Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University

The Australian government today released a long-awaited report on a trial of automated tools for determining a person’s age.

So-called age assurance technology is expected to play a key role in enforcing the ban on social media accounts for under-16s that will come into effect in December this year.

The report suggests existing age assurance technology can be used to determine whether social media users are over 16. However, many details of how the technology might be used are still unclear – and concerns over privacy, security and reliability remain.

What did the trial find?

The core aim of the trial was to “understand if age assurance can be done without compromising Australian citizens’ privacy and security”. It also aimed to “inform consideration of best practice and potential regulatory approaches”.

The trial evaluated over 60 technologies, from 48 age assurance technology providers. It was designed to see “if the technologies as a whole work”, to provide a snapshot on the current “state of the art” of age assurance technologies.

The report’s key findings argue age assurance “can be done”. With some caveats, it said there are “no substantial technological limitations” to prevent using these systems to enforce the social media ban.

Prone to errors

Some initial findings of the trial were released in June. At the time, other experts and I raised concerns about the limitations of the technology.

The new report provides more detail, but only reinforces these existing concerns.

The report’s findings show age estimation is possible with available technologies. However, it makes clear that errors of up to two or three years are common.

This means people as young as 13 or 14 could be estimated to be 16 years of age, and gain access to platforms when they should be blocked. And some 16- and 17-year-olds could be marked under age and restricted.

The technologies can also be more error-prone for young women, compared to young men, and for those with darker skin tones.

Many questions remain

Parents may be left with a false sense of security that these tools will keep their under-16 children from holding social media accounts. At the same time, users who are wrongly deemed under age may need to go through additional checks.

However, it is not yet clear how further age verification would work. We don’t know whether Australians will be able to verify age via third parties, such as linking to a digital government ID platform. The process may involve providing government-issued ID directly to technology companies.

Australian consumers have raised concerns about privacy implications of requests for ID, given the number of large-scale data breaches affecting large companies.

The report also found “concerning evidence” some age assurance providers were building tools to enable data tracing, with potential for data breaches.

The report also makes clear that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for age assurance. Individual social media companies will decide what approach they want to take to ensure young people are restricted from holding social media accounts.

Australians may face multiple requests for age assurance when using various social media platforms. It’s unclear whether a one-time assurance will be sufficient. Users may need to perform an age check with every sign-in.

With the social media ban looming, Australians are left with many unanswered questions. In the coming weeks, the government will release further guidance on the “reasonable steps” platforms must take to comply with the social media ban legislation.

This is when Australians will finally understand what will be expected of them, as well, to confirm their social media account access.

Lisa M. Given receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia and the Association for Information Science and Technology.

– ref. Australia’s government says social media age checks ‘can be done’, despite errors and privacy risks – https://theconversation.com/australias-government-says-social-media-age-checks-can-be-done-despite-errors-and-privacy-risks-264257

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mary Anne Kenny, Associate Professor, School of Law, Murdoch University

The Home Affairs minister, Tony Burke, revealed late last week he had visited Nauru in August and signed a memorandum of understanding with its government.

Under the agreement, Nauru will grant long-term visas to members of a group known as the “NZYQ cohort”. These people, many of whom have had visas cancelled on character grounds or committed crimes, are in Australia on bridging visas granted after a 2023 High Court case that centred on this group.

In return, the Australian government has agreed to pay A$408 million in the first year and $70 million per year to support “resettlement efforts”. However, the exact details remain unclear.

How did we get here?

This agreement follows a 2023 High Court decision in a case about a Rohingya man who was given the pseudonym NZYQ.

The judge in this case ruled that indefinitely detaining individuals who cannot be removed from Australia is unconstitutional.

After this decision, hundreds of non-citizens (many of whom had been convicted of crimes and had served their prison sentences) were released from immigration detention into the Australian community on bridging visas.

In December 2024, the government passed legislation that allowed for the government to transfer non-citizens, including those in the NZYQ group, to third countries (in this case Nauru) under “third country reception arrangements.”

Just over 350 people are now in the NZYQ group.

Environment Minister Murray Watt has said the Nauru deal will involve “hundreds” from the NZYQ cohort. The government plans to gradually increase transferring people to Nauru, but hasn’t specified total figures.

Meanwhile, a bill introduced to parliament last week builds on laws passed in 2024.

These proposed laws remove the requirement for natural justice or procedural fairness when the government enters into or implements third-country reception arrangements.

This means that if a person is told they will be sent to Nauru, the government is not required to give them an opportunity to explain how the transfer might affect them personally.

It wouldn’t have to consider their individual circumstances before making the decision.

How will Nauru be able to support these people?

A recent Federal Court judgment revealed Australia and Nauru had entered into preliminary agreements for the long-term reception arrangements involving financial support and phased settlement of people in the NZYQ cohort.

The arrangement includes specific conditions for long-term stay visas and Nauru’s commitment to support settled individuals. This includes access to housing, health care, education and work rights.

But Nauru is a small, poor island nation, with a population of around 13,000.

It has high unemployment and is increasingly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, such as sea-level rise.

Critics of the plan have raised concerns about the limited level of health care available to asylum seekers transferred to Nauru.

Nauru is also currently dealing with an outbreak of dengue fever, resulting in two deaths.

What obligations does Australia have to non-citizens who’ve committed crimes?

The individuals in the NZYQ group cannot be returned to their country of origin.

There are a variety of reasons for this. For some, there may be practical or legal barriers that prevent their removal. They may, for instance, have no recognised nationality and no country to accept them.

For others, it may be because international law prevents Australia returning them to places where they may face harm. This principle is known as “non-refoulement”.

These obligations arise under Australia’s commitment to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and other international human rights obligations.

Under these commitments, Australia cannot return people to places where they may face a risk of harm – such as torture; cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment; or punishment.

But sending these individuals to Nauru doesn’t solve the issue; it just means the Australian government is shifting its responsibilities for these non-citizens elsewhere.

While the removal of these non-citizens to Nauru may not be a direct breach of Australia’s non-refoulement obligations, the Australian government has obligations to ensure the ongoing protection of human rights of these individuals.

These rights include access to health, housing, education and protection from arbitrary detention and “chain refoulement”. That’s where people get passed from one country to another until they end up back at their country of origin, where they face significant danger.

What could Australia do instead?

Those in the NZYQ group have already served prison sentences for their crimes in Australia.

Some were convicted of offences committed while they were children and have not reoffended for some period of time.

Many have spent long periods in detention (some longer than they have served in prison). Many have families and long-standing connections to Australia.

While these people have been painted as representing a risk or danger to the Australian community, their status as a non-citizen makes them vulnerable to this removal over an Australian citizen who may have committed the same, or worse, criminal acts.

It is unclear whether any of the funding provided by the Australian government under this deal will actually ensure effective rehabilitation or support for this cohort in Nauru.

Without proper support, this could create the risk for re-offending in Nauru and lead to their Nauruan visa being cancelled.

Instead of working to rehabilitate or reintegrate this cohort in the Australian community, Australia is exploiting Nauru’s financial dependence and status as a poorer country to absorb these people into their community.

Mary Anne Kenny is a member of the Migration Institute of Australia and the Law Council of Australia and an affiliate of the UNSW Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law. She was on the Joint Advisory Committee (an independent advisory body advising the governments of Australia and Nauru on Offshore Processing) between 2012 and 2018.

Lisa van Toor receives funding from Research Training Plan (RTP) scholarship for her PhD. She is currently a PhD candidate with the UNSW Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law. She previously was a Judge’s Associate in the Supreme Court of Nauru between 2018-2019. Lisa is a member of the Greens WA.

– ref. By sending non-visa holders to Nauru, Australia is shifting its responsibilities – https://theconversation.com/by-sending-non-visa-holders-to-nauru-australia-is-shifting-its-responsibilities-264256

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane McAdam, Scientia Professor and ARC Laureate Fellow, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, UNSW Sydney

For decades now, public discourse about refugees and immigrants has become increasingly fractured, ugly and untrue.

From John Howard’s “we will decide who comes to this country” mantra, to Kevin Rudd’s “if you come by boat you will never permanently live in Australia” in 2013, through to Tony Abbott’s “stop the boats” election victory that same year, it has been a prominent feature of Australia’s recent political landscape.

For the Coalition, it was about stopping so-called “illegals”.

For Labor, it was framed as “saving lives at sea”.

For both, it was about keeping people seeking asylum out of contact with the Australian community, demonised and dehumanised, called by numbers, not names.

Against this backdrop, it’s perhaps unsurprising Australians turned out in the thousands to rally against immigration this weekend. It could be seen as the culmination of years of MPs using immigration issues for short-term political gain.

But just as government messaging has partly contributed to this situation, it could also help get us out of it.

Not always ‘sinister invaders’

Political language about immigration wasn’t always so negative.

At the end of the second world war, then-Prime Minister Ben Chifley welcomed 170,000 refugees and other displaced people from Europe.

In the 1970s, when the first boats of Vietnamese asylum seekers arrived in Australia’s north, Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser insisted they be treated humanely and processed fairly.

As writer Thomas Keneally recalled:

there was no long-term mandatory detention involved. The newcomers were not depicted as sinister invaders […] language was not misused and neither were human souls.

And as former Immigration Minister Andrew Giles said in 2023:

Seventy years ago, of course, we embarked on a migration journey that has transformed our nation into a diverse and dynamic multicultural society […] in very large part […] shaped by the nearly one million refugees who have come to Australia since the end of WWII. We should take great pride in this.

‘Real people, real families’

The threatening thuggery on display at the weekend’s anti-immigration marches has been rightly called out by Australian politicians on both sides.

In a change from her predecessor’s hardline approach, Federal Opposition Leader Sussan Ley said while “strong borders keep us safe, they also allow us to be generous and compassionate to those fleeing conflict”.

Meanwhile, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke reiterated “there is no place in our country for people who seek to divide and undermine our social cohesion”.

At the same time, we can’t simply ignore concerns people have about the impact of immigration on housing, cost of living and infrastructure – much of which is based on misinformation which feeds a far-right agenda, according to Multicultural Affairs Minister Anne Aly.

When misinformation spreads, it impedes evidence-based decision-making and results in poor laws and policies.

The positive role of immigration is something the opposition’s new immigration spokesman, Senator Paul Scarr, wants to stress.

He seems to be setting a new tone based on empathy, not division, drawing on his deep “respect and admiration” for migrant and refugee communities who are making “an outstanding contribution”.

When “we talk about immigration”, he says, “we should never forget that we’re actually talking about real people, real families”.

When Prime Minister Anthony Albanese came to office in 2022, he stressed the importance of a vision for Australia that promotes “unity and optimism, not fear and division”.

For the first time in a long while, there does seem to be bipartisan support for this approach.

Walking the walk

The dissonance, though, is that the broader architecture of Australia’s asylum policies remains squarely in place. It’s largely about deterrence, interception and offshoring.

And this week, parliament is expected to progress a bill that would facilitate the swift removal of around 350 non-citizens to Nauru.

In 2023, the High Court of Australia ruled it was unlawful to hold people in immigration detention indefinitely, so for the extraordinary sum of A$408 million up-front, and $70 million a year, Australia will pay Nauru to take them.

While the deal may solve a political problem for the government, it does so at great financial and moral cost.

As Australia’s Race Discrimination Commissioner, Giridharan Sivaraman, has warned:

economic inequality, housing stress, and job insecurity are real and urgent challenges, including for people from migrant backgrounds. We need genuine solutions to these challenges – not dangerous, exploitative, anti-migrant rhetoric.

Telling a new story

The more positive public statements we have seen in recent days and months will remain hollow unless we start to see real policy change.

Governments can, and should, help people around the world who are struggling most.

Read more:
Think curbing overseas migration will end the housing crisis? It won’t – and we can’t afford to do it

This doesn’t mean shying away from people’s legitimate concerns about housing, infrastructure and cost-of-living pressures.

But it does mean explaining migrants are not the cause of these challenges, and that reducing immigration could in fact be counterproductive.

While the evidence shows immigration isn’t behind Australia’s housing woes, for instance, there’s plenty of proof migrants are crucial for the country’s economic development.

The latter is the story politicians should be telling. Some have started to, but counteracting decades of messaging to the contrary will take time.

Jane McAdam receives funding from the Australian Research Council. In 2024-25, she served as a member of the Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration’s Expert Sub-Committee.

– ref. Politicians have scapegoated immigration for decades. It’s time to flip the script – https://theconversation.com/politicians-have-scapegoated-immigration-for-decades-its-time-to-flip-the-script-264266

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Toole, Associate Principal Research Fellow, Burnet Institute

Ever since Robert F Kennedy (RFK) Jr was appointed United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been under pressure to abandon its traditional evidence-based approach to public health in America and across the world.

That pressure came to a head last week with the sacking of recently appointed CDC director Susan Monarez. According to her lawyers, the longtime government scientist, who had been in the role less than a month, was targeted after she refused to “rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives”.

Monarez will be replaced by Jim O’Neill, deputy director of the Department of Health and Human Services. Critics note he has no medical or scientific training.

On the same day as Monarez’s firing, three senior officials resigned. They included the CDC’s chief medical officer, and two others with leadership roles in areas including vaccines and emerging diseases.

I worked at the CDC between 1986 and 1995. Almost all of my work was with activities overseas.

While the CDC is a key institution overseeing and funding public health in the US, it’s also instrumental in global health. Consequently, turmoil at the CDC could have an impact not just in the US, but around the world.

Vaccine scepticism: a threat to public health

Soon after the inauguration of US President Donald Trump for the second time in January 2025, threats to American public health became clear. RFK Jr was confirmed as the Secretary of Health and Human Services in February, with authority over the CDC.

By April, 25% of CDC staff had been fired and its contract spending was cut by 35%. Cancelled CDC programs included those focused on the prevention of lead poisoning in children, environmental health, and sexually transmitted infections including HIV.

Notably, RFK Jr has a long history of vaccine scepticism.

In 2019–20, more than 5,700 people became infected when a measles outbreak ravaged the island nation of Samoa. Some 83 people died, most of them children.

In the lead up, a number of ads spread vaccine misinformation on Facebook, sowing doubt about safety of the measles vaccine. Some were found to have been funded by the Children’s Defense Fund, an organisation founded by RFK Jr.

RFK Jr’s department has dismissed and replaced the 17 expert members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices with eight new people – a number of whom have reportedly expressed anti-vaccination views.

During RFK Jr’s tenure so far, his department has:

• reduced access to COVID vaccines for children and pregnant women
• cancelled contracts to develop new mRNA vaccines worth US$500 million
• revived the search for a long disproved link between childhood vaccines and autism.

RFK Jr is arguably the most important figure overseeing health in the US. It’s difficult to underestimate the harm his actions will do to vaccine confidence and uptake in America and around the world.

A long history of international aid

While the CDC had long provided advice to the World Health Organization (WHO) on malaria control, the first major overseas initiative was as an active partner in the WHO’s successful global smallpox eradication program. Along with the Soviet Union, the CDC initially focused on West Africa in the 1960s and then India and Bangladesh in the 1970s.

The CDC’s first international emergency health response occurred during the Biafra conflict, which led to widespread famine in the Eastern part of Nigeria. In 1968, at the request of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the CDC mobilised staff to monitor nutrition and design programs to combat malnutrition.

The agency’s largest ever overseas intervention began in March 2014 when an Ebola outbreak occurred in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia. By July 2015, the CDC had allocated 3,000 staff to Ebola, with 1,200 on the ground in West Africa, including neighbouring countries such as Nigeria and Senegal. CDC staff provided technical advice on strengthening laboratory diagnosis, contact tracing and surveillance.

Following the Ebola outbreak, the Global Health Security Agenda was established as a coordinated epidemic preparedness initiative with members from more than 60 countries, United Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations. The Obama administration funded US involvement generously with the CDC leading US contributions.

Threats to global health

The first sign of a US withdrawal from global health came soon after Trump’s inauguration when he signed executive orders cancelling US membership of the WHO and suspending all US foreign development assistance.

This led to the cancellation of large programs to prevent and treat HIV and AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and hepatitis.

Soon after, CDC officials were ordered to cease all communications with the WHO, leading to CDC experts leaving global advisory committees, among other things.

The dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has led to a loss of 83% of its programs and the cancellation of 5,200 contracts. This has stymied its ability to effectively deliver lifesaving aid, including in countries devastated by conflict and famine, such as Sudan. One study predicted the cuts in USAID funding could lead to 14 million extra deaths by 2030.

Budget and staff cuts have seriously reduced the CDC’s capacity to engage in global initiatives. For example, the Maternal and Child Health Branch was shut down and all 22 staff terminated. This branch helped low- and middle-income countries implement programs to prevent HIV in pregnant women and their babies.

The loss of financial resources and a large number of expert staff means the agency faces an uncertain future. Interference in its procedures to develop science-based health policies will gravely affect its ability to carry out its mandate both domestically and globally. The CDC has lost the trust of the American people and is no longer regarded as the preeminent public health agency in the world.

Governments, research institutes and health development agencies around the world must unite to decry this loss of global health expertise. Millions of lives depend on forceful action.

Michael Toole receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council. He worked for the US CDC between 1986 and 1995. The content of this article represents the views of the author and not those of the Burnet Institute.

– ref. What chaos at the US CDC could mean for the rest of the world – https://theconversation.com/what-chaos-at-the-us-cdc-could-mean-for-the-rest-of-the-world-264188

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Claudio Bozzi, Lecturer in Law, Deakin University

US officials believe Chinese President Xi Xinping has set a deadline for his military to be capable of invading Taiwan by 2027 – the centennial anniversary of the founding of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth mentioned this date at a security conference in Singapore in May, warning of the “imminent threat” China poses to Taiwan.

The PLA has invested heavily in expanding and modernising its operations in recent years. Since 2015, it has built the world’s largest navy and coast guard.

But rather than threaten an invasion of Taiwan, China seems increasingly likely to pressure the self-governing, democratically ruled island with an extended blockade to force it to capitulate.

In preparation for such a possible action, China has developed a new command structure enabling it to coordinate its air, sea and land-based weapons systems to enact a strategy of lianhe fengkong (联合封控), or joint blockade. This would effectively cut Taiwan off from the outside world.

In late July, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) produced a report on 26 simulated war games it conducted to determine what a Chinese blockade of Taiwan would look like.

Taiwan’s natural gas supplies were predicted to run out after ten days of a blockade. Coal and oil supplies would run out in a matter of weeks. If Taiwan’s electricity was reduced to 20% of its pre-blockade levels, all manufacturing would cease. Casualties were expected to be in the thousands.

Taiwan is particularly vulnerable to a blockade. It relies more than any other developed nation on port calls relative to the size of its economy. Its biggest ports are on its west coast, facing mainland China. The island also has limited emergency food and fuel reserves.

What is a blockade under the law?

Imposing a naval blockade during armed conflict is an established right under customary international law. Blockades are not illegal per se, but they must comply with the laws of war. It’s a complicated and controversial area of the law.

To be legal, a blockade must first be effective. That is, the blockading power must maintain a force that prevents access to the enemy’s coast.

Other nations must be notified of the instigation of the blockade and its geographical extent.

A blockade must be enforced impartially against all vessels, except neutral vessels in distress. Any vessel breaching the blockade would be subject to being stopped, captured or fired upon.

Lastly, a blockade cannot prevent access to neutral ports or the delivery of humanitarian assistance to civilians.

Blockade strategies

China may use one of several blockade strategies against Taiwan. In contrast to an invasion, blockades can be scaled up or back, or reversed, depending on the unfolding security situation.

For instance, China may attack merchant shipping vessels seeking to enter Taiwanese waters to deliver essential cargo, coercing Taiwan to submit to China’s takeover. This is known as a kinetic blockade.

Alternatively, it may implement its preferred strategy of “winning without fighting”. Given the sheer size of its navy, coastguard and maritime militia, China could simply encircle the island and block access to its ports.

This could isolate Taiwan from the global economy to the point of forcing it to surrender, or weaken it sufficiently to enable an invasion, without engaging in open hostilities. This is a non-kinetic blockade.

Other ways of impeding naval passage

China may also use measures that fall short of a blockade, but have similar effects. It has passed a suite of domestic laws that legitimise military and non-military aggression of this kind.

For example, the navy or coast guard may:

• lay mines in the sea without declaring a formal blockade
• establish maritime danger or exclusion zones for foreign ships, and
• intercept, detain and regulate foreign vessels.

These tactics would only be effective because China’s domestic laws have exploited ambiguities in jurisdiction over its surrounding waters.

For example, China has passed laws requiring notification from foreign vessels if they enter waters it considers its own and under its control, and allowing its ships to alter or suspend maritime traffic for security or military purposes.

Those powers, however, are inconsistent with international law. China, for example, considers the Taiwan Strait as Chinese territory. Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, however, the strait is considered international waters, which enables freedom of navigation for all vessels.

Also, creating an unstable security environment around Taiwan (similar to what Houthi forces have done in the Red Sea), or threatening penalties and sanctions for failing to comply, may in effect be tantamount to a blockade.

How to counter a blockade

It is not clear how other nations would respond to a Chinese invasion or blockade.

In recent years, China has attempted to project its naval power by establishing no-go zones in its neighbourhood, such as turning the South China Sea into its own fortified waters.

One way to oppose China, then, would be a counter-blockade. This would entail allied naval forces, likely led by the United States, closing the choke points, such as the Malacca Strait, on which Chinese seaborne trade with global markets depends.

However, counter-blockades are problematic, too. The impact on the world economy would be huge, as a blockade of the Malacca Strait, for example, could impact all trade between Asia and the rest of the world. China has also stockpiled domestic resources and expanded its land-based trade routes in recent years.

The best option, then, might be supporting Taiwan to survive a long blockade, forcing China to back down.

This means helping Taiwan become more resilient by increasing its food, fuel and medicine stockpiles, developing robust communication and cyber defences, and strengthening its port and energy infrastructure.

If the US built up its naval capacity in the Pacific, it could also use frigates to escort convoys of merchant ships to break a Chinese blockade, though the CSIS war games indicated this could come at a considerable cost of lives and ships – and increase the potential for all-out war.

Claudio Bozzi 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. China may not invade Taiwan, but rather blockade it. How would this work, and could it be effective? – https://theconversation.com/china-may-not-invade-taiwan-but-rather-blockade-it-how-would-this-work-and-could-it-be-effective-257731

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tristen Anne Norrie Jones, Academic Fellow, Archaeology, School of Humanities, University of Sydney

Kakadu National Park has become one of Australia’s most prized cultural landscapes since it was added to the World Heritage List in 1981. Each year, hundreds of thousands of people travel to the region, usually during the dry season, to witness the magical gunwardebim (local Kunwinjku language term for rock art) at Ubirr.

However, increasing tourism and accelerated climate change have exacerbated the threats to Ubirr and other cultural heritage sites in Kakadu.

In response, our team of collaborators has created a Bininj-led (Bininj is the Kunwinjku term for Aboriginal people) conservation management plan for the cultural sites at Ubirr.

This initiative – first prompted in 2019 by Alfred Nayinggul, Senior Traditional Owner of the Mirrar Erre and Manilakarr clan, and other Traditional Owners – is now a collaboration between Bininj and researchers from four Australian universities.

Our initial results have been published in the International Journal of Heritage Studies.

Rock art showcasing a rich cultural history

Ubirr contains thousands of rock art paintings, with the oldest paintings said to be at least 18,000 years old. These paintings depict everything from extinct megafauna to Aboriginal peoples’ experiences of European contact.

They form part of a living cultural landscape, and fold together ancient and contemporary lifeways. The rock art at Ubirr communicates important spiritual beliefs and cultural law, passed down orally for generations.

The Traditional Owners maintain cultural responsibility for the bim’s (rock art) ongoing care and protection. As Alfred Nayinggul explains:

Yes, [Ubirr] is a place with many rock paintings. And the tourists all go there to see them […] But long ago, our ancestors lived there. And so those paintings belong to us. We care for those paintings.

In recent years there have been growing anxieties regarding the management of the cultural heritage at Kakadu. Tourists frequently stray from designated paths, leave litter behind and, in rare instances, vandalise sacred sites.

During the wet season, from November through March, powerful cyclones inundate cultural sites with water. And during the late dry season, from August to October, uncontrolled hot wildfires can degrade the sandstone and pigments that make up the rock art.

Managing threats to culture

Our project commenced with an on-Country workshop in March 2021, where a plan of action was co-designed by senior Traditional Knowledge holders from the Bunitj and Manilakarr Clans, Njanjma rangers, Kakadu National Park rangers, and researchers.

Our goal was to document the cultural knowledges, concerns and aspirations of the Traditional Owners for Ubirr.

We adopted “cultural values mapping” as our key research method. Unlike conventional mapping, which tends to focus on physical features, cultural values mapping records intangible elements such as stories, spiritual connections, and the cultural significance Traditional Owners associate with certain places.

The process involved Traditional Owners sketching directly onto large satellite images, overlaying transparent sheets to build up layers of cultural information. They recorded sacred sites, traditional living areas, resource zones and, importantly, areas under threat from tourism, fire and other environmental damage.

Through repeated mapping sessions, multiple Knowledge Holders produced their own spatial knowledge banks of Country.

These cultural maps can now direct the cultural heritage management strategies implemented to care for Ubirr. Cultural information was recorded in both Kunwinjku and English, with oral histories documented in a short film about the cultural importance of Ubirr to Bininj.

We also spent time on Country documenting the rock art and cultural sites at Ubirr. This fieldwork was led by the East Alligator daluk (female) ranger team, and provided an opportunity for younger daluk to learn from senior women.

The photographs from this fieldwork are a baseline recording that can now be used by Kakadu rangers when they undertake their annual bim monitoring program.

We used the rock art recordings to produce 3D models of key sites. These are an important educational resource for Traditional Custodians who may find it difficult to access Country.

As we planned the project, some Bininj research team members voiced concerns that digitising cultural sites in this way might reduce these important cultural sites to mere data points – detached from the broader contexts that make them significant.

To address this, we turned to a gaming software (Unreal Engine 5) to construct an interactive environment in which to situate the 3D data. This model incorporates water, weather, vegetation, and site-recorded soundscapes.

The result is a living, digital version of the Kakadu wetlands in which the rock art recordings maintain their connection to Country.

A blueprint for future projects

Our Indigenous-led mapping approach has strong potential to be scaled up and delivered in other land and cultural heritage management contexts, including for national parks and Indigenous Protected Areas.

It shows how mainstream digital technologies can be adapted to respect Indigenous protocols, while still producing scientifically rigorous results.

Importantly, it contributes to a growing body of work advocating for digital technologies that are respectful, culturally sensitive, and aligned with Indigenous worldviews.

Tristen Anne Norrie Jones receives funding from The Australian Research Council, the Department of Industry, Science and Resources Australian Commonwealth Government, Rock Art Australia Foundation and The University of Sydney.

Alfred sits as a board member on the joint Board of Management for Kakadu National Park and the Njanjma Aboriginal Corporation. The Njanjma Aboriginal Corporation have received funding from the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, the National Indigenous Australians Agency, and the Australian government.

Sam Provost received funding from the ANU Indigenous Health and Wellbeing Grand Challenge 2020 and the University of Sydney to support this research project.

– ref. ‘Those paintings belong to us’: how an Indigenous-led project is harnessing technology to protect Kakadu’s rock art – https://theconversation.com/those-paintings-belong-to-us-how-an-indigenous-led-project-is-harnessing-technology-to-protect-kakadus-rock-art-263274

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lin Tian, Research Fellow, Data Science Institute, University of Technology Sydney

When you ask ChatGPT or other AI assistants to help create misinformation, they typically refuse, with responses like “I cannot assist with creating false information.” But our tests show these safety measures are surprisingly shallow – often just a few words deep – making them alarmingly easy to circumvent.

We have been investigating how AI language models can be manipulated to generate coordinated disinformation campaigns across social media platforms. What we found should concern anyone worried about the integrity of online information.

The shallow safety problem

We were inspired by a recent study from researchers at Princeton and Google. They showed current AI safety measures primarily work by controlling just the first few words of a response. If a model starts with “I cannot” or “I apologise”, it typically continues refusing throughout its answer.

Our experiments – not yet published in a peer-reviewed journal – confirmed this vulnerability. When we directly asked a commercial language model to create disinformation about Australian political parties, it correctly refused.

However, we also tried the exact same request as a “simulation” where the AI was told it was a “helpful social media marketer” developing “general strategy and best practices”. In this case, it enthusiastically complied.

The AI produced a comprehensive disinformation campaign falsely portraying Labor’s superannuation policies as a “quasi inheritance tax”. It came complete with platform-specific posts, hashtag strategies, and visual content suggestions designed to manipulate public opinion.

The main problem is that the model can generate harmful content but isn’t truly aware of what is harmful, or why it should refuse. Large language models are simply trained to start responses with “I cannot” when certain topics are requested.

Think of a security guard checking minimal identification when allowing customers into a nightclub. If they don’t understand who and why someone is not allowed inside, then a simple disguise would be enough to let anyone get in.

Real-world implications

To demonstrate this vulnerability, we tested several popular AI models with prompts designed to generate disinformation.

The results were troubling: models that steadfastly refused direct requests for harmful content readily complied when the request was wrapped in seemingly innocent framing scenarios. This practice is called “model jailbreaking”.

The ease with which these safety measures can be bypassed has serious implications. Bad actors could use these techniques to generate large-scale disinformation campaigns at minimal cost. They could create platform-specific content that appears authentic to users, overwhelm fact-checkers with sheer volume, and target specific communities with tailored false narratives.

The process can largely be automated. What once required significant human resources and coordination could now be accomplished by a single individual with basic prompting skills.

The technical details

The American study found AI safety alignment typically affects only the first 3–7 words of a response. (Technically this is 5–10 tokens – the chunks AI models break text into for processing.)

This “shallow safety alignment” occurs because training data rarely includes examples of models refusing after starting to comply. It is easier to control these initial tokens than to maintain safety throughout entire responses.

Moving toward deeper safety

The US researchers propose several solutions, including training models with “safety recovery examples”. These would teach models to stop and refuse even after beginning to produce harmful content.

They also suggest constraining how much the AI can deviate from safe responses during fine-tuning for specific tasks. However, these are just first steps.

As AI systems become more powerful, we will need robust, multi-layered safety measures operating throughout response generation. Regular testing for new techniques to bypass safety measures is essential.

Also essential is transparency from AI companies about safety weaknesses. We also need public awareness that current safety measures are far from foolproof.

AI developers are actively working on solutions such as constitutional AI training. This process aims to instil models with deeper principles about harm, rather than just surface-level refusal patterns.

However, implementing these fixes requires significant computational resources and model retraining. Any comprehensive solutions will take time to deploy across the AI ecosystem.

The bigger picture

The shallow nature of current AI safeguards isn’t just a technical curiosity. It’s a vulnerability that could reshape how misinformation spreads online.

AI tools are spreading through into our information ecosystem, from news generation to social media content creation. We must ensure their safety measures are more than just skin deep.

The growing body of research on this issue also highlights a broader challenge in AI development. There is a big gap between what models appear to be capable of and what they actually understand.

While these systems can produce remarkably human-like text, they lack contextual understanding and moral reasoning. These would allow them to consistently identify and refuse harmful requests regardless of how they’re phrased.

For now, users and organisations deploying AI systems should be aware that simple prompt engineering can potentially bypass many current safety measures. This knowledge should inform policies around AI use and underscore the need for human oversight in sensitive applications.

As the technology continues to evolve, the race between safety measures and methods to circumvent them will accelerate. Robust, deep safety measures are important not just for technicians – but for all of society.

Lin Tian receives funding from the Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator (ASCA) and the Defence Innovation Network.

Marian-Andrei Rizoiu receives funding from the Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator (ASCA), the Australian Department of Home Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia as represented by the Defence Science and Technology Group of the Department of Defence, and the Defence Innovation Network.

– ref. How we tricked AI chatbots into creating misinformation, despite ‘safety’ measures – https://theconversation.com/how-we-tricked-ai-chatbots-into-creating-misinformation-despite-safety-measures-264184

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kaaren Mathias, Associate Professor in Public Health and Social Justice, University of Canterbury

Because Health New Zealand has refused to reveal how much it is paying private hospitals to perform elective surgeries under a new government contract, it is difficult to assess whether taxpayers are getting value for money.

The government has committed to an evidence-based, cost-effective health system that provides equitable access to all New Zealanders.

At the same time, it is actively funding private healthcare and has directed Health New Zealand to give ten-year contracts to private hospitals for elective surgeries such as cataracts and joint replacements.

The government also recently designated Tend Healthcare as the first for-profit primary health organisation, allowing it to contract directly with Health New Zealand.

Private healthcare may seem alluring. Surely outsourcing services such as knee replacements frees up public beds?

But while the government wants more services delivered by the private system, studies from New Zealand and other high-income countries show private and for-profit healthcare is less efficient and leads to poorer quality care.

Research in Europe also suggests private care doesn’t necessarily improve health outcomes.

Experts in New Zealand and beyond have concluded health is not a commodity that fits with market mechanisms, and private care doesn’t play out to benefit the wider public.

Studies suggest private providers may sacrifice quality in return for large cost reductions. This can include selectively choosing profitable (less complex) patients, shorter allocations for surgeries and over-prescribing services.

Private hospitals can also shift the costs of surgical complications by discharging patients back into the public health system on Friday afternoons to avoid overtime payments to staff in the weekend.

As a public health doctor and researcher, I have found multiple negative impacts of private healthcare in low-income countries, as well as in New Zealand.

Several strands of evidence show how public funding of private healthcare can lead to less cost-effective and poorer quality care, offers fewer opportunities for health workforce development, doesn’t provide for those with the poorest health, and fails to recognise health as a public good.

Higher costs and lower outcomes

Privately provided care is more expensive than publicly funded care. This is illustrated by the predominantly private health system in the Unites States where the average annual health expenditure per person is NZ$25,000, compared to $5,658 per person (about a fifth) in New Zealand.

Despite this lower expenditure, however, New Zealand has slightly better health outcomes, including an infant mortality rate of five per 1,000 births. In the US, it is 5.4. Boys born today in New Zealand can expect to live 80.1 years, while life expectancy for males in the US is 78.4 years.

A 2018 study examining health expenditure and health outcomes across many nations concluded that instead of shifting funds to private healthcare, the best way to improve health is to focus on improving equitable access and quality of care within the publicly funded health system.

Private care does not “free up a bed” because the same limited pool of doctors and nurses work in private as well as public care. When patients are cared for in private, fewer patients can be cared for in the public system.

Government funded private healthcare increases inequities because it preferentially provides care to non-complex and more healthy patients. Studies show greater private provision often accompanies higher rates of avoidable hospitalisation.

Yet inequities in health outcomes are expensive, and for Māori alone cost more than $800 million annually.

A recent analysis in Europe showed public hospitals better address the avoidable differences in health outcomes (inequity) because they are more likely to treat people with lower socioeconomic status and multiple health problems.

And while public hospitals provide care to people who are less well and less advantaged, studies across multiple countries suggest they are at least as efficient as private hospitals, if not more so.

Health as a commodity

Studies show public healthcare is more likely to lead to better health outcomes, and diverting public funds to private healthcare erodes the quality of public care.

In New Zealand, doctors work in both public and private systems and reduce their hours in public hospitals for higher pay in private hospitals. Overall, this leads to poorer outcomes and lower healthcare provision.

While the current government has described a commitment to strengthening workforce development, evidence suggests the best way to find doctors who want to work in rural or low-income communities is to ensure they can train in these settings.

Private healthcare diverts cases from low-income and rural communities and limits the volumes of procedures done in public hospitals. When operations are done in private care, this further reduces learning opportunities because the cases most suited to trainees (low complexity and without multiple health problems) are moved to private care.

Good health allows people to live well and flourish. When people are unwell or disabled, they are restricted from the full opportunity to work and live, meaning healthcare must be recognised as a vital good and a human right.

Health (like other public goods such as education) is not a commodity. Despite the government’s voiced commitment to evidence, equity and cost-efficiency, there’s an abundance of evidence that moving public funding to private healthcare is more expensive and less equitable.

Health researchers like myself are left to wonder who will really benefit from an influx of government money into the private system – patients in need of vital healthcare or business owners?

Kaaren Mathias receives funding from CURE Kids and has received funding from the Health Research Council.

– ref. NZ’s shift to more private healthcare will likely raise costs and reduce quality: what the evidence tells us – https://theconversation.com/nzs-shift-to-more-private-healthcare-will-likely-raise-costs-and-reduce-quality-what-the-evidence-tells-us-263416

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Suzanne Nielsen, Professor and Deputy Director, Monash Addiction Research Centre, Monash University

When we talk about drug overdose deaths, many of us imagine a problem that affects young people.

But new data from Australia’s Annual Overdose Report, published on Sunday, reveals a significant jump in the number of older adults dying from an overdose, compared to two decades ago.

Since 2001, unintentional overdose deaths have declined by about one-third among people under 30. But deaths in those aged 50–59 have increased three-fold. Among 60–69 year olds, deaths have nearly doubled.

So, why are more older Australians dying from drug overdoses? And what can we do about it?

What the data shows

The median age for unintentional drug-induced deaths has been rising over the past couple of decades for almost all drug types.

In Australia, opioids are still the leading drug involved in unintentional overdoses deaths. Opioids can include illicit drugs such as heroin, as well as pain medications such as oxycodone and codeine.

The new report shows opioid overdoses are increasingly killing older adults, with the steepest rises since 2001 seen in people aged 40 to 69.

Between 2019 and 2023, roughly one-third of all heroin deaths was among 40–49 year-olds (704 deaths). One in five deaths was in the 50–59 age group (451 deaths).

For pharmaceutical opioids (meaning pain medicines), deaths are even more concentrated in older groups.

More than one in three (38%) of these deaths was someone aged 50 or over. The 40–49 year-old age group again had the most deaths (619, or 28%), followed by 508 deaths among 50–59 year-olds (23%) and 330 deaths among those aged 60 and over (15%).

So, why is this happening?

Drugs affect older people differently

Older people tend to have more health conditions and use more prescription medicines. Some of these can have harmful interactions with other substances.

Opioids are particularly risky as they can slow your heart rate and breathing. Combining these with alcohol or sleeping tablets, which do the same, can lead to unintentional overdose.

As we age, we also don’t process drugs in the same way as when we were younger. Slower liver and kidney function means medications can build up to dangerous levels, even at doses that previously did not cause side-effects. So regularly reviewing medication and dose with a doctor is important.

While media and policy often focus on preventing drug harm among younger people, the specific risks for older adults are less often discussed – and can stay hidden.

Older people who use illicit substances or non-prescribed pharmaceutical medicines also face stigma, and we know this can prevent them asking for help.

Health professionals can also be reluctant to raise concerns. Research shows they may be less likely to ask older adults about substance use compared to younger people.

The at-risk cohort is ageing

Another factor is the “ageing cohort theory”. This suggests drug-related deaths are happening in the same group of people who were at risk decades ago – those who began using drugs as young people in the 1980s or 1990s and are now middle-aged.

Australia’s pattern of drug-related deaths is similar to the United Kingdom, where deaths are highest among 40–49 year-olds, while rates fall in younger groups.

We also know that fewer young people are starting to inject drugs in Australia.

National estimates suggest the median age of people who inject drugs has risen from about 28 years old to over 43, and the average age of first injection has shifted from the late teens (18–20 years) to the late 20s or early 30s (30–34 years). This supports the theory deaths are affecting an ageing group, rather than a new generation starting to inject.

As they age, this group is also likely to have additional health conditions and medication use that further increase their risk of overdose.

We know what works

The good news is we have effective treatments for people who have developed problems with opioids.

These are sometimes called “opioid agonist treatments” (specifically methadone and buprenorphine) and are effective at helping people stop or reduce their opioid use and improve their health.

These treatments have been proven to halve the risk of overdose death.

Yet, despite their effectiveness, many people don’t access treatments.

Barriers include cost, stigma and treatment regimes being too inflexible or not easily available. For example, needing to attend a community pharmacy every day for dosing can prevent people seeking care.

But new treatments, which can be given just once a month, may help make it more accessible.

However, demand for treatment still exceeds what is available. In Australia, around a third to half of the population who want and need drug treatment currently cannot get it because we don’t have enough treatment places.

This means we still have some work to do to make the treatments that prevent overdoses accessible enough to reduce drug harm.

In Australia, naloxone is now accessible in pharmacies and other harm reduction services without a prescription and free of charge. This medicine can reverse an overdose caused by opioids, and can be easily administered by a trained layperson.

For older adults who use opioids for pain, resources around opioid safety and naloxone have been specifically developed. These include assessing individual risk with current medications, and creating a personalised safety plan.

Addressing overdose in Australia requires us to broaden how we think about drug harms. It’s not just a “youth issue” but one that increasingly affects people in midlife and beyond.

This means health systems must adapt to older people’s needs. Stigma and limited treatment places should not prevent people from receiving help, and conversations about substance should be routine for all age groups.

Recognising and treating existing health conditions, while providing information about safe medication use, may also lower older people’s risk of an overdose.

If this article raises issues for you or someone you know, call the National Alcohol and Other Drug Hotline on 1800 250 015. Other support is also available.

Suzanne Nielsen receives funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, the Victorian and Commonwealth governments, The National Centre for Healthy Ageing, and the Ian Potter Foundation. She is the president-elect of the Australasian Society for Professionals on Alcohol and other Drugs.

Tina Lam receives funding from the National Centre for Healthy Ageing, the Monash Data Futures Institute, the NHMRC, the World Health Organization, and the Ian Potter Foundation. She is a member of the Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs and the Australian Association of Gerontology.

– ref. New data shows a jump in older people dying from drug overdoses – https://theconversation.com/new-data-shows-a-jump-in-older-people-dying-from-drug-overdoses-264048

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kolaia Raisele, PhD Candidate in Anthropology, La Trobe University

In recent years, Pacific island nations have earned global credibility as champions of climate action. Pacific leaders view sea level rise as an existential threat.

But this united front is now under strain as some Pacific nations pursue a controversial new industry – deep-sea mining. Nauru, the Cook Islands, Kiribati and Tonga have gone the furthest to make it a reality, attracted by new income streams. But nations such as Fiji, Palau and Vanuatu have called for a moratorium on deep-sea mining in international waters.

Public opinion across the Pacific is often divided, pitting possible economic gains against the potential risks of an industry whose environmental impact remain uncertain but potentially significant. As this tension intensifies, it may split the Pacific and risk the region’s moral authority on climate.

What are the concerns over deep-sea mining?

Deep-sea mining targets three types of mineral deposits – polymetallic nodules strewn across deep underwater plains, cobalt-rich crusts on seamounts, and the ore deposits around hydrothermal vents.

To extract them, mining companies can use unmanned collectors to pump ore to the surface and return the wastewater. This creates plumes of sediment which can smother marine life. Methods of minimising damage to species from mining on land are largely unworkable at depth.

Deep-sea ecosystems are poorly understood, but we know they are slow to recover. Researchers have found areas mined as a test more than 40 years ago still show physical damage and immobile corals and sponges remain scarce.

Why is there so much interest in deep-sea mining?

Deep-sea mining hasn’t begun anywhere in earnest, because the International Seabed Authority has yet to finalise rules governing extraction. This authority oversees the 54% of the world’s oceans beyond territorial waters.

But plans for deep-sea mining operations can still be submitted and considered without these rules in place.

Analysts have estimated seabed minerals could be worth a staggering A$30 trillion. Some of the richest deposits lie in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone in international waters between Hawaii and Mexico, thousands of kilometres away from Pacific nations. Under international law, companies cannot mine in international waters on their own. They need to be officially sponsored by a national government, which has to keep effective control over its operations.

One reason deep-sea mining companies see Pacific states as such useful partners is that these countries can access
reserved areas of international seabed set aside for developing countries, as well as potential resources in the very large territorial waters around many island states.

Backers in Nauru, Tonga, the Cook Islands and Kiribati argue rising demand for manganese, cobalt, copper and nickel could deliver significant economic returns and diversify economies.

Nauru

Nauru’s enormous deposits of guano – compressed seabird excrement long sought as fertiliser – once made the country wealthy. But the guano is largely gone and the small nation has limited other resources.

Nauru sponsors Nauru Ocean Resources, a wholly owned subsidiary of seabed mining company The Metals Company. In 2011, the company received an International Seabed Authority contract permitting exploration of polymetallic nodules in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, more than 8,000km from Nauru.

Nauru has since “proudly taken a leading role” in developing international legal frameworks in mining nodules in the international seabed.

In June, Nauru signalled Nauru Ocean Resources would apply for an exploitation license.

Tonga

Tonga’s government is similarly backing deep-sea mining by partnering with The Metals Company to explore mining in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.

In August 2025, Tonga signed an updated agreement with Tonga Offshore Mining, a subsidiary of The Metals Company. The agreement was originally signed in 2021 amid large-scale criticism over the lack of public consultation.

The mining company has promised new benefits, ranging from financial benefits, scholarships and community programs. Even so, the revised deal has encountered opposition from civil society, young people and legal experts. Prominent Tongans remain unconvinced, citing environmental, legal and transparency risks.

Economic pressure is part of the picture. Tonga owes an estimated A$180 million to China’s Exim Bank – roughly a quarter of its annual GDP.

Cook Islands

The 15 Cook Islands are widely scattered, giving the government exclusive rights to almost two million square kilometres of ocean. The government has issued exploration licences inside its Exclusive Economic Zone to three companies – Cook Islands Consortium, CIIC Seabed Resources Limited, and Moana Minerals. The Cook Islands government has established a domestic regulatory framework and is building research capacity.

Kiribati

Kiribati’s atolls and island are even more dispersed. The nation’s exclusive economic zone covers about 3.4 million km². The state-owned Marawa Research and Exploration company holds a 15-year exploration contract with the seabed authority. Kiribati has opened talks with China to explore potential collaboration.

The Pacific split

While revenues could potentially be sizeable for the Pacific, costs, technologies and environmental liabilities are highly uncertain.

The experience of Papua New Guinea is a cautionary tale. In 2019, the PNG deep-sea mining venture Solwara-1 went into administration following intense community pushback. The fallout cost the government an estimated $184 million. The PNG government now opposes deep-sea mining in its territorial waters.

While deep-sea mining now has clear backers, other nations are far more wary.

In 2022, Palau launched an alliance calling for a moratorium on mining in international waters. Early signatories included Fiji, American Samoa and the Federated States of Micronesia. Since then, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and the Marshall Islands have joined, as well as dozens of other countries. PNG has not yet joined.

Opposition from these Pacific states is based on the precautionary principle, which favours caution when knowledge is limited and damage is possible.

Pacific youth are among the most prominent opponents of deep-sea mining. The regional Pacific Blue Line coalition uniting civil society, faith groups, women’s organisations and youth networks has consistently called for a complete ban in the region. Young people have spoke out publicly in nations such as Tonga, where youth advocates criticised limited consultation and rallied against the plans, as well as the Cook Islands, where young people have demanded transparency.

Reputation under a cloud?

Pacific leaders have built a worldwide reputation for their principled climate diplomacy, from championing the 1.5°C goal to the major new advisory opinion on climate change issued by the world’s top court in response to a case instigated by students from the University of the South Pacific.

If some Pacific leaders open the door fully to deep-sea mining, it risks undermining the region’s united front on environmental issues and threatens its credibility.

The way this plays out will shape how the world hears the Pacific on climate and the oceans in the years ahead.

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

– ref. The Pacific’s united front on climate action is splintering over deep-sea mining – https://theconversation.com/the-pacifics-united-front-on-climate-action-is-splintering-over-deep-sea-mining-263199

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jess Harris, Associate Professor in Education, University of Newcastle

Casual and contract workers are crucial teachers to Australians of all ages: from infants and young kids at daycare, to children at school, to being key educators for adults at universities and TAFEs.

Casual staff or those on fixed-term contracts are needed in early childhood to ensure there are enough qualified educators to look after children.

Casual staff also support schools when permanently-employed teachers are sick or on leave. They bring current industry knowledge to prepare vocational education and university students for the workforce.

Our new book shows how many of the challenges of casualisation are shared across early childhood education, schools, vocational education and universities.

How many casuals are teaching?

Around 20% of Australian workers describe their employment as casual. Within education, however, the rates of precarious employment can be significantly higher.

According to Jobs and Skills Australia, as of 2023, more than a third of early childhood workers were casual or on fixed-term contracts.

Casual and contract teachers make up about 31% of the national school teaching workforce. Research shows school students spend, on average, the equivalent of a year or more being taught by casual relief teachers.

In 2023, the Universities Accord noted an estimated 50 to 80% of undergraduate teaching is done by casuals. More than half of the educators who teach in vocational education and training settings, such as TAFE, don’t have secure jobs.

Why has this happened?

All education institutions rely on per-student funding, which means their income changes alongside their student enrolments. But this funding don’t necessarily mean changes to the costs of running a school, classroom or a course.

Employing casuals can seem like a sensible, cost-effective solution for institutions because they don’t have to commit to the cost of a full-time permanent member of staff. Institutions can ask casual staff to work for a day here or there and stop offering them work any time.

The reasons for casualisation are complex.

In early years education, there are high numbers of casual workers because it’s also hard to find and keep staff.

In the school system, casual teachers are needed to fill in for teachers who are unwell or on extended breaks. Research shows us teachers are increasingly finding their jobs stressful and wanting to leave the profession.

In higher education, we have seen the number of casual workers increase as overall government funding has decreased.

Why is this a problem?

Broader research shows precarious employment can lead to financial and psychological stress for employees. People in precarious employment report feeling a lack of support and don’t receive the same benefits as their colleagues.

This includes everything from having no sick leave, to casual teachers often going for weeks without income.

Without oversight from one regular employer, casual employees can often work more than a full-time load across multiple contracts, for multiple employers. Casual staff in universities have also been underpaid as a result of poor governance and pay practices.

Teachers and educators on fixed-term contracts, which might be for a few weeks or even years, don’t always feel valued or respected.

Research has also found more early career teachers are fixed-term and casual than those later in their career. If they aren’t adequately supported in their early career stage, there is a risk they will leave the profession.

When it comes to early education, we also know it’s important for children to have stability with their educators. This helps child development and boosts safety in a centre.

A change in legislation

Last year, new laws came into effect to improve conditions for casuals.

Employers can no longer employ casual staff when there is a consistent need for, and regular pattern of work. We have particularly seen the impact of this in the university sector, where casuals are employed in regular patterns of classes over semesters.

In response to these changes, some universities have increased the number of fixed-term positions for teaching staff, employing them one semester at a time. Some have employed less-experienced staff to take the bulk of the teaching and marking loads, because they can be paid at a lower cost (akin to casual staff). Some senior academics have seen their teaching and administrative workload grow.

And some casual university staff have simply lost work.

This suggests we need laws that promote both flexibility and job security.

Changes are coming

New laws will put a limit on fixed-term contracts. They will only be allowed for two years, or one contract renewal.

The new rules are already in place in other sectors, but universities have received an exemption until November 2025.

Although intended to convert long-term precarious workers into more secure employment, it remains to be seen whether this will work in practice.

What else is needed?

Without funding to support the conversion of casual and fixed-term staff to secure, ongoing positions across education, insecure employment, staff shortages and uncertainty are likely to persist.

A dramatic shift in thinking is required to ensure that all education sectors and educators are adequately supported by governments.

Until we see substantial changes to education policy, governance and funding, educators in daycare centres, schools, universities and TAFEs will continue to struggle to meet the needs of their students.

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

– ref. From daycare through to uni, we’ve all had this type of teacher – https://theconversation.com/from-daycare-through-to-uni-weve-all-had-this-type-of-teacher-264111

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Ong ViforJ, John Curtin Distinguished Professor & ARC Future Fellow, Curtin University

As many young Australians struggle to enter the housing market, research shows the “bank of mum and dad” is often called on to help.

But what kind of financial support are parents willing to offer their kids? And how has that changed over time?

That’s what our recent survey of 1,725 Australian parents – mostly aged 45 to 64 – sought to find out.

More parents are stepping in

Despite the growing body of research showing young people’s reliance on their parents to help buy their first home, we still don’t know enough about how parents are helping their children.

This includes how much parents are dipping into their own pockets to fund this assistance, and what the financial implications might be for parents who do so.

Earlier this year, we sought to find out more using Qualtrics, an online platform used for survey research. Of the 1,725 parents who responded to our survey, 61% were aged 45-64, while 34% were 65-69, and 5% were under 45.

We started by asking if they had done anything to help at least one of their three eldest kids buy their first home.

More than half of the 1,725 respondents – or 994 parents – said yes, they had helped at least one of their kids.

Of those whose children bought more than ten years ago, 44% had helped.

If their children bought within five to ten years ago, 50% had helped.

And if their children had bought within the past five years, an even higher share – 58% – had helped their children buy their first home.

(Note: some parents surveyed helped multiple children in different time periods.)

Rent-free living overtakes gifts

Our survey found living rent-free in the family home has become the number one way parents helped in the past five years.

Cash gifts are still crucial, but less common than a decade ago.

These findings are part of a wider, yet-to-be published study of parents’ attitudes and motivations on assisting their children into homeownership. They offer timely insights into how families are responding to one of the biggest challenges facing young people: unaffordable housing leading to declining homeownership rates.

Our study sample was not designed to be nationally representative of all Australian parents, as our primary interest was in those who’ve helped children buy their first home. However, quotas were applied on income, region and ethnicity to ensure sufficiently diverse representation.

Broader trends emerging over time

Looking at all 994 parents who said they’d helped at least one of their children buy a home over the past decade or more, some longer-term trends emerged.

Over the past ten or more years, around one in five children (22%) of the parents we surveyed received more than one type of help. The most common combinations paired direct help – gifts, loans, guarantorship – with rent-free living.

Both homeowning and renting parents said they had helped their children. But homeowning parents were more likely to assist in financial resource-intensive ways, such as cash gifts and loans, while renting parents tended to help in other ways, such as letting children live at home rent-free.

The use of loans rose sharply with parental income, spiking to 41% among those with parental incomes above $200,000.

Children of higher-income parents were also more likely to benefit from rent-free accommodation in their parents’ second or investment home. This is a distinct advantage, as this support is likely to more than double the odds of private renters of becoming homeowners.

The survey also explored where the money comes from when parents provide financial gifts or loans.

The majority (78%) of parents who offered cash gifts over the past decade or more drew on their savings.

Among those who offered loans, a much smaller share (46%) drew from savings; nearly one in three (29%) drew down on their own home equity; while another 12% drew equity from a second property.

A few parents went further

Thirty-six parents surveyed reported taking “other” measures to help their children access homeownership. Seven (19%) said they had co-purchased homes with their children, or entered into loans as co-borrowers using their own home as collateral.

Three (8%) said they had signed their house or another property over entirely to their children.

Another three (8%) gave their children early inheritances, passing on intergenerational wealth earlier than usual.

An entrenched wealth divide

The benefits of parental homeownership are now transmitted across generations. Parents giving cash gifts or loans are drawing down from multiple sources of assets, including their own savings, home equity and superannuation.

Homeowning and higher-income parents are better resourced to assist their children through cash gifts and loans, but these are not risk-free. Aside from the potential financial burden, the lack of legal protections for the “bank of mum and dad” expose older Australians to the risk of financial abuse.

Finally, significant numbers of young people do not have well-resourced parents who can support their homeownership aspirations. As the importance of parental assistance grows, this will widen an intra-generational housing wealth gap between young people with and without access to the bank of mum and dad.

Rachel Ong ViforJ receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

Amity James receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

Christopher Phelps receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

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

– ref. Australian parents are helping their kids buy a first home with less money, but more rent-free living – https://theconversation.com/australian-parents-are-helping-their-kids-buy-a-first-home-with-less-money-but-more-rent-free-living-263637

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexa Scarlata, Lecturer, Digital Communication, RMIT University

With September comes spring: flowering trees, warmer weather, longer days. But just as it felt like spring had sprung, a new cold front came over much of south east Australia.

No matter if you’re looking for something to while away the last of the chilly days, or looking for something to watch to escape the dreaded hay fever outside, our experts this month have you covered. There are old classics celebrating 50 years since they hit the big screen, now available on the small screen at home. There is a new ABC drama; a documentary about The Biggest Loser; and Untamed, blending western tropes with the detective thriller.

The Family Next Door

ABC iView

At first glance, the ABC’s new flagship drama The Family Next Door’s looks like a soapy cross between Neighbours and Home and Away. But the restrained performances, stellar cast and twisty tale elevates this suburban mystery.

Directed by Emma Freeman, the six-part series is set in the fictional seaside town of Osprey Point on Victoria’s Great Ocean Road. Isabelle (Teresa Palmer) rents a house on Pleasant Court and is ostensibly in town to write an article about “the new Byron Bay”.

But we quickly learn she has been suspended from her job at Child Protective Services, and has actually moved in to start obsessively investigating the four neighbouring families. With each episode, she becomes more reckless in her search for someone or something, and less willing (or able) to face her own increasingly evident demons. Teresa Palmer brings magnetism and a disconcerting sense of foreboding to the role.

For me, the greatest appeal of the show is its focus on the women in each of the families on the street. Through them, the series explores universal challenges of motherhood, marriage and friendship, as well as the complexities of managing identity and responsibility across these roles.

Each episode centres on a different matriarch, so the ensemble cast gets time to shine as Isabelle chips away at their relationships, stories and secrets.

The Family Next Door is a funny and authentic portrayal of suburban life. It’s relatable, in an understated way, and will quickly have you hooked.

– Alexa Scarlata

Read more:
ABC’s new suburban mystery The Family Next Door is understated and addictive

Untamed

Netflix

Untamed blends western tropes with the detective thriller, offering a moody six-episode mystery set against the eerie beauty of Yosemite National Park. Eric Bana plays Kyle Turner, a National Parks Service agent introduced with the quip, “here comes Gary Cooper”. Like Cooper, Kyle embodies quiet integrity, a strong silent type whose strength lies in restraint rather than heroics.

His only ally is Chief Ranger Paul Souter (Sam Neill), while others disparage him. This leads to rookie ranger Naya Vasquez (Lily Santiago) being assigned to work with him. He tries to shake her off, but her persistence pays off.

Ultimately, Kyle mentors her and this awakens one of the show’s most affecting threads, as she comes to share his profound admiration for the environment. If he rides out, as western heroes tend to, Yosemite will be safe with her.

The central mystery begins when climbers on El Capitan are struck by a falling body. Kyle abseils into the scene, losing crucial evidence in the process, and the question emerges: did she jump, or is it murder?

At the same time, Kyle and his ex-wife Jill (Rosemarie DeWitt) have suffered the devastating loss of their only son, Caleb (Ezra Wilson). This subplot explores the bond two people develop through their child – one they can’t share with others. And when a child dies, only they know each other’s pain.

Though Untamed never quite reaches the strangeness of shows like Top of the Lake or Twin Peaks, it shares their cinematic ambition and atmospheric unease. It also boasts an outstanding cast.

– Lisa French

The Hunting Wives

Stan

The Hunting Wives is a liberal satire of Southern American Whiteness that brings together murder mystery, sexy affairs, and small town politics.

In a glossy, delicious package, this over-the-top melodrama will make you want to press “next episode” immediately. Not for those seeking realism or seriousness in their TV programming, the series is silly, absurd and very juicy.

It follows Sophie (Brittany Snow), an East Coast “liberal elite” who moves to Texas with her husband, where she is taken under the wing of glamorous housewife and power broker Margot (Malin Ackerman).

Sophie becomes ensconced in a world where sexual exploits, political power grabs and violence are hidden under a veneer of Evangelical Christian rhetoric and glossy white femininity. Her new life in Texas proves her politics, morals and sexuality are not as fixed as she thought.

Sophie’s arrival unsettles the fragile friendship dynamics of the local town, and plenty of twists and turns follow. If you like campy melodramas such as Scandal, Nashville, Empire, Dynasty or The Real Housewives, you’ll enjoy the mayhem and madness of The Hunting Wives.

– Jessica Ford

Platonic, season two

We’ve seen good examples on TV of men and women enjoying each other’s company without any hanky panky. Some are professional relationships based on loyalty and respect: think Mulder and Scully on the X-Files in the early seasons, or Benson and Tutuola on Law and Order: SVU.

Other times, men and women from opposite sides of the sexuality spectrum are paired in a lighter setting, such as Will and Grace, or Brooklyn 99’s Jake and Rosa.

Platonic goes a step further, exploring companionship between a straight woman and man within the rom-com genre. Sylvia (Rose Byrne) plays an anxious wife and mum of three trying to re-enter the work force, while Will (Seth Rogan) is a laidback, unlucky-in-love brewer in the aftermath of divorce. The pair met in college but went their separate ways before deciding to reconnect in Los Angeles during their midlife meltdowns.

Co-creators Francesa Delbanco and Nicholas Stoller have produced a unique offering that juxtaposes mundane life situations against outrageous misadventures. Byrne and Rogan enjoy a great onscreen camaraderie with some memorable ad-libbed dialogue.

Season two is a little slow off the mark and relocates a lot of the action to San Diego, where Sylvia is organising Will’s wedding to his boss-turned-fiancée, Jenna (Rachel Rosenbloom). By episode four, however, the madness gets real.

Platonic always throws a curve ball you don’t quite see coming, and this season continues the tradition with moments that will make you scream as well as laugh.

– Phoebe Hart

The Thursday Murder Club

Netflix

The long-awaited film adaptation of Richard Osman’s best-selling book, The Thursday Murder Club, has finally dropped on Netflix.

Celia Imrie, Helen Mirren, Pierce Brosnan and Ben Kinsley star as Joyce, Elizabeth, Ron and Ibrahim – four residents at a retirement village who take an interest in unsolved crimes.

This extracurricular activity soon sees them in the middle of their very own investigation as a murder occurs right on their doorstep.

As with all book adaptations, there are some changes in order for the plot to fit into a neat two hours. Some of the investigation is simplified in order to focus on the chemistry of the four amateur sleuths.

Chris Columbus’ direction makes the film feel cohesive, familiar and easily rewatchable by drawing on all of the charm of the British cozy murder mystery, such as Midsomer Murders, Vera, or the ITV adaptations of Agatha Christie. This appeal is easily aided by the source text; Osman’s writing wonderfully captures the likeability of the four lead characters.

The stellar supporting cast is rounded out with David Tennant, Naomi Ackie, Daniel Mays, Henry Lloyd-Hughs, Ruth Sheen, Richard E. Grant and more.

I can’t wait to reread the book now.

– Stuart Richards

The Rocky Horror Picture Show

Apple TV and Disney+

Tim Curry’s powerhouse performance as Frank-N-Furter is central to the success of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, now turning 50. Yet, his truly astounding work often overshadows the film’s many other dynamic performances.

Rocky Horror’s supporting characters and chorus feature alluring oddballs who irreverently challenge norms of physical desirability. Their “imperfect” bodies are not only a tribute to diversity: they radically upturn genre expectations of stage and screen musicals, and discredit broader cultural ideals of beauty.

Rocky Horror’s anti-Broadway aesthetic is apparent as soon as the “butler” Riff Raff (Richard O’Brien) opens the castle door. This wiry framed hunchback with tangled hair is a far cry from the athletic ideal of the Broadway body.

Inside the mansion, the alien “Transylvanians” are a broad assortment of unconventional body types squeezed into colourful costumes. Lanky actor Stephen Calcutt stands at 198 centimetres tall, and Sadie Corré at just over 120cm. Hugh Cecil, then 62, has alopecia, which exaggerates his stark monocled whiteness. Fran Fullenwider, with her wild, teased-out coiffure and curvy frame, is clad in skin-tight pants.

Overtly parodying Frankenstein’s creation of a grotesque monster, Frank-N-Furter scientifically “births” the perfectly chiselled Rocky (Peter Hinwood), a “perfect specimen of manhood”: muscular, a sharp jawline, blonde hair and a tan. But Rocky does not have the charismatic body positivity of Eddie (Meat Loaf): loud, sexy and very nearly loved.

Half a century from its release, Rocky Horror remains a place where people of all shapes, sizes, ages, abilities, and colours can dance and sing and celebrate without constraints.

– Craig Martin and Joanna McIntyre

Read more:
At 50, The Rocky Horror Picture Show is ‘imperfectly’ good (and queer) as ever

Picnic at Hanging Rock

Apple TV

Peter Weir’s Picnic at Hanging Rock, released 50 years ago, is remembered for its eerie atmosphere and mysterious story. But beneath its haunting beauty, the film challenges the idea of colonial control over the Australian landscape.

Picnic at Hanging Rock tells the story of a group of private schoolgirls and their teachers who visit the nearby Hanging Rock on Valentine’s Day in 1900. During the excursion, three students and one teacher mysteriously disappear.

No clear explanation is ever given, which unsettles both the characters and the audience. The mystery triggers hysteria, scandal and a slow collapse of order at Appleyard College.

The film became a landmark of the Australian New Wave, and can be seen as a powerful story about colonial fear and uncertainty. The unexplained disappearance of the schoolgirls plays off the idea that European thinking and logic can’t fully understand or master the Australian landscape.

When watched through this lens the story reveals just how fragile colonialism is: the landscape itself remembers the past and actively resists the stories colonisers have tried to tell about it.

Picnic at Hanging Rock remains powerful today, especially in light of ongoing discussions about Indigenous sovereignty and reconciliation in Australia. The film’s mystery is never solved, forcing viewers to sit with the discomfort of what’s left unsaid.

– Jo Coghlan

Read more:
Rewatching Picnic at Hanging Rock at 50: an unsettling portrayal of place, silence and disappearance

Fit for TV: The Reality of The Biggest Loser

Netflix

The Biggest Loser was one of the most successful reality shows ever created, first aired in the United States in 2004, and quickly franchised around the world.

The US series ran for 17 seasons (Australia’s ran for 11 seasons, from 2006 to 2017). The show was a juggernaut, offering each contestant the opportunity to change not just their body, but their life.

However, as the new documentary Fit for TV reveals, this narrative quickly devolved. Increasingly, the story of The Biggest Loser was one of sadness and suffering, with extreme weight loss promised to be the panacea.

No one interviewed in the documentary has a positive story to tell. Fit for TV takes The Biggest Loser to task for the so-called “villain edit” of some of the contestants for the ostensible purpose of encouraging self-improvement. We also see the oppositions and tensions between contestants, and between contestants and trainers.

However, the documentary’s most powerful indictment comes in the after effects the show inflicted on participants. Danny Cahill, winner of season eight, says “we were gaining weight while we were even working out. And we knew something was up.”

In 2016, a study found all but one of the contestants had gained weight after the show, with some reporting being heavier than when they had started. “You love to watch us, but you sure don’t want to know what happened to us after the fact,” another former contestant observes.

Fit for TV is a compelling reflection on a shameful moment in recent cultural history.

– Jessica Gildersleeve

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

– ref. Over-the-top melodrama, a platonic rom-com and retirement village murders: what to watch in September – https://theconversation.com/over-the-top-melodrama-a-platonic-rom-com-and-retirement-village-murders-what-to-watch-in-september-263925

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

The Albanese government’s deal with Nauru to take up to 280 former immigration detainees again shows both sides of politics will resort to drastic and expensive actions when faced with intractable issues around illegal non-citizens.

On Friday news came from the Nauru parliament of a deal between Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke and the Nauru government for that country to accept this large number of ex-detainees from Australia.

These are from the so-called NZYQ cohort. They were in immigration detention until the High Court in late 2023 ruled indefinite detention was unconstitutional.

A number of these people had previously committed very serious crimes, including murder and rape. After the government released them into the community, many have reoffended, some seriously. One is accused of murder.

Under the Nauru deal, Australia will provide that country with a one-off $400 million, then an ongoing $70 million a year.

The people will not be sent to Nauru in a single batch.

The Albanese government shrouded the deal in secrecy with Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke in Nauru on Friday on an unannounced trip. Details of the deal were put on the Home Affair website, rather than in a generally-distributed ministerial press release, as would be the usual course.

The statement posted on Home Affairs said: “Today, Minister Burke met with the President of Nauru David Adeang, the cabinet and the entire Nauru Parliament.

“During the visit an MOU was signed between Burke and Adeang.

“It contains undertakings for the proper treatment and long-term residence of people who have no legal right to stay in Australia, to be received in Nauru.

“Australia will provide funding to underpin this arrangement and support Nauru’s long-term economic resilience.

“In announcing the MOU, the President and Minister referred to further long term visas to be granted by Nauru to people who no longer have a legal right to remain in Australia.

“This MOU will allow the continued management of the NZYQ cohort.”

Burke, in brief quotes in this statement, said: “Anyone who doesn’t have a valid visa should leave the country. This is a fundamental element of a functioning visa system.”

Burke paved the way for the deal by introducing legislation last week that denies “procedural fairness” to those being deported under such arrangements. This followed earlier legislation in the last parliament that apparently left some loopholes.

Environment Minister Murray Watt told Sky on Sunday: “We need to remember that these are people who have no visa right to be in Australia

“Any functioning migration system has a principle which is that if you don’t have a right to be in a country, then you can expect to be removed.

“This cohort has already had access to judicial review, to merits review, to ministerial intervention, and really now that we have reached this arrangement with Nauru, it does allow for the removal of people who have no right to be in Australia.”

Liberal frontbencher James Paterson said the whole affair had been a “debacle” from start to finish.

“But we did support legislation on a bipartisan basis in the previous parliament to set up a scheme like this Nauruan scheme, and we are supportive of removing these people from Australia.

“The parliament must take steps to protect the Australian community and uphold border protection and our sovereignty.”

It is fortunate for the government that the opposition is backing the latest legislation. If the government had needed the Greens to pass the legislation, it would probably be facing defeat.

The Greens condemned the Nauru deal. Their immigration spokesman David Shoebridge said: “At a time when we should be building partnerships in the Pacific based on equality and respect, the government is instead forcing our smaller neighbours to become 21st-century prison colonies.”

Over many years Labor in opposition was highly critical of the Coalition’s handling of issues dealing with illegal immigrants.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: Albanese government resorts to whatever-it-takes to rid Australia of former detainees – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-albanese-government-resorts-to-whatever-it-takes-to-rid-australia-of-former-detainees-263914

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

Anthony Albanese appears to be edging closer to landing the long-sought meeting with President Donald Trump when the prime minister is in the United States in September.

Despite Albanese’s reluctance to admit it, Deputy Prime Minster’s Richard Marles’ high level talks in Washington this week are seen as part of the prelude to a meeting.

Meanwhile, in Canberra, Albanese spent 45 minutes this week with Jason Smith, Chair of the United States Congress’s Ways and Means Committee.

Smith is very influential, both because of his committee’s importance and his closeness to Trump. He is in Australia as the guest of the Australian government. Usually visits by members of Congress are sponsored by the Americans. Smith sat in on the House of Representatives’ question time on Thursday.

If all goes well, the Trump-Albanese meeting would either be on the sidelines of the United Nations in New York, or in Washington.

It is believed the government now would prefer Washington if possible, having lost some of its earlier concern that the president might put Albanese on the spot there.

Much confusion surrounded the hastily-arranged visit by Marles, who is minister for defence. Initially no meeting with US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared locked in. Then when pictures were posted of the two together, the Pentagon said it had been a “happenstance encounter” rather than a formal meeting. Later it reversed its position, saying “Secretary Hegseth welcomed the opportunity to meet in person with Deputy Prime Minister Marles for the third time this year”.

Probably more significant, however, were the other US figures Marles met: Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Trump’s deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller.

Albanese was touchy on Friday when it was suggested Marles had been there to sort out a meeting with the president.

That wasn’t his job,“ Albnese told Nine. “I don’t know whether that was raised or not.

“We have office to official communication and Ambassador Rudd is responsible for those issues.”

It is not known where the government will land on the American demand for a substantial boost in Australia’s defence spending. Defence spending is now around 2% of GDP. The Americans would like to see it lifted to 3.5%.

But Marles would have been able to point out, if he had the opportunity, that Australia is a reliable ally, that it pays (under AUKUS) in cash, that it provides in-kind support, and that its defence budget is actually all focused on defence, unlike some other countries that put a load of other items under the “defence” headings in their budgets.

Albanese on Friday talked up his discussion with Smith. “I had a long meeting with him. I advocated Australia’s case [on tariffs]. We have zero tariffs for US goods coming into Australia on the basis of our Free Trade Agreement.

“So, a reciprocal tariff as the US president has said, would be zero. But it is true that we have as low a tariff rate as any country in the world has received in the United States at just 10%.”

“It’s clearly a part of the policy of the Trump Administration. I think that’s an act of economic self-harm. Tariffs hurt the country that’s imposing it because it increases costs.”

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

– ref. View from The Hill: Albanese edging closer to landing Trump September meeting – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-albanese-edging-closer-to-landing-trump-september-meeting-263917

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Blunden, Professor and Head of Paediatric Sleep Research, CQUniversity Australia

US-based online store iHerb has suspended sales of melatonin gummies to Australia. This comes after a rise in reports of non-fatal overdoses in Western Australia in children who took these popular supplements.

This latest move raises fresh concerns about the safety of these non-prescription sleep aids.

I have been a sleep researcher and a psychologist treating children with behavioural sleep problems for more than 20 years.

Here’s what’s great and not so great about using melatonin to help children sleep.

What is melatonin? Who uses it?

Melatonin is a naturally occurring hormone secreted in our brains. Its main function is to make us feel sleepy. A synthetic version is used in prescription and non-prescription products, for adults and for children who have trouble sleeping.

Melatonin prescriptions for children and adolescents with sleep difficulties have increased substantially around the world in recent years.

Melatonin available on prescription is an effective and relatively safe drug in children, particularly those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder. It is now the most commonly prescribed drug to treat insomnia in children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disorders.

These children commonly have considerable difficulties getting to sleep, or getting back to sleep when they wake in the night. This can be distressing for the child and the whole family.

Guidelines for melatonin for these children suggest a low dose and only using it for a maximum two years. Melatonin does not appear to be addictive. So it seems like a good option for these families.

A rise in wider use

Up to one in four children have behavioural sleep problems, including children who are not neurodivergent, or who are developing typically.

So parents have turned to sourcing non-prescription melatonin, including melatonin gummies.

However, unlike for neurodivergent children, there are no scientific studies and therefore no evidence to demonstrate whether melatonin would work or pose a risk in typically developing children. There’s certainly no indication of how much children should take and for how long.

So melatonin is not usually recommended for children who are not neurodivergent.

Yet, it is widely available

In many countries including Australia, melatonin is classified as a pharmaceutical product. In Australia, the Therapeutic Goods Administration approves paediatric use for children with ADHD, autism and Smith-Magenis syndrome, and only on prescription.

In other countries, notably the United States, melatonin is categorised as a dietary supplement and is thought to be natural and safe. As such it is less tightly regulated than a pharmaceutical product.

As it’s available online, parents in countries with tighter restrictions, including Australia, can buy child-friendly melatonin gummies from the US, for example, and have it shipped. They can do this without a prescription or medical guidance.

Are melatonin gummies safe?

Accessing these gummies online for children without a prescription is at best concerning and at worst dangerous.

We don’t know how much melatonin is in these gummies. Studies show levels vary between brands of melatonin supplements and within the same brand. Melatonin levels range from practically zero to four times more than the amount stated on the label.

Some products also contained serotonin, which is concerning as this can interact with melatonin, and also affect a child’s mood.

There are also few studies on the long-term effects of taking melatonin, or what is a safe dose. So the risk of overdose is a real concern. Symptoms depend on many factors, including the age of the child. Symptoms include significant nausea, excessive sleepiness and migraine. The potential effects on other body systems and hormones have not been studied.

There have been deaths and hospital visits associated with the use of melatonin gummies in the US. There have been seven deaths in young children where the link to gummies has been suspected but not substantiated.

In Australia, there has been reports of a rise in queries about gummie overdoses to a poisons hotline.

There’s also the risk of toxicity with melatonin use. But there’s much we don’t know about how this happens, over what time frame, or its effects. Labels don’t always reflect what’s in the product so we don’t know if toxicity in children relates to those who have taken what’s recommended on the packet, or who have taken too many gummies by accident.

Melatonin gummies look like lollies. What child would not love to eat as many lollies as they can?

If you think your child has eaten too many gummies, they need emergency care.

So what are parents to do?

Sleep difficulties can be extremely distressing for the child and the whole family. But we need to treat melatonin with care. Buying melatonin gummies online is not the answer, despite many parents thinking they are safe and natural.

A medical professional can assess if a melatonin prescription is right for your child. They will also support you by recommending behavioural sleep strategies we know work, are sustainable and safe.

If you’d like support for your child’s sleep problems you can visit your GP and/or search for a trained sleep psychologist via the Australasian Sleep Association.

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

– ref. Can kids overdose on melatonin gummies? Yes, and an online store has suspended sales – https://theconversation.com/can-kids-overdose-on-melatonin-gummies-yes-and-an-online-store-has-suspended-sales-264116

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Josh Roose, Associate Professor of Politics, Deakin University

Australia has watched on as authorities have searched for Dezi Freeman, a so-called “sovereign citizen” accused of killing two police officers in the regional Victorian town of Porepunkah.

The case has put the spotlight on the sovereign citizen, or “sovcit”, movement and its extreme, often conspiratorial, anti-government ideology.

It would be easy to see the incident as an isolated one: a case of a radicalised man enacting his fringe beliefs and allegedly taking two innocent lives in the process.

But this case is emblematic of a broader problem. The sovereign citizen movement is growing, as demonstrated by an increase in the presence of “sovereign citizens” before the courts. Australia is likely to see more violence fuelled by this ideology unless some of the underlying drivers are addressed.

A growing movement

The sovereign citizen movement has been in Australia for decades. It can be traced back to the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the movement was emerging in the United States.

One of the first famous examples was “Prince Leonard”, who founded Hutt River Province in Western Australia. Leonard Casey started his own “micronation” following a stoush with the WA government over wheat production quotas.

It was the first of many so-called micronations to come. There are now dozens, if not hundreds of them across the country. Some estimates suggest a third of all “micronations” globally are in Australia.

Despite not having any legal standing, the people who run these micronations think of them as stand-alone countries with their own flags, rules, currencies and passports.

But for much of the 20th century, these sovereign citizens were largely happy to live off-the-grid, in isolation.

Then when COVID struck, more people began turning to the movement, joining mostly in online forums.

Facebook sovereign citizen movement My Place now has around 25,000 active members across different local groups. Many members oppose vaccination, 5G and don’t believe governments or their institutions are valid.

As the movement has grown, so too have efforts to capitalise on it. Groups such as Know Your Rights sell courses and advice to help people rebut the validity of fines or court actions.

A metaphorical war turned literal

In isolation, sovereign citizens could be considered bizarre but benign.

But violence is inherent to the movement, both here and overseas. Sovereign citizens often feel deeply humiliated, which becomes explosive anger, hatred and frustration towards all arms of government.

Sovereign citizens very often arm themselves in preparation for their “war on government”, with deadly consequences.

In Australia, there have been violent incidents, particularly in outer-suburban and regional areas.

In 2023, a man in Lithgow, New South Wales, who fired a gun at police, was believed to be a sovereign citizen.

Read more:
Why are police a target for sovereign citizen violence?

During the pandemic, some sovereign citizens said mask mandates didn’t apply to them, sometimes assaulting police in angry confrontations.

In other instances, sovereign citizens have attempted to arrest police officers and politicans.

At their core, sovereign citizens believe the government is a corporation that’s using legal fiction to enslave innocent people. This makes violence towards government and police almost inevitable.

There’s also the strong likelihood of copycat acts following Freeman’s alleged actions.

This happened following Brenton Tarrant’s attack on the Al Noor Mosque in Christchurch in 2019. After that, plots and attacks in the United States, Norway, Singapore and elsewhere were all inspired by Tarrant’s manifesto, a phenomenon often referred to as “stochastic terrorism”.

What makes people this way?

A big reason people are attracted to sovereign citizen ideology is because of rapidly increasing regional inequality in recent years.

In many small towns across Australia, young people feel they must leave to pursue further education and careers, decimating the town’s population and workforce.

Housing cost is also a driver, particularly with the proliferation of short-stay accommodation. People often can’t afford to buy a home in the place where they grew up.

So while there are a lot of very proud, thriving regional centres, there are many that are struggling. This creates fertile ground, particularly for older people, to find alternative belief systems.

These socioeconomic factors can also interact with individual circumstances, such as negative childhood experiences and “trigger events” like divorce or job loss.

Being a sovereign citizen gives people the ability to avoid responsibilities, such as tax and road rules. But more importantly, it offers a sense of empowerment and control.

It also offers belonging, particularly online, where people encounter others who are going through similar experiences.

The sovereign citizen ideology does for many what government can’t: reach desperate people and make them feel seen and heard.

‘Angry and alienated Australians’

Police and intelligence organisations are acutely aware of the risks sovereign citizens pose.

In his 2022 annual threat assessment, ASIO Director-General Mike Burgess pointed directly to sovereign citizens and the then-recent protests at Old Parliament House to explain the organisation’s focus on “a small number of angry and alienated Australians”.

The Australian Federal Police have also had internal briefings on the movement.

The courts encounter sovereign citizens and their pseudolaw with increasing regularity. This ranges from nuisance arguments that create further backlogs in the system, to people (including Freeman) attempting to arrest magistrates.

Read more:
What does Australian law have to say about sovereign citizens and ‘pseudolaw’?

But responding to sovereign citizens, who vehemently reject law enforcement authority, is a massive challenge.

This extends to any government worker who needs to set foot on, or even near a property belonging to a sovereign citizen, whether that’s to trim a council-owned tree or check a water meter.

Addressing inequality

Sovereign citizens are an explosive, violent movement. Dealing with them requires a great deal of caution.

All levels of government need to be extremely careful, especially around property, which is sacrosanct for sovereign citizens.

The fix is not short and it’s not easy. It requires deep engagement and investment in regions to build better lives for the people who live there.

This may mean creating more capacity to work from home so people building their careers don’t have to move to bigger centres.

It could also be greater investment in regional universities to make further education closer to home.

It means addressing housing affordability and increasing social services, particularly through services such as legal aid, which can help deal with issues of access before individuals turn to sovereign citizen pseudolegal faux solutions.

While ever these factors remain unaddressed, we’ll likely see the sovereign citizen movement continue to grow. This increases the threat of more violence.

Josh Roose receives funding from The Australian Research Council, Australian Government Department of Home Affairs, and Victorian Government Department of Justice and Community Safety.

– ref. The ‘sovereign citizen’ movement is growing. So is the risk of more violence – https://theconversation.com/the-sovereign-citizen-movement-is-growing-so-is-the-risk-of-more-violence-264182

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sally Mackay, Senior Lecturer in Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

From images of fruit to claims of being “sugar-free”, manufacturers of baby and toddler foods try to convince parents their products are a healthy choice, convenient and good for their child’s development.

But as our new research shows, many are not.

We studied the packaging of 210 foods for infants and toddlers found in New Zealand supermarkets. Every package featured claims, and many showed images of fruit and vegetables, which didn’t reflect the main ingredients used.

The first thousand days of a child’s life are critical. This is when their brains and bodies are growing faster than they will at any other time in their lives. Optimal nutrition is essential at this time for healthy growth, wellbeing, development and to shape eating patterns for life.

It’s also a time when parents are often busy – and industry knows this. Manufacturers play on convenience and use marketing to badge foods that don’t support good health as “nutritious”.

On-pack claims are a powerful marketing tool, and they are effective. They influence consumer perceptions, drive purchasing decisions and can create a health halo around products that don’t deserve it.

Cluttered with claims

The foods we studied had an average of between seven to eight claims on their packaging, with the worst offenders carrying up to 15 claims.

The most common claims were about ingredients that were not in the foods – “free from additives”, “free from colours”. This type of claim can distract parents from what is actually in the food, which could be a high sugar content or highly processed ingredients.

Other claims promoted the food as good for development or an easy choice, playing into parents’ desire to do what’s best for their child and to accommodate busy family lifestyles. Parents shouldn’t have to sift through all these claims to find the information they need to select a healthy option.

Of all the foods, 60% featured images of fruit and 40% displayed images of vegetables, but most didn’t contain any whole fruits and vegetables. Snack foods featuring vegetables often only contain tiny amounts of vegetable juice or powder, and foods featuring fruit images typically contain processed fruit sugars such as pastes and concentrates.

Of most concern was that one in five contained less than 5% fruit. Images of fruits and vegetables give parents and carers the perception of healthiness and influence their purchasing decisions. But should the industry selling these products be allowed to do this when they contain no whole fruits and vegetables at all?

Product names don’t match main ingredients

We also found product names to be misleading. In more than half of the savoury meals, the name did not reflect the main ingredients accurately. Meats or nutrient-dense ingredients such as spinach or legumes were often highlighted in the name but only present in small amounts.

It is a similar story across the Tasman. Australian researchers assessed 330 products available in supermarkets and also found prolific claims and inaccurate names dominating the packaging.

With an average of eight claims on Australian products and a third of foods touting names that don’t accurately reflect ingredients, it’s clear the current bi-national rules developed and administered by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) for on-pack marketing are not sufficient.

Unfortunately, many packaged infant and toddler foods in Australia and New Zealand do not support healthy eating habits. In Australia, only about a quarter of products were found to comply with World Health Organization nutritional recommendations. As yet unpublished research for New Zealand products found only about a third meet these standards. They shouldn’t be marketed as though they do.

We have an opportunity for reform. Earlier this year, food ministers in Australia and New Zealand asked FSANZ to review regulations around claims and names used on products to make sure they don’t mislead and enable caregivers to make informed choices.

This is a great first step. It’s now up to FSANZ to get the rules right. We need comprehensive changes to ensure these foods are marketed responsibly. At a minimum this must include:

• no health, nutrition or related claims to be allowed on infant and toddler foods

• images of fruits and vegetables only permitted where whole fruits and vegetables form a substantial part of the product

• and product names that accurately reflect the ingredients of a product.

The authors acknowledge the following co-authors of research mentioned in this article: Berit Follong, Baylee Wilde and Maria Ferreria in New Zealand, and Andrea Schmidtke, Maree Scully, Rachael Jinnette and Linh Le in Australia.

Sally Mackay has received funding from the Heart Foundation of New Zealand. She is affiliated with Health Coalition Aotearoa.

Jane Martin receives funding from Healthway, VicHealth, Cancer Council Victoria, Medical Research Future Fund, Obesity Australia. She is affiliated with the Global Centre for Preventative Health and Nutrition at Deakin University, Food for Health Alliance which is a member of the Infant and Toddler Foods Research Alliance, Consumer and Public Health Dialogue of Food Standards Australia New Zealand, the Obesity Collective, and the Obesity Evidence Hub.

– ref. New research finds many infant food products make claims that don’t match the main ingredients – https://theconversation.com/new-research-finds-many-infant-food-products-make-claims-that-dont-match-the-main-ingredients-263424

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Geraghty, Senior Associate, Economic Prosperity and Democracy program, Grattan Institute

Australia’s workforce is almost evenly split between men and women. Yet fewer than one in four Australians work in a gender-balanced occupation.

This has improved over time, but at a glacial rate. In 1990, more than half of men (52%) worked in occupations that were more than 80% male. Thirty-five years on, that figure has only declined to 41% of men.

Meanwhile, the share of women in female-dominated occupations (which are more than 60% female) has largely hovered between 60% to 65% since the mid-1990s.

This also holds true within industries. Fewer than half of all employees are in gender-balanced industries, and three of the five industries with the largest workforces – health care and social assistance, construction, and education and training – have become even more segregated since 1990.

Between 2006 and 2021, just one in five occupations became less segregated.

Why does it matter? Turns out, it’s bad for workers, businesses and the economy.

The hit to incomes and productivity

As this graph shows, while most Australian industries have improved their gender balance between 1990 and 2025, one-third remain male-dominated.

Productivity and income are lower when men and women are channelled into different jobs.

Income per person is lower when women are under-represented in entrepreneurial positions and in highly-skilled occupations.

From scientific teams to company boards, international research shows innovation is higher in gender-diverse teams.

Segregation also contributes to the gender pay gap and inequality.

Nearly one-quarter of the pay gap in Australia is attributable to segregation within occupations and industries. Pay gaps are largest in the most segregated jobs. And there is some international evidence that suggests pay and prestige fall as the share of women in a role rises.

Businesses suffer when they are not drawing from the full talent pool when hiring workers. They have fewer applicants per job vacancy, which can lead to lower-quality hires or difficulty filling jobs. This makes the labour market less efficient and unemployment structurally higher.

Individuals pay a price too. People face social stigma and increased risk of harassment when working in non-traditional roles. And their ability to move between jobs as the economy changes and new opportunities emerge is restricted.

Different strategies for different industries

Gender segregation in Australia has proven resistant to the rapid rise in female educational attainment and the near-convergence in labour force participation rates between men and women.

That’s probably because gender segregation is driven by several linked and self-reinforcing factors: education pathways and gender norms, the unequal distribution of unpaid work, workplace cultures, and low pay in feminised industries.

Read more:
New study finds the gender earnings gap could be halved if we reined in the long hours often worked by men

If we are to really shift the dial on this deep-seated problem, a mix of targeted and broader economic policies will be needed, alongside buy-in from businesses, workers, and society at large.

In female-dominated industries and occupations, which tend to be low-paid, the most direct lever available to governments is pay.

Higher wages should attract more workers – male and female. The federal government has committed significant funding to wage increases for aged care and childcare workers. But it should also focus on improving their working conditions.

In male-dominated industries and occupations, improving workplace cultures should be a priority. Here, most levers are in the hands of businesses.

Improving culture requires firms to have appropriate recruitment, conduct, family, and performance-evaluation policies. Plus commitments from senior leadership to model and enforce those policies.

Australia is making progress in these areas. But there’s still more work to do on reshaping gender norms.

Shifting gender norms

Gender norms are not static: they change over time and can be influenced by policy settings.

There is strong evidence that more gender-equal uptake of parental leave leads to more gender-equal attitudes among adults and their children, and a more equal distribution of unpaid work over time.

Too many men do not take the leave on offer, both from the government and, increasingly, from their employer. Changing that will require changing societal attitudes, to normalise men providing care.

The government should consider extending the use-it-or-lose-it component of paid parental leave from four weeks to six, to encourage more men to take it.

Things can change

The gender imbalance of occupations and industries is slow to change, but it is not immutable.

International variation in which gender dominates a particular job suggests that existing patterns need not be permanent. Indeed, occupations can reach a tipping point, after which improvement in the gender balance rapidly accelerates.

Progress leads to more progress, as people respond to policies and cultures change.

The job aspirations of teenage boys and girls reflect the current gender balance of the labour market. But over time, and with concerted effort, we can shift what future generations think is possible.

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

– ref. Fewer than 1 in 4 Australians work in a gender-balanced occupation. Fixing it is in all our interests – https://theconversation.com/fewer-than-1-in-4-australians-work-in-a-gender-balanced-occupation-fixing-it-is-in-all-our-interests-264130