Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anne Twomey, Professor emerita, University of Sydney

Despite the political acrimony over the Voice referendum, what’s most striking is the similarities between the positions of the Coalition and the Labor government.

Both agree Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should be recognised in the Constitution. Both agree practical outcomes are needed to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. Both agree parliament and the executive government need to be better informed about the laws and policies they make, and that they need to hear the voices of those on the ground who are affected by those laws and policies.

Given this agreement about what needs to be done, why is there disagreement about the referendum?

Recognition and practical outcomes

The key sticking point seems to be the relationship between constitutional recognition and achieving practical outcomes. The Albanese government proposes to achieve practical outcomes by establishing a constitutional means by which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can influence the laws and policies that affect them.

This is the form of constitutional recognition supported by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in consultations held across Australia by the Referendum Council, culminating in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It wasn’t invented and imposed top-down by the Albanese government.

In contrast, the Coalition proposes that constitutional recognition be split from practical outcomes. It would instead legislate to establish local and regional Voices, but not a national Voice.

It’s unclear what kind of constitutional recognition the Coalition proposes. But it would appear to be symbolic recognition, such as a reference in a preamble. This could be in either the existing preamble in the British Act that contains the Australian Constitution, or in a new preamble inserted in the Constitution itself.

Such an approach, however, was rejected by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives at the consultations held by the Referendum Council, and at Uluru.

Read more:
The Voice: what is it, where did it come from, and what can it achieve?

Constitutional recognition needs the support of those recognised

History and common sense tell us there’s no point in seeking to recognise a group in the Constitution in a manner they reject. Voters will justifiably ask why they should vote for a form of recognition opposed by the people who are to be recognised.

The 1999 preamble referendum shows us the futility of engaging in a top-down process. Then-Prime Minister John Howard decided to run a second question at the republic referendum that would insert a new preamble in the Constitution. He ignored the elements of a preamble that had been agreed upon by the 1998 Constitutional Convention. Instead, he prepared his own draft, in consultation with the poet Les Murray.

The exposure draft of that preamble included the words:

Since time immemorial our land has been inhabited by Aborigines [sic] and Torres Strait Islanders, who are honoured for their ancient and continuing cultures.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups criticised this wording. In particular, the word “inhabited” wasn’t seen as properly respecting the relationship between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their lands and waters.

A new draft was then developed by Howard in conjunction with the Australian Democrats Senator, Aden Ridgeway, who was the only Aboriginal member of the parliament at the time.

It included the phrase:

honouring Aborigines [sic] and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation’s first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country.

But the failure to consult more widely with Indigenous leaders, and the inappropriate application of the word “kinship”, resulted in some Indigenous groups campaigning against it.

The preamble referendum failed. It achieved support from only 39% of the people and fared poorly in seats with a high Indigenous population.

The chairman of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, Gatjil Djerrkura, welcomed the defeat of the referendum. He said that while the preamble was meant to unite the nation, it had been drafted without any meaningful discussion with the Australian people – both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. He said this lack of consultation was a clear lesson for future referendums.

A Coalition commitment to Indigenous constitutional recognition will be a hollow one if it doesn’t involve engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and provide a form of recognition that’s acceptable to them.

A headless Voice?

The other plank of the Coalition’s policy is legislating to establish local and regional Voices.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton observed, quite rightly, that most laws affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are state or local laws. But the Commonwealth creating local and regional Voices won’t have any effect on those state and local laws.

Commonwealth law can only deal with how the representations made by these Voices affect Commonwealth policies and laws. It’s a matter for the states whether they create their own Voices, as South Australia has done, or seek representations from Commonwealth bodies.

Second, creating local and regional Voices is a recipe for chaos if there’s no way of channelling their representations through to the parliament and executive government in an orderly way.

Is it really sensible for a national decision-maker to receive 72 different representations direct from local Voices, which say different things? How effective would that be, and what would be the administrative burden of such an unwieldy system? Wouldn’t it be more rational to have a national body which receives input from all the local and regional Voices, and can provide comprehensive and well-considered advice?

The current proposal of the Albanese government is to have a national Voice which receives input from local communities so it can make practical and well-informed representations to the Commonwealth.

Whether separate local and regional Voices are established, or existing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander bodies are used to provide that local input, will be a matter for parliament.

Such an approach has been anticipated. The Referendum Working Group asked the Constitutional Expert Group for advice on this, with that advice confirming parliament would have the power “to establish sub-national Voices”.

Read more:
The Liberal Party’s ‘no’ position on Voice signals it’s primarily interested in speaking to a nation that no longer exists

The campaign

The campaign is likely to be rancorous, but the similarities between the major parties’ policies should negate some of the arguments.

For example, it would be difficult for the Coalition to run arguments that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should not be treated differently in the Constitution, or given any special capacity to influence parliament and the executive. This is because the federal Liberal Party has said it supports constitutional recognition, and supports local and regional Voices to influence Commonwealth laws and policies.

While the referendum vote itself will be between the status quo and the proposed amendment, the people now have a clearer view of the political alternatives and can judge for themselves which would lead to better outcomes.

Anne Twomey has received funding from the Australian Research Council and sometimes does consultancy work for governments and Parliaments. She was a member of the Constitution Expert Group which advised the Referendum Working Group on the proposed referendum.

– ref. How does the Liberal Party’s Voice policy stack up against the proposed referendum? – https://theconversation.com/how-does-the-liberal-partys-voice-policy-stack-up-against-the-proposed-referendum-203352

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hugh Possingham, Professor, The University of Queensland

Australia has embarked on an experiment to create a market for biodiversity. No, we’re not talking about buying and selling wildlife, although, sadly, there is a black market for that. This is about repairing and restoring landscapes, providing habitat for threatened species and getting business and philanthropy to help pay for it.

When Environment and Water Minister Tanya Plibersek introduced the Nature Repair Market Bill to parliament last week, she said:

Just because something is difficult, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. It means we should do it properly.

I agree. We have been publishing research on this topic for decades, discussing the issue with scientists, social scientists and economists. Now as chief scientist at the not for profit environmental accounting organisation Accounting for Nature and chief councillor at the Biodiversity Council, we are working hard to help turn the theory into reality.

There is, rightfully, a lot of concern about the integrity of biodiversity markets. However, with appropriate processes in place from governments, including independent authorities that verify biodiversity outcomes, and vigilance from the community, there is potential to create a well-behaved, net-positive biodiversity market in Australia.

Read more:
The historic COP15 outcome is an imperfect game-changer for saving nature. Here’s why Australia did us proud

What does a biodiversity market look like?

Australia has signed up to the United Nations’ Convention on Biological Diversity, which commits us to protecting and restoring 30% of the land for nature. This means 30% of every kind of habitat – it can’t just be deserts and salt lakes, for example.

That’s a big task, and governments can’t do it alone. It’s going to have to be the entire community, every single individual. This isn’t just about protection, a lot will be habitat restoration which needs serious investment.

Read more:
The new major players in conservation? NGOs thrive while national parks struggle

The general public is increasingly concerned about the decline of nature in their local parks and backyards. One example is a nationwide concern about the disappearance of willie wagtails, a bird many Australians have grown up with. The loss of nature affects everyone, and can harm our mental health. It is not just about threatened species.

Concern for the cassowarry in the wet tropics region of far north Queensland prompted environmental management organisation Terrain NRM (natural resource management) to create a new biodiversity market scheme called Cassowary Credits. Terrain NRM says this is:

a mechanism that enables investors such as governments, philanthropists or corporates to pay landholders and land managers to undertake habitat restoration activities.

Australia has well over half a million different species, and about a third of them have a name. You can’t run a market for that many species – so the challenge will be to develop ways of quantifying biodiversity that are credible and simple.

Trial and error

A credible market needs a credible biodiversity currency (let’s call it a token). Such a token requires many attributes to make it work. The token should be awarded for measurable outcomes, like an increase in the abundance of hooded robins (a recently listed threatened woodland bird and one of my favourites) on your property, or an improvement in the extent and quality of native vegetation.

These outcomes need to be “additional”, outcomes that would not have otherwise happened without the investment. Ideally outcomes are permanent, and above and beyond what would have happened if we did nothing.

And finally, someone has to want to buy them – there is no point in creating a product when there is no demand. Making a trusted and valuable biodiversity currency is going to take time.

Almost 3,000 years ago the Lydians invented a currency based on metal coins with a ruler’s face stamped on it. That’s still roughly how it works, even with most of our money now being digital, rather than physical in coins and notes. However, even after 3,000 years, money is not yet perfect. Its value constantly changes, and it can collapse, too. There’s still fraud and scams – despite a global army of accountants, financial advisors, mathematicians and lawyers paid to assure integrity.

By comparison, creating a biodiversity market is more complex than stamping a face on a coin. Turning a million-dimensional object – the biodiversity of Australia – into a market will require biodiversity accountants, and biodiversity auditors, and strong laws to govern the new biodiversity markets. However, too much is at stake, and too many species will continue to disappear if we don’t try.

Read more:
Losing the natural world comes with major risks for your super fund and bank

Rivers of gold

The government points to a 2022 PricewaterhouseCoopers report that found a biodiversity market could unlock A$137 billion to repair and protect Australia’s environment by 2050.

It sounds fanciful but it could be even bigger than that. The demand is there, internationally, and it’s growing. Can we bring this investment to Australia?

The idea is companies who want to prove they’re “nature positive” will pay for the privilege; some investment could also come from philanthropy. (Notably this is not about “biodiversity offsetting” where people are forced to compensate for the damage they cause.)

The most important issue is integrity – it is transparent proof that actions have delivered additional permanent outcomes – much like biting a coin in 500 BCE to check it is really gold. And that’s the system we’re still struggling to create.

We’re getting there. A lot of smart people in the finance sector and the ecology sector are coming together to resolve some of these issues. I find it both exciting and uncertain.

Time to be bold

The federal government’s nature repair bill is not perfect. Many submissions have pointed out problems. But it’s a bold effort. And we need bold efforts like this to start taking off.

When you get down to it, everybody really does care a lot – about huge trees, cassowaries and coral reefs, the nature that inspires them, every single day. We all love willie wagtails and want to make a contribution. While governments still need to massively increase investments to repair landscapes and restore habitat for Australian native species, biodiversity markets could be a big part of a zero extinction Australia. So there’s every reason to give biodiversity markets a go.

Editor’s Note: This article has been adapted from an interview with the author published today on the Eco Futurists podcast.

Hugh Possingham works for The University of Queensland (40%), is Co-chair of the Biodiversity Council (10%) and consults for Accounting for Nature (10%) and the Intervention Risk Review Group (IRRG) for the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program (RRAP) managed by the Australian Institute of Marine Sciences. He is paid (sitting fees) to Chair the board of The Environment Institute of The University of Adelaide, and was on the Biodiversity Offsets Committee of the Queensland Government. He is also affiliated with, or an advisor to: Conservation International (science advisory council), BirdLife Australia (Board of Directors), Nature Conservation Society of SA, AgForce, Birds Queensland, Birds SA, Invasive Species Council, Australian Network for Plant Conservation, Society for Growing Australian Plants, Friends of Sherwood Arboretum, Friends of Oxley Creek Common, etc. and the list goes on. Relevant to this article, he was a past Chief Scientist of The Nature Conservancy (globally). He is an active and substantial donor to Nature Glenelg Trust, The University of Adelaide, The Nature Conservation Society of SA and BirdLife Australia. He has received numerous (>25) Australian Research Council grants, directed an ARC Centre of Excellence, directed three separate NESP (National Environmental Science Program) centres and received over 80 grants from diverse other sources – three of those ARC grants that have been fellowships (QEII, Professorial, Federation and Laureate) have directly altered his salary. He has provided pro bono advice to a wide diversity of organisations. He indirectly owns shares via UniSuper.

– ref. Can a ‘nature repair market’ really save Australia’s environment? It’s not perfect, but it’s worth a shot – https://theconversation.com/can-a-nature-repair-market-really-save-australias-environment-its-not-perfect-but-its-worth-a-shot-203126

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hallam Stevens, Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies, James Cook University

Last week, an Australian “cultured meat” company called Vow made headlines with a meatball made from the flesh of a woolly mammoth – or something very much like it. Combining the technologies of lab-based cell culture and “de-extinction,” Vow scientists grew muscle proteins based on DNA sequences from the long-dead proboscideans.

The meatball was not intended for human consumption, but Vow hoped the gimmick would highlight the lighter environmental footprint of lab-grown meats, using the mammoth as a “a symbol of diversity loss and a symbol of climate change”. The meatball also hinted at a possible new variety and playfulness in meat consumption.

But is lab-grown meat really likely to put mammoths, dodos and other exotica on the menu? Taking into account the safety and economic hurdles the industry will have to clear, the result seems more likely to follow the pattern of genetically modified crops: less diversity, and unforeseen social and environmental effects.

Healthy and safety risks

As Queensland scientist Ernst Wolvetang, who helped to engineer the mammoth-ball, acknowledged:

We haven’t seen this protein for thousands of years, so we have no idea how our immune system would react when we eat it.

Wolvetang thinks any such problems could quickly be solved. But even for lab-grown meat that uses conventional livestock such as beef or chicken, the health and safety risks are far from understood.

Existing concerns include the use of growth hormones in cultured meat, the potential for new or unexpected allergens, the way lines of cultured cells change their shape and function over time, the likelihood of microbial contamination, and uncertainty around the nutrient content.

Even changing the texture or composition of meat may have health effects for our digestive system. These problems are likely to be exacerbated for foods based on resurrected proteins from the distant past.

Consider the ‘meat-systems’

But health and safety aren’t the only issues.

Critics of the de-extinction movement have argued that reintroducing animals like the woolly mammoth into the environment may have unpredictable and disruptive effects.

Would predators adapt? Would grasslands be trampled to oblivion? Should we devote our efforts to preserving still-live animals like rhinoceroses instead? Does the possibility of de-extinction make us less worried than we should be about the effect of humans’ actions on biodiversity?

We should also think in similarly broad terms about the impacts of lab-grown meats. In other words, we shouldn’t just think about meat itself, but about the “meat-systems” that produce it.

What will the economic system of lab-grown meat production look like? How will lab-grown meat disrupt farming and farming communities? How might it affect consumption? Will we eat more meat or less if we can gain access to “ethical” meat?

The lesson of GMOs

The development and rollout of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) over the past three decades can give us some important clues as to how such things may play out. Like lab-grown meats, GMOs at first promised the possibilities of diverse crops that would offer health benefits (like Golden Rice) or benefits to the consumer (like the Flavr Savr tomato).

Few of these possibilities were realised. Instead, most of the benefits of GMOs accrued to agricultural companies who developed and sold the seeds.

Rather than increasing the diversity of foods, GMOs have increased monocultures and reduced the variety of foods. This, in turn, has led to negative environmental and social consequences for agricultural communities.

Read more:
The race to protect the food of the future – why seed banks alone are not the answer

Lab-grown meats face a similar risk. Despite the promise of Vow’s mammoth, in the short-term at least, it is likely that lab-grown meats will only become economical for consumers when produced at scale.

This suggests the most likely cultured meats on our menus won’t be alligator or dodo, but standardised versions of beef, chicken or pork. Production is also likely to focus on muscle tissue, rather than offal, feet, bone marrow, or the other diverse parts of animals many of us consume.

The most likely outcome of lab-grown meat is not more diversity in protein, but significantly less.

The Italian response

Just as the mammoth meatball was making its debut, the Italian government moved to ban lab-grown meat, citing health and the nation’s food heritage. Synthetic foods, government ministers argued, would undermine Italian food traditions, threatening mortadella, pancetta and guanciale.

Coldiretti, an Italian farmers’ association that supported the ban, added the move would protect agriculture from “the attacks of multinational companies”.

Read more:
Ultra-processed foods are trashing our health – and the planet

Italy’s proposed ban has been branded “anti-innovation” and a setback for animal rights, but they are right to be cautious about the disruption that lab-grown meat could cause.

The history of GMOs has also shown how turning food into a technology has not only made produce less diverse but also consolidated corporate control over the food supply. Even if lab-grown meats are shown to be physiologically safe, we need to establish that they are economically, politically and culturally safe too.

Hallam Stevens has previously received funding from the National Heritage Board (Singapore), the Ministry of Education (Singapore) and the Research Grants Council (Hong Kong).

– ref. A mammoth meatball hints at a future of exotic lab-grown meats, but the reality will be far more boring, and rife with problems – https://theconversation.com/a-mammoth-meatball-hints-at-a-future-of-exotic-lab-grown-meats-but-the-reality-will-be-far-more-boring-and-rife-with-problems-203243

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alix Woolard, Postdoctoral research fellow, Telethon Kids Institute

Traumatic experiences are surprisingly common, with about three-quarters of the population dealing with some form of trauma at least once in their lives. This might mean experiencing things like abuse, violence or natural disasters.

Experiencing a traumatic event alone is not enough to cause traumatic stress (a “trauma”). The person experiencing the trauma needs to view the event as highly distressing or life-threatening.

While trauma can be incredibly difficult to process and can leave lasting scars, there is another side to the story: post-traumatic growth.

Post-traumatic growth is the positive psychological change that can occur in response to a traumatic event. It is often mistaken as resilience, which means bouncing back to baseline following adversity. Post-traumatic growth, on the other hand, refers to an improvement in your life or outlook.

Read more:
More than half of Australians will experience trauma, most before they turn 17. We need to talk about it

What does this growth look like?

People who have experienced post-traumatic growth describe having a greater appreciation for life, increased personal strength, deeper relationships, a greater sense of spirituality or meaning, or a new sense of possibilities for the future.

Someone who has experienced a traumatic event may decide, for example, to make a career change or start a new hobby. Some people report wanting to give back to the community or others in need after experiencing situations where they needed help after trauma. Or they may begin to prioritise their relationships more or focus on personal growth and self-improvement.

While post-traumatic growth can be a powerful force for positive change, it’s not guaranteed. About one in two people who experience trauma will undergo post-traumatic growth. Younger people and those who experienced trauma recently are more likely to have post-traumatic growth.

Our research has found some common elements that make it more likely for a person to experience post-traumatic growth, regardless of the type of trauma experienced.

1. Strong social supports

The most important factor promoting post-traumatic growth is support from friends, family, and those around you after you have experienced a traumatic event. Seeking and accepting social support are crucial, and it can be helpful to reach out to people who have experienced similar trauma through things like support groups.

Research shows the quality of social support is important too. People report more post-traumatic growth if the support they receive comes from people they trust.

Social support is so crucial that some treatments interventions have focused on the use of social networks to improve the recovery of people who have experienced trauma. For example, some post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) recovery programs include support groups to help people heal.

Read more:
Explainer: what is post-traumatic stress disorder?

2. Coping skills

Coping strategies such as humour, acceptance and focusing on the future are effective at reducing our distress after trauma, and they make it more likely we will heal and find positive aspects in our experiences.

People who experience post-traumatic growth often say they have a greater sense of inner strength and feel better equipped to handle stress and hardship in the future. These types of coping strategies are sometimes inherent, but often they can also be enhanced by therapy.

3. Personality traits

People who tend to be optimistic are more likely to experience post-traumatic growth. Instead of seeing the traumatic event as purely negative, optimistic people are able to find some positive aspects of their experience.

This can be difficult, as traumatic experiences often involve loss, pain, and suffering. However, by finding meaning and purpose in the experience – for example, by sharing their story with others going through similar experiences – people can begin to see themselves and the world in a new light.

Again, this is sometimes inherent, but can be enhanced by engaging with a mental health professional.

Read more:
For people with chronic pain, flexibility and persistence can protect wellbeing

Some studies have also found being more extroverted can help people experience post-traumatic growth. This may be because extroverted people are more likely to seek social support because they tend to find themselves in more social situations.

4. Religion or spirituality

Religion often teaches that transformation and power can arise in the face of suffering.

Research shows people who are religious (or spiritual) often experience post-traumatic growth because they have a greater sense of community, pastoral support and a higher meaning behind hardship.

Treatment also prioritises the same factors

The ways people flourish after adversity have helped inform researchers and clinicians on the best ways to treat post-traumatic stress.

Social support, helpful coping and finding meaning are core components of therapies commonly used by people who have experienced adversity, such as trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy, family therapy, and trauma-focused acceptance and commitment therapy.

Of course, post-traumatic growth is only part of the story, and it is an ongoing process. Trauma impacts people in many different ways. Sometimes healing from trauma or experiencing post-traumatic growth can be related to factors outside of a person’s control, such as their resources or socioeconomic status.

There are no guarantees a person will experience growth after trauma, but factors like social support, helpful coping, personality traits, and finding meaning make it more likely.

Read more:
‘The reporting process was more traumatising than the assault itself’: LGBTQ+ survivors on accessing support after sexual violence

Alix Woolard receives funding from the Perth Children’s Hospital Foundation and Channel Seven Telethon Trust.

– ref. Experiencing trauma can change some people’s outlook on life – sometimes for the better – https://theconversation.com/experiencing-trauma-can-change-some-peoples-outlook-on-life-sometimes-for-the-better-199088

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luke Beck, Professor of Constitutional Law, Monash University

There’s a good chance your local council starts each official council meeting with a religious prayer – and it’s almost always a Christian prayer.

Around one-third of Australian local governments have a prayer, with the figure rising to more than half of councils in New South Wales and Victoria.

These are just some of the findings reported in my recent article in the Journal for the Academic Study of Religion.

The issue of council prayers is highly contentious. Here’s why it is probably unlawful, and why I think councils should stop.

How many councils have official prayers?

It’s difficult to find up-to-date figures about the number of local councils with official prayers, as things are changing all the time.

But figures from mid-2019 show council prayers are most common in the more populous states.

There are variations in how councils go about praying. The most common method is for the mayor to lead the council in prayer (88 councils do this, out of the 522 councils looked at). The next most common is for a guest preacher to lead the council in prayer (55 councils), followed by a councillor other than the mayor leading the prayer (28 councils), followed by a council official leading the prayer (19 councils).

For 91% of Australian councils, the prayer is always a Christian one. Usually this is because the council has a prescribed prayer that’s used every time.

Even when guest preachers are invited, diversity isn’t the goal. Many councils invite only Christian guests. One council even had a policy of inviting preachers from non-Christian faith groups on condition they recite a Christian prayer.

The best way to find out whether and how your council prays is to check the video recording of a recent council meeting. These can be found in the meetings section of your council’s website.

A contentious practice

Adelaide City Council is currently considering whether to stop its practice of praying as part of its official meetings.

The Australian Christian Lobby is running a campaign trying to persuade Adelaide councillors to keep the prayer. It argues that “prayer reminds people that our democracy was founded on Christian truth” and that it is “standing up for religious freedom”.

In January, a group of 21 councillors from various Victorian councils wrote an open letter to the state government and human rights commission asking that guidance be issued to councils about the appropriateness of council prayers.

They wrote that some councillors “object to being compelled […] to participate in a religious ritual as part of their role”, that others think it is unfair and inconsistent with multiculturalism to favour one religion over others, and that others think governmental bodies should be “neutral in matters of religion”.

Census figures show that most Australians today are not Christian. About 44% of Australians report being Christian, while 39% report being not religious at all.

Is it even legal?

England’s High Court ruled in 2012 that official prayers in English local councils were unlawful. The High Court pointed out that governmental bodies like councils can only do things the law says they can do.

The High Court found there was no law allowing English councils to have prayers, which meant that councils having prayers was unlawful. The British Parliament later passed a law to expressly allow councils to have prayers.

Last year, I published an article in the Alternative Law Journal arguing that the logic of the English High Court decision applies in Australia too. There’s no law in any Australian jurisdiction allowing local councils to include religious prayers as part of the official business of council meetings. Indeed, Australian local government legislation emphasises the importance of equality and councils respecting the diversity of their populations.

Australian councils know there are legal risks in continuing to include religious prayers as part of their official meetings.

In Queensland, Fraser Coast Regional Council’s chief executive told that council in January 2023 he had received legal advice that their Christian prayer practice may be discriminatory under Queensland’s religious discrimination laws.

Read more:
A ‘Christian nation’ no longer: why Australia’s religious right loses policy battles even when it wins elections

The corporate governance manager of Banyule City Council in Victoria reported to that council in July 2022 that its prayer

raise[s] human rights implications as a person, particularly councillors or staff, who identify as being of no religion or holding secular beliefs or other non-Christian beliefs, may feel coerced by having to recite a Christian prayer as part of the council meeting formalities.

And just last month, Boroondara Council in suburban Melbourne halted its practice of praying during council meetings in response to a legal letter from Maurice Blackburn lawyers representing a non-religious councillor.

Maurice Blackburn’s Jennifer Kanis told The Age newspaper that having religious prayers as part of official council meetings was “beyond the powers given to council” as well as being in contravention of Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

A council may well find itself in court over this issue. But instead of dealing with court cases, our elected representatives should simply choose to open their official council meetings with something more inclusive and representative of the whole community.

Luke Beck is a board member of the Rationalist Society of Australia Inc.

– ref. Many local councils still officially pray to God. Here’s why this may be unlawful and should be abandoned – https://theconversation.com/many-local-councils-still-officially-pray-to-god-heres-why-this-may-be-unlawful-and-should-be-abandoned-203192

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sana Nakata, Principal Research Fellow, James Cook University

The Liberal Party’s decision to formally oppose the federal government’s model for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to parliament amounts to a resounding “no” position – but perhaps not in the way party leader Peter Dutton thinks.

It’s a “no” to the proposed Voice model, obviously, but it’s also a “no” to the Australia we live in today. This position bets against Australia and its First Peoples.

The party’s decision comes on the heels of a decisive loss in the Aston by-election, and polling that continues to show majority support for the Voice in five of the six states.

This decision further signals the Liberal Party is primarily interested in speaking to a nation that no longer exists.

We are not the nation we were when we voted “no” to a republic – but this seems to be the nation the Liberal Party insists on speaking to.

Read more:
View from The Hill: Peter Dutton’s risky call to campaign for ‘No’ in Voice referendum

Symbolic recognition isn’t enough

Dutton yesterday attempted to put a positive spin the party room’s decision, announcing:

The Liberal Party resolved today to say yes to constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians, yes to a local and regional body, so we can get practical outcomes for Indigenous people on the ground, [but] there was a resounding no to the prime minister’s Voice.

This position emphasises “yes” to constitutional recognition but only in its symbolic form.

Australia has already tried symbolic recognition. Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in a preamble to the Constitution was proposed at the 1999 republic referendum; the referendum was unsuccessful.

Symbolic recognition has been abandoned as a goal by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The Voice proposal arises out of the 13 national dialogues, and its 1,200 delegates, who rejected symbolic recognition in favour of structural change.

The Liberal Party has said “no” to this call for structural change that redresses the torment of our powerlessness.

Local and regional voices have gone unheard in Canberra

Dutton said he wanted to get the “best possible outcomes for Indigenous Australians” but proposes nothing new to achieve this.

He emphasised “yes” to a local and regional body. But this fails to account for the fact that the many existing local and regional bodies have expressed time and time again that their voices are not heard in Canberra.

The design principles that have shaped the proposed Voice model already commit to local decision-making in determining its membership, and to working alongside existing organisations and traditional structures. This model proposes connecting local and regional voices to the national Voice.

Across the Coalition, Nationals leader David Littleproud, whose party had already decided against supporting the Voice proposal, has described the proposed Voice model as just “another layer of bureaucracy here in Canberra”. But that fails to account for the fact it is aiming for the kind of structural change that has not been tried before.

The Coalition has consistently called for more detail on the model and expressed concern the proposed Voice model goes too far, and could potentially undermine parliament’s authority.

This is despite the overwhelming legal advice to the contrary.

Read more:
What happens if the government goes against the advice of the Voice to Parliament?

In all, these arguments amount to a confusing position.

Yes to constitutional recognition, but only if it doesn’t change anything.

No to the proposed referendum, because it’s not going to change anything.

No to the proposed referendum, but because the changes actually go too far.

Despite the consistently supportive polling, the Voice referendum is far from a sure thing.

When the 1967 referendum provided powers to the Commonwealth to make laws about us at the national level, it was yet to be made clear that did not necessarily mean they had to be made to our benefit.

When the former Abbott government consolidated Indigenous programs into the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, cutting more than A$500 million from programs with little to no notice to communities, the Recognise campaign for symbolic recognition (established by former prime minister Julia Gillard) was still active.

Time and time again, we have seen the failure of symbolic recognition.

Australia has changed

In the 24 years since Australia last voted in a referendum, the nation has changed.

So-called “Howard’s Australia” has been transformed, with a majority of Australians either now a migrant or the child of migrants.

Younger generations are more cynical than idealistic about political life and their own futures.

The Liberal and National parties are banking on the nostalgia of a nation of old, in which responsible political leadership stays the course, and repeatedly calls for trust in systems they say are not broken.

Anyone paying attention knows these systems have never worked for Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders. And that every success we have had has been in spite of this broken political system that was never meant to hear our many voices.

The “yes” campaign is banking on a nation that knows this.

Sana Nakata receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. The Liberal Party’s ‘no’ position on Voice signals it’s primarily interested in speaking to a nation that no longer exists – https://theconversation.com/the-liberal-partys-no-position-on-voice-signals-its-primarily-interested-in-speaking-to-a-nation-that-no-longer-exists-203397

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Claire Breen, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

The New Zealand government’s sanctioning of Russian commissioner for children’s rights Maria Lvova-Belova is a further demonstration of its concern over alleged war crimes in Ukraine. But it is only a small step in what will likely be a very long road to justice.

In March, the reported removal of Ukrainian children from Russian-occupied territory to Russia itself triggered the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants for Russian president Vladimir Putin and Lvova-Belova.

The warrants allege the transfer of children to the Russian Federation is unlawful: such actions are war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Lvova-Belova and Putin have rejected the accusations, with Putin having claimed the
issue would be raised at the United Nations Security Council in early April.

Russia – controversially – now holds the council presidency for the month, but has faced immediate resistance. Because of Lvova-Belova’s involvement, Britain has blocked a planned UN webcast of an informal council meeting to discuss the deportation issue.

Meanwhile, the war continues to have a profound impact on children. Hundreds have been killed in indiscriminate attacks, schools have been disrupted, some two million have been made refugees or are living in extreme poverty. The deportation of children simply piles misery onto misery.

Families during war

The issue of unlawful deportation or transfer of children goes to the heart of international law around the protection of children, which dates back almost a century. The 1924 Declaration on the Rights of the Child originated in efforts to look after the child victims of World War I.

After World War II, the impact of war on humanity in general was recognised in the UN Charter, which aimed to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights”.

À lire aussi :
International Criminal Court has cited Russia’s deportation of Ukrainian children a war crime: on Russia’s long history of weaponising deportation

Those twin ideals were further elaborated on in a number of international legal instruments. Protection of the family, as the natural and fundamental social unit, and of children and childhood, is central to these. Such rights and obligations apply in peacetime as well as during war.

The importance of these values accumulated over decades until the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was agreed in 1989. The deportation of children violates various fundamental children’s rights, including their right to:

• know and be cared for by their parents

• preserve their identity, including their name, nationality and family relations

• be free from unlawful interference with their family.

There are strict rules around the separation of children from their parents. Adoption is permitted only in certain circumstances, with inter-country adoption a last resort.

Special protection for children

As the arrest warrants attest, the deportation of children is a grave breach of international humanitarian law (the rules countries must obey during war). At the centre sit the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and their additional protocols from 1977. The specific aim of these treaties is to protect those who do not take part in hostilities, known as “protected persons”.

Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, children are entitled to special protection, with rules aimed at protecting their relationships with their parents and families. States must ensure the welfare of children who have been orphaned or separated from their families, and must attempt to reunite families separated by conflict.

À lire aussi :
Are Russian transfers of Ukrainian children to re-education and adoption facilities a form of genocide?

The evacuation of children is permitted during the course of hostilities, although the rules around this were tightened in 1977.

But it is the rules around occupied territories that are key to the arrest warrants for Putin and Lvova-Belova. Occupying powers are prohibited from deporting protected persons, including children, from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying power (or to any other country).

Occupying powers must also facilitate the identification of children and the registration of their parents, and they must not change children’s personal status. Essentially, they must not fracture the relationship between children and their families.

À lire aussi :
Family separations in Ukraine highlight the importance of children’s rights

No impunity

Deportation to the territory of an occupying power heightens the risk that the identity and nationality of such children will be erased, particularly where the deported children are adopted.

But the implications don’t stop at the children themselves, because the continued existence of any group depends on its children. This means the forcible transfer of children from one group to another may also violate the 1948 Genocide Convention if done with the intent to “destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, completely or partially”.

The Rome Statute also includes the forcible transfer of children within the crime of genocide, which is a crime against humanity. But the arrest warrants for Putin and Lvova-Belova do not include these particular crimes.

À lire aussi :
Prosecuting Putin for abducting Ukrainian children will require a high bar of evidence – and won’t guarantee the children can come back home

It’s sadly ironic, in light of the arrest warrants and Russia’s presidency of the Security Council this month, that the council not long ago stated “the protection of children should be part of a comprehensive strategy to resolve conflict and sustain peace”.

Russia’s actions must also be examined in light of legal obligatons under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Genocide Convention. There is a long legal road ahead, but the principle is clear: impunity for crimes committed against children in times of war is not an option.

Les auteurs ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur organisme de recherche.

– ref. Russia’s alleged deportation of Ukrainian children has caused a UN standoff – what international law says and why it matters – https://theconversation.com/russias-alleged-deportation-of-ukrainian-children-has-caused-a-un-standoff-what-international-law-says-and-why-it-matters-202430

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Camilla Nelson, Associate Professor in Media, University of Notre Dame Australia

Just over 10 years ago, then-Prime Minister Julia Gillard stood up in the House of Representatives to deliver one of the most unforgettable political speeches in recent memory.

Office workers shared it at the water cooler and over coffee cups. Mothers shared it with their daughters. The speech went viral on the internet. And was watched by women around the world.

Gillard’s “misogyny speech” forms the inciting incident and climatic ending of Joanna Murray-Smith’s new play Julia, produced by the Sydney Theatre Company, featuring actors Justine Clarke and Jessica Bentley.

Only this time – on opening night at the Sydney Opera House – Gillard’s words arrived in a changed world, receiving a standing ovation that was equally for Clarke’s 90-minute virtuoso performance and Murray-Smith’s impassioned writing.

This play is not just about the extraordinarily toxic sexism that Gillard endured, but how she endured it.

Murray-Smith powerfully imagines the felt life, memories and emotions of the woman behind the words, in a work that is avowedly fictional even if built from the facts of Gillard’s life.

‘I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man’

The opening lines of the play set the scene: Canberra, October 9, 2012. Gillard, as prime minister, is squaring off with the leader of the opposition, Tony Abbott, in the House of Representatives, across the dispatch box.

The first three words of the speech – “I will not” – welling up, from deep inside, send her hurtling back through time and memory. She finds herself in a childhood conversation with her mother, whose lilting Welsh accent is seamlessly reproduced by Clarke, as is the voice of a primary-school-aged Gillard, who insists “I will not” have children: there are better things to do.

Clarke proves herself an actor of extraordinary range in what is essentially a one-woman play, with Bentley playing a silent part, as a younger woman, looking on.

Clarke segues from Gillard as a child to a young woman caught up in the “big hair” and dance moves of the 1980s, a successful corporate lawyer and then prime minster. Astonishingly Clarke twists her face into a deeply familiar, lopsided smirk, and there is Tony Abbott, to whom she says:

“I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. I will not. And the government will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. Not now, not ever.”

Read more:
Julia Gillard hits back at a long history of sexism in parliament

Entrenched prejudice against women

Gillard’s speech erupted onto a political stage when misogyny – redefined by the Macquarie Dictionary, in the wake of her speech, as “entrenched prejudice against women” – was so omnipresent, so normal, so expected that it was invisible to many.

It was five years before #MeToo, six years before Liberal MP Julia Banks quit her seat in the House of Representatives, alleging sexual harassment, including actual groping. It was nine years before Brittany Higgins reported her alleged sexual assault to federal police, and ten years before the sex discrimination commissioner reported on the systemic and entrenched sexism that paralyses the Australian political system.

It was also ten years before a “teal wave” of female independents swept to power, eviscerating the male-dominated Liberal Party in its metropolitan base.

It was a time when the Australian media was happy to amplify sexist insults about Gillard’s clothes, hair, makeup and the shape of her hips. Even the allegedly progressive Age equated her life achievements to a fruit bowl, minus “the bananas”.

In a much-repeated statement, a Liberal MP described her as “deliberately barren”. And Abbott happily posed for television cameras before a clutch of waving placards saying, “Ditch the Witch” and “Bob Brown’s Bitch”.

Not unexpectedly, when Gillard delivered her speech, most of the Canberra press gallery – with a front row seat – entirely missed the point.

Courage without power

Gillard, with only a slender grip on power, mostly as leader of a minority government, passed a phenomenal 543 individual pieces of legislation in 1,098 days, making her the nation’s most productive prime minister, if the passage of legislation is understood as a government’s measure of effectiveness.

And it’s Gillard’s extraordinary capacity as a negotiator, underpinned by her deep pragmatism, that provides Murray-Smith’s most piercing insights.

It also supplies the play’s most memorable lines. “Courage” without “power” is “just a figment”, she tells us, explaining how heart flutters in those moments when political pragmatism lifts up on “wings of idealism”. It’s a portrait of politics and policymaking as the art of the possible, driven by a concern for what or how much can be achieved – not necessarily what one thinks, wants or most desires.

The ideas gain power from the way in which Murray-Smith contrasts Gillard’s controlled workday exterior with the her night-time flights of fancy – dreaming that radio shock jocks and puerile Young Liberals will cast aside their toxic vitriol.

The play is concerned with Gillard’s reservoirs of emotional strength but does not shy away from where she failed, or what she got wrong. This includes a failure to act on refuges, gay marriage and the extension of punitive Howard-era “welfare to work measures” to single-parent families (which ironically passed through the Senate on the day of the “misogyny speech”).

It also shows a clear awareness of what was lost. And what should have been done but wasn’t.

Perhaps, at the end of the play, what lingers is not the anger and passion and rage, but the sense of hope and the fragile optimism. An idea that we can be better, do better.

It was, I suspect, hope that brought the opening night audience to its feet.

Camilla Nelson 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. Sydney Theatre Company’s Julia powerfully imagines the life and emotions of the woman behind the ‘misogyny speech’ – https://theconversation.com/sydney-theatre-companys-julia-powerfully-imagines-the-life-and-emotions-of-the-woman-behind-the-misogyny-speech-199674

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Heather Handley, Associate Professor of Volcanology and Geoscience Communication, University of Twente and Adjunct Associate Professor, Monash University

Before humans started heating the planet by burning fossil fuels in the 19th century, Earth had experienced centuries-long widespread cool period known as the Little Ice Age.

Scientists believe this cold spell may have been triggered, in part, by volcanic eruptions which made the atmosphere hazier, blocking some incoming sunlight.

Records of these eruptions are sparse, and much of our knowledge of them comes from the traces left behind in polar ice and tree rings, which are fragmentary and sometimes contradictory.

In a new study published in Nature, an international team of researchers led by Sébastien Guillet at the University of Geneva has found another way to learn about these historical eruptions: by studying descriptions of lunar eclipses in medieval manuscripts.

Dark eclipses

The researchers compiled hundreds of records of lunar eclipses from across Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, documenting 187 eclipses between 1100 and 1300.

In particular, they searched for descriptions that provided information on the brightness and colour of the Moon during the eclipse. Most of these turned out to be from European monks or clerics, writing in Latin.

Based on these descriptions, the researchers ranked the colour and brightness of the Moon reported in each total eclipse. The brighter the eclipse, the clearer the atmosphere at the time: darker eclipses indicated a higher level of aerosol particles in the upper atmosphere – a marker of recent volcanic activity.

The next step was to put the eclipse data together with simulations of how aerosol particles behave in the atmosphere, modern satellite observations, and climatic evidence from historical tree ring records.

This allowed the researchers to estimate the timing of the culprit eruptions more precisely than from previous ice core records – and determine which eruptions reached the stratosphere and would be more likely to generate climatic cooling effects.

What lunar eclipses tell us about the state of the atmosphere

A total lunar eclipse is a beautiful sight. When the Sun, Earth and Moon align perfectly, our planet blocks direct sunlight from reaching the Moon’s surface.

However, Earth’s atmosphere bends sunlight around our planet. As a result, some sunlight reaches the Moon even during a total eclipse.

Earth’s atmosphere also scatters sunlight – acting as a giant colour filter. The bluer the light, the more it is scattered – which is why the sky is blue in the daytime, and why the Sun appears ruddy at dawn and dusk.

During a total lunar eclipse, the sunlight reaching the Moon has been filtered by Earth’s atmosphere, removing much of the blue and yellow light. The light that reaches the Moon is effectively the sum of all the dawns and all the dusks occurring at that time.

And the state of Earth’s atmosphere at that time controls just how much light is filtered.

How volcanoes affect lunar eclipses

If you’ve ever seen a sunset during a dust storm, or on a very smoky day, you know the extra particles clogging up the sky can produce deep, vibrant reds and oranges.

Imagine a total lunar eclipse occurring while wildfires rage overseas. The fires would pump smoke and dust into Earth’s atmosphere, making the Moon redder and darker during the eclipse.

Which brings us to the effect of volcanoes. The largest volcanic eruptions pump vast amounts of material into Earth’s stratosphere, where it can remain for many months.

The spectacular volcanic sunsets seen throughout Australia in the months following the Tongan volcanic eruption of January 2022 are a great example. And that material, once in the stratosphere, will spread around Earth.

What effect does this have on lunar eclipses? It turns out the brightness of the Moon during a lunar eclipse depends the amount of material in our stratosphere. In the months after a large eruption, any lunar eclipse would be markedly darker than normal.

How volcanoes affect the climate

Volcanic eruptions can eject huge amounts of ash, sulphur dioxide, and other gases high into the atmosphere. Eruptions can cause either cooling or warming (both temporary). The effect depends on exactly what the volcano spews out, how high the plume reaches, and the volcano’s location.

Read more:
Climate explained: how volcanoes influence climate and how their emissions compare to what we produce

Sulphur dioxide is particularly important. If it reaches the stratosphere, it reacts with water vapour to form a lingering veil of sulphate aerosols. These aerosols, along with the volcanic ash, block and scatter Solar radiation, often leading to cooling at the Earth’s surface.

Large volcanic eruptions, such as the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines and the infamous 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia, slightly lowered global temperature in the years after the eruption. After Tambora, Europe and North America experienced a “year without a summer” in 1816.

On the other hand, water vapour and carbon dioxide from volcanic eruptions have a warming effect. It’s only small, as all present-day volcanic emissions produce less than 1% of the carbon dioxide released by human activities.

The past and future of volcanoes, eclipses, and the climate

Eyewitness accounts through historical reports and oral traditional knowledge are often overlooked in the study of volcanoes. However, the inclusion of broader sources of knowledge is incredibly valuable to help us understand past impacts of volcanic eruptions on people and the environment.

Read more:
When the Bullin shrieked: Aboriginal memories of volcanic eruptions thousands of years ago

In this study, the combination of historical observations with ice records and climate reconstructions from tree rings has enabled more precise timing of those ancient eruptions. In turn, this has allowed us to better understand their potential impact on the climate during the European Middle Ages. Such information can help us to understand the role these eruptions may have played in the transition to the Little Ice Age.

In the future, volcanoes may have to work a little harder to create a “dark” eclipse. As the atmosphere warms, the altitude of the stratosphere will increase. As a result, it may take a bigger eruption to put significant amounts of aerosols into the upper layer where they will hang around to darken the Moon for future generations!

Heather Handley receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is Co-Founder of Women in Earth and Environmental Sciences Australasia (WOMEESA) and Co-Founder and Director of the Earth Futures Festival.

Jonti Horner 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. ‘Like blood, then turned into darkness’: how medieval manuscripts link lunar eclipses, volcanoes and climate change – https://theconversation.com/like-blood-then-turned-into-darkness-how-medieval-manuscripts-link-lunar-eclipses-volcanoes-and-climate-change-203185

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Collin Bjork, Senior Lecturer, Massey University

Schools and universities are panicking about artificial intelligence (AI) and cheating. But AI presents far more significant threats to equity in education.

Fears of cheating typically arise from concerns about fairness. How is it fair that one student spends weeks labouring over an essay, while another asks ChatGPT to write the same thing in just a few minutes? Fretting about giving each student a “fair go” is essential to maintaining the idea of New Zealand as an egalitarian country.

But as with the myth of the “American dream”, the egalitarian narrative of New Zealand masks more pernicious inequities like structural racism and the housing crisis, both of which have an outsized – and decidedly unfair – influence on today’s students.

These persistent inequities dwarf the threat of cheating with AI. Instead of excessive hand wringing about cheating, educators would benefit from preparing for AI’s other inequities, all of which are showcased in OpenAI’s latest large language model (LLM): GPT-4.

GPT-4 is here, for a price

GPT-4, which has refined guardrails and more parameters than ChatGPT, is touted as safer and more accurate than its predecessors. But there’s a catch. GPT-4 costs US$20 per month.

For some, that price will be inconsequential. But for those whose budgets have been squeezed thin by skyrocketing inflation, it may be a deal breaker. The democratising potential of AI technology is here, but only if you can afford it.

This digital divide puts students and educational institutions in two camps. Those with enough resources to enjoy the benefits of AI tools. And those without the same financial flexibility who get left behind.

It may seem small now, but as the cost of AI tools increases, this digital divide could widen into an immense gulf. This should worry educators who have long been concerned about the ways unequal access to learning technologies creates inequity among students.

Read more:
Evolution not revolution: why GPT-4 is notable, but not groundbreaking

AI threatens Indigenous languages and data

AI tools also perpetuate the global dominance of English at the expense of other languages, especially oral and Indigenous languages. I recently spoke with a Microsoft executive who called these other languages “edge cases” – a term used to describe uncommon cases that cause problems for computer code.

But Indigenous languages are only a “problem” for AI tools because large language models learn from online data sets with little Indigenous content and an overwhelming amount of English content.

The dominance of English content online is not an accident. English rules the internet because centuries of British colonisation and American cultural imperialism have made English the lingua franca of global capitalism, education and internet discourse. From this perspective, other languages aren’t inferior to English; they just don’t make as much money as English language content.

But Māori speakers are rightly wary of attempts to commodify their language. Too often, the commercialisation of Indigenous knowledge fails to benefit Indigenous people. That’s why it’s essential for Indigenous communities to maintain control over their own information, an idea known as Indigenous data sovereignty.

Read more:
A growing number of non-Māori New Zealanders are embracing learning te reo – but there’s more to it than language

Without Indigenous data sovereignty, these billion-dollar tech companies could extract value from these so-called edge cases and then later decide to stop investing in them.

For educators, these threats are important because AI tools will soon be incorporated in Microsoft Office, search engines and other learning platforms.

At Massey University, where I teach, students can submit assignments in te reo Māori or in English. But if the AI writing tools compose better in English than in Māori, then they put Māori language learners at a disadvantage. And if Māori language students are forced to use tools that compromise Indigenous data sovereignty, that’s a problem too.

Banning AI in education also creates inequities

Although it’s tempting to ban AI in education – as some schools and academic journals and even some countries have already done – this too augments existing inequities. People with disabilities can benefit from communicating with AI tools. But like laptop bans from previous eras, AI bans deny students with disabilities access to important learning technologies.

Banning AI will also disadvantage multilingual students who may struggle to write in English. AI tools can help multilingual students learn important English language genres, structures, prose styles and grammar – all skills that contribute to social mobility. But banning AI penalises these multilingual students.

Read more:
ChatGPT is the push higher education needs to rethink assessment

Instead of banning AI, educators would be better off modifying their curricula, pedagogies and assessments for the AI tools that will soon become ubiquitous. But revisions like these take more time and resources, something school teachers and university educators have both been striking for recently. Teaching institutions must be prepared to invest not only in AI tools but also in the educators who are essential in helping students think critically about using them.

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

– ref. Don’t fret about students using ChatGPT to cheat – AI is a bigger threat to educational equality – https://theconversation.com/dont-fret-about-students-using-chatgpt-to-cheat-ai-is-a-bigger-threat-to-educational-equality-202842

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Pearse, Lecturer, Australian National University

Old tensions emerged between green groups en route to the hard-fought Labor-Greens deal over the safeguard mechanism industrial emissions policy.

At the height of negotiations, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) started lobbying the Greens to accept a deal. Greens Senator Nick McKim accused the ACF of undermining the Greens’ negotiating strategy and ultimately the legislative outcome, saying:

The environment and climate movement needs to collectively get its shit together. There is a desperate need for a new model of change and the clock is ticking loudly.

These splits are not uncommon, especially when there’s a rare opportunity to actually improve environmental protection.

But why do Australia’s environmental groups disagree over reform?

Who’s part of Australia’s environment movement, anyway?

In the late nineteenth century, the nascent green movement was led by naturalists, bushwalkers, adventurers, and government-appointed botanists. They led the first campaigns for national parks and wise use of resources, particularly forestry.

As urban pollution problems escalated into the next century, other reformers led campaigns for better living conditions. We forget now, but it wasn’t that long ago our major rivers were filled with run-off from tanneries and abattoirs and dangerous chemical waste. Epidemics of diptheria, scarlet fever and typhoid spread through growing cities like Melbourne and Sydney.

As development intensified after the second world war, popular environmental campaigns focused on unsustainable resource extraction or destructive forms of development, such as sand mining on Stradbroke Island/Minjerribah and proposed uranium mining in Kakadu. The Greens emerged as a political force from Tasmanian battles such as the plan to dam the pristine Franklin River.

Historically, environmentalists have been members of the professional class. The “social base” of the movement is made up of people with a lot of formal education and jobs such as lawyers, doctors, scientists, public servants and teachers. And today, environmental campaigning is itself a profession.

Many people in the environmental movement are conservative in both senses, wanting to conserve nature as well as maintain current patterns of wealth and privilege. Other environmentalists are progressive, coupling environmental concern with a commitment to social justice and reconciliation. There have also been attempts at green trade unionism like the Green Bans used in conflicts over Sydney’s development in the 1970s.

Pricing carbon, dividing green groups

The green movement has now split twice over carbon pricing.

In 2009, a group of Australia’s largest environment groups including the ACF and World Wildlife Fund for Nature formed a coalition to try and influence the Rudd government’s carbon pollution reduction scheme.

Ahead of parliamentary debate, these groups came out in support of the scheme. They saw the issue as a trade-off. The movement would agree to lower targets and weaker carbon market rules in return for gaining a framework for carbon regulation. Something was better than nothing, they argued.

But this led to a difficult split. While the largest environmental groups backed the government’s reforms, mid-sized organisations such as Greenpeace disagreed, as did groups like GetUp!, the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, Friends of the Earth and more. They did not want to settle for what they saw as a weak carbon target and flimsy rules for the carbon market.

At the time, the Greens declared the scheme was “worse than doing nothing”.

Read more:
Labor’s scheme to cut industrial emissions is worryingly flexible

Sound familiar? We’ve seen a version of this play out in the debate over the safeguard mechanism in 2023. A Labor government, a proposal to cut emissions, environmental group criticism over the weakness of the plan, a push by the Greens party for much more, and a split in the movement.

Just as in 2009, bigger environmental groups such as ACF took the pragmatic view: take what you can get. This is what the Greens have seen as betrayal – and worse, undercutting their ability to negotiate a better deal. But there’s more to it. The groups who backed the carbon market reforms in 2009 have historically been close to Labor or to both major parties.

For their part, the Greens point to their best-ever democratic mandate as evidence of their right to negotiate for a stronger deal on behalf of the movement.

Disputes are more about strategy than ideology

In their excellent history of Australia’s environment movement, Greens activists Drew Hutton and Libby Connors show the most heated fights are over short- and long-term strategy rather than ideology or political affiliation.

We can see this in the carbon price debate. Since 2011, green groups have been drawn into debate over the design of carbon market instruments. But the economic ideology of solving climate change with market mechanisms is not the main point of debate between groups.

Though ideology and political affiliations certainly shape the situation, most green campaigners identify as pragmatists who simply want the best climate outcome possible.

Today, the broader movement is less torn by the carbon price debates. But the strategic tensions between groups like the ACF and the Greens remain.

Are these tensions constructive or not?

The environment movement’s current model is pluralist, meaning conservative and progressive campaigners can work alongside one another most of the time. They avoid tensions by focusing on different areas. On climate change, the environment movement works across three distinct arenas: negotiating expansion of renewable energy markets, resisting fossil fuel expansion, and climate policy.

But when a rare chance for large-scale reform emerges, these differences can no longer be avoided.

Bigger groups like ACF and their associated experts are clearly pinning their hopes on winning slow, steady improvements to carbon market regulations over time. By contrast, the Greens and their younger, action-focused supporters have been trying to push hard for tough rules laid down in law rather than regulations, which are easier to change.

So what’s the solution?

While these groups at times form or disband coalitions around specific debates, it’s fairly ad hoc. By contrast, the longer-established trade union movement deals with frequent ideological, factional and personal differences through caucusing (forming alliances and committees among like-minded people) in order to influence open debate about movement policy.

If green groups negotiate more formally and openly over strategy, it may open up space to become more ambitious.

After all, green groups have much in common. But too often, each group is fighting on its own when they may well be stronger together.

Read more:
Australia’s safeguard mechanism deal is only a half-win for the Greens, and for the climate

Rebecca Pearse receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Recovery and Resilience Agency.

Dr Pearse was a member of Friends of the Earth between 2007 and 2014. During this time she was a volunteer with its national climate justice campaign (2010-2013), and a member of its management committee (2013-2014).

– ref. Pragmatism versus idealism? Behind the split between environmental groups and the Greens on the safeguard mechanism – https://theconversation.com/pragmatism-versus-idealism-behind-the-split-between-environmental-groups-and-the-greens-on-the-safeguard-mechanism-203139

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carl Rhodes, Professor of Organization Studies, University of Technology Sydney

Five years ago it would have been unimaginable, but today there is a global movement convinced the world’s largest corporations are engaging in stealth warfare to transform liberal democracies into neo-communist dictatorships.

At the heart of this corporate-led Marxist revolution, apparently, is the trend towards businesses not just focusing on profit maximisation but taking into account environmental, social and governance responsibilities (called ESG for short).

According to ESG opponents this is putting democracy on a downhill road to socialism – or worse.

Purportedly central to this sinister plan is United States company BlackRock and its chief executive, Larry Fink. BlackRock is the world’s biggest funds manager, overseeing more than US$10 trillion in investments on behalf of clients such as superannuation funds. Fink is paid more than US$30 million a year, and his wealth is estimated to be more than US$1 billion.

You might think this would make Fink a very unlikely champion of destroying capitalism. But due to his support for ESG – particularly for business taking action on climate change – he’s been accused of advancing a form of “corporate socialism”, with ESG criticised as “socialism in sheep’s clothing”.

All the way to the president

Concerns about the “woke” politics of ESG don’t just live in the dark recesses of the internet. In the US it has become a mainstream fixation. Anti-ESG opinions abound in the pages of The Wall Street Journal and on the infotainment network Fox News. It is a hot battlefield in the culture wars.

In 2020, the Trump administration proposed a rule requiring pension funds to put “economic interests” ahead of “non-pecuniary” concerns – in other words, to force them to ignore issues of long-term social and environmental sustainability and focus on short-term profits.

Read more:
Sustainability rankings don’t always identify sustainable companies

The Biden administration reversed this plan. But last month the US Congress passed a bill to reverse that reversal, with support from two Democrats in the Senate. Biden then used his presidential power to veto the bill – the first veto of his presidency.

In all likelihood ESG will be a major campaign issue in the 2024 presidential election. The speaker of the Republican-majority House of Representatives, Kevin McCarthy, has accused Biden of wanting “Wall Street to use your hard-earned money to fund a far-left political agenda”. Republican presidential contender and Florida governor Ron DeSantis has also been railing hard against the “woke ESG financial scam”.

A short history of stakeholder capitalism

What’s notable about all these emotive denunciations of ESG is that they demonstrate little understanding of how capitalism works.

This point was made by Fink in his 2022 annual letter to the chief executives of the companies in which BlackRock has invested clients’ money.

In today’s globally interconnected world, a company must create value for and be valued by its full range of stakeholders in order to deliver long-term value for its shareholders. It is through effective stakeholder capitalism that capital is efficiently allocated, companies achieve durable profitability, and value is created and sustained over the long-term. Make no mistake, the fair pursuit of profit is still what animates markets; and long-term profitability is the measure by which markets will ultimately determine your company’s success.

The idea that business owners have responsibilities to wider society is not new. It dates back at least to the 17th century when the modern corporate form began to emerge through innovations such as joint-stock ownership and the legal privilege of limited liability.

The origins of the corporate social responsibility and ethical investment movements can also be traced back hundreds of years – generally to groups and individuals motivated by religious values – and have been mainstream business ideas for decades.

Why? Because paying attention to social and environmental sustainability, ESG advocates argue, produces better long-term investment returns. If it didn’t, businesses wouldn’t be interested.

Arguing over the best way to do capitalism

This is not to say the application of ESG principles isn’t above criticism – for going too far, or not going far enough – being mere window-dressing for the status quo.

Read more:
ESG investing has a blind spot that puts the $35 trillion industry’s sustainability promises in doubt: Supply chains

But such arguments are over the best way to do capitalism. It’s all about as far from interest in a neo-Marxist insurgency as can be imagined. Debating the best way to produce shareholder value has nothing to do with wanting a “revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat” and to see private property abolished – key features of Marxism.

Capitalism is changing, that is certain. But it is doing so in a way that has accepted, and is willing to commercially exploit, changing public sentiment concerning climate and change social inequalities.

This is what businesses that make money do. They listen to customers, and other stakeholders – their workers, suppliers, the communities in which they operate, and the governments that regulate them. They plan for the future. They mitigate future risks.

Impoverishing democracy

So what explains this fantastical rhetoric about ESG being the road to Marxist tyranny? In my view, it shows just how much the intellectual foundations of conservatism and liberalism have been debased in a media marketplace that favours reactionary emotionalism over tempered thought.

Economic conservatism (rooted in the belief in free markets, globalisation and small government) has become disconnected from social and political conservatism (especially as related to climate activism, social justice and diversity and inclusion).

All of this is a fatal distraction from the broader political and economic problems we face both locally and globally. It pushes serious discussions – such as what to do about economic inequality, political polarisation and declining social capital – into the background.

Read more:
Hijacking anxiety: how Trump weaponised social alienation into ‘racialised economics’

There are biting criticisms to be made about ESG that don’t make the headlines. You don’t often hear business-friendly ESG supporters campaigning for increases to the minimum wage, progressive taxation, worker solidarity or the need to curb the runaway train of executive compensation. Climate and social justice are pressing issues, to be sure. But they shouldn’t push fair economic distribution and shared prosperity off the agenda.

Ironically, the bogus labelling of ESG as a Marxist plot also helps do this. It serves the interests of the very elites populist pundits and politicians claim they oppose. It works against the interests of the working-class people they claim they care about. That is not socialism.

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

– ref. No, BlackRock is not leading a Marxist assault on capitalism – https://theconversation.com/no-blackrock-is-not-leading-a-marxist-assault-on-capitalism-203042

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan C. Walsh, Sessional Academic, The University of Queensland

Father Gabriele Amorth (1925-2016) was undoubtedly the most famous Catholic exorcist of the modern era. By his account, Amorth performed at least 60,000 exorcisms during the course of his ministry, sparking a renewed interest for exorcism within Catholicism.

Amorth was also known for his controversial statements.

He claimed Hitler and Stalin were possessed by the Devil. In 2012 he made headlines for asserting paedophilic cults operated within the Vatican.

Modern popular culture was also an affront to Amorth. He railed against ouija boards, yoga and Harry Potter, believing them to be a gateway to the demonic.

Now, Russell Crowe’s new supernatural horror film The Pope’s Exorcist fictionalises Amorth’s exorcism ministry, adding in a centuries-old Vatican cover up for good measure.

Exorcism and the church

Exorcism has been a prominent rite of the Christian faith since its inception.

During the first few centuries exorcism could be performed by all believers and it played an important role in attracting outsiders to the burgeoning faith.

As Christianity took hold across the Roman Empire, exorcism shifted from a form of charismatic lay-healing into a miracle carried out by figures of exceptional spiritual authority. From the 4th century, the liturgy of exorcism was refined as the early church assumed full authority over the ritual.

The use of exorcism has waxed and waned over the centuries. During the mid-20th century, many clergy thought exorcism had no place in modern Catholic theology.

Vatican II, an international conference of Catholic bishops held between 1962 and 1965, signalled a move away from exorcism as the church attempted to modernise.

The 1960s and early 1970s represented a historical low point in the practice of this ritual.

The period following witnessed a backlash of conservative charismatic Catholicism with exorcism at the forefront. The work of Catholic exorcists such as Amorth played a significant role in legitimising the modern practice of this ritual.

This growing popularity provoked the Vatican to publish a new set of exorcistic guidelines in 1998 and increase the number of priests trained to address demonic possession.

While many clergy remain sceptical, support for exorcism is present at all levels of the Catholic Church. And in the last decade, the practice has experienced a worldwide surge in demand.

Read more:
The Catholic Church’s views on exorcism have changed – a religious studies scholar explains why

What’s in an exorcism?

The Catholic Church divides exorcism into “minor” and “major”.

A minor exorcism consists of sacraments and blessings used to treat demonic influence. The priest will usually deliver a prayer, invocation or litany upon the afflicted. Lay people may also pray on the afflicted’s behalf.

Typically, a minor exorcism is applied to all individuals being baptised into the Catholic Church.

A Major Rite of Exorcism is only carried out when there is a perceived case of demonic occupation.

These rituals encompass readings of the Psalms and Gospel, reciting of specific “exorcistic prayers”, holy water, a crucifix and the performing of the sign of the cross.

The exorcist might also use “the imposition of hands, as well as the breathing on the person’s face (exsufflation)”.

In this instance Hollywood’s sensationalist depiction of exorcism does at least get the basics right.

The church requires a thorough medical and psychiatric examination before a major exorcism can be implemented. Canon Law, the code of laws governing the church, dictates exorcisms can only be performed with “express permission” from the local ordinary, a church officer who can execute these laws.

Amorth, however, believed the need for exorcising demons was so great he advocated all Catholic clergy should be permitted to perform major exorcisms without acquiring permission.

Amorth seems to have had carte blanche in fulfilling his exorcism ministry.

Read more:
Exorcism – how does it work and why is it on the rise?

Amorth’s exorcisms

Amorth led a colourful life. As a teenager, he was part of the Italian resistance against the Nazis and their fascist collaborators. After the war, he studied law and was briefly deputy to the future Italian prime minister Giulio Andreotti.

In 1946 he entered the Society of St Paul and worked as a journalist for Catholic media.

Amorth’s exorcism ministry didn’t formally begin until he was 61 and was unexpectedly appointed exorcist of the Diocese of Rome in 1986. He enthusiastically took to this new vocation, serving as an assistant to notable exorcist Father Candido Amantini.

In the early 1990s, Amorth established the International Association of Exorcists, becoming its longtime president. The association received Vatican approval in 2014 and now holds a biannual exorcism conference.

Amorth’s claim of performing over 60,000 exorcisms requires further investigation. In his biography An Exorcist Tells His Story Amorth clarified an exorcism was an individual prayer or ritual ranging anywhere from “a few minutes” to “many hours” in length. He could thereby perform dozens of exorcisms per day, usually on troubled souls appearing on his doorstep.

By Amorth’s own admission, only 100 of the exorcisms he performed
were for outright demonic occupation.

Amorth demonstrated a rather cavalier attitude towards exorcism. In his biography he wrote “an unnecessary exorcism never harmed anyone”.

He also outlined the ritual itself was diagnostic. “Only through the exorcism itself can we determine with certainty whether there is a satanic influence,” he said.

This rationale explains Amorth’s impressive exorcism record.

An enduring archetype

Amorth is the ideal figure for dramatisation. He neatly embodies the archetype of the Catholic exorcist: the courageous man of faith who rescues afflicted souls from the Devil’s clutches.

This archetype continues to be enduring. It represents a traditional form of spiritual authority seldom seen in our modern society. If an individual has the power to exorcise demons this can be seen as a validation of their faith, the Devil and God.

As long as films like The Pope’s Exorcist continue to perpetuate the Catholic Church’s effectiveness against demonic incursion, exorcism will remain as a viable spiritual practice for the foreseeable future

Read more:
Dealing with devil has long been a part of medicine

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

– ref. Gabriele Amorth conducted over 60,000 exorcisms and believed Hitler was possessed. Meet the man who inspired The Pope’s Exorcist – https://theconversation.com/gabriele-amorth-conducted-over-60-000-exorcisms-and-believed-hitler-was-possessed-meet-the-man-who-inspired-the-popes-exorcist-201383

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darren Roberts, Conjoint Associate Professor in clinical pharmacology and toxicology, St Vincent’s Healthcare Clinical Campus, UNSW Sydney

It’s mushroom season in many parts of Australia. Between now and about June, the cooler and wetter weather are the perfect conditions for mushrooms to grow in the wild. In Tasmania and parts of Victoria, mushrooms can grow all year round.

At the New South Wales Poisons Information Centre, where I’m the medical director, we receive 300–500 calls a year about mushrooms. Most are from people concerned about what they or others have eaten. Others are from health workers seeking advice on how to treat poisonings.

Here’s what happens if you eat a toxic mushroom, and if you do, what really helps health workers know what to do next.

Read more:
The ancient, intimate relationship between trees and fungi, from fairy toadstools to technicolour mushrooms

A rich history … but can make you sick

Mushroom foraging, or mushroom hunting, is popular in many parts of the world. It’s associated with local cultures, a social activity with family and friends, or to find food. So mushroom foraging can have deep emotional or cultural connections.

The success of a foraging expedition depends on finding mushrooms, and being able to differentiate the edible from the toxic varieties. That’s not always easy and even experienced foragers can make mistakes.

Toxic mushrooms can resemble edible ones, and might look different according to where they grow, including across continents. Mushroom identification apps do not appear to be accurate enough in Australia. It’s also not clear how useful mushroom-identification books are at helping people distinguish the edible from the toxic.

Read more:
The glowing ghost mushroom looks like it comes from a fungal netherworld

Different types of mushroom pickers

People can be at risk of mushroom poisoning for different reasons.

1. Young, and sometimes older people

A common group of those at risk is younger people (mostly toddlers, as they explore the world around them), and sometimes older people (mostly people with cognitive issues, such as dementia). These people tend to find and eat mushrooms outside when partially supervised.

This group tends to eat smaller amounts, which is usually low risk, and contact poisons information centres early. But assessing the toxicity of the mushrooms they have eaten can be hard if the only information we have is chewed mushroom remnants from an uncertain source.

2. Foragers

The other at-risk category are people who eat larger amounts of mushrooms, usually as part of a foraging group, and develop symptoms. These people contact the poisons information centre some time after eating the mushrooms.

Uncooked mushroom samples are often not available. And we don’t always know if their symptoms relate to mushrooms or something else.

Most mushroom poisonings are mild. But sometimes this group develops severe poisoning that requires medical attention, including hospital admission, including those foraging for food or hallucingenic mushrooms.

Read more:
Toxic poppy seeds are sending people to hospital. 3 experts explain what’s behind the latest food scare

What happens in the body?

The most common symptoms are nausea, vomiting, stomach pain and diarrhoea. We don’t always know how mushrooms cause these effects. But this is probably due to chemicals that directly irritate or kill cells in the gut.

We expect these symptoms after eating mushrooms such as the yellow stainer or Agaricus xanthodermus, found in many parts of Australia, and the green-spored parasol or Chlorophyllum molybdites, found mostly in tropical and subtropical regions.

The mushroom that features in the Smurfs, Amanita muscaria, can cause gut symptoms. It can also cause sedation (which may be severe) and fatigue, or agitation, confusion and changes in perception. This is because it contains chemicals such as ibotenic acid and muscimol that can stimulate or inhibit different parts of the brain. This mushroom is found in subtropical and temporal climates in Australia.

Toxic effects from other mushrooms includes sleepiness, lethargy, seizures, low blood pressure, hallucinations and agitation. Some mushrooms can interact with alcohol for a couple of days after eating the mushroom, causing flushing, nausea, vomiting and low blood pressure.

Fortunately, people usually recover from these types of symptoms as their body naturally eliminates the toxins.

But Australia also has poisonous mushrooms that can kill, or cause permanent liver or kidney failure. That’s because they contain toxins that kill liver, kidney and other cells in essential organs of the body that the body cannot repair.

An example is the death cap mushroom (Amanita phalloides), which is found in Tasmania, Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory.

In Tasmania, Cortinarius eartoxicus causes kidney failure requiring dialysis. Similar varieties may also be in Victoria but have yet to be formally identified.

Read more:
What’s in your porcini packet? You may find a new species … or three

What can you tell the person treating you?

Knowing which mushroom people have eaten helps us predict the likely course of events and to choose the best treatment.

But people who call us for advice rarely have fresh samples or photos to allow us to identify the mushroom. People may also eat several different varieties of mushrooms at once, which can complicate how we assess you.

Our knowledge about poisonous mushrooms growing in Australia is also incomplete. In some cases, we rely on information reported from overseas but we are not certain how this applies to Australia, or to the region where the consumed mushroom was picked.

Read more:
The peculiar history of thornapple, the hallucinogenic weed that ended up in supermarket spinach

What should I do if I’m worried?

If you think you’ve eaten a toxic wild mushroom, contact a poisons information centre as soon as possible (details below). Health staff can provide advice related to your exposure, including the location of the exposure, amount eaten and your symptoms.

Some people may be advised to watch and wait at home, but others will need to go to hospital immediately. This allows treatments that may reduce the amount absorbed and the severity of poisoning.

We can prevent this

The safest way of obtaining mushrooms is from a reputable supermarket, grocer or market.

But if you choose to forage for wild mushrooms, then as a minimum, get advice from a relevant book or an experienced person, keep a sample of the mushroom and take lots of photos. Photos should include where they grow, and different angles of the mushroom. This includes the top, stem, underside and base (underground) portions. This may help us identify the mushroom if you or someone else develops symptoms.

If this article raises health concerns for you or for someone you know about consuming mushrooms, call the Poisons Information Centre from anywhere in Australia on 131 126. This evidence-base advice is available 24 hours a day. For life-threatening symptoms, call 000.

Darren Roberts is the Medical Director of the NSW Poisons Information Centre

– ref. Picking mushrooms can go horribly wrong. Here’s what can happen, according to a toxicologist – https://theconversation.com/picking-mushrooms-can-go-horribly-wrong-heres-what-can-happen-according-to-a-toxicologist-201381

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

Opposition leader Peter Dutton has pledged to campaign against the Voice to Parliament, as the Liberal party overwhelmingly endorsed a “no” position for the forthcoming constitutional referendum.

After a special party meeting to decide the Liberals’ position, Dutton accused Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of “dividing the country”.

“We shouldn’t be voting for a divisive Canberra voice. That’s the issue. We should be listening to what people are saying on the ground,” Dutton told a news conference after a two hour party meeting.

The Liberals have been working up to a “no” position for months but the stand is high risk for Dutton. A Newspoll published on Wednesday found a majority of people in a majority of states back putting the Voice into the constitution.

The national total in favour is 54% with 68% support among those 18-34 . Queensland was the only state where there was not a majority in favour of yes – and there the yes side received 49% The poll was a quarterly analysis of 4756 voter interviews between February 1 and April 3.

Dutton faces some dissent in his own ranks with Tasmanian backbencher Bridget Archer saying she was disappointed although not surprised by the decision and declaring she would “absolutely” campaign for the yes case.

Archer has also questioned the extent to which the Liberal Party is living up to the values it professed. “We have to actually live the values we claim to have, and I don’t know that we do that.”

The Liberals’ decision also puts them at odds with their former minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt who was on the platform when the prime minister announced the referendum wording.

Victorian moderate Russell Broadbent said he supported the Voice “but I won’t be campaigning or telling anybody what to do”.

Wednesday’s decision binds Liberal frontbenchers in the referendum campaign, but not backbenchers. Dutton said he expected only a handful of them to campaign for a yes vote.

“There might be three or four people on the backbench who will want to advocate a ‘yes’ position or campaign, and within our party, that’s within the limits. But the vast majority, I mean, if you’re talking about the mood that was in the shadow cabinet or in the shadow ministry or indeed in the party room, overwhelming majority [are supportive] of the position that we’ve adopted – no question.”

The Liberals will not oppose the bill to enable the referendum, which is now before a committee of parliament, although some backbenchers associated with the “no” campaign might cross the floor on that.

The party meeting backed constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians and a local and regional voice. Dutton said the Liberal proposals would unite rather than divide the country.

He said many Indigenous elders were not in favour of the Voice and quoted one Auntie as telling him “we don’t want 24 academics – they’re not going to be our voice”.

Dutton sent out a warning to some on his side of politics. “Tone is incredibly important in this debate. I will not tolerate – from any of my members or any of the public debate – any comments that are derogatory towards Indigenous Australians or anybody who is advocating a ‘yes’ position. This needs to be a respectful debate.”

Albanese said the Liberal decision was “all about the internals and playing old politics. It’s not about the needs of Australia, or advancing Australia’s national interest.” The PM said he was “very hopeful” the referendum would pass.

Asked about the Queensland vote in Newspoll Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said the federal government needed to be “a lot more proactive” in explaining the proposal.

“I think people are after the detail,” she said, adding “I’ll be talking to the prime minister about how they can put [out] clear information”.

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: Peter Dutton’s risky call to campaign for ‘No’ in Voice referendum – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-peter-duttons-risky-call-to-campaign-for-no-in-voice-referendum-203345

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Dunn, PhD candidate, Anangu Futures ARC Linkage , The University of Melbourne

This article contains quotes from First Nations community members, which the author has obtained permission to share and publish. Images have also been used with their permission

This article was co-written with Papunya community leader and Luritja-Pintupi man Terence Abbott Tjapanangka.

In Papunya, a remote Luritja and Pintupi community, the red earth football field is the centre of social activity every weeknight from March to September. Against the backdrop of Ulumbaru, the Northern Territory’s second-highest mountain, men and young people train into the night.

Alice Springs Town Council’s decision in March to withdraw its support for Central Australia’s remote football competition leaves the rhythms of life for community football players in the lurch this year, as coaches scramble to put together a league of their own.

The controversial “pause” on remote communities’ access to Alice Springs ovals was implemented as a response to the Alice Springs “crime crisis”. The move has raised the possibility of devising “On Country” leagues to be played in communities.

Recent federal government attention to the “crime crisis” in Alice Springs presents an opportunity to support surrounding communities in tangible, self-determined ways.

Sports in Papunya facilitate community-level leadership, governance and decision-making that align with Luritja cultural practices and understandings. Funding sporting infrastructure in communities could also increase community wellbeing, unity, and economic self-sufficiency.

While studies are limited, football in Aboriginal communities has been shown to support health, wellbeing and social needs, and helps people stay on Country.

Football can bring community and cultural connection

Training is gruelling for the Papunya Eagles, a championship team of men aged 18-30. Attendance is required four nights a week, with matches on Sunday in Alice Springs against other remote communities. Football captain and Luritja man Aben Sandy Tjapaltjarri says, “That training can help people from drinking and all the other stuff. It makes them come back to community.”

Barry Judd and Tim Butcher’s ongoing research on football in Papunya found intergenerational cultural knowledge transfer through On Country football is crucial. It provides a strong, resilient forum that helps develop future leaders, and gives these young men a chance to spend valuable time with Elders.

Young football player and Luritja man Kamahl Bush Tjapaltjarri says, “Footy is the thing we love most: the fellas all enjoying and being happy and busy, making us proud. Sometimes we learn something new from the old fellas.”

The league structures the yearly schedule for some players who move to Papunya for the footy season. But Sandy says, “They won’t come back if footy is not on… It’s good having those men around… When you have people in community it’s safe.”

Football is also increasingly important to women and young people. Luritja Elder Karen McDonald Nangala says, “the women used to be only spectators but now the young women are interested and keen to play footy”. The women’s team brought pride to Papunya last year by winning at the Ampilatwatja Sports Carnival.

Read more:
Here’s some context missing from the Mparntwe Alice Springs ‘crime wave’ reporting

Bush leagues

The withdrawal of the council’s support for the league turns attention back to the long-held aim to hold a bush league played in community.

However, just days out from the beginning of training for the season, Papunya’s oval is littered with bushes, the microphone in the commentator’s box is broken, and there is no water or shade for players and spectators. The lack of funding for basic infrastructure makes the prospect of On Country leagues a challenge.

In 2011, the Wilurarra Tjutaku Football League was established independently of the Central Australian Football League, to be played On Country between remote Aboriginal communities rather than in Alice Springs. This league emerged as a form of community resistance and self-determination in response to government interventions in the lives of Aboriginal people in the NT, particularly the Northern Territory Emergency Response Act 2007.

However, the Wilurarra Tjutaku Football League has been confronted by several issues, including a lack of institutional support from the Central Australian Football League, Australian Football League Northern Territory AFLNT, and the NT government.

In 2021, AFLNT chairman Sean Bowden explored the return of the league to communities, but concluded that inadequate infrastructure in the bush made it infeasible.

Sporting infrastructure lacking in remote communities

Possibilities to revitalise On Country leagues turns the spotlight on a larger issue with basic infrastructure in remote communities.

Papunya Eagles football coach and Luritja-Pintupi man Dalton McDonald Tjapaltjarri says:

that’s what the federal government should be looking at, I reckon… We need the grass, water, proper medical staff, ambulance, good umpires.

Papunya Elders believe home games in Papunya could bring economic benefits to the community, encouraging people to spend money at local stores. Luritja Elder Karen McDonald says On Country football would benefit spectators too: “More people would also be able to come and cheer, watch, be happy and make them proud.”

The Future of Bush Football

While significant infrastructure investment could improve community health and wellbeing, Coach McDonald is concerned about the timeline of infrastructure upgrades. He says, “it doesn’t happen that quick you know. We have to wait a couple of months or years. So we have to find something else.”

For the meantime, remote communities are scrambling for an alternative, he says.

“It’s really sad for the young talented players. They’ll be missing out. I feel sorry not just for my community but everybody. Every team has talented players. I don’t know what’s going to happen.”

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

– ref. ‘On Country’ football league an opportunity to bring communities together – but we need more government funding – https://theconversation.com/on-country-football-league-an-opportunity-to-bring-communities-together-but-we-need-more-government-funding-202617

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland

As we move through Autumn, parts of Australia are starting to see cooler weather. For some of us, that can mean increasing feelings of hunger and cravings for “comfort food” such as as pasta, stews and ramen.

But what’s happening in our body?

3 things change when it gets cold

1. Our body conserves heat

It sends this energy it conserves to our internal organs so they can maintain their temperature and work properly. The body can also perform heat-generating activities (such as shivering), which uses energy. The body will then look for additional energy through calories from eating food.

2. Our body warms up when eating

When we eat, the body needs to expend energy to digest, absorb, and metabolise the nutrients. This process requires the use of energy, which generates heat in the body, leading to an increase in body temperature termed “diet-induced thermogenesis”.

However, the amount of energy used to keep us warm is quite modest.

3. Some people experience a drop in the neurotransmitter called serotonin

This is partly because the rate our body produces serotonin is related to sunlight, which is lower in winter.

Serotonin helps to regulate mood, appetite, and sleep, among other things. When serotonin levels are low, it can lead to increased hunger and decreased satiety (feeling that you’ve had enough to eat), making us feel hungrier and less satisfied after meals.

Why we love comfort food in winter

Many of us struggle to eat salad in winter and crave mum’s chicken soup or a slow cooked, brothy ramen.

Research shows our brain detects the cold weather and looks for warm food. Warm food can provide a sense of comfort and cosiness, which is particularly appealing during the colder months when we spend more time indoors.

Read more:
The psychology of comfort food – why we look to carbs for solace

Comfort food can mean something different for everyone. They are foods we reach for in periods of stress, nostalgia, discomfort (like being cold), or emotional turmoil. For most of us, the foods we often over-indulge in are rich and carbohydrate heavy.

A drop in serotonin has also been shown to stimulate an urge to eat more carbohydrate-rich foods such as gnocchi, pasta, ragout, mashed potatoes.

What happens to those extra calories?

If you consume more energy in cooler weather, some of it will be used to keep you warm. Beyond keeping us warm, extra calories we consume are stored.

While most humans today have access to a year-round food supply, some research shows our bodies may still have some leftover instincts related to storing energy for the cooler months when food was harder to come by.

This behaviour may also be driven by biological factors, such as changes in hormone levels that regulate appetite and metabolism.

Read more:
Gaining weight in winter isn’t inevitable, unless you decide you will

A fundamental principle of nutrition and metabolism is that the balance between the energy content of food eaten and energy expended to maintain life and to perform physical work affects body weight. This means any excess energy that we don’t use will be stored – usually as fat.

Using mathematical modelling, researchers have predicted weight gain is more likely when food is harder to find. Storing fat is an insurance against the risk of failing to find food, which for pre-industrial humans was most likely to happen in winter.

It doesn’t have to be unhealthy

No matter your cravings during cooler months, it’s important to remember your own personal health and wellbeing goals.

If you’re worried about excess energy intake, a change in season is a great time to rethink healthy food choices. Including lots of whole fresh vegetables is key: think soups, curries, casseroles, and so on.

Including protein (such as meat, fish, eggs, legumes) will keep you feeling fuller for longer.

Read more:
A nice warm bowl of porridge: 3 ways plus a potted history

Lauren Ball works for The University of Queensland and receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council. She is a Director of Dietitians Australia, a Director of the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network and an Associate Member of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences.

Emily Burch works for Southern Cross University.

– ref. 3 reasons you feel hungrier and crave comfort foods when the weather turns cold – https://theconversation.com/3-reasons-you-feel-hungrier-and-crave-comfort-foods-when-the-weather-turns-cold-202831

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mia Mclean, Senior lecturer, Auckland University of Technology

The Auckland Anniversary floods and Cyclone Gabrielle have put the spotlight on how communities recover in the aftermath of widespread devastation. But future-proofing communities against the impact of these disasters needs to include measures to protect some of our most vulnerable people – pregnant women and their unborn babies.

What happens during pregnancy lays the foundation for child health and development. Exposure to a natural disaster is no exception.

Years after the Christchurch earthquakes, teachers reported behaviour and sleep difficulties in children who had experienced the devastation, including those who wern’t yet born on February 22, 2011. Research supports these anecdotal reports: children exposed at a younger age and in-utero to the earthquakes displayed greater behaviour problems.

I was part of a team examining maternal and child wellbeing following the 2011 Queensland floods. My research found toddlers whose mothers experienced greater hardship while pregnant due to the flooding tended to be more reactive and display emotional distress.

What’s more, these early behaviours were related to increased symptoms of anxiety at preschool age. These children also displayed poorer cognitive development as toddlers and motor difficulties through preschool.

Research on tropical cyclones in Australia and hurricanes in North America shows similar findings.

Read more:
Pregnant mothers’ stress during floods can disadvantage their babies, but it’s not inevitable. Here’s what we can do right now

Babies in-utero at the time of Hurricane Sandy in the US had a five-fold increased risk of anxiety disorders, as well as greater likelihood of depression and attention behavioural disorders, when compared with babies who were not exposed to the disaster.

The unseen cost of Cyclone Gabrielle

These findings should not be ignored. During Cyclone Gabrielle, many New Zealanders including pregnant women, faced hardship – namely property damage and loss, and financial difficulties. Some pregnant women were left in life-threatening situations or without easy access to antenatal care. None expected to be hit by the disaster.

For the most part, the more hardship pregnant women face, the greater the immediate and post-traumatic stress-like symptoms they experience. The fetal brain and stress systems may be particularly susceptible to pregnancy stress. It can also affect maternal mood for years to come.

Yet, even when a woman reports low levels of distress in the face of a disaster, exposure to hardship can affect child development. Changes to nutrition, exercise, stress hormones, placental function and the immune system may “get under the skin” of the unborn child.

Support now and in the future

Now that the silt has settled after Cyclone Gabrielle, pregnant women and their unborn children must not be forgotten.

Pregnant women should be encouraged and supported to engage in emotion-focused coping strategies. These can include the positive reframing of the situation, acceptance, humour and finding emotional support from others. This should then move to strategies focused on problem solving – such as actively planning for the future, taking action to clean up, and seeking help from government and non-governmental agencies.

Trying to find the positives from the situation can help lower a woman’s distress. But writing out deep thoughts and feelings about what has happened may not help and, at the very least, should be supported by clinicians.

We should also mobilise existing infrastructure to help the pregnant women to better “weather the storm” of enduring hardship and distress in the months and years to come.

Support for midwives

In New Zealand nearly all women have a midwife as their lead maternity carer from pregnancy through the postnatal period. Receiving maternity care from the same midwifery team across the perinatal period benefits a mother’s postnatal wellbeing and their infant’s neurodevelopment in the face of a disaster by providing continued social support.

During Cyclone Gabrielle, midwives went above and beyond to continue to provide support for women, no matter how remotely they lived. But we shouldn’t be relying on midwives putting themselves in danger to help those in need.

Midwives need to be supported in identifying, supporting and referring at-risk women. We also simply need more midwives.

Read more:
Pregnant women’s brains show troubling signs of stress – but feeling strong social support can break those patterns

Pregnant women need to be screened and monitored for post-traumatic symptoms, anxiety and depression across the perinatal period. Those experiencing continued distress need equitable access to appropriate mental health services.

Early childhood, a period of incredible brain maturation, also offers opportunities for improving child outcomes. Positive parent mental health and sensitive, structured parenting behaviours have been shown to improve child cognition, language, and behaviour.

A possible next step is the targeted delivery of parent-led interventions that promote such behaviours through existing services including Plunket. Government support for child mental health initiatives, like that provided following the earthquakes, is needed in areas hit by the cyclone.

With New Zealand predicted to experience an increasing number of extreme weather events in the next decade, it is critical we take stock, listen and act on this research – not just for those exposed to Cyclone Gabrielle, but for those who will inevitably be affected when the next disaster strikes.

Mia Mclean received funding from Australian Government, Australian Postgraduate Award.

– ref. Natural disasters take a toll on unborn babies – we need to support pregnant mums after Cyclone Gabrielle – https://theconversation.com/natural-disasters-take-a-toll-on-unborn-babies-we-need-to-support-pregnant-mums-after-cyclone-gabrielle-202825

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Shortis, Lecturer, RMIT University

Former US President Donald J Trump has been charged with 34 felony counts in New York. In the words of Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg, Trump is accused of making “34 false statements”, themselves “made to cover up other crimes”. Those crimes include a “conspiracy to promote a candidacy by unlawful means” and to “scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election”.

The charges in New York add to the network of cases focused on Trump’s efforts to subvert and undermine democratic processes in the United States, now stretching all the way back to his 2016 candidacy and across the duration of his presidential administration.

The charges shouldn’t really come as a surprise. As recently as December 2022, Trump called for the “termination” of the Constitution so that he could return to power. The former president has always been brazen in his contempt for the rule of law.

But it is genuinely, historically significant that a former president is facing criminal charges and trial. This is an enormous shift in the norms and standards that have governed American politics for decades.

Trump’s arraignment proceeded as expected: he arrived at court, was processed, and pleaded not guilty to those 34 charges. Amid a media frenzy, he left court and flew home to safer ground in Florida. At Mar-a-Lago, he made a standard stump speech listing his grievances and dramatically mischaracterising the investigations into his conduct.

As Trump’s indictment and arraignment have played out, he and his supporters have employed now distressingly familiar techniques for inciting their followers. Last week, Trump threatened “death and destruction”, posting a picture of himself wielding a baseball bat next to a picture of the Manhattan district attorney’s head. His son, Donald Trump Junior, posted a picture of the daughter of Judge Juan Merchan. This week, in the shadow of yet another school shooting in Nashville, Fox News host Tucker Carlson warned viewers that the indictment meant it was “probably not the best time to give up your AR-15”.

Read more:
Trump has changed America by making everything about politics, and politics all about himself

Posts and statements like these can only be read for what they are: clear attempts to foment further racist violence against anyone cast as an enemy.

Such calls fit into a pattern of incitement that has led to violence in the past and will likely do so again. Trump and his supporters have given no indication that they are concerned about inciting unrest; they are actively and knowingly encouraging it.

It is more than likely that they will continue to do so, using events like the arraignment today to double down on conspiracy theories. And they will have plenty of chances: the trial in New York could drag on, potentially, for over a year, and indictments in other state and federal investigations now seem more likely.

As I have written before, political violence is a feature, not a bug, of American politics. That’s partly why widely held perceptions of impending Civil War are so concerning; not necessarily because Civil War is likely, but because growing certainty that it is coming can give further license to violence now perceived as inevitable anyway.

Read more:
What does Trump’s indictment mean for his political future – and the strength of US democracy?

Much of the coverage and analysis of American politics will describe the nation as “divided” or “polarised”. But polarisation isn’t really an accurate way to characterise the state of US politics today. Polarisation implies a kind of equality – that sides are divided into equal but opposite extremes, willing to take the same measures to win power; that there are “two sides” or that “both sides” are as dangerous as each other. This is also sometimes described as the “horseshoe theory” of politics.

In the modern United States, the evidence does not support this framing. One side is facing over 30 felony charges, in what is likely only the start of an impending wave of indictments across state and federal investigations. Those investigations, collectively, paint a damning picture of a conspiracy to subvert the world’s most important democracy. In the United States, the “other side” – which is far from immune from critique – is at least attempting to get on with the business of democratically elected government.

The focus instead has of course been on the Trump media circus, now very familiar to us all. The black, armoured SUVs crawling across New York City streets; “plane watch”; the t-shirts; the farcical, gold-tinted press conferences. The mainstream press may well be falling, once again, into the traps Trump has laid so carefully.

But it’s also much more than that, this time around. How this all plays out will be yet another litmus test for the strength of American democracy. And it’s an essential one: simply put, the United States can not, must not, fail this test. The consequences of failure aren’t just domestic. Viewed from afar, we might be tempted to dismiss this as just more hijinks in the compelling but distant drama of American politics. But the outcome will affect us all. So we will – we must – keep watching.

Emma Shortis is a member of the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN).

– ref. Beneath the Trump circus, American democracy faces up to a vital challenge – https://theconversation.com/beneath-the-trump-circus-american-democracy-faces-up-to-a-vital-challenge-203224

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter McDonald, Honorary Professor of Demography, Centre for Health Policy, The University of Melbourne

Last week, the Australian published a story saying net-overseas migration would reach 650,000 over the two financial years, 2022-23 and 2023-24.

As the story included comments from Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Treasury Secretary Steven Kennedy, we can assume these numbers will appear in the population statement accompanying the May budget.

The new numbers have attracted attention in the media, especially in relation to the effects of large-scale migration on the labour and housing markets.

The dramatic turnaround in the level of net-overseas migration is indicated in the following table:

What explains this massive turnaround?

Net-overseas migration is determined by the number of migrant arrivals each year versus migrant departures. If more migrants arrive than leave Australia, this gives us a positive net migration.

Due to border closures during the pandemic, Australia had an extremely low level of net migration in the period from September 2020-21.

However, the rebound in migration within one year was clearly much greater than had been expected by officials in Canberra in preparing the 2022-23 federal budget statement, which was published last year.

The following table compares the net migration from September 2021-22 (the most recent year for which data are available) with the calendar year 2019 (the last year not affected by the pandemic).

The table shows the high level of net migration in 2021-22 was due more to people not leaving Australia than to people arriving.

Very little of the increase in net migration across these two years was due to the granting of permanent resident visas to people living offshore or to the movements of Australian and New Zealand citizens.

Rather, the increase is explained by changes in the movements of temporary residents, such as international students, working holidaymakers and other temporary or bridging visa holders.

The changes in the numbers of temporary residents in Australia provided by the Department of Home Affairs indicate how net migration may have changed by the main temporary visa types. These statistics are shown in the following table:

The biggest reason for the higher number of migrant arrivals over migrant departures since 2021 is changes in the movements of international students and working holiday makers.

The preceding table shows that, from September 2019-21, the number of students and working holiday makers in Australia fell by 421,000 due to the pandemic. But this number rebounded by 368,000 from September 2021 to February 2023.

This means that, in the most recent year, large numbers of students and working holiday makers arrived, but very few left. The speed of the increase in these arrivals has been much greater than policy makers had envisaged.

Read more:
COVID halved international student numbers in Australia. The risk now is we lose future skilled workers and citizens

Many temporary residents would also normally have been expected to leave Australia by September 2022, but they did not do so.

This includes many people on bridging visas, which reached a record number of 369,000 in September 2022. A bridging visa is provided to people who are in Australia awaiting the outcome of another visa application.

This number included a huge backlog of applications for permanent skilled visas and many people (50,000 or more) who arrived by air on tourist visas and then applied for asylum in Australia. Almost all these asylum applications are rejected, but few have been deported.

Also, during the pandemic, the Morrison government extended eligibility for a temporary employment visa (visa subclass 408) to people in Australia whose temporary visas were due to expire. This enabled many people to remain in Australia when, otherwise, they would have left.

Finally, there has also been a longer-term increase in the number of people on graduate visas due to a policy change in 2011, as well as other recent changes made by the Albanese government.

A temporary surge, then return to normal

These data tell us that the recent increase in net-overseas migration has been due to policy changes that enabled people to remain in Australia rather than policy changes that enabled people to arrive.

This continued in February of this year with the Albanese government allocating extra resources to help clear the backlog of people on bridging visas. This has caused a significant decrease in the numbers of people on bridging visas, many of whom have been granted permanent residence.

The very unusual movements during the pandemic have produced a temporary surge in net migration, which we can expect to last for two or three years. After this, net migration should return to pre-pandemic levels as the number of migrant departures ticks upwards again.

A similar situation has occurred in Canada. In 2022, net migration exceeded one million people – a higher proportional increase than has occurred in Australia.

Read more:
1.4 million less than projected: how coronavirus could hit Australia’s population in the next 20 years

The impact on the labour force and housing

The impacts of this temporary surge in net migration on the labour force and housing are complex and cannot be interpreted in the simplistic terms now evident in much of the media.

The high level of net migration is largely due to people remaining in Australia instead of leaving. Almost all of these people were already working in Australia and were already housed.

Furthermore, students are often housed in student accommodation or live in extremely crowded circumstances, while working holiday makers often live in backpacker hostels.

But there is no denying the rental housing market in Australia is under considerable pressure due in large measure to the conversion of long-term rentals to short-term. Migration adds to this pressure.

Currently a member of the Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration.

When I was an employed academic, I received related grants from the Australian Research Council and completed contracts for the Department of Immigration (in its various forms) and the Department of the Treasury.

– ref. What’s behind the recent surge in Australia’s net migration – and will it last? – https://theconversation.com/whats-behind-the-recent-surge-in-australias-net-migration-and-will-it-last-203155

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stan Karanasios, Associate professor, The University of Queensland

Last week, artificial intelligence pioneers and experts urged major AI labs to immediately pause the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4 for at least six months.

An open letter penned by the Future of Life Institute cautioned that AI systems with “human-competitive intelligence” could become a major threat to humanity. Among the risks, the possibility of AI outsmarting humans, rendering us obsolete, and taking control of civilisation.

The letter emphasises the need to develop a comprehensive set of protocols to govern the development and deployment of AI. It states:

These protocols should ensure that systems adhering to them are safe beyond a reasonable doubt. This does not mean a pause on AI development in general, merely a stepping back from the dangerous race to ever-larger unpredictable black-box models with emergent capabilities.

Typically, the battle for regulation has pitted governments and large technology companies against one another. But the recent open letter – so far signed by more than 5,000 signatories including Twitter and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak and OpenAI scientist Yonas Kassa – seems to suggest more parties are finally converging on one side.

Could we really implement a streamlined, global framework for AI regulation? And if so, what would this look like?

Read more:
I used to work at Google and now I’m an AI researcher. Here’s why slowing down AI development is wise

What regulation already exists?

In Australia, the government has established the National AI Centre to help develop the nation’s AI and digital ecosystem. Under this umbrella is the Responsible AI Network, which aims to drive responsible practise and provide leadership on laws and standards.

However, there is currently no specific regulation on AI and algorithmic decision-making in place. The government has taken a light touch approach that widely embraces the concept of responsible AI, but stops short of setting parameters that will ensure it is achieved.

Similarly, the US has adopted a hands-off strategy. Lawmakers have not shown any urgency in attempts to regulate AI, and have relied on existing laws to regulate its use. The US Chamber of Commerce recently called for AI regulation, to ensure it doesn’t hurt growth or become a national security risk, but no action has been taken yet.

Leading the way in AI regulation is the European Union, which is racing to create an Artificial Intelligence Act. This proposed law will assign three risk categories relating to AI:

• applications and systems that create “unacceptable risk” will be banned, such as government-run social scoring used in China
• applications considered “high-risk”, such as CV-scanning tools that rank job applicants, will be subject to specific legal requirements, and
• all other applications will be largely unregulated.

Although some groups argue the EU’s approach will stifle innovation, it’s one Australia should closely monitor, because it balances offering predictability with keeping pace with the development of AI.

China’s approach to AI has focused on targeting specific algorithm applications and writing regulations that address their deployment in certain contexts, such as algorithms that generate harmful information, for instance. While this approach offers specificity, it risks having rules that will quickly fall behind rapidly evolving technology.

Read more:
AI chatbots with Chinese characteristics: why Baidu’s ChatGPT rival may never measure up

The pros and cons

There are several arguments both for and against allowing caution to drive the control of AI.

On one hand, AI is celebrated for being able to generate all forms of content, handle mundane tasks and detect cancers, among other things. On the other hand, it can deceive, perpetuate bias, plagiarise and – of course – has some experts worried about humanity’s collective future. Even OpenAI’s CTO, Mira Murati, has suggested there should be movement toward regulating AI.

Some scholars have argued excessive regulation may hinder AI’s full potential and interfere with “creative destruction” – a theory which suggests long-standing norms and practices must be pulled apart in order for innovation to thrive.

Likewise, over the years business groups have pushed for regulation that is flexible and limited to targeted applications, so that it doesn’t hamper competition. And industry associations have called for ethical “guidance” rather than regulation – arguing that AI development is too fast-moving and open-ended to adequately regulate.

But citizens seem to advocate for more oversight. According to reports by Bristows and KPMG, about two-thirds of Australian and British people believe the AI industry should be regulated and held accountable.

What’s next?

A six-month pause on the development of advanced AI systems could offer welcome respite from an AI arms race that just doesn’t seem to be letting up. However, to date there has been no effective global effort to meaningfully regulate AI. Efforts the world over have have been fractured, delayed and overall lax.

A global moratorium would be difficult to enforce, but not impossible. The open letter raises questions around the role of governments, which have largely been silent regarding the potential harms of extremely capable AI tools.

If anything is to change, governments and national and supra-national regulatory bodies will need take the lead in ensuring accountability and safety. As the letter argues, decisions concerning AI at a societal level should not be in the hands of “unelected tech leaders”.

Governments should therefore engage with industry to co-develop a global framework that lays out comprehensive rules governing AI development. This is the best way to protect against harmful impacts and avoid a race to the bottom. It also avoids the undesirable situation where governments and tech giants struggle for dominance over the future of AI.

Read more:
The AI arms race highlights the urgent need for responsible innovation

Stan Karanasios is a disinguished member of the Association for Information Systems.

Olga Kokshagina is an appointed member of the French Digital Council (Conseil national du numérique)

Pauline C. Reinecke receives funding from the Horizon 2020 Program of the European Union within the OpenInnoTrain project under grant agreement n° 823971.

– ref. Calls to regulate AI are growing louder. But how exactly do you regulate a technology like this? – https://theconversation.com/calls-to-regulate-ai-are-growing-louder-but-how-exactly-do-you-regulate-a-technology-like-this-203050

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Madeline Sprajcer, Lecturer in Psychology, CQUniversity Australia

What if you could be fined or lose your license for driving tired? Our new study just published in Nature and Science of Sleep has found if you had less than five hours of sleep last night, you are just as likely to have a vehicle crash as if you were over the legal limit for alcohol.

We know about 20% of all vehicle crashes are caused by fatigue. Over the past 20 years, the number of crashes caused by alcohol has decreased significantly.

However, there has been little progress over this same period in decreasing the number of crashes caused by fatigue. We wanted to know – can this be changed?

A ‘line in the sand’ on impaired driving

Recent decreases in alcohol-related car crashes have happened for a few reasons:

• a significant investment in public education
• drivers have easy-to-follow guidance on how to decide if they are too intoxicated to drive (for example, the advice to have “two drinks in the first hour, and one drink every hour after that”)
• strong enforcement strategies, including roadside testing
• highly publicised drunk-driving legal cases.

Additionally, drivers are legally deemed to be impaired if their blood alcohol concentration is over 0.05%, regardless of their driving performance. This blood alcohol limit is an effective “line in the sand”, determining whether someone is legally permitted to drive.

We did a study to find out if we could reduce the number of fatigue-related crashes on Australian roads by following a similar strategy. Is there a point at which we could deem a driver to be impaired due to fatigue?

A minimum amount of shuteye?

To do this, we evaluated the scientific evidence from laboratory and field studies that looked at how much prior sleep you need to drive safely.

After synthesising the findings of 61 unique studies, we found having less than four to five hours of sleep in the previous 24 hours is associated with an approximate doubling of the risk of a vehicle crash. This is the same risk of a crash seen when drivers have a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05%.

Not only this, but a driver’s risk of a crash significantly increases with each hour of sleep lost the night before. Some studies even suggested that when a driver had between zero and four hours of sleep the previous night, they may be up to 15 times more likely to have a crash.

Our review suggests that based on the scientific evidence, it may be reasonable to require drivers to have a certain amount of sleep before getting behind the wheel. If we were to align with the degree of risk considered acceptable for intoxication, we may consider requiring a minimum of four to five hours of sleep prior to driving.

However, we must consider more than just the scientific evidence. For the most part, drinking alcohol is something individuals choose to do. Many people cannot decide to get more sleep – for example, new parents, shift workers and people with sleep disorders. Not only that, but for fatigued driving to be regulated, there would need to be significant public support.

Read more:
When is it time to stop driving? Will mandatory assessments of older drivers make our roads safer?

Is the law even an option?

We must also consider how such a law would be implemented. There is no current way to evaluate fatigue at the roadside – no breath test or blood test that can evaluate how much sleep you have had, or how impaired you are. As a result, regulating fatigue would likely need to happen in the event of a crash. Was the driver impaired due to fatigue at the time, and are they therefore legally responsible?

Regulating fatigued driving is not a new idea. In New Jersey, “Maggie’s Law” legislation finds drivers to be legally impaired if they have had zero hours of sleep in the previous 24 hours. This law, implemented in 2003 after a fatigued driver killed a college student, would be considered by many to be quite permissive. That is, a lot of people would expect you would need more than zero hours of sleep in the previous 24 hours to be able to drive safely. However, in Australia in 2023, there is no similar requirement to ensure you are sufficiently rested to get behind the wheel.

We are currently consulting with a range of community members and road safety stakeholders on what the next step might be for regulating fatigued driving in Australia. Preliminary findings indicate that at the very least, more specific public education and guidance for drivers on how to avoid driving while fatigued would be welcomed. For example, easy-to-follow advice on how to decide whether or not you are too fatigued to drive would likely be well received.

While Australia might be a little while off legislating how much sleep to get before getting behind the wheel, we suggest keeping the amount of sleep you’ve had in the previous 24 hours in mind. If you’ve slept less than five hours, you probably shouldn’t drive.

Read more:
Why do people tailgate? A psychology expert explains what’s behind this common (and annoying) driving habit

Madeline Sprajcer receives funding from the Office of Road Safety.

Drew Dawson receives research funding from a range of government and private organisations. These typically involve funding to research the adverse effects of insufficient sleep on workplace health and safety and ways to minimise negative outcomes. He also receives royalty income from licensing arrangements for software products that help organisations measure and mitigate fatigue-related risk (the FAID and FatigueFit product suites). Finally, he is a subject matter expert for a variety of Australian and international safety regulators on matters relating to the identification, measurement and mitigation of fatigue-related risk.

– ref. Driving on less than 5 hours of sleep is just as dangerous as drunk-driving, study finds – https://theconversation.com/driving-on-less-than-5-hours-of-sleep-is-just-as-dangerous-as-drunk-driving-study-finds-202514

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Duncan McDonnell, Professor of Politics, Griffith University

On the eve of the 2019 federal election, a Labor Party politician made a panicked phone call to someone they knew in Kununurra, a remote town of over 5,000 people in Western Australia. As the person later recalled to us during an interview for our research, the conversation went something like this:

We haven’t got anybody [there]. We just forgot about Kununurra. There’s a bunch of brochures on a greyhound bus. Can you go and pick them? Can you go and set up the booths? Can you go and round up some people to bloody pamphleteer?

Once upon a time, such a call wouldn’t have been necessary. In decades past, Labor had an active grassroots branch in Kununurra that would have taken care of everything. But by 2019, this was long gone and the party’s closest branch was nearly 1,000 kilometres away in Broome.

Without a permanent presence on the ground, the ALP had simply forgotten about the town during the election campaign.

Why party membership at the grassroots level matters

This was one of the more striking tales we heard during our study of political parties in remote Australia.

Given that most of what we know about the decline of party membership over the past 40 years in Australia and other Western democracies is based on what happens in cities and towns, we wanted to find out what the situation was like outside of these areas.

This wasn’t just to settle an academic curiosity. Whatever one thinks of political parties and their members, democracies depend on them and need them to be present at the grassroots level.

There are several reasons for this. The grassroots party members link political elites with citizens on the ground, informing those in office about the issues that are important to them. The grassroots membership also provides the party with a pool of potential candidates to stand in elections, as well as a group of local people who can help the party choose the right one.

And, at election time, grassroots members carry out key volunteer activities like distributing how-to-vote cards and staffing election booths.

Read more:
How big ideas for regional Australia were given short shrift

What we found in the Barkly and the Kimberley

We focused on two remote electorates in our research – Barkly in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and Kimberley in the Western Australian Legislative Assembly.

To understand how the parties were faring on the ground, we spoke to grassroots members of the Labor and Liberal parties in the Kimberley, and the Labor and Country Liberal parties in the Barkly.

Our findings uncovered a mixture of party engagement and disengagement, but the general picture was of decline. Compared to the past, the numbers of members were low everywhere and most people were not active between elections. Grassroots members were almost always middle-aged or older.

In some areas, the parties had let branches die off, since they felt they were no longer worth the effort. In others, members continued meeting but were largely ignored by the party hierarchies in far-away capitals.

And, even where we did encounter well-functioning grassroots branches that had regular activity, this depended heavily on a handful of willing individuals.

A few dedicated members keeping things afloat

For example, in the Barkly, the now-retired Labor representative, Gerry McCarthy, and his electorate officer had worked to keep regular branch activities going in the main town of Tennant Creek.

They had also created a sub-branch in the very remote town of Borroloola, although the rigidity of the party’s rules about branch operations, combined with problems of distance and telecommunications, made it hard to keep the sub-branch members involved.

In fact, to get around the party’s outdated rules – designed for towns and cities rather than the outback – grassroots members from Tennant Creek had even travelled the 800km to Borroloola to fulfil Labor’s quorum for branch meetings.

The Country Liberal Party in the Barkly was also highly dependent on the efforts of a few dedicated members and had risked losing its autonomy as a branch in 2016 due to its tiny numbers.

This reflected the party’s problems with falling membership more generally, which saw its formal federal registration as a party investigated by the Australian Electoral Commission in 2022.

As the story about Kununurra in the 2019 election illustrates, Labor’s operations on the ground in the Kimberley have also withered.

Labor has disappeared in Kununurra and appeared to take little notice of its grassroots members in Broome. According to the members we interviewed, the party’s state representative rarely met them and they were not consulted about candidate selection.

The Liberals in the Kimberley seemed a happier and more engaged group, but again, this was mainly due to a couple of very active people.

Finally, with the exception of Labor in the Barkly, the parties only seemed interested in having “supporters” in remote Indigenous communities who would help them at election time, rather than grassroots members who would be continuously involved with the party.

This contributed to the fact that the party grassroots memberships remained overwhelmingly comprised of non-Indigenous people, despite half of the Kimberley’s and 70% of the Barkly’s population being Indigenous.

What happens when parties are disengaged

There are several implications of party disinterest and disengagement with remote areas.

First, not having a significant presence on the ground exacerbates the growing feelings of antipathy towards mainstream parties and dissatisfaction with democracy we see in non-urban areas across Western democracies.

Second, in the specific case of Australia, not adapting party organisations to fit the realities of remote areas presents additional problems. The arcane rules about branch meetings are a good example.

Indeed, at a time when efforts are being made to bring Indigenous people closer to the national political process through the Voice, it seems ironic that, in areas where Indigenous people constitute a significant proportion of the population, parties are moving further away.

Read more:
People and issues outside our big cities are diverse, but these priorities stand out

Duncan McDonnell receives funding from the Australian Research Council

Bartholomew Stanford 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. ‘We haven’t got anybody’: new research reveals how major parties are dying in remote Australia – https://theconversation.com/we-havent-got-anybody-new-research-reveals-how-major-parties-are-dying-in-remote-australia-203124

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

Prime drinks have been heavily promoted in Australia, leading to frenzied sales in supermarkets, as well bans in schools.

Prime offers two products: one is marketed as a “hydration” drink, the other as an “energy” drink. The latter comes with a warning it’s not suitable for people under 18 years of age, or pregnant or lactating women and isn’t legally sold in stores in Australia.

But both drinks may pose problems to under-18s and women who are pregnant or lactating.

What’s in Prime Energy?

Prime Energy contains 200 milligrams of caffeine per can, which is equivalent to about two to three instant coffees. This caffeine content is roughly double what is legally allowed for products sold in Australia.

Despite its name, Prime Energy drink contains only about 40 kilojoules from carbohydrates, which is one of our body’s key sources of energy. The “energy” in Prime Energy refers to the caffeine, which makes you feel more alert and lessens the perceived effort involved in any work you do.

Caffeine does provide performance benefits for athletes aged over 18. However, given the high quantities in the drinks, there may be better ways to get caffeine in more appropriate doses.

Read more:
Can coffee improve your workout? The science of caffeine and exercise

Caffeine is a concern during pregnancy

Health guidelines recommend limiting caffeine intake during pregnancy and while breastfeeding to below 200mg a day.

Theoretically, this drink alone, with 200mg of caffeine per can, should be fine. But practically, diets include many other sources of caffeine including coffee, tea, chocolate and cola drinks. Consumption of these alongside the energy drinks would increase the intake for pregnant women above this safety threshold.

Why is caffeine a problem for fetuses and babies?

Caffeine can cross the placenta into the growing fetus’s bloodstream. Fetuses can’t break down the caffeine, so it remains in their circulation.

As the pregnancy proceeds, the mother becomes slower at clearing caffeine from her metabolism. This potentially exposes the fetus to caffeine for longer.

Studies have shown a high intake of caffeine is associated with growth restriction, reduced birth weight, preterm birth and stillbirth. Some experts argue there is no safe limit of caffeine intake during pregnancy.

With breastfeeding, caffeine passes into the breast milk. It remains in the baby’s circulation, as they’re unable to metabolise it. Evidence shows that caffeine may make babies more colicky, irritable and less likely to sleep.

What about in kids?

Children also have a limited ability to break down caffeine. Combined with their lighter body mass, a caffeine-based drink will have a more pronounced effect.

As such, safe caffeine levels are determined on a weight basis: 3mg per kg of body weight per day. For example, children aged 9 to 13 years, who weigh no more than 40kg, should have no more than 120mg of caffeine per day. Those aged between 14 to 17 years who weigh less than 60kg should have no more than 180mg per day.

Studies have shown higher intakes increase the risk of heart problems, such as heart palpitations, chest pain, shortness of breath and fainting. This may reflect underlying heart rhythm problems, which have in some case ended up with children and teenagers presenting to hospital emergency departments.

Read more:
Should teens taking ADHD, anxiety and depression drugs consume energy drinks and coffee?

What about Prime Hydrate, which doesn’t contain caffeine?

This drink contains branch chain amino acids, or BCAA, which the supplements industry promotes as helping gain muscle bulk. There are three BCAA: valine, leucine and isoleucine.

However, there is no evidence they provide any benefit. As such, the Australian Institute of Sport has concluded they are not an effective supplement for athletes.

Supplements in general are not recommended in children or pregnant women as they have not been tested in these groups.

There is also concern about the impact of BCAA and how they may impact the growth of the fetus. A scientific animal study has shown altered patterns of growth with fetal mice.

No human studies have examined BCAA and fetal growth, so that research needs to be done before recommendations can be given to pregnant women. They should avoid these ingredients in the absence of evidence.

Similarly, there has been no testing of these supplements in children under 18 years, so there is no guarantee of their safety.

Performance-enhancing sport supplements are not recommended for children and adolescents, as they are still developing physically as well as refining and improving their sporting skills.

What does the science say about BCAA?

Scientists have been investigating how BCAA affect adults. Circulating BCAA can affect carbohydrate metabolism in the muscle and therefore can change insulin sensitivity. BCAA are elevated in adults with diet-induced obesity and are associated with increased future risk of type 2 diabetes, even when scientists account for other baseline risk factors.

Adults with obesity and insulin resistance have been found to have higher levels of BCAA. Emerging evidence suggests children and adolescents with obesity also have higher levels of BCAA, which may predict future insulin resistance, a risk factor for diabetes.

However we don’t yet know if these elevated levels of BCAA in the blood are because people are overweight or obese, or if it plays a role in them becoming overweight or obese.

Read more:
Do athletes really need protein supplements?

The bottom line is we have clear evidence that caffeine is problematic for children and women who are pregnant and lactating. And there is emerging evidence BCAA may be also problematic.

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

– ref. Prime drinks aren’t suitable for children and pregnant women. Here’s why – https://theconversation.com/prime-drinks-arent-suitable-for-children-and-pregnant-women-heres-why-202829

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alan Jamieson, Founding Professor of the Minderoo-UWA Deep-Sea Research centre, The University of Western Australia

How deep can fish live in the ocean? That question has captivated me for more than a decade. But my research team’s discovery of the deepest sea fish, announced this week, might not be the final answer. There may be more. How deep – and how strange – remains open for debate.

Last year, my colleagues and I went on an expedition to the deep trenches around Japan. Having already found the Mariana snailfish in 2014 – thought to be the deepest ever – we had a hunch that with more exploration and a better understanding of things like temperature, the Japanese trenches would host a fish at even greater depths.

After another 63 deployments of our deep-sea cameras, bringing our total to about 250 across the globe, we hit the jackpot.

We found what is likely a new species of fish in the Izu-Ogasawara Trench and filmed it many times at depths between 6,500 and 8,000 metres. Then, at a staggering 8,336m, a rather unassuming little juvenile slowly swam past the camera, oblivious to the fact it had just become the deepest fish on record.

Read more:
Ten things you never knew about the ocean’s deepest places

Much more than monsters

If you ask someone what the deepest fish in the world looks like, they will probably conjure up an image of a scaly, black, stealthy creature with bioluminescent lures, large fangs, spiny fins and demonic eyes lurking in the depths waiting to strike at unsuspecting victims. It would be nothing like the shallow-water fish we eat, keep as pets, or pay to see in aquariums. It would be more the stuff of nightmares.

While these sorts of visually striking creatures do exist, they are often not that deep, or that big. Hatchet fish, fangtooth, lanternfish, dragonfish, viperfish and angler fish inhabit the mid-waters of the twilight zone (less than 1,000m deep). Many of these classically spooky monsters are actually very small and are simply enlarged in our imagination, in the absence of any sense of physical scale.

The black body, big eyes, bioluminescent lures and unfamiliar fins and textures are all adaptations to stealthy but efficient living in low-light conditions.

At deeper levels, where low-light adaptations are no longer required (because there’s a total absence of light), marine life takes on different, less dramatic forms. Adaptations to depth, or rather high pressure, are not usually things we can see, but rather changes at the level of cells or body tissues, to enable life at depth.

If we take, for example, the deepest fish, the deepest prawn, the deepest jellyfish, the deepest anemone and the deepest octopus, we find them at depths of 8,336m, 7,703m, 10,000m, 10,900m and 7,000m, respectively (between 4.3 and 6.8 miles deep).

The deepest of the deep

The deepest fish in the world isn’t really a deep-sea fish. They are snailfish in the family of ray-finned fishes called Liparidae. There are more than 400 species of snailfish, and most are found in shallow waters, or even estuaries in some cases. This family of fish has adapted to an array of different environmental settings and habitats, including the deepest.

We found the deepest of all in the Izu-Ogasawara Trench at 8,336m, but this fish does not conform to any preconceived visual impression of what the deepest dweller should look like. They are in fact small, translucent pink, quirky little fish that swim like tadpoles and would not look out of place in a sunlit lagoon.

Similarly, if we look at the deepest of the big crustaceans, which happen to be penaeid prawns (Benthesicymus), there is nothing all that unfamiliar about them. The can be up to a foot long, strikingly red in colour, and swim and behave in exactly the way one would expect a prawn to swim and behave in our coastal regions. It would not look out of place at the local fish market.

Read more:
Deep sea reefs are spectacular and barely-explored – they must be conserved

The deepest jellyfish looks like a normal jellyfish. The deepest anemones can be found attached to rocks at the very bottom of the Challenger Deep, the deepest place on Earth. These as yet unknown species are attached to rocks that filter food out of the water. They appear more plant-like, resembling delicate and beautiful flowers swaying in the wind.

And then there is the octopus, an animal that has haunted sailors for centuries. In contrast, the newly discovered species of Dumbo octopus (Grimpoteuthis) is a small and cute little cephalopod with fins that resemble big ears (as in Dumbo the elephant). The species was filmed nearly 2,000 metres deeper than any other octopus or squid at a depth of nearly 7,000m.

The true masters

Essentially, dark-sea creatures in the upper ocean detract from the real deep-sea creatures, giving us a false impression of the natural aesthetic of this community.

While the dark-sea animals have adapted to low light in a way that jars our imagination, the true deep-sea animals represent more of a case of where the wild things aren’t.

The snailfish are the true masters of the deep, not monsters of the deep. If we are to ever truly understand the ocean, and appreciate it as the largest habitat on Earth, we should retrain our brains and realise that even thousands of metres underwater, there are populations of little fish just going about their daily business.

Read more:
The ocean is not a quiet place

Alan Jamieson receives funding from the Minderoo Foundation.

– ref. Monsters or masters of the deep sea? Why the deepest of deep-sea fish aren’t as scary as you might think – https://theconversation.com/monsters-or-masters-of-the-deep-sea-why-the-deepest-of-deep-sea-fish-arent-as-scary-as-you-might-think-203231

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Murooj Yousef, PhD Candidate, Griffith University

We work at Griffith University’s Blurred Minds initiative. The program uses games to educate Australian high school students about alcohol, drugs and vaping. As part of our research, schools frequently tell us they do not have the tools and strategies to deal with the vaping crisis. In previous years, schools were most likely to seek our help for alcohol or cannabis. Now, it is for vaping.

According to a 2022 study, 32% of New South Wales teenagers aged between 14 and 17 years have tried vaping at least once. A 2017 national study found 13% of 12 to 17-year-olds had tried it.

Unfortunately, our survey research also shows vaping is common among teenagers. But it also tell us young people understand it is unsafe and unhealthy. This suggests there are genuine opportunities for schools – and parents – to intervene and help young people avoid the serious harms associated with vaping.

What is vaping and why is it so dangerous?

E-cigarettes or “vapes” are battery-powered devices that resemble metal pens, USBs, watches, or other small box-like objects. Cartridges of vape liquids or “juices” are heated and converted into vapour, which the user inhales along with harmful artificial flavourings and chemicals and other potential contaminants from the manufacturing process or the device.

A single vape can contain as much nicotine as ten packets of cigarettes.

Research shows vaping can cause lung injury, cardiovascular disease, respiratory infections, other serious, negative effects including on brain development and the immune system. Not only can vaping lead to long-term addiction, but it is also associated with other health risks such as seizures, acute nicotine toxicity and burns.

Read more:
How bad is vaping and should it be banned?

What schools tell us

There are many reasons a teenager may vape. Most commonly, curiosity or peer pressure lead to their first experience. As researchers, we have heard stories of young students trying vapes because they “taste like bubble gum”, have “colourful designs” and “smell nice”.

In 2022, we talked to almost 400 schools around Australia about their issues with vaping, alcohol and other drugs. Principals on the Gold Coast alone reported hundreds of thousands of missed school days and an increase in expulsions due to vaping.

We have heard of schools locking up toilets to avoid having a place for students to vape. But this only sees addicted students miss school to find somewhere else to vape. We also have heard from students being home schooled so they can continue to vape.

Schools know they have an important role to play in reducing the practice, but say punitive approaches are not helping students quit the habit.

What students say: our research

Last year, we surveyed 2,777 students with an average age of 14 to help understand their attitudes towards vaping, alcohol and drugs. We found:

• Vaping is common among young people. 27% of students had vaped at least once before, 37% said they do it several times a day

• But young people know it is not good for them. More than 96% said they believe vaping is unsafe (this includes 85% who said it was “totally unsafe”). More than 96% said they do not think vaping is healthy (this includes 89% who said they “totally disagreed” it was healthy)

• Students believe a lot more teenagers are vaping than there actually are. Presented with the statement, “most Australian teenagers vape,” more than 60% agreed

• Peer pressure is a factor. Respondents said they would find it harder not to vape around friends. More than 17% said they are “unsure about their ability to resist a vape” when alone, compared to 24% when with friends.

‘I don’t want your germs’: how to talk about vaping

Going forward there are many strategies teachers and schools can use to empower their students not to vape. Thes include:

• Challenging the idea “everyone is doing it”. Our research suggests young people think more people vape than actually vape. If they are concerned about fitting in, we need to give them the facts

• Empowering young people to know they can refuse to vape. This includes ways of saying no without being singled out. Examples of what students could say include, “I don’t want to waste my money”, “I’ve seen those explode,” “I have asthma”, “I don’t want your germs,” or “Have you heard what kind of horrible things is in those?”

• Understanding the impact on their health. This will enable them to make accurate choices about their wellbeing, rather than for what they think others want from them

• Don’t preach. Our research shows teachers are seeing much better engagement when they use tools that include games, quizzes, videos and different media elements rather than a lecture. If you are a teacher and looking for ways to engage your students, our researchers have developed free games and a free online vaping module.

Read more:
Sex and lies are used to sell vapes online. Even we were surprised at the marketing tactics we found

Murooj Yousef works for Blurred Minds, an alcohol, vaping and drug education initiative within Griffith University. Blurred Minds is a non-for-profit organisation.

James Durl, as part of the larger Blurred Minds team, a not-for-profit organisation housed within Griffith University in Brisbane, Queensland. His role is to help create, refine, deliver and evaluate content for secondary schools regarding Vaping & other drug education.

Timo Dietrich is the Co-founder and Director of Blurred Minds – a not-for-profit initiative housed within Griffith University.

– ref. Everyone is NOT doing it: how schools and parents should talk about vaping – https://theconversation.com/everyone-is-not-doing-it-how-schools-and-parents-should-talk-about-vaping-196139

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

Next month’s budget will provide $535.3 million extra over four years for nine major cultural and historical institutions.

The funding will go to the Australian National Maritime Museum, Bundanon Trust, Museum of Australian Democracy (Old Parliament House), National Archives of Australia, National Film and Sound Archive, National Gallery of Australia, National Library of Australia, National Museum of Australia and the National Portrait Gallery of Australia.

The money includes the $33 million earlier announced for the National Library’s digital archive Trove.

The government also promises that beyond the four years, the institutions will get indexed funding.

“Our institutions will be able to meet their financial obligations and invest for the future knowing they finally have a government that values them just as the Australian people do,” a statement on the funding says.

The government says it will “establish clear line of sight over future capital works and improvements to ensure the institutions never again fall into the state of disrepair they did over the last decade”.

But it has not abolished the “efficiency dividend” requirement that has been a bane of the institutions over many years.

Finance Minister Katy Gallagher this week defended the efficiency dividend, telling The Canberra Times it was appropriate as long as the funding was adequate.

“Putting a productivity efficiency component into any funding I think is a responsible part of government and making sure we keep the budget on a sustainable footing,” she said.

The efficiency dividend dates from the 1980s and has been again criticised by the Community and Public Sector Union, which represents staff at the institutions.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the extra funding was another example of his government having to clean up the mess left by the Coalition.

Arts Minister Tony Burke said the former government had left the institutions in “a shocking state of disrepair” and the funding would get them “back to where they should be – where the government delivers strong core funding and philanthropists take them to the next level”.

The financial squeeze has led to some institutions having to reduce staff and services and neglect some activities and maintenance.

The government recently appointed former ABC journalist Barrie Cassidy as chair of the Old Parliament House board.

This is second time around for Cassidy, a one-time staffer to Bob Hawke. He was appointed chair of the Old Parliament House advisory council at the very end of the last Labor government but resigned after the Coalition won the 2013 election. Cassidy (who was still with the ABC at the time) was pressured to go by then arts minister George Brandis.

Michelle Grattan ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. May budget to boost cultural and historical institutions with $535m four-year injection – https://theconversation.com/may-budget-to-boost-cultural-and-historical-institutions-with-535m-four-year-injection-203239

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

As well as her interviews with politicians and experts, Politics with Michelle Grattan includes “Word from The Hill”, where she discusses the news with members of The Conversation’s politics team.

In this podcast Michelle and Amanda Dunn, politics + society editor, discuss the Reserve Bank’s pause (but for how long?) on interest rate hikes, the Aston byelection, the Liberals grappling with the Voice, the loss of a great Indigenous leader in Yunupingu, and the ban on TikTok on government devices.

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. Word from The Hill: Interest rate pause, Aston, Liberals looking for their voice on the Voice, Yunupingu, TikTok – https://theconversation.com/word-from-the-hill-interest-rate-pause-aston-liberals-looking-for-their-voice-on-the-voice-yunupingu-tiktok-203240