure as a proportion of GDP.

It won’t be easy, but it’s where the commission’s work is heading.

John Goss 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. Yes, spending on health is growing, but new research shows we’re getting more for it – https://theconversation.com/yes-spending-on-health-is-growing-but-new-research-shows-were-getting-more-for-it-228884