Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nikki-Anne Wilson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA), UNSW Sydney

The way people living with dementia experience the world can change as the disease progresses. Their sense of reality or place in time can become distorted, which can cause agitation and distress.

One of the best ways to support people experiencing changes in perception and behaviour is to manage their environment. This can have profound benefits including reducing the need for sedatives.

One such strategy is the use of dolls as comfort aids.

What is ‘doll therapy’?

More appropriately referred to as “child representation”, lifelike dolls (also known as empathy dolls) can provide comfort for some people with dementia.

Memories from the distant past are often more salient than more recent events in dementia. This means that past experiences of parenthood and caring for young children may feel more “real” to a person with dementia than where they are now.

Hallucinations or delusions may also occur, where a person hears a baby crying or fears they have lost their baby.

Providing a doll can be a tangible way of reducing distress without invalidating the experience of the person with dementia.

Some people believe the doll is real

A recent case involving an aged care nurse mistreating a dementia patient’s therapy doll highlights the importance of appropriate training and support for care workers in this area.

For those who do become attached to a therapeutic doll, they will treat the doll as a real baby needing care and may therefore have a profound emotional response if the doll is mishandled.

It’s important to be guided by the person with dementia and only act as if it’s a real baby if the person themselves believes that is the case.

What does the evidence say about their use?

Evidence shows the use of empathy dolls may help reduce agitation and anxiety and improve overall quality of life in people living with dementia.

Child representation therapy falls under the banner of non-pharmacological approaches to dementia care. More specifically, the attachment to the doll may act as a form of reminiscence therapy, which involves using prompts to reconnect with past experiences.

Interacting with the dolls may also act as a form of sensory stimulation, where the person with dementia may gain comfort from touching and holding the doll. Sensory stimulation may support emotional well-being and aid commnication.

However, not all people living with dementia will respond to an empathy doll.

The introduction of a therapeutic doll needs to be done in conjunction with careful observation and consideration of the person’s background.

Empathy dolls may be inappropriate or less effective for those who have not previously cared for children or who may have experienced past birth trauma or the loss of a child.

Be guided by the person with dementia and how they respond to the doll.

Are there downsides?

The approach has attracted some controversy. It has been suggested that child representation therapy “infantilises” people living with dementia and may increase negative stigma.

Further, the attachment may become so strong that the person with dementia will become upset if someone else picks the doll up. This may create some difficulties in the presence of grandchildren or when cleaning the doll.

The introduction of child representation therapy may also require additional staff training and time. Non-pharmacological interventions such as child representation, however, have been shown to be cost-effective.

Could robots be the future?

The use of more interactive empathy dolls and pet-like robots is also gaining popularity.

While robots have been shown to be feasible and acceptable in dementia care, there remains some contention about their benefits.

While some studies have shown positive outcomes, including reduced agitation, others show no improvement in cognition, behaviour or quality of life among people with dementia.

Advances in artificial intelligence are also being used to help support people living with dementia and inform the community.

Viv and Friends, for example, are AI companions who appear on a screen and can interact with the person with dementia in real time. The AI character Viv has dementia and was co-created with women living with dementia using verbatim scripts of their words, insights and experiences. While Viv can share her experience of living with dementia, she can also be programmed to talk about common interests, such as gardening.

These companions are currently being trialled in some residential aged care facilities and to help educate people on the lived experience of dementia.

How should you respond to your loved one’s empathy doll?

While child representation can be a useful adjunct in dementia care, it requires sensitivity and appropriate consideration of the person’s needs.

People living with dementia may not perceive the social world the same way as a person without dementia. But a person living with dementia is not a child and should never be treated as one.

Ensure all family, friends and care workers are informed about the attachment to the empathy doll to help avoid unintentionally causing distress from inappropriate handling of the doll.

If using an interactive doll, ensure spare batteries are on hand.

Finally, it is important to reassess the attachment over time as the person’s response to the empathy doll may change.

Nikki-Anne Wilson is affiliated with the University of New South Wales and Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA). She is also currently a contributor to the Ageing Advisory Committee facilitated by the Hon Kylea Tink MP. She has previously received funding from the Australian Association of Gerontology and the UNSW Ageing Futures Institute.

– ref. What is ‘doll therapy’ for people with dementia? And is it backed by science? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-doll-therapy-for-people-with-dementia-and-is-it-backed-by-science-243589

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amy Nethery, Senior Lecturer in Politics and Policy Studies, Deakin University

After nearly a year without basic income and support services, 42 refugees and asylum seekers remaining in Papua New Guinea will soon begin receiving a meagre allowance of 900 kina (A$338) per week from the Australian government.

These men are former Manus Island detainees who were released in 2016 after the PNG Supreme Court ruled that Australia’s offshore detention facility was unconstitutional.

Most of the refugees and asylum seekers were then transferred to the capital, Port Moresby, where the Australian government began providing them with accommodation, meals, medical, health care and settlement services

However, in November 2023, that assistance was suddenly cut off without any explanation from the Australian government.

A year later, the men were informed this month that the support would be reinstated if they vacated their current homes, though the payments would be at a much lower level than before.

The demand that the men source their own accommodations is concerning, as many are too unwell to navigate a competitive and expensive rental market. Many are at risk of homelessness.

These low payments will also make medical care unaffordable, so the threat to health and life will continue to grow more serious.

Trying to restart lives in PNG

The refugees and asylum seekers were sent to PNG under the government’s Operation Sovereign Borders policy in 2012 and 2013.

The policy, which remains in place today, requires the mandatory offshore detention of people attempting to reach Australia by sea.

From the outset, the filthy conditions of detention on Manus Island were considered so harsh that only men were sent there. Families, women and children were held on Nauru.

Manus was also the site of deadly riots in 2014. In 2017, the Australian government paid A$70 million in compensation to refugees there – the largest out-of-court settlement for a human rights case.

On the closure of the detention centre a month later, most refugees and asylum seekers were moved to Port Moresby. A few men have since managed to rebuild their lives, set up businesses and begin families, but others have struggled.

Many have been unable to find work due to high rates of unemployment in the country, discriminatory hiring practices and their poor physical and mental health.

In addition, many have been victims of violent crime and resentment from the local community.

Deal behind closed doors

In a secret deal signed by the Morrison government and PNG in late 2021, Australia agreed to provide ongoing funding for services to the remaining refugees and asylum seekers in the country.

The agreement was, and remains, confidential. We have no way of knowing what support was promised, for how long, and to whom.

This support assisted the men with accommodation, security, health care, transport services, food and grocery vouchers, immigration advice and a small stipend of 700 kina (A$268) per week or 1,200 kina (A$460) for families).

When the funding was suddenly stopped a year ago, PNG’s chief migration officer said the remaining men would be resettled within weeks. The majority were to go to New Zealand.

Local businesses, citing breach of contract and shortfalls of tens of millions of dollars, withdrew all services.

Rapid health decline

In the year since, the 42 remaining refugees have faced evictions, financial precarity, threats to their safety, and a rapid and alarming decline in their mental and physical health.

Of the people the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC) is currently in contact with, 20% are so unwell their lives are at imminent risk, 88% reported severe mental health conditions, and 100% reported physical health conditions.

Financial stress is a major cause of deteriorating mental health. One refugee who wished to remain anonymous reported:

the inflation is going higher day by day and it’s hard to manage everything, like clothes, food, electricity, other basic life necessity things […] life is like a jail […] what is our crime that we are still here?

In the last year, basic humanitarian aid has come through crowdfunding organised by Sister Jane Keogh of the Brigidine Sisters. However, this community-driven lifeline is not sustainable.

As Keogh explained to us:

Their physical conditions allied with their mental trauma means that they’re not able to cope with their lives […] many have surpassed the ability to ever lead a normal life due to their mental health.

Out of harm’s way

Since 2013, Australia has stuck with its policy that refugees subject to offshore processing would never be allowed in Australia. The United States and New Zealand have resettled most of the refugees and asylum seekers from PNG and Nauru, but these options are now uncertain for the remaining 42.

Resettlement in New Zealand requires a medical report, which is expensive and difficult for the refugees to acquire.

Without intervention by the Australian government, the consequences for the remaining refugees is dire.

As Qabil Hussain, who has been stuck in PNG for 12 years, told us:

We’ve been brought by Australia here [to PNG] and they just left us stranded here and our support was withdrawn […] I want Australia to take responsibility.

From 2018-2022, Amy Nethery was a partner in Comparative Network of Refugee Externalisation Policies (CONREP), which was co-funded by the European Union under the Erasmus+ Programme – Jean Monnet Activities (599660 EPP-1-2018-1-AU-EPPJMO-NETWORK).

Jemima McKenna is affiliated with the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre as a volunteer caseworker for their Detention Rights and Advocacy Program (DRAP). She has volunteered for the ASRC since December 2018 and has been with DRAP since March 2021. She is the caseworker for the refugees and asylum seekers quoted in this article. Jemima’s PhD is funded by the Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP).

– ref. Dozens of refugees are still stranded in precarious situations in PNG – and support from Australia is dwindling – https://theconversation.com/dozens-of-refugees-are-still-stranded-in-precarious-situations-in-png-and-support-from-australia-is-dwindling-241676

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Himanshu Gupta, Senior Research Fellow (Lived Experience), Rural and Remote Health, Flinders University

Australians lose around A$25 billion on legal forms of gambling each year, representing the largest per person losses in the world.

Gambling harms – including financial, emotional, social and psychological costs – extend to loved ones, peers and co-workers and the community. And some communities are impacted differently to others.

The Northern Territory has a growing multicultural population, with 22% of residents born overseas and 33% speaking a language other than English at home.

About 37% of multicultural Territorians are considered at-risk gamblers, compared to 14% in English speaking households.

Many migrants, including those in the NT, experience financial, social, and emotional pressures, which sometimes lead them to gambling as a means of socialisation or stress relief. Our research explores why and what might limit the risks and harms.

Read more:
Pokies? Lotto? Sports betting? Which forms of problem gambling affect Australians the most?

‘There’s not much to do’

Published earlier this year, our lived experience study explored the pressures that make gambling appealing to migrant communities.

For example, scarce recreational options in Darwin mean gambling fills a social gap. As one person we spoke to said,

It’s kind of the entertainment for us in Darwin […] there’s not much to do, so we go to the casino for fun with friends.

Gambling can become a way to socialise in the absence of other affordable, culturally relevant options.

But what begins as a casual activity can quickly lead to personal strain. Some participants in our study described family tensions.

My sister and brother-in-law got into fighting […] she said, ‘Why do you have to spend a lot of money on gambling?’ but he said, ‘That’s my hobby.’

Another person revealed how gambling impacts family dynamics:

My husband not being present most of the time because he is out gambling has really impacted me […] the kids are missing their dad. I’m missing my husband.

‘Sometimes you can win some money’

Financial stress is a significant factor increasing gambling risks, especially among migrants on temporary visas who face job and visa uncertainties.

Some migrants view gambling as a potential escape from financial pressures, as an international student explained to us,

It is common for international students to stake their tuition fees at the casino […] sometimes you can win some money.

However, gambling losses often exacerbated financial hardship, trapping individuals in cycles of debt and loss.

‘I never gambled until I came to Australia’

The NT’s legal and accessible gambling environment also plays a role, especially for migrants from countries where gambling is restricted.

A participant from Bangladesh shared,

In my country, gambling is not a good thing […] I never gambled until I came to Australia.

Another believed that

Betting on soccer is an easy way to make money […] but in Africa, I didn’t have access to as much funds as I have here [in Australia].

The perceived ease of earning money through gambling adds to the temptation, particularly in times of financial uncertainty.

‘I feel shameful talking about it’

Another critical factor is the reluctance to seek help, often due to cultural stigma or language barriers. Many migrants prefer to manage gambling issues privately. One participant stated,

In my culture, gambling is seen as a bad behaviour […] I just feel shameful talking about it.

Others expressed scepticism toward counselling, viewing it as ineffective. This reluctance can lead to isolation, with individuals and families managing gambling harms in private, often unaware of local support options.

The impacts of gambling extend to mental health, with participants describing cycles of guilt, shame and financial stress. A participant explained how online gambling worsened their addiction

My gambling problem grew worse […] I started spending more money than I had any right to be spending […] we always ended up going back to the casino or poker site until our bank account was empty.

Culturally sensitive approaches are needed

Our research shows culturally sensitive approaches are essential to address gambling harms effectively. This is includes raising awareness about gambling risks in a way that resonates with diverse communities.

Further, our research participants reported higher rates of gambling among Filipino, East Asian and African communities, with the issue anecdotally more common among women in certain Asian groups.

Expanding culturally relevant recreational opportunities could help provide a healthier alternative to gambling.

Support services should also be tailored to migrant need.

Language-specific counselling and culturally competent resources could encourage migrants to seek help. Policymakers could consider revising gambling advertising and venue availability to reduce exposure, especially in vulnerable communities.

Addressing gambling harms among migrants, including those in NT, requires collective efforts from policymakers, community leaders and local organisations.

Himanshu Gupta receives funding from Attorney General and Justice Department, Northern Territory government.

Devaki Monani is the current Chair of the Minister’s Advisory Council for Multicultural Affairs (MACMA), Northern Territory

James Smith is a member of the Strategic Advisory Group for the National Centre for Education and Training in Addiction, deputy chair of the Association for Alcohol and Other Drugs Agencies NT and a fellow and life member of the Australian Health Promotion Association.

Noemi Tari-Keresztes receives funding from NT government community benefit funding. She is an Honorary Member of the NT Lived Experience Network.

– ref. Financial stress and cultural differences make migrants particularly vulnerable to gambling harms. Here’s why – https://theconversation.com/financial-stress-and-cultural-differences-make-migrants-particularly-vulnerable-to-gambling-harms-heres-why-243042

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dana McKay, Associate Dean, Interaction, Technology and Information, RMIT University

The original idea for the world wide web emerged in a flurry of scientific thought around the end of World War II. It began with a hypothetical machine called the “memex”, proposed by US Office of Scientific Research and Development head Vannevar Bush in an article entitled As We May Think, published in the Atlantic Monthly in 1945.

The memex would help us access all knowledge, instantaneously and from our desks. It had a searchable index, and documents were linked together by the “trails” made by users when they associated one document with another. Bush imagined the memex using microfiche and photography, but conceptually it was almost the modern internet.

The true value in this early idea was the links: if you wanted to explore more, there was an easy, built-in way to do that. Anyone who has spent hours following random links on Wikipedia and learning about things they never knew interested them will recognise this value. (There is of course a Wikipedia page about this phenomenon.)

Links have made the web what it is. But as social media platforms, generative AI tools and even search engines are trying harder to keep users on their site or app, the humble link is starting to look like an endangered species.

The laws of links

Modern search engines were developed in the shadow of the memex, but at first they faced unexpected legal issues. In the early days of the internet, it was not clear whether “crawling” web pages to ingest them into a search engine index was a violation of copyright.

It was also not clear whether, in linking to information that might help someone build a bomb, defraud someone, or carry out some other nefarious activity, search engines or website hosts were “publishers”. Being publishers would make them legally liable for content they hosted or linked to.

The issue of web crawling has been dealt with by a combination of fair use, country-specific exemptions for crawling, and the “safe harbour” provisions of the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act. These permit web crawling as long as the search engines do not alter the original work, link to it, only use it for a relatively short term, and don’t profit from the original content.

The issue of problematic content was addressed (at least in the very influential US jurisdiction) via legislation called Section 230. This offers immunity to “providers or users of interactive computer services” who deliver information “provided by another content provider”.

Without this law, the internet as we know it couldn’t exist, because it is impossible to manually check every page linked to or every social media post for illegal content.

This doesn’t mean the internet is a complete Wild West, though. Section 230 has been successfully challenged on the basis of illegal discrimination, when a mandatory questionnaire about housing asked for race. More recently, a case brought against TikTok has suggested platforms are not immune when their algorithms recommend specific videos.

The web’s social contract is failing

All of the laws that have created the internet, though, have relied on links. The social contract is that a search engine can scrape your site, or a social media company can host your words or pictures, as long as they give you, the person who created it, credit (or discredit if you’re giving bad advice). The link isn’t just the thing you follow down a Wikipedia rabbit hole, it’s a way of giving credit, and allowing content creators to profit from their content.

Large platforms, including Google, Microsoft and OpenAI, have used these laws, and the social contract they imply, to keep ingesting content at industrial scale.

The provision of links, eyeballs and credit, though, is falling as AI does not link to its sources. To take one example, news snippets provided in search engines and social media have displaced the original articles so much that tech platforms now have to pay for these snippets in Australia and Canada.

Large tech companies value keeping people on their sites as clicks can be monetised by selling personalised ads.

Another problem with AI is that it typically relearns infrequently and holds onto dated content. While the latest AI-powered search tools claim to do better on this front, it is unclear how good they are.

And, as with news snippets, large corporates are reluctant to give credit and views to others. There are good people-centred reasons for social media companies and search engines to want you to not have to leave. A key value of ChatGPT is providing information in a single, condensed form so you never have to click a link – even if one is available.

Copyright and creativity

Is the sidelining of links a good thing, though? Many experts argue not.

Using content without credit is arguably copyright infringement. Replacing artists and writers with AI reduces creativity in society.

Summarising information, without linking out to original sources, reduces people’s ability to fact check, is prone to bias, and may reduce the learning, thought and creativity supported by browsing many documents. After all, Wikipedia would be no fun without the rabbit hole, and the internet without links is just an online book written by a robot.

AI backlash looms

So what does the future hold? Ironically, the same AI systems that have made the link problem worse have also increased the likelihood that things will change.

The copyright exemptions that apply for crawling and linking are being challenged by creatives whose work has been incorporated into AI models. Proposed changes to Section 230 law may mean that digital platforms are safer to link to material than replicate it.

We have power for change, too: where links exist, click on them. You never know where following a trail might take you.

Dana McKay has in the past received funding from Google and the Australian Research Council

George Buchanan receives funding from the Australian Research Council, and has previously received research support from Google.

– ref. As AI and megaplatforms take over, the hyperlinks that built the web may face extinction – https://theconversation.com/as-ai-and-megaplatforms-take-over-the-hyperlinks-that-built-the-web-may-face-extinction-239933

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nathan Bartlett, Professor, School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy, University of Newcastle

Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has recently approved a new COVID booster. The shot was developed by Pfizer and targets the JN.1 sub-variant of Omicron.

This is now the fifth iteration of the COVID vaccines, which have been updated regularly to keep up with the rapidly evolving virus, SARS-CoV-2.

But nearly five years into the pandemic, you may be wondering, why do we need yet another type of COVID booster? And do we still need to be getting boosters at all? Here’s what to consider.

Targeting the spike protein

Pfizer’s JN.1 booster (and Moderna’s, though the TGA has not approved this one at this stage) is based on mRNA technology. This technology instructs our cells to produce a specific protein – in this case SARS-CoV-2’s spike, a protein on the surface of the virus that allows it to attach to our cells.

This helps the immune system produce antibodies that recognise the spike protein and interfere with the virus getting into our cells.

In response to our strengthened immune responses from vaccinations and previous infections (called immune pressure), SARS-CoV-2 has continued to evolve over the course of the pandemic, modifying the shape of its spike protein so our antibodies become less effective.

Most recently we’ve faced a soup of Omicron sub-variants, including JN.1. Since JN.1 was first detected in August 2023, this Omicron sub-variant has spawned a variety of further sub-variants, such as KP.2 (known as FLiRT), KP.3 (known as FLuQE) and XEC.

The spike protein is made up of 1,273 amino acids, a bit like molecular building blocks. Mutations to the spike protein change individual amino acids.

Certain amino acids are important for allowing neutralising antibodies to bind to the spike protein. This means changes can give the virus an edge over earlier variants, helping it evade our immune response.

Scientists keep updating the COVID vaccines in an effort to keep up with these changes. The better matched the vaccine “spike” is to the spike protein on the surface of the virus trying to infect you, the better protection you’re likely to get.

So who should get vaccinated, and when?

Updating vaccines to deal with mutating viruses is not a new concept. It has been happening for the flu vaccine since around 1950.

We’ve become accustomed to getting the annual flu vaccine in the lead-up to the winter cold and flu season. But, unlike influenza, COVID has not settled into this annual seasonal cycle. The frequency of COVID waves of infection has been fluctuating, with new waves emerging periodically.

COVID is also more transmissible than the flu, which presents another challenge. While numbers vary, a conservative estimate of the reproduction number (R0 – how many people will one person will go on to infect) for JN.1 is 5. Compare this to seasonal flu with an R0 of about 1.3. In other words, COVID could be four times more transmissible than flu.

Add to this immunity from a COVID vaccination (or a previous infection) begins to wane in the months afterwards.

So an annual COVID booster is not considered enough for some more vulnerable people.

For adults aged 65 to 74, a booster is recommended every 12 months, but they’re eligible every six months. For adults over 75, a shot is recommended every six months.

Adults aged 18 to 64 are eligible every 12 months, unless they have a severe immune deficiency. Many conditions can cause immunodeficiency, including genetic disorders, infections, cancer, autoimmune diseases, diabetes and lung disease, as well as having received an organ transplant. For this group, it’s recommended they receive a shot every 12 months, but they’re eligible every six.

Making sense of the advice

A vaccine that targets JN.1 should provide good protection against the Omicron sub-variants likely to be circulating in the coming months.

A few things need to happen before the JN.1 shots become available, such as the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation providing guidance to the government. But we can reasonably expect they might be rolled out within the next month or so.

If they hit doctors’ offices and pharmacies before Christmas and you’re due for a booster, the holiday period might be added impetus to go and get one, especially if you’re planning to attend lots of family and social gatherings over summer.

In the meantime, the XBB.1.5 vaccines remain available. Although they’re targeted at an earlier Omicron sub-variant, they should still offer some protection.

While young, healthy people might like to wait for the updated boosters, for those who are vulnerable and due for a vaccination, whether or not to hold out may be something to weigh up with your doctor.

The advice on COVID boosters in Australia, with stronger wording (“recommended” versus “eligible”) used for more vulnerable groups, reflects what we know about COVID. People who are older and medically vulnerable are more likely to become very unwell with the virus.

For young, healthy people who may be wondering, “do I need a COVID booster at all?”, having one annually is sensible. Although you’re less likely to get very sick from COVID, it’s possible. And, importantly, vaccines also reduce the risk of developing long COVID.

While COVID vaccines do a very good job of protecting against severe disease, they don’t necessarily stop you becoming infected. Evidence on whether they reduce transmission has been mixed, and changed over time.

We’ve come to appreciate that vaccination is not going to free us of COVID. But it’s still our best defence against severe illness.

Nathan Bartlett 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. The latest COVID booster will soon be available. Should I get one? Am I eligible? – https://theconversation.com/the-latest-covid-booster-will-soon-be-available-should-i-get-one-am-i-eligible-239594

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carly Randall, Senior Research Scientist, Benthic and Restoration Ecology, Australian Institute of Marine Science

The Great Barrier Reef, which supports an estimated 64,000 jobs and has a social and economic value of around A$6.4 billion, is under threat due to human-induced climate change.

Scientists have begun “biobanking”, which involves gathering coral sperm from the reef during annual spawning. These samples are held in special repositories and can be used in future to create baby corals via “coral IVF”.

Until now, much of this research has been done without consultation with, or permission from, the traditional custodians of the sea Countries of origin.

But our recent research looked at how we can do things in a different and more respectful way by involving traditional custodians in decision-making and action.

What we did and what we found

More than 70 groups of First Nations peoples are traditional custodians of the Great Barrier Reef.

In the summer of 2022, scientists and First Nations peoples gathered on Konomie (North Keppel Island) in Woppaburra sea Country in Central Queensland. We were there for the annual mass coral spawning.

Scientists from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and Taronga Conservation Society trained the Woppaburra people and neighbouring Indigenous Rangers in gathering coral spawn, larval rearing and cryopreservation methods for biobanking.

During the training, it became clear the current scientific approach overlooked some key cultural considerations.

Woppaburra people believe all things living and non-living, including coral samples, are spiritually connected to Country and people.

By sending these samples to a land-based facility, the “biobanking” process removes them from Country, breaking this vital connection. (The samples are held in biorepositories at Taronga CryoDiversity Bank sites on Cammeraygal and Wiradjuri lands, in New South Wales).

Holding samples from another group’s Country also creates cultural concerns for the traditional custodians of the lands on which the samples are stored, and for First Nations staff and visitors to those sites.

As traditional custodians, Woppaburra people are charged with looking after Country. Maintaining an enduring link to these samples is vital for cultural safety.

This realisation led to collaborative brainstorming about the ways in which these goals could be met. We wanted biobanking samples to support reef resilience while also maintaining links to the samples’ rightful custodians.

It also raised new questions, such as:

• which group(s) hold custodianship over corals bred via IVF, using sperm and eggs from two different sea Countries?
• what if those corals are seeded to a third sea Country?
• how can we do this work more respectfully?

A different approach

We don’t have all the answers. But we started by drafting new protocols to guide the custodial stages. This includes:

• how we gather coral spawn for scientific use
• how we eventually return coral larvae to Country
• how we transfer custodianship of samples to other parties.

We are also building cross-cultural, cross-institutional collaborations to continue working together towards the same goals. These include protecting, preserving and supporting adaptation of corals in the face of climate change.

In a world first, the Woppaburra people worked with the Taronga Cultural Programs team, the AIMS Indigenous Partnerships Team, and Gamay traditional custodians, to transfer custodianship of cryopreserved coral samples.

The Woppaburra and Gamay peoples share the same totem, the humpback whale, and are seen as sister clans. This made the ceremony accompanying the acceptance especially meaningful.

While the samples will always be part of Woppaburra Country, cultural custodianship and guardianship has been transferred to the Gamay Rangers.

By working together, Western science and Indigenous knowledge were shared and new traditions were born.

As we describe in our journal paper:

An unexpected and profound outcome that emerged during the nights of spawning was a new cultural practice whereby rather than simply being discarded, the gametes remaining after sperm were sampled were combined in a small bucket and fertilised.

At the end of the night, the Woppaburra women released these early embryos and leftover gametes into the receiving waters around Konomie to ensure their return to Country.

The purpose of this practice was to respect the life potential of these embryos and gametes, either as future coral recruits on surrounding reefs or simply as part of the biocultural ecosystem of Country.

Getting it right is in everyone’s best interests

Traditional owners are increasingly re-asserting their role in managing sea Country.

As climate change continues to affect the Great Barrier Reef and new methods for reef restoration are developed, this blueprint will ensure that cultural safety remains at the forefront of restoration activities.

It is crucial organisations genuinely engage with traditional owners through the process of free, prior and informed consent. This right is recognised by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

This UN declaration sets out the processes for how traditional custodians engage with other parties in their sea Countries, for reef research and restoration.

New practices such as the protocols set out in this project give the Woppaburra people confidence their traditional cultural values are being considered and applied in a respectful manner and will remain so, into the future.

Sadly, the reef is under immense pressure from ocean warming and human-induced stress. Better partnerships between scientists, resource managers and traditional custodians of sea Countries are in everyone’s best interests.

Carly Randall works for the Australian Institute of Marine Science, a publicly funded research agency that receives funding from the Australian government, state government departments, foundations and private industry. She receives funding from the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program, a partnership between the Australian government’s Reef Trust and the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, the Australian Coral Reef Resilience Initiative, which is a partnership between AIMS and BHP, and the G20 Coral Research and Development Accelerator Platform (CORDAP).

Bob Muir works for the Australian Institute of Marine Science, a publicly funded research agency that receives funding from the Australian government, state government departments, foundations and private industry. He receives funding from the Australian Coral Reef Resilience Initiative, a partnership between AIMS and BHP, and is a Woppaburra traditional owner.

Bryce Liddell works for the Gamay Rangers, an Indigenous Ranger team that cares for Country within coastal Sydney. Their work consists of working collaboratively with scientific institutions. The team is funded predominately by the federal government. He also sits on the Sydney Harbour Federation Trusts First Nations Advisory Group.

Harry Van Issum is affiliated with Woppaburra TUMRA Aboriginal Corporation.

Jonathan Daly receives funding from the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program (RRAP), a partnership between the Australian government’s Reef Trust and the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, the G20 Coral Research and Development Accelerator Platform (CORDAP), and Taronga Conservation Society Australia.

– ref. Traditional owners and scientists worked together on ‘coral IVF’ projects. Here’s what we found – https://theconversation.com/traditional-owners-and-scientists-worked-together-on-coral-ivf-projects-heres-what-we-found-241915

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elise Kalokerinos, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, The University of Melbourne

It’s that time of year when students are waiting for school and university results that could change the course of their lives.

Uncertain waiting periods are among our most emotionally challenging experiences. In fact, research shows students are more stressed while waiting for their results than after finding out they have failed. This is because dealing with an uncertain situation is more stressful than dealing with a known negative outcome.

In our new research, we investigated how students can best approach this often agonising time.

Our research

We followed 101 university psychology students in Belgium receiving results that determined whether they could continue their degree.

We surveyed students ten times a day over two periods. We surveyed for two and a half days before they had their results, because previous research suggests uncertainty is hardest immediately before finding out outcomes. We then surveyed for six and a half days after results were received, because strong emotional responses can last several days.

We used a method called “experience sampling”, which involves sending short surveys repeatedly each day. These were done via smartphone.

Every survey, students used a slider scale to tell us how strongly they were feeling four positive (for example, “proud”, “happy”) and six negative (for example, “disappointed”, “anxious”) emotions. We asked questions such as: “right now, how anxious do you feel about your results?”.

Students also used a slider scale to indicate how much they used six common strategies to manage their feelings (for example, distracting yourself, accepting your feelings, or rethinking the situation). We then tested which strategies predicted better emotional outcomes both during the wait, and after results were known.

What to avoid

We found there are strategies students should avoid while they wait for results. These strategies are associated with stronger negative emotion when used in the waiting period. Two takeaway findings include:

1. Don’t reframe the situation before you know what it is

When managing stress, one generally helpful strategy is reappraisal, which involves rethinking an emotional situation to reduce its impact. For example, a student might interpret failure as a learning opportunity.

Surprisingly, we found the more students reappraised while they waited, the worse they felt. For example, a student thinking “if I fail, I can learn from it”.

But we found the more students reappraised after they received their grades, the better they felt. Reappraisal seems to only help after knowing your grades, when there is a concrete outcome to rethink.

2. Take care with how you share

When feeling bad, people often share their emotions with others. For example, a student might share their worries with a friend.

But the more students in our study shared their emotions with others while waiting for their results, the worse they felt. This may be because students are sharing to vent or complain, leading to a downward spiral. It also could be that students share with friends who are also worried, and their friends’ feelings compound their anxiety.

What can you do instead?

We found students who accepted their emotions as they were, without judgement, felt more positive during the wait. This strategy also worked well after students learned their results, regardless or what they were. This suggests acceptance is a consistently helpful approach.

Research suggests when we accept our emotions, they lose their power. In accepting our emotions, we confront the reality of the situation and let our feelings run their natural course, rather than swimming against the tide.

How can you accept your emotions?

You can practise acceptance in three steps:

1. notice and label your feelings. For example, “I’m feeling anxious” or “angry” or “ashamed”

2. experience these feelings fully, even if they are negative. Don’t try to control, diminish, or avoid them

3. don’t judge these feelings. Recognise they are normal and valid. For example, you might think, “I feel really anxious about my results, but that’s reasonable and OK”.

Acceptance may feel counterintuitive, but our research shows it can help students navigate that long and anxious wait for results.

Elise Kalokerinos receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Ella Moeck receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Waiting for exam results can be awful. Our research shows how best to manage the stress – https://theconversation.com/waiting-for-exam-results-can-be-awful-our-research-shows-how-best-to-manage-the-stress-242216

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martin Loosemore, Professor of Construction Management, University of Technology Sydney

Working practices in the construction industry have been labelled a relic of a bygone era – 64% of employees work more than 50 hours per week.

Long working hours can pose significant risks to people’s physical and mental health, relationships, workplace productivity and safety.

Construction is also struggling to attract and retain women. In New South Wales, about one-third of companies with fewer than 200 employees have no female employees at all.

These are serious problems for an industry under pressure to deliver 1.2 million new homes and A$230 billion of infrastructure over the next five years. Clearly, something needs to change.

One proposal is to mandate a five-day week across the sector. On face value, it may seem like common sense. Making the construction sector a more attractive place to work could attract more talent and, by doing so, alleviate other pressures.

Our research questions this assumption, highlighting that without careful design, such a proposal could have significant unintended negative consequences.

Read more:
Australia’s construction industry needs more hands on deck – so why is it ignoring skilled migrant women?

Work–life balance

To investigate the potential impacts of a shorter work week on work–life balance, we surveyed 1,475 people and conducted interviews with 111 people from across the NSW building and construction industry. We also examined leading international peer-reviewed studies.

We found that the relationship between a healthy work–life balance and a shorter working week is much more nuanced than the current debate suggests.

There certainly was evidence of unhealthy working hours in some parts of the industry. Of the people we surveyed, 39.8% consistently worked more than five days per week.

We also found 26.1% worked more than 55 hours per week, and 36.7% more than ten hours per day.

But we should be careful not to generalise. Young people, those in relatively junior roles and workers on sites – especially salaried managers and supervisors – were found to be doing the heavy lifting in terms of hours and days worked.

This was especially true on large inner-city commercial, residential and infrastructure projects.

Across all respondents, people worked an average of 50–55 hours per week, and just over five days. More than 60% said they had satisfactory, good or very good work–life balance.

Different needs

We also found that not everyone’s work–life balance will benefit from simply reducing working hours.

For construction workers, this depends on a wide range of factors, such as:

• age
• caring and family responsibilities
• financial circumstances
• how easily a particular job can be done in five days
• personal attitudes towards work.

It’s also not clear whether a shorter working week would increase female participation.

Across men and women surveyed, high salaries were widely regarded as adequate compensation for the high hours worked. Some research has even shown women might be less likely to leave the industry than men.

Our findings suggested women who take on the weight of family responsibilities could be especially disadvantaged, if they were forced to work even longer hours during the week to make up for the lost weekend.

However, most respondents saw the delineation between men and women as increasingly irrelevant and based on outdated assumptions. Most argued that the industry needs to be made more appealing to both men and women.

Strong support for a shorter week

Not surprisingly, we found strong support for a shorter working week. However, it’s a bit of a leading question.

We found that few people were willing or able to take a pay cut, work longer hours or lift their productivity during the week.

Many people were also worried about potential impacts on their projects, employers and colleagues. Few employers and clients said they were able or willing to absorb the costs of a shorter working week.

Impact on projects

Depending on a wide range of factors identified in our report, the consequences of moving the industry to a five-day week varied.

We found it could increase the time it takes to complete projects by 5–25%, and costs by 0.4–4%.

The current “hard five-day week” model being advocated for the industry – where sites are shut down on weekends – involved the greatest potential costs.

Importantly, we found subcontractors were currently underpricing five-day-week projects by as much as 20%, because they could spread the costs across other six-day projects.

If a five-day week were mandated across the entire industry, this cost increase could be added to the costs estimates above.

The jury is out

The jury is still out on the pros and cons of a mandatory five-day week in construction.

We found that a healthy work-life balance for everyone is most effectively achieved by providing people with greater flexibility and control over when, where, how and how long they work.

If flexibility can be improved for everyone in the industry, then there is no need to incur the potential risks of a mandatory five-day week to individuals, employers and clients of the industry.

If we insist on adopting a five-day week, then a soft five-day week where sites are flexibly kept open on weekends may be the better option.

This research was supported by funding from the Master Builders Association of NSW (MBA NSW).

Methodology was designed to ensure the research’s complete independence. It was conducted by University of Technology Sydney (UTS) researchers Martin Loosemore and Suhair Alkilani and received full UTS ethics clearance.

– ref. Would a mandatory five-day working week solve construction’s work-life balance woes? – https://theconversation.com/would-a-mandatory-five-day-working-week-solve-constructions-work-life-balance-woes-243023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Ghezelbash, Associate Professor and Director, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, UNSW Law & Justice, UNSW Sydney

The Albanese government is looking to introduce laws that would give it unprecedented powers to forcibly remove non-citizens from Australia. The newly introduced Migration Amendment Bill, expected to be debated in parliament this week, would:

• allow the government to send more people to third countries
• give the government immunity from being sued by people harmed when deported
• expand its powers to revisit protection findings, meaning people previously found to be refugees could be returned to their home country, and
• impose harsh visa conditions on some of those who stay.

The government says the measures are designed to protect the Australian community.

But the sweeping new removal powers are not restricted to the non-citizens with criminal histories who feature so prominently in political speeches and media reports.

They could be used to deport a wide group of people, including refugees and people seeking asylum who have lived in and contributed to the Australian community for years. It could separate families and communities, devastating Australian citizens and permanent residents who are left behind. The bill is already causing widespread fear in affected communities.

How did we get here?

This bill was introduced in response to the High Court’s judgement in the case YBFZ v Minister for Immigration earlier this month.

YBFZ (the pseudonym given to the plaintiff, a 36-year-old stateless refugee) is the latest in a series of cases decided by the High Court after its landmark decision in a separate case, NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, in November 2023.

In that case, the court found the government’s indefinite immigration detention policy was unlawful because it was a form of punishment, which under the Constitution can only be imposed by courts. The ruling led to the release of 224 people from detention.

The government responded to that decision with legislation authorising monitoring conditions, including ankle bracelets and curfews, for many of the people released. Any breach of those conditions could lead to criminal charges and imprisonment.

The YBFZ case challenged these visa conditions. The High Court ruled that they also amounted to punishment in breach of the Constitution.

The government introduced the Migration Amendment Bill a day later.

The new powers in the bill could impact a far larger group of people than those released as a result of the NZYQ case. And the bill’s concerning provisions could be overturned in further court challenges.

There is an urgent need for parliamentary scrutiny of this bill so its full consequences, including any possible unconstitutional elements, can be examined publicly before legislators vote.

Expanding powers to send people offshore

The bill creates new powers to forcibly deport non-citizens to unspecified third countries – without a need to show they pose a risk to the community.

The new provisions would mean certain visas would automatically cease as soon as a person has permission to “enter and remain in” another country that has a “third country reception arrangement” with Australia. They could immediately be put in detention in Australia until they could be removed.

Currently, asylum seekers who reach Australia by boat can be sent to Nauru. The new provisions extend this power to “bridging visa R” (BVR) holders. These visas are issued to people in detention where there is no reasonable prospect of their removal from Australia. This could be because they have been found to be owed protection, they are stateless, or their home country refuses to take them back.

This was the visa given to people released from detention as the result of the NZYQ decision. However, there is nothing stopping the government from issuing the visa to a much broader cohort in the future. Many people living in the community on other bridging visas, for instance, could be moved to this visa and sent offshore.

Some may be genuine refugees whose claims were not properly assessed. This includes those refused protection through the flawed fast-track process, which limited their ability to provide crucial information to the decision makers reviewing their protection claims.

The bill could allow for people to be held in foreign countries with no safeguards to ensure they are treated humanely, at Australian government expense. They could be detained there, potentially indefinitely, and nothing in the bill requires that a lasting solution be found for them.

The harms of Australia’s offshore regime on Nauru and Manus Island are well documented.

The offshore processing system has also come at a great financial cost to Australian taxpayers.

Evading accountability

The bill attempts to indemnify the government from being sued for any actions taken to facilitate the removal of a person from Australia or their treatment in a third country.

In the past, such civil liability claims have been a crucial accountability mechanism for those transferred offshore.

For example, dozens of refugees have secured court orders to be brought to Australia to access urgent, lifesaving treatment unavailable in Nauru or Manus Island.

Many have also sued the government for damages. In 2017, the largest human rights settlement to date was agreed between Manus Island detainees and the federal government, following a claim of unlawful detention and negligence. Other cases are ongoing.

By shutting the door to future legal challenges, the government would effectively remove one of the few proven checks on its power in this area.

Sending refugees back to harm

In addition, there are no safeguards preventing people sent to a third country later being returned to their home country where they may face persecution or other serious harm.

And the bill expands the government’s powers to revisit protection findings, meaning people previously found to be refugees could also be returned to their home country.

This power already exists in the Migration Act in relation to people who do not hold a visa. The bill seeks to expand it to people who hold certain bridging and other visas that can be specified later through regulations. This would include people who have been living in the Australian community for years.

Refugee status should be a stable and enduring protection, not something that can be easily revoked or altered based on the government’s changing policies.

Reimposing ankle monitoring and curfews

The bill and associated regulations also seek to reimpose visa conditions, such as curfews and ankle monitoring.

These conditions could be used where the immigration minister is satisfied a non-citizen poses a substantial risk of harming the Australian community by committing a serious offence.

The Human Rights Law Centre has voiced concerns the bill would allow

the government to make assumptions about people’s future behaviour and continue imposing punitive conditions that limit people’s freedom and bodily integrity.

It is unclear whether the changes meet the requirements set down by the High Court in the YBFZ case, given restrictions would continue to be imposed without court involvement.

The bill is the latest in a series of attempts to rush through migration legislation without time for public debate.

This approach places a substantial burden on the court system, where rushed legislation is tested and the Commonwealth often loses.

It is essential these issues are thoroughly examined and debated to ensure that Australia’s immigration policies remain fair, just, humane and legal.

Daniel Ghezelbash receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the NSW government. He is a member of the management committee of Refugee Advice and Casework Services and Wallumatta Legal, and a Special Counsel at the National Justice Project.

Anna Talbot receives funding from the Australian government as a PhD scholar and Strategic Litigation Network Coordinator at the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, University of NSW, Sydney,

– ref. Another rushed migration bill would give the government sweeping powers to deport potentially thousands of people – https://theconversation.com/another-rushed-migration-bill-would-give-the-government-sweeping-powers-to-deport-potentially-thousands-of-people-243365

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

A byelection occurred on Saturday in the South Australian Liberal-held state seat of Black. With all election day votes counted, Labor gained Black by a 60.6–39.4 margin over the Liberals, a 13.3% swing to Labor since the 2022 state election. Primary votes were 46.5% Labor (up 8.4%), 32.3% Liberals (down 17.8%), 15.6% Greens (up 3.8%) and 5.6% Australian Families (new).

SA doesn’t allow pre-poll and postal votes to be counted on election night, so the count is only up to 42% of enrolled voters. ABC election analyst Antony Green expects the large number of pre-poll and postal votes to reduce Labor’s lead, but Labor will still win easily. These votes will be counted from Monday.

This is the second time the SA Labor government has gained a seat from the opposition at a byelection. In March, Labor gained Dunstan, the seat of former SA Liberal premier Steven Marshall. This was the first time in a century that a SA government had gained from the opposition at a byelection.

This byelection was held owing to the resignation of former Liberal leader David Speirs, who became leader after the 2022 election. SA Labor has now gained two former Liberal leaders’ seats.

I don’t think this result is due to a backlash against Donald Trump’s election as US president, as the latest federal polls have been ordinary for Labor.

There’s only been one poll since the 2022 election of SA state voting intentions. That poll, taken in August, gave Labor a 60–40 lead. A very popular Labor government is the most likely explanation for this byelection result.

Australian economic data

The Australian Bureau of Statistics said wages grew 0.8% in the September quarter, the same as in the June quarter, but 12-month wage growth dropped to 3.5% from 4.1%. With headline inflation up 0.2% in the September quarter and up 2.8% in the previous 12 months, real (inflation-adjusted) wages were up 0.6% in the September quarter and up 0.7% in the previous 12 months.

Real wages have increased in the last four quarters, but they fell for the two years until September 2023, with the fall peaking in December 2022 at above a 4% real wage drop.

The ABS said the October unemployment rate was unchanged from September at 4.1%, with 15,900 jobs added. The employment population ratio (the percentage of eligible Austalians who are employed) remained at 64.4%, an equal record high.

Federal Morgan poll: Coalition retains narrow lead

A national Morgan poll, conducted November 4–10 from a sample of 1,665, gave the Coalition a 50.5–49.5 lead, a 0.5-point gain for Labor since the October 28 to November 3 Morgan poll.

Primary votes were 37.5% Coalition (down 0.5), 30.5% Labor (steady), 12.5% Greens (down 1.5), 6.5% One Nation (up 0.5), 8.5% independents (up one) and 4.5% others (up 0.5).

The headline figure uses respondent preferences. By 2022 election flows, Labor led by an unchanged 51–49.

Additional Resolve questions

Support for the Greens was down one to 11% in the November national Resolve poll for Nine newspapers, their lowest since February. Newspoll and Morgan have also shown a drop for the Greens.

Greens leader Adam Bandt’s net likeability was -15 in Resolve, equal with October as his lowest net likeability since February. The Greens’ net likeability was -19, their worst since August.

Other politicians and parties’ net likeability was -40 for Lidia Thorpe, -23 for Pauline Hanson, -15 for Bob Katter, -10 for Albanese, -4 for Labor, -1 for Dutton and +7 for the Liberals.

On flight upgrades, 36% said MPs should get upgrades for work but not personal flights,, 25% wanted no upgrades and 23% wanted them always allowed. By 45–39, voters thought MPs should continue to accept airline lounge memberships as long as they declare it.

On Albanese’s acceptance of benefits, 35% said he should not have accepted them for personal flights, but it was OK for official travel, 30% said it was OK to accept them and 24% said he should not have accepted benefits for either work or personal flights.

WA state and federal polls

The Western Australian state election will be held in March 2025. The Poll Bludger reported on November 13 that a DemosAU poll, conducted October 30 to November 4 from a sample of 948, gave Labor a 56–44 lead.

Primary votes were 41% Labor, 34% Liberals, 4% Nationals, 12% Greens and 9% for all Others. Labor incumbent Roger Cook had a 42–29 lead over the Liberals’ Libby Mettam as preferred premier.

The federal version of this poll gave Labor a 52–48 lead in WA, a 3% swing to the Coalition from the 2022 federal election. Primary votes were 38% Coalition, 34% Labor, 14% Greens, 6% One Nation and 8% for all Others. Albanese led Dutton as preferred PM by 40–33. A federal WA Redbridge poll gave Labor a 54.5–45.5 lead.

Victorian Resolve poll: Pesutto now preferred premier

A Victorian state Resolve poll for The Age, conducted with the federal October and November Resolve polls from a sample of over 1,000, gave the Coalition 38% of the primary vote (up one since September), Labor 28% (up one), the Greens 13% (down one), independents 14% (down one) and others 7% (steady).

Resolve doesn’t usually give a two-party figure, but The Poll Bludger estimated a Coalition lead by 50.5–49.5. Liberal leader John Pesutto led Labor incumbent Jacinta Allan as preferred premier by 30–29, a reversal of a 30–29 lead for Allan in September. It’s the first time Pesutto has led on this measure.

By 42–37, voters supported the building of more high-density housing near train and tram stations in their area.

US election late counting

I continue to follow United States election late counting for The Poll Bludger. Republicans have a 52–47 lead over Democrats in called Senate races, and are likely to win the final uncalled contest in Pennsylvania.

In the House of Representatives, Republicans have a 218–212 lead in called races with five uncalled. I expect Republicans to win two of the uncalled races, Democrats two and one is still undecided.

Adrian Beaumont 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. South Australian Labor gains Black at byelection with big swing – https://theconversation.com/south-australian-labor-gains-black-at-byelection-with-big-swing-243468

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

With Donald Trump returning to the White House, the relationship between the US and Iran could change significantly.

Trump’s unconventional foreign policy led to a period of heightened confrontation with Iran during his first term in office. However, the regional dynamics have evolved over the past four years, and Trump’s approach to Iran may shift as a result.

Tensions are running high between the two adversaries. Last Friday, the US Department of Justice unveiled federal charges in what it said was a thwarted Iranian plot to assassinate Trump. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi dismissed the allegations as “fabricated”.

In a report in the Wall Street Journal, Iranian officials also told the US government in a secret exchange last month that the country wouldn’t seek to kill Trump.

So, will these tensions continue in a second Trump term? Or might there be an opportunity for Iran and the US to actually improve relations?

How did the ‘maximum pressure’ policy work?

During his first term, Trump enacted a so-called “maximum pressure” policy aimed at curbing Iran’s growing influence in the Middle East.

Iran had grown much stronger after sanctions were lifted as part of the 2015 nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), negotiated by the Obama administration.

Trump withdrew from this agreement in 2018. The US re-imposed severe sanctions on Iran and an embargo on its oil exports. This had severe impacts on Iran’s economy and contributed to social unrest within the country.

In January 2020, tensions between the US and Iran culminated in the assassination of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani by a US drone strike. This led to reprisal attacks by Iran on a US military base in Iraq.

In response to these mounting pressures, Iran scaled back its adherence to the JCPOA. It barred International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors from monitoring its nuclear program and enriched uranium to near-weapons-grade level.

Regional dynamics have changed

Over the past four years, there have been substantial shifts in Iran’s relationships with Arab states in the region.

Most significantly, Iran and its chief rival, Saudi Arabi, resumed diplomatic relations in March 2023, marking a historic end to a long period of hostility.

Relations between the two nations quickly progressed to a level of co-operation unthinkable just years ago. And as Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon have continued, Saudi Arabia has drifted away from Israel and closer to its biggest foe, Iran.

Although some scepticism remains, the foreign ministers of both countries met last month in Riyadh, followed by a meeting this week between the general chief of staff of Saudi Arabia’s armed forces and his counterpart in Tehran.

And at a summit of regional leaders in Riyadh this week, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman urged Israel to respect Iranian sovereignty and accused Israel of “collective genocide” in Gaza. The summit resolution also warned of the danger of Israel’s “expansion of aggression” against Iran and other regional countries.

The latest confrontations between Iran and Israel have underscored both nations’ destructive capabilities. A war between them would likely trigger a catastrophic broader conflict that could draw in the United States, Russia and other players. Such a scenario would have profound economic and security repercussions worldwide.

Trump’s stance towards Iran

In his campaign for a second term, Trump has consistently spoken out against prolonged US involvement in wars. He also signalled a more conciliatory approach to Iran. Rejecting the idea of US-driven regime change in Tehran, he remarked:

I would like to see Iran be very successful. The only thing is, they can’t have a nuclear weapon.

He further expressed a hope for improved relations: “I’m not looking to be bad to Iran, we’re going to be friendly, I hope.”

Elon Musk, the tech billionaire closely allied with Trump, also met with Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations earlier this week in a bid to defuse tensions in the next administration, The New York Times reported.

However, other reports indicate that Trump’s top advisers are planning to reinstate the “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran. It would include increasing sanctions again and choking off Iran’s oil income by “going after foreign ports and traders who handle Iranian oil”.

Trump’s unpredictable policymaking style suggests it is too early to know what approach he might take.

Iran’s stance toward a second-trump Term

Iran is now led by a reformist government (by Iranian standards), whose tenure would overlap with much of Trump’s second term.

President Masoud Pezeshkian’s administration has voiced its desire to improve relations with the West and resume nuclear talks. And contrary to previous reformist governments in Iran, it generally enjoys the support of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the ultimate power in the country.

Despite its military strength, Iran faces deep economic challenges, with public dissatisfaction growing. Therefore, Iran may seek to prioritise diplomatic solutions with the new Trump administration, knowing any escalation could destabilise the region.

In a sign of openness towards Trump, Iran’s vice president for strategic affairs, Mohammad Javad Zarif, has urged him to reassess the policy of “maximum pressure”, saying: “Trump must show that he is not following the wrong policies of the past.”

In the same vein, Araghchi, the foreign minister, has sent positive signals to Trump, saying:

The path forward is also a choice. It begins with respect […] Confidence-building is needed from both sides. It is not a one-way street.

He also emphasised that Iran is “NOT after nuclear weapons”.

Iran has yet to respond to Israel’s latest direct attack in late October. Though Iran has launched two direct attacks of its own on Israel this year, it may seek to de‑escalate tensions. In a statement in late October, Iran’s military said a ceasefire in the Gaza and Lebanon conflicts is more important than retaliation against Israel.

If a ceasefire were to occur, the region could enter a period of relative calm after a year of heightened tensions. This would present a valuable opportunity for the US to work with Israel, Arab states and potentially Iran towards a more permanent regional peace framework.

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

– ref. Will Trump renew ‘maximum pressure’ against Iran – or could there be an opening for dialogue? – https://theconversation.com/will-trump-renew-maximum-pressure-against-iran-or-could-there-be-an-opening-for-dialogue-243478

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

The head of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Paul Brereton, has rejected calls he resign after a finding of “officer misconduct”, declaring to do so would harm the NACC.

In a spirited defence of his digging in, Brereton argued if he was to be “deterred from discharging my duties by adverse publicity, the important independence if the commission would be undermined.

“It would be a statement that our yardstick should be popularity, not integrity.

“It would say that we should avoid making difficult decisions, lest they be unpopular.

“From there it is a short path to becoming an architect of oppression and vehicle of vengeance, rather than an instrument of integrity.”

Brereton was found by the Inspector of the NACC to have committed “officer misconduct” because he only partially, rather than adequately, excused himself during the NACC’s consideration of whether the body should investigate six people the royal commission into Robodebt referred to it.

He delegated the actual decision-making in the matter to a deputy commissioner because he had had a professional relationship with one of the people, but he took part extensively in the process of consideration.

Whether there should be an investigation into the conduct of the six is now to be reconsidered by an independent person to be appointed by the NACC.

Brereton said that after the “stinging finding” by the Inspector, some had called for his resignation, while one commentator even posted that it was ‘revolver in the library time’, which was “liked” by 1700 followers.

Brereton’s detailed defence of his actions comes ahead of a meeting this month of the parliamentary committee with oversight of the NACC.

Speaking to the National Public Sector Governance Forum, he explained why he had remained involved in the process when the Robodebt matter was being considered.

He accepted his judgement had been found to be mistaken when viewed through the legal prism of “apprehended bias” but said “the legal lens is not the only one”.

He said the referrals were received in the first week of the NACC’s operation, when it was just establishing its processes, policies and procedures, including the scope of its jurisdiction and the meaning of “corrupt conduct” under its act.

“I considered that it would have been irresponsible and negligent to abandon any involvement, to provide no guidance on these issues.”

In the circumstances he considered “an appropriate balance” could be achieved by delegating the decision to a deputy commissioner and excusing himself when it was made, while continuing to provide input on issues of general application.

“There was a balance to be struck between my responsibility as a leader for managing the affairs of the commission and issues that would have lasting implications for it on the one hand, and avoiding the perception that my prior professional relationship with one of the referred persons might influence the decision on the other.”

He accepted he had got the balance wrong.

Brereton said the NACC had amended its conflict of interest provision so a person with a declared conflict who wasn’t the ultimate decision-maker did not take part in the process.

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. NACC head Paul Brereton says resigning in the face of bad publicly would ‘undermine’ the commission – https://theconversation.com/nacc-head-paul-brereton-says-resigning-in-the-face-of-bad-publicly-would-undermine-the-commission-243802

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cybele Dey, Conjoint lecturer & PhD candidate in Psychiatry, School of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney

As government representatives gather at the COP29 international climate summit in Azerbaijan, the impact of climate change on young people’s mental health needs to be an urgent priority.

As psychiatrists working with children and adolescents, we’re so concerned that we’re sharing our research at the summit on the link between higher temperatures and suicidal thoughts and behaviours.

Our recent study shows young people are more likely to present at the emergency department for suicidal thoughts and behaviours in hotter weather.

Here’s what we found and why one of us (Cybele Dey) is presenting our findings at COP29.

Mental health is getting worse

Young people’s mental health is getting worse in Australia and across the world.
There is growing evidence inadequate action on climate change is contributing. But it goes beyond young people worrying about how climate change will affect their future.

Climate change is here, and its effects are already damaging young people’s mental health. Extreme weather events – such as Australia’s devastating Black Summer bushfires in 2019 and storms and floods since – disrupt children’s schooling, force displacement and cause trauma, anxiety and stress.

Our study is showing another, less talked about dimension.

Suicidal behaviour risk increases with hotter weather

Small increases in average temperatures can mean a large rise in the number of hot days each year. In 2019, for example, Australia had 33 days averaging over 39°C – more than the total number of the preceding 59 years.

While studies have shown a link between hot weather and adult suicidal thoughts and behaviour, the issue is under-researched among young people.

Given suicide is a major health issue for young people – it is the leading cause of death for Australians aged 15-24 – we wanted to investigate this link.

Our recent study looked at all emergency department presentations in New South Wales for suicidal thoughts and behaviour by people aged 12-24, during the warmer months (November to March) between January 2012 and December 2019.

We looked at these warmer months to focus on daily average temperature and heatwaves, rather than compare between seasons.

We found for every 1°C rise in average daily temperature, emergency department visits by young people for suicidal thoughts and behaviour increased by 1.3%. For example, presentations were 11% higher on days averaging 30°C, compared to days with an average 21.9°C. The risks also increased significantly even on days that were average temperature (not extreme heat), when compared to mild, cool days during the warmer months.

A study like this can only show an association between heat and suicidal thoughts and behaviour, rather than a direct cause. But the relationship was very strong. This means there was a steady and predictable worsening as ambient temperatures rose.

We also analysed heatwaves, meaning three or more very hot days in a row. Interestingly, presentations increased as much on the first hot day as on later days of a heatwave. That means each single hot day is as bad as another.

Heat and inequality

Our study also found young people in regions with some of Australia’s most disadvantaged suburbs had a higher risk of presenting at emergency for suicidal thoughts and behaviours than those in more advantaged areas, even at the same temperature.

This is significant because previous research has shown socioeconomic disadvantage in itself does not increase risk for suicidal thoughts and behaviour in young people.

But disadvantage can mean people are more vulnerable to the harms of hot weather. For example, this could be through lack of cool shelter or inability to pay for air conditioning or other cooling, as well as a lack of transport and access to trees and water.

Complex interactions for mental health

Understanding mental health impacts of climate change means examining complex interactions between multiple factors, and over time. Simple, linear “cause and effect” models do not capture this.

Anxiety about climate change does also play a role in young people’s mental health. But children and teenagers who show high levels of distress may be expressing a healthy response to an unhealthy reality, rather than a mental disorder.

Inadequate action and dismissive responses by those in authority, including governments, worsens their distress.

What we’ll be telling COP29

At COP29, leaders must understand youth mental health is already seriously affected by insufficient action on climate change, from increasing extreme weather, heat, forced migration and disruption to school, work and health care.

High-income countries such as Australia must rapidly and equitably transition off fossil fuels, including gas, in line with scientific evidence and leadership by our Pacific neighbours, to reduce climate distress now.

Our research suggests this may help reduce youth suicide and suicidal thoughts and behaviours, and improve mental health more broadly.

How can we adapt?

If we are to adapt to climate change, we need to prepare the mental health system at national, state and local levels.

Public health messaging about heat should also consider the risks of single hot days, not just heatwaves. It should target young people and include information about mental health as well as physical health.

This information should also be part of how health professionals are trained. The current National Health and Climate Strategy includes two recommendations on mental health, focusing on community resilience and building a workforce trained in climate change and mental health. These need to go from policy into action.

Sensible public health measures – such as improving rental standards and equipping bus shelters for extreme heat – are needed now. We must plan for increases in mental health-care needs, including access to primary mental health care and evidence-based, local and culturally-appropriate treatments for children and young people.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14. In an emergency, call 000.

Cybele Dey is a member of Doctors for the Environment, Australia, the Climate and Health Alliance, Psychology for a Safe Climate and chairs the NSW Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists’ Climate Psychiatry Group. She is a conjoint lecturer and researcher at UNSW Sydney and works for Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network, where she is a clinical sustainability lead.

Iain Perkes works for UNSW Sydney and the Sydney Children’s Hospital Network. He is an Associate Editor at the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry where the original research article featured here was published.

Kay Wilhelm is a member of Doctors for the Environment.

– ref. Here’s what we’ll be telling COP29 about how climate change is harming young people’s mental health – https://theconversation.com/heres-what-well-be-telling-cop29-about-how-climate-change-is-harming-young-peoples-mental-health-243480

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Craig Barker, Head, Public Engagement, Chau Chak Wing Museum, University of Sydney

It’s one of the most thrilling sequences in Ridley Scott’s new film Gladiator II, the long-awaited sequel to the 2000 Oscar-winning blockbuster.

Water gushes from the Colosseum’s fountains and floods the arena. A crew of men led by the film’s hero, Lucius Verus (played by Paul Mescal), row a warship while firing arrows at another ship. Sharks loom in the surrounding water, while the Emperor Caracalla (Fred Hechinger) watches on laughing.

It’s Hollywood’s first re-enactment of an ancient Roman naval battle – and it’s spectacular. The special effects from this sequence will have been a major component of the film’s reported US$310 million budget.

But is there much history to be found here, especially given Ridley Scott’s disdain for historical realities in his films? Did the Romans watch naval battles as entertainment?

Whatever is viewed in the circus and the amphitheatre […] let this be the only sea fight known to posterity.
– Martial in Liber Spectaculorum, book 28

War on the water

The term “naumachia” refers to both the staging of naval battles for mass entertainment and the structure or natural feature in which these recreations took place. Naumachiae did exist. And while they seem to have been rare, the death rates would have been high.

Much of what we know of them (and what is written in this article) comes from writing from a handful of historians, including Suetonius, Dio Cassius and Tacitus.

The earliest known naumachia was hosted by Julius Caesar in 46 BCE. Suetonius describes a basin dug near the Tiber river, in Rome’s Campus Martius area, which was large enough to host ships with more than 2,000 combatants and 4,000 rowers – all prisoners of war.

An even grander event was held in 2 BCE by the emperor Augustus for the inauguration of the Temple of Mars Ultor. It was held on an artificial lake, or “stagnum”, spanning more than 530 metres by 350 metres. An estimated 270,000 cubic metres of water would have been required to fill it.

This naumachia featured the reenactment of a naval battle between the “Athenians” and “Persians”. According to Augustus himself, more than 3,000 men fought in 30 vessels.

The largest recorded naumachia came some years later. This reenactment of battle between the “Rhodians” and “Sicilians” was staged by Claudius in 52 CE on the natural lake in Abruzzo, Italy. The event consisted of 100 naval ships and 19,000 combatants – all prisoners who had been condemned to death.

According Dio Cassius, the condemned men saluted Claudius with the phrase Ave imperator, morituri te salutant, or “Hail emperor, those who are about to die salute you”. Although this phrase is now commonly and erroneously assumed to have been spoken by gladiators prior to combat, this remains the only recorded example of its use.

Naumachiae were commonly presented as historical or pseudo-historical reenactments of real naval conflicts. Claudius’ spectacle, for instance, was between fleets representing the “Rhodians” and the “Sicilians”.

Naumachiae in amphitheatres

A new development took place in the 1st century CE: naumachiae began being performed in amphitheatres. The earliest recorded event took place in 57 CE under the rule of emperor Nero, in a wooden structure thought to have been located in the Campus Martius.

For the inauguration of the Flavian amphitheatre (the Colosseum) in 80 CE, Emperor Titus presented two naumachiae: one in Augustus’ stagnum and the other in the Colosseum itself. Titus’ successor, Domitian, is also said to have flooded the Colosseum to host a naumachia circa 85 CE.

The term naumachiae became less frequent in historical literature after the Flavian era (69–96 CE). There’s no evidence the Colosseum was hosting naumachiae as late as the 3rd century, when Gladiator II is set.

Other water spectacles across the Empire

There is some better-preserved evidence of aquatic spectacles on a smaller scale outside of Rome. In Spain, ampitheatres at Verona and Mérida feature central basins connected to water supply and drainage channels.

However, only modest naumachiae would have been possible in these – the arenas presumably covered with wooden floorboards when not used for this purpose.

Water was also used in other forms of entertainment, such as to display marine animals. For instance, in 2 BCE 36 crocodiles were released in a flooded arena and hunted. It was also common for female swimmers to portray Nereids (water nymphs) in flooded arenas, similar to modern artistic swimming.

However, there is no evidence of sharks ever being on display – despite Ridley Scott’s insistence.

A case study from Cyprus

Just as there is evidence of older Roman theatres being converted for gladiator contests and beast hunts, there is also strong evidence of theatres having been modified for aquatic spectacles. This includes theatres in the Greek cities of Corinth and Argos, as well as in Ostia, Italy.

Recent investigations by University of Sydney archaeologists have revealed further evidence of such modifications at the site of Paphos in Cyprus.

They’ve found evidence of the Paphos theatre’s orchestra being converted for water spectacles in the mid-third century – its floor covered with a cement and coloured stone. With an estimated capacity of 310 cubic metres, this theatre was likely too small to host naumachiae, but would have been ideal for displaying animals or water nymphs.

A semicircular containment wall about one metre high separated the audience from the action, while drains and terracotta pipes indicate the flow of water from a large reservoir excavated behind the theatre. Analysis of the plaster on the floor has also confirmed it was waterproof.

The site provides a valuable contribution to our understanding of Roman water spectacles.

So when you’re watching the naval battle in Gladiator II, it’s worth remembering how the ancient Romans viewed this spectacle in much the same way. Just like back then, a lot of money was spent to bring this entertainment to life.

Luckily, nobody had to die this time around.

I am the director of the Paphos Theatre Archaeological Project which is discussed in this paper.

– ref. Gladiator II features a naval battle held in the Colosseum. These brutal spectacles really happened – https://theconversation.com/gladiator-ii-features-a-naval-battle-held-in-the-colosseum-these-brutal-spectacles-really-happened-242394

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kathryn Henne, Professor and Director, School of Regulation and Global Governance, Australian National University

Police departments around the world are increasingly using body-worn cameras in an attempt to improve public trust and accountability. But this has created huge amounts of data, about 95% of which is never reviewed or even seen.

Enter companies such as Axon, Polis Solutions and Truleo. These companies market artificial intelligence (AI) tools for analysing the data generated by body-worn cameras and other policing technologies.

Some police departments in the United States previously launched trials of these tools before abandoning them because of concerns about privacy.

Truleo told The Conversation that police in Australia were now using its technology, but did not name any specific department. However, when The Conversation asked Australian police departments if they were using or considering using Truleo’s software, all except the Queensland Police Service said they were not.

In a statement, a Queensland Police Service spokesperson said it is currently conducting an AI trial with “a variety of technology” as part of its work tackling domestic and family violence. The spokesperson added: “Once the trial is completed, a detailed evaluation will be undertaken before the QPS considers future options for using the technology”.

But AI will not solve the challenges facing police – at least, not by itself.

The unfulfilled promise of body-worn cameras

The increased use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement agencies in recent years follows a number of high-profile cases involving police using force. In Australia, for example, a police officer is currently on trial for the manslaughter of a 95-year-old great-grandmother by using a taser.

There is debate about whether body-worn cameras actually make police officers’ behaviour more transparent and accountable.

Some experts have said their effectiveness is uncertain. Others have said they are a failed attempt at reform.

These sentiments were echoed by a major study published earlier this year.

The study examined the use of body-worn cameras in response to domestic and family violence in Australia. It acknowledged their potential utility but showed how data from these technologies might not be used to support victim-survivors. This is because of more foundational problems with how police engage with victim-survivors.

AI’s many uses in policing

Police have been using AI as part of their work for a long time.

For example, in 2000, New South Wales Police launched a program that used data analytics to predict which people were at risk of committing a crime, to enhance police supervision.

A report from the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission later revealed the program disproportionately targeted Indigenous youth, who subsequently faced heightened surveillance and increased arrests for minor crimes. This led to NSW Police ending the program in 2023.

The Queensland Police Service has also proposed a program using AI technologies to predict risk of domestic and family violence.

Experts, however, have pointed to potential unintended consequences, including criminalising victim-survivors.

Companies such as Truleo, which provides police with AI tools to analyse body-worn camera footage, say these tools improve police “professionalism”. However, it is not clear if what is being measured and assessed as “professionalism” correlates with officers’ core duties and responsibilities.

In fact, the Seattle Police Department in the US ended its contract with Truleo despite acknowledging it was a “promising” trial.

It did so after finding a case of unprofessional conduct in which the police union cited the use of camera footage as infringing on the police officer’s privacy.

The need for structural reform

AI tools could help police manage and analyse body-worn camera data. Their value depends on several conditions.

First, police must thoroughly evaluate any AI tools to ensure they are fit for purpose in a local context. Many of these technologies are developed overseas and trained on data that have linguistic features such as accents, inflections and insults that are not common in Australia.

Second, police – and the companies that offer AI data analysis tools – must also be transparent about how they use body worn camera footage. In particular, they must share where, how and by what arrangements data is processed and stored.

Finally – and most importantly – the use of AI technologies by police should not supersede organisational and structural reforms.

Police need to examine the impact of behaviours and processes that have resulted in inequitable surveillance practices. AI technologies are not solutions to these underlying dynamics.

Without an understanding of the systemic structures that sustain disparities in the criminal legal system, police will not be prepared to address the implications of integrating AI technologies into their work. If they do not, these technologies are more likely to exacerbate existing injustices and inequalities.

In short, the questions about AI shouldn’t be simply about technology but about police legitimacy.

Kathryn Henne’s research is supported by funding from the Australian Research Council, Consortium of Humanities Centers and Institutes, Google Academic Research Awards Program, National Endowment for the Humanities and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

Charles Gretton receives funding from Australian government agencies. Charles’ research has also been supported by Oracle for Research. Charles is a Fellow Member of Engineers Australia, a member of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, and an Associate Member of the Australian Information Industry Association.

Kanika Samuels-Wortley receives funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council, Canada Research Chair Program.

– ref. Australian police are trialling AI to analyse body-worn camera footage, despite overseas failures and expert criticism – https://theconversation.com/australian-police-are-trialling-ai-to-analyse-body-worn-camera-footage-despite-overseas-failures-and-expert-criticism-243371

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katharine Annear, Lecturer (Teaching Specialist) Disability and Community Inclusion, Flinders University

Language trends change quickly at the hands of social media users. They explode into our screens, rather than slowly evolve. This can change the ways we talk about diagnoses such as autism and concepts like neurodiversity.

But before we use a term, we should look at how it came to be and what it means to people.

So where does the new word “neurospicy” come from? And why do some people embrace it, while others reject it?

First, let’s unpack ‘neurodiversity’

The term neurodiversity evolved collectively in the mid-1990s in an online space dedicated to autistic people.

The term refers to the neurological diversity found across the human species. It is a way to include brains and minds that diverge from what society considers neurologically typical or “neurotypical”.

Australian sociologist Judy Singer first used the term in academia in her 1998 honours thesis and it made its way to mainstream media the same year.

The terms neurodivergent and neurotypical are now well studied and well defined by academics and the neurodiversity movement. Outside of this, though, language can change meaning.

The neurodiversity movement promotes equality

The neurodiversity movement came from the autism rights movement, and for many, the term neurodivergent is associated with autism.

The concept of neurodivergence has broadened over time to include people with conditions such as intellectual disability, mental illness, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dyslexia and acquired brain injury.

However, a person cannot be diagnosed as neurodivergent. A person can only be diagnosed with a condition that indicates neurodivergence.

The neurodiversity movement is a disability rights movement that focuses on equal rights for neurodivergent people.

Advocates say people with conditions such as autism and ADHD should be accepted rather than “cured”. They argue an inclusive society should ensure equal access to ethical care and support to everyone, including neurodivergent people.

This movement began at a time when most of the autism research focused on finding a cure.

Some argue it doesn’t represent people with high support needs

One of the main criticisms of the neurodiversity movement is it doesn’t address the complex needs of many autistic people.

An autistic person can be non-speaking, have intellectual disability and severe anxiety, requiring a lot of daily support. The people who advocate on behalf of autistic people with complex needs are parents and concerned clinicians.

To these advocates, an acceptance of neurodiversity and an equal rights campaign is not enough. Some argue that neurodivergence, particularly autism, is a medical problem that needs “treatment”.

But both groups want to highlight the care and support needs of this part of the autistic population.

Why do some people favour the term ‘neurospicy’?

Words like neurodiverse, neuro-inclusive, neuro-affirming and neurospicy are neologisms (new words) related to neurodiversity.

These words don’t come from the original group in the 1990s or from medical professionals. They come from a large online community of neurodivergent people.

Neurospicy is a way of describing a person who experiences multiple forms of neurodivergence, or a collective, such as a family that has many neurodivergent members.

For some, the use of neurospicy avoids disclosure of a diagnosis.

Others feel it’s a creative way of pushing back against medical terms such as “mild autism”.

Blogger Randi Owsley writes:

Neurospicy embodies the richness, the zest, and the profound depth that characterise our unique neurological makeup. It’s a celebration of the vibrant, sometimes intense, facets of our identities.

Why do some people dislike it?

The use of neologisms like neurospicy is controversial inside and outside the neurodivergent community.

Some parent advocates feel that terms associated with neurodiversity erase the profound difficulties of autistic people.

Speaking of her son Zack, author Whitney Ellenby says:

Blurring his identity under the indistinct banner of “neurodiverse” erases Zack’s lived history – all that he has endured and overcome to get here.

Neurodivergent people have also had some strong reactions to the word neurospicy. Neurodivergent podcaster Danielle Sullivan asks if neurospicy is just a cute, quirky word or a way to avoid saying disabled.

Some argue we should abandon words such as neurospicy and “neurosparkly” and be clear that we’re talking about disability:

So it seems that some neurodivergent people and people who support the medical model of autism agree about refocusing on disability.

So is it OK to say neurospicy?

Before picking up a new language trend, consider the history and the power of words.

Moving forward, we can ask individuals and families how they refer to themselves and their diagnosis. We will find a variety of responses including neurospicy, autistic, disabled, neurodivergent, has autism or ADHD, or my disability doesn’t define me.

Asking about people’s preferences gives us an opportunity to provide an affirming environment for all, and a space to continue to explore this conversation.

Katharine Annear is affiliated with Autism CRC Ltd

– ref. Is it OK to use the term ‘neurospicy’ when talking about autism and other neurodivergences? – https://theconversation.com/is-it-ok-to-use-the-term-neurospicy-when-talking-about-autism-and-other-neurodivergences-241349

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Evangeline Mantzioris, Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Accredited Practising Dietitian, University of South Australia

Just as a Formula 1 team wouldn’t use shoddy fuel for their cars, elite athletes shouldn’t eat poorly as they try to get the best out of themselves.

Nutrition is crucial for fuelling athletes for training, performance and recovery.

The two most important macronutrients for athletes are carbohydrates and protein.

Carbohydrates provide energy – they fuel the body for exercise and help to sustain performance, and then aid recovery after exercise. Protein is important to repair and build muscles after exercise.

Athletes’ nutrient requirements for carbohydrates and protein will depend on the type, intensity, and duration of the exercise they complete and their body weight.

How much do athletes need?

Reflecting their importance for performance, there are specific carbohydrate and protein guidelines for athletes.

There are also guidelines to promote high carbohydrate availability for training sessions and competition.

Individual requirements vary: athletes will need more carbs through the day if they exercise at greater intensities for longer periods. Also, the more the athlete weighs, the more carbs and protein they will require.

Although research in this area has grown and there is increased focus on education, it seems many elite athletes still find it difficult to fuel their bodies.

What did we look at?

The AFLW is an emerging sport, and we were interested to see if these elite women footballers met the recommendations for daily protein and carbohydrate intake as well as during competition.

We asked AFLW players from one team to tell us what they ate across the season by filling out electronic food diaries.

We were also interested in what they ate on match days.

In addition to filling out a diary at home, we videoed and directly observed what they ate when they were at the football ground.

What did we find?

We found more than 80% of these athletes did not consume enough carbohydrates across pre-season and in-season competition.

On match days, only 18% met their daily carbohydrate requirements.

We also found they did not eat carbohydrates at the right time to fuel their performance – which is before (pre-game) and during a game. Interestingly, when the games were scheduled later in the day, athletes were more likely to meet the pre-game recommendations.

All athletes ate enough carbohydrates after a game.

When it came to protein, all the athletes in our study met their requirements across the season, including on match days.

This isn’t new

Unfortunately, these findings are not unusual for women athletes.

In a systematic review that combined 20 studies of field-based women athletes across different sports, many athletes had low energy and carbohydrate intakes. This was also found in women soccer and volleyball players, and individual sport athletes such as gymnasts.

On average across these studies, less than 50% of the women athletes typically met the recommended daily amount of carbohydrates.

Why is this a problem?

While low energy and carbohydrate intakes can negatively impact an athlete’s performance, it also impacts on their general health.

Athletes who consistently fail to eat enough energy and carbohydrates over a long period of time may be at risk of low energy availability. This can result in physical and mental health problems, a syndrome known as relative energy deficiency in sport REDs.

In addition to poor sports performance outcomes, REDs can result in mood disturbances, reduced sleep quality, impaired growth and development, reduced cardiovascular function and impaired bone health.

Reduced performance during exercise could include decreased muscle strength, endurance, power, ability to recover and reduced motivation.

Why do women athletes avoid carbohydrates?

It’s hard to know exactly why an athlete would consume so few carbs but one reason could be due to the messaging on social media spruiking low-carb and keto diets.

It may also be due to the increased time demands for semi-professional athletes: many AFLW athletes are still working while training.

Athletes often report gut discomfort and suppressed appetite, which may also affect their food choices before training and competition.

How to boost your carb intake

Sports dietitians promote a food-first approach, which focuses on using everyday foods to meet athletes’ daily energy and nutrient needs before considering sports foods.

Sports foods are convenient alternatives to everyday foods to fuel performance (such as energy gels or protein bars). There are, however, some potential downsides to consuming them.

While our research focused on elite women athletes, it is relevant for all women involved in sport.

Regardless of your level of competition, or even if you are a weekend warrior, it is important to meet your energy goals with adequate carbohydrate intake for your activity.

Here are some examples of foods and drinks you can eat to help increase your carbohydrate (and energy) intake for improved performance:

Evangeline Mantzioris is affiliated with Alliance for Research in Nutrition, Exercise and Activity (ARENA) at the University of South Australia. Evangeline Mantzioris has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, and has been appointed to the National Health and Medical Research Council Dietary Guideline Expert Committee.

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

– ref. Many elite women athletes don’t eat enough carbs, which can affect their performance and health – https://theconversation.com/many-elite-women-athletes-dont-eat-enough-carbs-which-can-affect-their-performance-and-health-242211

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cassandra Mudgway, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Canterbury

Given the ever-increasing problem of digital harm, the government’s proposed legislation criminalising stalking is welcome news.

The yet-to-be-named proposed law, set to be introduced to parliament by the end of the year, refers to a range of stalking behaviours, including the “use of technology in modern stalking methods”.

If passed, the new law will make “cyberstalking” illegal, bringing New Zealand in line with other countries, including the United Kingdom and Australia.

But while the legislation is welcome, there are still issues to be addressed to ensure the law is relevant to where the technology is now – and where it could develop in the future.

Using technology to hurt others

Cyberstalking is the repeated use of digital tools to harass, coerce, frighten or intimidate another person. It can include using social media, GPS tracking or spyware tools to covertly monitor someone’s location or conversations.

It also includes sending repeated unwanted messages or threats, posting someone’s personal information online (also known as “doxxing”), setting up fake social media accounts to spread false information about someone, or sharing intimate images or videos of someone without consent.

Although it often coincides with stalking offline, cyberstalking is unique in that perpetrators do not need to share the same physical space as the victim to harm them.

Because of the central role technology plays in our lives, cyberstalkers can create such a sense of omnipresence that their victims feel they cannot escape them.

Like offline stalking, cyberstalking mostly occurs in the context of intimate partner violence or dating violence – and this is what the government has focused on.

But the proposed legislation would also cover incidents of cyberstalking by strangers. This would give police more options when it comes to helping public figures who experience significant cyberstalking and online harassment.

Overlapping rules

The complete text of the proposed legislation hasn’t been released yet. But from what has been announced, there is some potential overlap with offences under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 (HDCA).

Under the HDCA, it is an offence to post a harmful digital communication with an intent to cause serious emotional distress. It is also a crime to post an intimate visual recording without consent.

These offences cover some aspects of cyberstalking, such as threatening messages, harassment or revenge porn. But they do not cover others such as monitoring or tracking someone, or locking someone out of their social media accounts.

The maximum sentence for these offences is two years imprisonment or a fine of up to NZ$50,000.

The new stalking offence “will capture patterns of behaviour, being three specified acts occurring within a 12-month period”, and will have a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment.

This signals that cyberstalking will be treated as more serious than offences under the HDCA.

Limits of the new law

The focus of the new offence is on patterns of behaviour over a period of time, transforming acts that might be captured under the HDCA into something more serious because of their repetition.

Given the gendered nature of cyberstalking, taking women’s fear seriously in this way is positive and significant. But the government also needs to review the HDCA to ensure there are no unintentional gaps between the two laws.

As well, it’s unclear whether the offence will require proof the victim feared for their safety. As victims advocate Ruth Money has noted, requiring proof of emotional harm forces the victim to give evidence about their experience.

Instead, the offence should require proof that a “reasonable person” would fear for their safety, Money has argued.

Read more:
Technology-facilitated abuse: the new breed of domestic violence

But given the gendered nature of cyberstalking, there are limitations with this, too. The “reasonable person” standard does not easily incorporate the gendered aspects of abuse – the specific ways in which women are targeted.

To address this, the new law could include a list of factors to provide guidance on what would lead a reasonable person to fear for their safety.

Finally, any stalking offence must be defined in a way that is future-proofed as “any stalking facilitated by technology”.

Emerging technologies will undoubtedly introduce new ways to cyberstalk and harass. For example, AI advances are already facilitating non-consensual image manipulation or generation.

The blending of virtual and augmented realities introduces new challenges for addressing harassment in what is often called the “metaverse”.

A blunt instrument

Overall, the proposed law is a step in the right direction for addressing aspects of online abuse.

But it is important to note that criminalisation is a blunt instrument to control behaviour, and often does not coincide with deterrence of that behaviour. The HDCA, for example, has done little to stop the rise of online harassment.

To really address cyberstalking, the government needs to examine the root causes behind the behaviour – including pervasive sexism in the technology development industry and elsewhere.

Cassandra Mudgway 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. NZ’s proposed anti-stalking law is good news – but it must be future-proofed against rapidly evolving technologies – https://theconversation.com/nzs-proposed-anti-stalking-law-is-good-news-but-it-must-be-future-proofed-against-rapidly-evolving-technologies-243465

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Sasson, Scientia Senior Lecturer in Medicine (Immunology), UNSW Sydney

Former winner of TV show Alone Australia Gina Chick was diagnosed with breast cancer just days after finding out she was pregnant. She describes in her recent book her experience with chemotherapy and what followed.

Thankfully, cancer diagnoses during pregnancy and in the year following the birth are rare. But such cases are becoming more common in parts of the world, including Australia. Researchers aren’t exactly sure why.

Here’s what researchers know so far, and the options for treatment.

How rare is it?

A New South Wales study found that in 1994 there were about 94 cancer diagnoses during pregnancy or within one year of birth per 100,000 women giving birth. That rose to about 163 per 100,000 in 2013. Although these statistics are more than ten years old, these are the most recent and rigorous data available in Australia.

A 2023 Swedish study of pregnancies in 1973-2017 had similar findings.

Both studies found about one-quarter of pregnancy-associated cancers are diagnosed before birth, with the rest diagnosed in the year after birth.

What type of cancers are we talking about?

The United Kingdom’s first comprehensive assessment of cancer during pregnancy looked at diagnoses in 2016-2020.

This study, the NSW study, and others, have found breast and skin cancers (often melanoma) were the most common pregnancy-associated cancers. There were also high rates of thyroid, gynaecological (particularly cervical and ovarian) and blood cancers in this group.

The UK study found about 92% of cancers were new diagnoses and about 82% had symptoms. The majority (81%) were treated with the aim to cure and about 82% of pregnancies associated with a cancer diagnosis resulted in a live birth.

However, 20% of mothers died by the end of the five year study period. Gastrointestinal (gut) cancers were particularly concerning. They had the highest mortality rate at about 46% and were associated with diagnosis at a more advanced stage of cancer.

This may be because many symptoms of gastrointestinal cancers such as abdominal pain, fatigue and acid reflux overlap with those of pregnancy. In other words, some cancer symptoms can be mistaken for pregnancy symptoms, “masking” or delaying a cancer diagnosis.

Why are cases like this rising?

The broad range of cancers presenting during and after pregnancy suggests a variety of contributing factors.

In high socioeconomic countries women are having children later in life and the biggest risk factor for many cancers is increasing age. However, the evidence for age being a major factor in pregnancy-related cancer is inconclusive. This may account for some but not all cases.

Another factor may be the rising use of prenatal genetic screening tests in early pregnancy. These analyse DNA derived from the mother’s blood to detect chromosomal abnormalities in the developing fetus. But these tests can also give information about the mother’s chromosomes. This has led to diagnoses of Hodgkin disease, breast and colorectal cancer in pregnant women without symptoms.

Oestrogen and progesterone are two hormones important for growth and development of breast tissue and to support other aspects of a healthy pregnancy. These may also contribute to cancer development, particularly breast cancer. However, it’s not clear whether this is linked to rising rates of pregnancy associated cancers.

Other cancers, such as skin cancer, are associated with environmental factors such as UV exposure. Notably, melanoma was the leading pregnancy-associated cancer in the NSW study, reflecting the high rate of skin cancer in the local population. Other environmental factors, such as smoking and human papillomavirus, are associated with cervical cancer. Again we’re not sure whether such factors are linked with rising rates of pregnancy associated cancers.

What happens after a diagnosis?

Pregnancy complicates a cancer diagnosis, as any potential treatment for the mother may risk the health and viability of the fetus. So some aspects of treatment may need to be adjusted.

Surgery can usually be undertaken during any trimester depending on where the cancer is located.

Radiotherapy needs careful planning because the impact of radiation on the fetus depends on the developmental stage, where the radiation is applied to the body, and the dose.

Chemotherapy should be avoided in the first trimester due to potential toxic effects on the fetus. But it can usually be given in the second and third trimester. Chemotherapy should be avoided within three weeks of the birth to reduce the chance of bleeding and infection in the newborn, who may also have a weakened immune system from the chemo.

More targeted immunotherapies are generally given to the mother after she’s given birth. Depending on the treatment, she may be advised not breastfeed. That’s because the medicine can pass from the mother via breastmilk to the baby.

What happens to the babies?

Reassuringly, the NSW data found no increase in the rate of babies dying around the time of birth if they were born to mothers with a pregnancy-associated cancer.

However, there were more planned preterm births. This is because women are offered an induction of labour and/or a caesarean to facilitate cancer treatment for the mother, while reducing treatment-related risks to the unborn child.

There were also higher rates of babies born with a low birth weight and low Apgar scores (indicators of a baby’s condition shortly after birth) – possibly related to being born pre-term.

What do researchers want to know?

We have much to learn about what’s behind the increasing rates of pregnancy-associated cancers, and what women diagnosed with these cancers can expect.

We also need to combine cancer and obstetric data in national databases. This would allow us to see which areas to prioritise for further research, inform clinical guidelines to screen for cancers during and after pregnancy, and would help evaluate responses to screening programs or therapies in the future.

Sean Seeho receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Ramsay Hospital Research Foundation. He is the chair of Stillbirth Foundation Australia.

Sarah Sasson 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. Cancer while pregnant is rare, but is becoming more common. Here’s what researchers think is behind the rise – https://theconversation.com/cancer-while-pregnant-is-rare-but-is-becoming-more-common-heres-what-researchers-think-is-behind-the-rise-238225

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Smith, Associate Professor in American Politics and Foreign Policy, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney

Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad is famous for his forthright statements to other world leaders. In March 1989, Mahathir wrote a letter to then UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher that was blunt even by his standards. Unlike a lot of his angry letters, this one wasn’t published.

Mahathir’s letter was about Salman Rushdie’s controversial book, The Satanic Verses. He wrote:

I do not think I am a Muslim fanatic. Yet I find I cannot condone the writings of Salman Rushdie in his book […] And I find the attitude of the “Western Democracies” most patronising, arrogant and insensitive.

In 2019, the UK government declassified many of its Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) files on the diplomatic upheaval over the novel. Mahathir’s letter to Thatcher is one of hundreds of unpublished diplomatic documents I have seen in visits to the UK National Archives since then.

My full analysis of this letter, and Thatcher’s response to it, has just been published in the Review of International Studies. It is part of a larger project I am working on about The Satanic Verses crisis and what it tells us about the place of religion in international relations.

‘The strangest and rarest crisis in history’

The Satanic Verses, published in late 1988, was met with protests throughout the Muslim world, beginning in South Asian communities in Britain. Many Muslims felt Rushdie had insulted the Prophet Muhammad for the entertainment of Western audiences.

In early 1989, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini issued an extraordinary fatwa (or religious edict) calling for the death of Rushdie, a British citizen living in London. This led to a diplomatic standoff that the speaker of Iran’s legislature called “the strangest and rarest crisis in history”.

Khomeini, who was seeking to strengthen Islamic hardliners in Iran, urged “all zealous Muslims” to carry out his fatwa.

No other leader of a majority Muslim country supported the death sentence, which blatantly violated Britain’s sovereignty and international law. But Mahathir and others felt Western powers should ban The Satanic Verses to maintain good relations with the Muslim world.

The British government saw no reason to ban it. Rushdie and his publishers had broken no British law, as the country’s centuries-old blasphemy laws applied only to the defamation of Christianity.

Defending Rushdie’s life was, as Thatcher put it, “a simple matter”. Her government would not tolerate an Iranian incitement to murder a British citizen on British soil.

Defending his book, however, was more complicated. The British government would not ban it, but also wanted nothing to do with it.

An unusually strong and personal letter

On March 15 1989, Thatcher and Mahathir met in London to discuss matters such as arms deals and airport privatisation. The Satanic Verses issue came up only briefly, when Thatcher thanked Mahathir for his government’s “moderate” stance on the book. She explained that while she could understand the offence the book had caused, the “great religions” could withstand such attacks.

Mahathir reassured Thatcher his government would take no action beyond banning the book. He said he had set out his personal views on the affair in a letter, which he handed to Thatcher.

When her private secretary opened the letter later that day, he found it was “cast in exceptionally strong language that was not reflected in Dr Mahathir’s demeanour at the meeting itself”, according to another archival letter.

Mahathir was having none of the argument that Muslims should behave more like Christians when it came to tolerating insults to their faith. He wrote:

It is well to remember that Islam has been around only 1,400 years. The faith and fervour of the Muslims are as strong as the faith and fanaticism of the Christians of the 15th century.

Of course, our behaviour is also influenced by the mores of the time. We are more tolerant than the 15th century Christians. We do not have inquisitions, we do not burn heretics at the stake, we do not torture those who blaspheme, we do not hound the new Muslim sects as you did the Protestants, and we do not indulge in pogroms. Our behaviour is more civilised than Christians when Christianity was 1,400 years old.

Mahathir’s letter was very unusual for a diplomatic correspondence in that it did not mention either Malaysia or Britain. The “we” of his letter referred to Muslims, while the “you” referred to the West.

And the West, for Mahathir, was a Christian world, though he believed Christianity was enfeebled and decaying within it. He did not want Islam to suffer the same fate.

The West controls the world media and denies others access to it. The power is, of course, abused. […] The Muslims are a particular target. They are made out to be cruel brutes given to all kinds of savagery.

While the West claimed to believe in freedom of expression, according to Mahathir, it did not allow Muslims to defend themselves against what they considered “scurrilous misrepresentation”. Rushdie’s book was the final straw.

Your belief in this so-called ‘freedom of expression’ for one disillusioned and misguided man is stronger than your belief in the value of good relations with 1 billion souls.

In that case, he reasoned, the West could hardly blame Muslims for defending their own principles.

“Prime Minister,” he concluded, “I am much saddened.”

A disconnect between two world views

In another archival letter, Thatcher’s private secretary noted that British officials were “rather rocked by the severity” of Mahathir’s letter.

Thatcher instructed FCO officers to draft a “reasoned response” on her behalf. David Gillmore, former high commissioner to Malaysia, warned they must try to address Mahathir’s points or the reply would sound “condescending and supercilious”.

Written in Thatcher’s voice, the letter said she was “well aware of the distress” the book had caused Mahathir and many in the Islamic world. The reply avoided creating a perception the government was responsible for it.

I must emphasise that the British Government do not in any way condone or endorse Mr Rushdie or the content of this book.

Although freedom of speech was a principle of major importance, Thatcher insisted Britain was not seeking to impose its values on the Muslim world. The issue had “nothing to do with relations between Christians and Muslims”. Rather, it was one of national sovereignty and international law.

When it came to the heart of Mahathir’s complaint, Thatcher’s response resorted to language that was polite, firm and vague:

I was especially saddened to hear you suggest that the Western-controlled media made a particular target of the Muslim world. I cannot agree that this is the case. I believe that this century has seen a growing understanding between the nations, cultures and religions of the world. We must continue to work to improve that understanding.

The British government’s view was that states in the modern age could overcome differences once caused by religion. As such, Thatcher’s response would only represent Britain, not Christendom, despite the many symbolic and even legal ways the British state was still tied to Christianity.

This was one of the reasons Thatcher and Mahathir were doomed to talk past each other. For Western leaders, political authority had superseded religious authority in the 17th century. In diplomacy today, the things that mattered were sovereign states.

The leaders of Muslim countries also viewed sovereign states as important –they were the basis of their own legitimacy. And they had to defend the state against religious radicals who wanted to remake the world along classical Islamic lines.

But for leaders like Mahathir, who grew up in a British colony, religion was still a vital force in diplomatic relations. He viewed the Western insistence on a secular world order as a continuation of colonial dominance over the Muslim world.

The legacy of The Satanic Verses

We can see from this exchange how the British government wanted to distance itself from The Satanic Verses, even as it sought to protect Rushdie.

While many fellow writers, including Muslims like Naguib Mahfouz, leapt to the defence of Rushdie and The Satanic Verses, the book had few defenders in the British government. (One exception was Rushdie’s local MP, the future Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn.)

In his recent memoir, Knife, Rushdie notes that he got a far more sympathetic response when he was nearly murdered in 2022 than when the fatwa was issued in 1989.

Despite the British government’s notable lack of support for Rushdie’s book, Muslims in Britain and around the world felt the political and cultural power of the West was aligned against them.

This continues to be important for understanding controversies around derogatory images of the Prophet Muhammad in the West. They are never just about the images. They are also about a global imbalance of power that goes back to colonialism.

Mahathir and Thatcher were mutual admirers of each other – and both can claim to have been their countries’ most transformative leaders of the past 50 years. Mahathir, now 99, is still active in Malaysian politics despite recurring health issues.

Mahathir’s anger in this letter did not reflect personal animus against Thatcher. It foreshadowed his future emergence as a global advocate of Islamist causes. His modernist brand of Islamism may well outlast Khomeini’s, despite the violent legacy of Khomeini’s fatwa against Rushdie.

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

– ref. 35 years after The Satanic Verses controversy, newly unearthed letters reveal some uncomfortable truths – https://theconversation.com/35-years-after-the-satanic-verses-controversy-newly-unearthed-letters-reveal-some-uncomfortable-truths-241890

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Lintermans, Adjunct associate in freshwater fisheries ecology and management, University of Canberra

Three-quarters of Australia’s freshwater fish species are found nowhere else on the planet. This makes us the sole custodians of remarkable creatures such as the ornate rainbowfish, the ancient Australian lungfish and the magnificently named longnose sooty grunter.

So how are these national treasures faring? To find out, we undertook the first comprehensive assessment of Australia’s freshwater fish species. We examined extinction risks and drivers of decline, before reviewing existing conservation measures.

Our results paint an alarming picture. More than one-third (37%) of our freshwater fish species are at risk of extinction, including 35 species not even listed as threatened. Dozens of species could become extinct before children born today even finish high school.

The study also reveals Australia has been putting its eggs in the wrong basket for conservation by taking actions that don’t address immediate threats, such as pest species and changes in stream flows. Our research points to more effective solutions if governments are willing to step up their efforts.

Identifying species at risk

Recognising when species are in trouble is the first step in preventing their extinction.

Before this study, the extinction risk of most freshwater fish species had never been assessed. The group had never been looked at overall.

We evaluated the conservation risks of 241 species using globally recognised criteria (the IUCN Red List for Threatened Species).

We began our assessments by gathering a team of 52 Australian freshwater fish experts for a five-day workshop in 2019. These experts came from universities, research organisations, museums, state government agencies, natural resource management, consultancies and non-government groups.

Together, we used information from scientific publications, museum databases, Atlas of Living Australia records, government datasets, citizen science data, and our own knowledge of freshwater fish as it applied to the task.

We identified dozens of freshwater fish species that were in trouble, but had not been recognised as threatened. This brings the proportion of our freshwater fishes at risk of extinction to a third.

Some species have declined to the extent that they could disappear after a single disturbance, such as ash washed into streams after a bushfire or the arrival of an invasive non-native fish such as trout.

We also found one New South Wales species, the Kangaroo River perch, is now extinct.

Get them on the list

At present, 63 freshwater fish species are on Australia’s national list of species declared as threatened under federal environmental law.

We identified 35 more species that should be listed, based on the available evidence. They include:

• ornate rainbowfish and longnosed sooty grunter (vulnerable on the IUCN Red List, the global list of threatened species)
• salamanderfish (endangered on the IUCN Red List)
• the slender carp, Drysdale and Barrow cave gudgeons in Western Australia (critically endangered on the IUCN Red List).

Maintaining an accurate threatened species list is important. When species are in trouble but not listed, they miss out on basic protections and are unlikely to receive any conservation attention.

We also identified 17 already listed species that should be reassessed by the government as their risk categories need to be changed.

For example, the remarkable freshwater sawfish, found in northern Australian rivers, is listed as vulnerable but all evidence indicates it’s now critically endangered.

One sliver of good news is the fact that the Murray cod, a favoured sport fish across eastern Australia, is now doing better and could be assessed to be removed from Australia’s threatened species list.

Address the causes of decline

To prevent species extinctions, you need to address the causes of their declines. That might seem breathtakingly obvious, yet our review found a spectacular mismatch between the major threats to species at risk and the most common conservation actions.

The top three drivers of decline are invasive fish (which threaten 92% of threatened freshwater fish species), modified stream flows and ecosystems (82%), and climate change and extreme weather (54%).

For example, Australia has 40 galaxiid species, scaleless native fish shaped like slender sausages that grow to less than 15cm. But 31 of these are threatened with extinction – and rainbow and brown trout, two introduced predators, have been the biggest driver of their loss.

Australia’s southern states are greatly adding to the problem by releasing millions of trout into waterways each year for recreational fishers.

The endangered eastern freshwater cod has dwindled in part due to historic fish kills linked to dynamite blasting and pollution from mines and agriculture. It remains threatened by changes to river flows, removal of woody snags, and other damage to its habitat.

The endangered blackstriped dwarf galaxias is being stressed by the changing climate in southwest WA. Warmer and drier conditions are resulting in lower water levels and warmer water.

The other major threats facing native fish are agriculture and aquaculture (38%), pollution (38%), hunting and fishing (19%), energy production and mining (17%), and urban development (13%).

For example, the endangered Utchee rainbowfish is struggling due to habitat loss and water pollution from farms surrounding the small number of north Queensland streams where it lives.

In contrast, the most common conservation action was simply the fact that the species occurred in a protected area (88%) or conservation area (55%).

Sadly, invasive species and climate change don’t recognise or stop at protected area boundaries.

Prevention and control of invasive species has occurred for only 21% of affected threatened species, mostly in Tasmania.

A blueprint to end extinctions

Without a major funding commitment to address the actual drivers of native fish losses, species will continue to decline, and extinctions will soon follow.

The most important conservation actions for native freshwater fish are:

1. update the national threatened species list to include all at-risk species

2. tackle invasive species such as trout, gambusia and redfin perch

3. identify, establish and protect additional invasive-fish-free refuge sites for species that currently occur only in a small number of locations and could be wiped out by a single event such as a bushfire

4. halt ongoing habitat loss and improve habitats that have been damaged

5. improve freshwater flows to maintain habitats such as wetlands and streams, improve water quality and give fish the natural cues they need to breed.

In 2022, the Australian government made a commitment to end extinctions. Our study provides a blueprint for how to do that for our overlooked native freshwater fish.

Mark Lintermans was a member of the ACT Scientific Committee and the NSW Fisheries Scientific Committee, a previous convener of the Australian Society for Fish Biology Threatened Fishes Committee, and the Alien Fishes Committee. He now provides research, monitoring and advice for threatened freshwater fish management as director of a small consultancy company. He receives funding from New South Wales and national government departments for threatened fish projects.

Jaana Dielenberg was employed by the now-ended Threatened Species Recovery Hub of the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program, which led an earlier stage of this research. She is a Charles Darwin University Fellow and is employed by the University of Melbourne and the Biodiversity Council.

Nick Whiterod works for the Goyder Institute for Water Research, Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth Research Centre, which is funded by the national government to delivery research in the region. He is a member of the New South Wales Fisheries Scientific Committee.

– ref. Troubled waters: how to stop Australia’s freshwater fish species from going extinct – https://theconversation.com/troubled-waters-how-to-stop-australias-freshwater-fish-species-from-going-extinct-242950