Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Mason, Adjunct Senior Fellow in Renewable Energy Systems Engineering, University of Canterbury

The recent failure of a deal to deliver hydrogen-powered trucks to New Zealand, and the removal of a NZ$100 million government rebate scheme for green hydrogen users in the 2024 budget, make a transition to the much-lauded energy technology increasingly less certain.

The government had invested $6.5 million for the purchase of up to 25 heavy freight hydrogen trucks as part of a wider energy strategy due by the end of the year. But the US company Hyzon, which makes hydrogen fuel-cell trucks and had been modifying diesel trucks to use hydrogen, pulled out at short notice.

Nonetheless, interest in hydrogen for future transport and energy systems has soared globally, and New Zealand is no exception. But we argue that critical voices have been largely missing from the debate here.

In New Zealand, green hydrogen (which is produced with electricity from renewable sources) has attracted government support of $186.3 million from 2017 to 2023. This provided funding for a hydrogen refuelling network, vehicle conversions and purchases, research, and the establishment of the New Zealand Hydrogen Council (now Hydrogen New Zealand).

Proponents of green hydrogen argue it is essential for fuelling economic sectors they believe will be hard to decarbonise by direct electrification. As well as heavy road transport, this includes shipping and fertiliser production.

But opinions differ considerably on which sectors to focus on, and whether hydrogen is the best choice.

Evolution of the narrative

In the wake of the previous government’s ban on new offshore oil and gas exploration, the 2019 H2 Taranaki roadmap outlined a vision for the region as a leader in hydrogen production.

Former energy minister Megan Woods reinforced this, indicating her government would be interested in any associated economic opportunities. This largely positive narrative continued in two further government reports.

The first, A Vision for Hydrogen in New Zealand, suggested the case for hydrogen was already settled:

Hydrogen is poised to fulfil its potential as a clean alternative to hydrocarbons in the global pursuit of decarbonisation to address climate change.

Development of green hydrogen was largely implicit in the second report, the Interim Hydrogen Roadmap, which aimed to:

optimise the potential for green hydrogen to contribute to New Zealand’s emissions reductions, economic development, and energy sector to the extent compatible with our broader electrification goals.

We analysed these reports using a content analysis approach focused on identifying how often strengths, weaknesses, opportunities or threats are mentioned. This revealed the words “opportunities” and “challenges” were used frequently, while “weaknesses” and “threats” were absent.

The use of “strengths” was confined to perceived advantages of New Zealand as a location for hydrogen production. Where difficulties were identified, they were framed as challenges rather than weaknesses.

This optimistic tone is generally reflected in descriptions of several government-funded projects, including green hydrogen research at GNS Science, and international collaborations such as the German-NZ Green Hydrogen alliance.

Media reports have typically reflected the enthusiastic narrative. Of 83 articles on green hydrogen published in New Zealand between 2019 and 2023, only 15 (18%) contained any critical analysis.

Critical voices need to be heard

While some experts have voiced serious concerns about green hydrogen, this has not featured prominently in the debate in New Zealand.

For example, research by University of Cambridge engineering expert David Cebon shows battery electric vehicles are superior to hydrogen vehicles for heavy transport.

The emergence of fast (five minutes or less) automated and manual battery-swap systems, which provide an alternative to high-powered fast-charging systems, supports this point.

Climate and energy strategist Michael Barnard, who covers the green hydrogen debate extensively, writes:

Since 2000, application after application of hydrogen has found it to be inefficient, ineffective and expensive compared to obvious alternatives.

A German rail company which launched the world’s first hydrogen line last year has since opted for cheaper all-electric trains. Rising costs have also forced one Austrian state to abandon plans to introduce hydrogen buses.

Recent research suggests developments in battery-run and fast-charging electric trucks could soon make hydrogen fuel cells superfluous in road transport in most cases.

UK energy analyst Michael Liebreich has quantified the immense scale, significant impracticalities, enormous subsidies and costs associated with green hydrogen.

Liebreich’s “hydrogen ladder” ranks both actual and potential uses. It provides an evidence-informed guide on where to best focus attention and resources. Based on this, the previous government’s funding for the manufacture of green fertiliser (for which hydrogen is an input) was a sensible allocation.

In New Zealand, a 2019 report sponsored by industry and the government, and a letter from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, have both provided some critical analysis of the potential for green hydrogen.

Towards a new narrative

The previous government’s commitment to finalise New Zealand’s hydrogen strategy, and to deliver an overall energy strategy, remains in place. But we need a more nuanced perspective.

This must start with an acknowledgement that hydrogen is an energy carrier (which has to be produced from other sources of energy), and not an energy resource like solar radiation, wind or hydro.

We need an approach that can continue to adapt to changes in “hard to abate” sectors of the energy system. Critiques of green hydrogen need to enter the discussion if we are to make informed choices.

Government policy on this topic must be informed by independent advice free from commercial interests. A new green hydrogen narrative will enable us to focus our limited resources on applications with the best chance of delivering on New Zealand’s decarbonisation and sustainability aspirations.

This could include key New Zealand industries switching from fossil fuels to hydrogen to produce green steel, green ammonia and fertiliser and green methanol.

The authors are grateful to Paul Callister for his helpful comments and suggestions.

Ian Mason is affiliated with the NZ Offshore Wind Working Group.

Robert McLachlan 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. Hope or hype? NZ needs to be realistic about the clean energy potential of green hydrogen – https://theconversation.com/hope-or-hype-nz-needs-to-be-realistic-about-the-clean-energy-potential-of-green-hydrogen-234137

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Teagan Goolmeer, PhD Candidate, The University of Melbourne

Globally, many Indigenous people want to help protect their traditional lands and waters, drawing on knowledge stretching back millenia. Indigenous people have an obligation to look after species and habitat which are culturally important to them.

But how can Indigenous voices be supported to make land management decisions? And how do we ensure the process is Indigenous-led and culturally safe? New research by myself and colleagues can help.

We engaged Indigenous people from Bundjalung Country on Australia’s east coast. In a process they led, the Bundjalung people identified which culturally significant species they considered priorities for “collaborative management” – that is, management built on mutual respect for both Western science and Indigenous knowledge systems.

We hope this process might be used elsewhere, to give Indigenous people a genuine say in decisions about managing Country.

‘They hold the stories’

Bundjalung Country stretches from Grafton in northern New South Wales to the Logan River in Queensland and inland to Warwick.

The term Country describes the lands, water and seas to which Indigenous people are connected. Country contains complex ideas about lore, custom, language, spiritual belief, culture, material sustenance, family and identity.

For Indigenous Australians, some plants, animals and habitats hold special cultural significance. This may be, for example, because they are used in ceremonies, they feature in Creation stories or are used as a traditional food source.

The importance of this concept was was summed up during our project by Bundjalung man Oliver Costello, who said:

[Culturally significant entities] are the teachers of Country, they hold the stories and are the indicators for the health of Country. If you look after Country, it will look after you.

Our study set out to establish a process by which Indigenous people can come together to identify culturally significant species. The list of priority species would then be used to inform collaborative land and sea management with governments, conservation groups and others.

The process should be led by Indigenous people themselves, and aligned with their obligations and values.

We partnered with the Bundjalung-owned Jagun Alliance. This was crucial to ensuring the project was conducted in a culturally safe manner and developed with an Indigenous lens.

Our project adhered to cultural protocols and protected Indigenous cultural and intellectual property at all times.

What we did

First, we convened a meeting of five non-Bundjalung Indigenous experts with extensive experience in Indigenous-led work biodiversity work.

They identified six objectives for decision-making around culturally significant species. The objectives involved not just environmental values, but also social, spiritual, economic and cultural values.

We hosted several on-Country workshops with Bundjalung people and distributed an online survey, to determine which species might be prioritised for collaborative management. Of the responses we received, 32 yielded usable data.

The culturally significant plant and animal species identified as the top priority by Bundjalung respondents were:

• koalas
• goannas
• platypuses
• echidnas
• wedge-tailed eagles
• coastal emus
• pipis
• long-necked turtles.

Participants were also asked which habitats were most important for collaborative management. Some 70% identified wetlands, followed by grasslands and big scrub (a mosaic of lowland rainforest, swamp forest and wet eucalypt forest extensively cleared by colonists).

Once the results were in, Bundjalung knowledge-holders identified threats to these species, as follows:

• the lack of Bundjalung decision-making in land management actions
• lack of cultural burns
• impacts on Country such as dams, roads, housing and farming
• invasive species
• climate change.

The Bundjalung also identified management actions which should be integrated into Western management under a collaborative approach:

• community gathering on Country, such as holding ceremonies and harvesting traditional resources
• regular cultural burns
• releasing water into catchments to support cultural objectives
• active management of cultural sites and pathways.

Unlike the current threatened species approach, which largely manages only parts of the problem, the actions identified by Bundjalung people were holistic and landscape-wide. This means these actions can benefit many species and habitats.

Bundjalung people were then invited to a meeting to share findings from the work. This provided an opportunity to heal from past trauma over a shared vision for Country.

Spotlight on the koala

In Bundjalung language, the koala is known as the boorabee.

The boorabee is the only culturally significant species identified by Bundjalung people with an active “national recovery plan”. This plan guides and coordinates conservation efforts by governments and others.

The koala recovery plan calls for Indigenous-led action, which offers Bundjalung people an avenue for collaborative management. Likewise, many management actions proposed by the Bundjalung are clearly aligned with the plan.

The koala and coastal emu are listed as threatened species under various pieces of state and federal legislation. However, a species need not be imperilled to be central to Indigenous-led management.

Where to now?

Our process helped a group of Bundjalung people agree on their conservation priorities, and how to act on them.

It’s important to note, however, that the Bundjalung community consists of ten clans – it is not a homogeneous group. As such, our findings may not be supported by all Bundjalung people.

We hope our findings help policymakers understand what Indigenous-led action could look like, if integrated into biodiversity management. The structured process we undertook may benefit other groups – although applied elsewhere, it may involve different objectives, modes of engagement and results.

Indigenous Australians are ready to sit at decision-making tables to improve the management of Country. They intimately understand our precious environment – and their contribution could be transformative.

Teagan Goolmeer receives funding from the Resilient Landscapes Hub of NESP. She is affiliated with Biodiversity Council and the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.

– ref. Indigenous Australians want a seat at the table when it comes to conservation. Here’s how we might get there – https://theconversation.com/indigenous-australians-want-a-seat-at-the-table-when-it-comes-to-conservation-heres-how-we-might-get-there-235954

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Seyedali Mirjalili, Professor, Director of Centre for Artificial Intelligence Research and Optimisation, Torrens University Australia

In the world of artificial intelligence (AI), a battle is underway. On one side are companies that believe in keeping the datasets and algorithms behind their advanced software private and confidential. On the other are companies that believe in allowing the public to see what’s under the hood of their sophisticated AI models.

Think of this as the battle between open- and closed-source AI.

In recent weeks, Meta, the parent company of Facebook, took up the fight for open-source AI in a big way by releasing a new collection of large AI models. These include a model named Llama 3.1 405B, which Meta’s founder and chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, says is “the first frontier-level open source AI model”.

For anyone who cares about a future in which everybody can access the benefits of AI, this is good news.

The danger of closed-source AI – and the promise of open-source AI

Closed-source AI refers to models, datasets and algorithms that are proprietary and kept confidential. Examples include ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini and Anthropic’s Claude.

Though anyone can use these products, there is no way to find out what dataset and source codes have been used to build the AI model or tool.

While this is a great way for companies to protect their intellectual property and their profits, it risks undermining public trust and accountability. Making AI technology closed-source also slows down innovation and makes a company or other users dependent on a single platform for their AI needs. This is because the platform that owns the model controls changes, licensing and updates.

There are a range of ethical frameworks that seek to improve the fairness, accountability, transparency, privacy and human oversight of AI. However, these principles are often not fully achieved with closed-source AI due to the inherent lack of transparency and external accountability associated with proprietary systems.

In the case of ChatGPT, its parent company, OpenAI, releases neither the dataset nor code of its latest AI tools to the public. This makes it impossible for regulators to audit it. And while access to the service is free, concerns remain about how users’ data are stored and used for retraining models.

By contrast, the code and dataset behind open-source AI models is available for everyone to see.

This fosters rapid development through community collaboration and enables the involvement of smaller organisations and even individuals in AI development. It also makes a huge difference for small and medium size enterprises as the cost of training large AI models is colossal.

Perhaps most importantly, open source AI allows for scrutiny and identification of potential biases and vulnerability.

However, open-source AI does create new risks and ethical concerns.

For example, quality control in open source products is usually low. As hackers can also access the code and data, the models are also more prone to cyberattacks and can be tailored and customised for malicious purposes, such as retraining the model with data from the dark web.

An open-source AI pioneer

Among all leading AI companies, Meta has emerged as a pioneer of open-source AI. With its new suite of AI models, it is doing what OpenAI promised to do when it launched in December 2015 – namely, advancing digital intelligence “in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole”, as OpenAI said back then.

Llama 3.1 405B is the largest open-source AI model in history. It is what’s known as a large language model, capable of generating human language text in multiple languages. It can be downloaded online but because of its huge size, users will need powerful hardware to run it.

While it does not outperform other models across all metrics, Llama 3.1 405B is considered highly competitive and does perform better than existing closed-source and commercial large language models in certain tasks, such as reasoning and coding tasks.

But the new model is not fully open, because Meta hasn’t released the huge data set used to train it. This is a significant “open” element that is currently missing.

Nonetheless, Meta’s Llama levels the playing field for researchers, small organisations and startups because it can be leveraged without the immense resources required to train large language models from scratch.

Shaping the future of AI

To ensure AI is democratised, we need three key pilars:

• governance: regulatory and ethical frameworks to ensure AI technology is being developed and used responsibly and ethically
• accessibility: affordable computing resources and user-friendly tools to ensure a fair landscape for developers and users
• openness: datasets and algorithms to train and build AI tools should be open source to ensure transparency.

Achieving these three pillars is a shared responsibility for government, industry, academia and the public. The public can play a vital role by advocating for ethical policies in AI, staying informed about AI developments, using AI responsibly and supporting open-source AI initiatives.

But several questions remain about open-source AI. How can we balance protecting intellectual property and fostering innovation through open-source AI? How can we minimise ethical concerns around open-source AI? How can we safeguard open-source AI against potential misuse?

Properly addressing these questions will help us create a future where AI is an inclusive tool for all. Will we rise to the challenge and ensure AI serves the greater good? Or will we let it become another nasty tool for exclusion and control? The future is in our hands.

Seyedali Mirjalili 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. Meta just launched the largest ‘open’ AI model in history. Here’s why it matters – https://theconversation.com/meta-just-launched-the-largest-open-ai-model-in-history-heres-why-it-matters-235689

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lynette Cheah, Professor and Chair of Sustainable Transport, University of the Sunshine Coast

With the rise in e-commerce, 161 billion parcels were delivered worldwide in 2022, doubling in just four years. In Australia, more households are shopping online than ever before. In 2023, 5.6 million households made a monthly online purchase. This implies millions of parcels are being shipped each month.

High-emitting diesel vans or trucks undertake almost all last-mile or doorstop parcel deliveries. In cities, these vehicles add to traffic congestion, parking pressures, carbon emissions and air pollution. So how can we reduce the environmental impact of all these deliveries?

Using low-emission vehicles, such as electric delivery vans powered by renewable energy sources, can certainly help. However, electric delivery vans and trucks are still uncommon. Their global sales share in 2023 was just under 5%. Increasing the numbers of vehicle chargers powered by renewable energy will also take time.

To complement the transition to cleaner vehicles, shorter-term solutions can include optimising the organisation of deliveries, as well as more novel ideas. One of these ideas is crowdshipping.

The concept applies crowdsourcing to delivery services. Members of the public elect to deliver parcels in the course of their journeys. In this way, crowdshipping integrates passenger and freight transport to streamline movement in cities.

How does crowdshipping work?

Crowdshipping taps into “the crowd” to fulfil parcel deliveries. Instead of having dedicated couriers, we can match people with parcels bound for destinations close to where they are already headed, with minimal detours.

The concept leverages existing transport capacity. “Crowdshippers” are already travelling privately in their own vehicles or by public transport, or even cycling or walking. Through a service-matching platform, such as Roadie or DoorDash, crowdshippers can be paid for taking a parcel along their way.

In cities with good public transport and high levels of use, passengers can hand-carry small parcels across the network. Automated parcel lockers installed at stations can serve as mini distribution centres, where passengers pick up and drop off parcels.

What are the benefits?

We modelled crowdshipping in Singapore. The city has an excellent public transport system used by nearly 60% of commuters.

Algorithms were developed to match a selection of parcels to available passengers, considering their origins and destinations. The simulation used real-world datasets on daily parcel deliveries from the Singapore road network and public transport journeys.

The simulation showed crowdshipping can have multiple benefits. By outsourcing only 11% of parcel deliveries to crowdshippers riding public buses, an e-commerce carrier will require fewer delivery vehicles. Delivery vehicle distances fall by 20%, with matching cuts in emissions.

And even after paying crowdshippers, the carrier will enjoy cost savings.

What practical obstacles must be overcome?

There are several practical considerations.

For a start, would passengers be willing to deliver parcels? A survey of potential crowdshippers had a positive response.

Motivated by being able to earn some income while travelling, most passengers polled said they were willing to serve as crowdshippers. They were especially keen if paid one to two times their transport fare.

Next, might transporting parcels on public transport cause extra congestion or delay during peak-hour commutes? We should avoid adding more loads on crowded buses or trains.

We explored limiting crowdshipping to off-peak hours and found good availability of potential crowdshippers to deliver parcels. Many public transport systems tend to have excess capacity at these times, so making use of this to move parcels is feasible.

Finally, there’s a need to assure parcel shippers, carriers and receivers that the service is reliable. The service platform should be designed to develop and maintain accountability and trust among users. The system would have to be able to verify identity and track parcel status.

Crowdshipping using public transport would be ideal for cities with good public transport networks and high passenger numbers. Similar to outsourcing to a logistics provider, carriers can explore using people movements to complement their regular deliveries.

Cities need new solutions to make urban mobility sustainable. Integrating passenger and freight transport could make city logistics operations more efficient. By carrying out data-driven transport modelling and simulation, we can explore ideas such as crowdshipping, develop trials to test them and bring them closer to realisation.

This article draws on research conducted with Dr Meijing Zhang from Singapore University of Technology and Design.

Lynette Cheah receives funding from the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads. She previously received funding from the Singapore National Research Foundation, Ministry of National Development, Land Transport Authority, Public Transport Council, Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology (SMART), and Daimler Mobility.

– ref. Ride a bus, take a package with you – how crowdshipping reduces the impacts of millions of deliveries – https://theconversation.com/ride-a-bus-take-a-package-with-you-how-crowdshipping-reduces-the-impacts-of-millions-of-deliveries-234556

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jua Cilliers, Head of School of Built Environment, Professor of Urban Planning, University of Technology Sydney

It’s been a rainy winter in many parts of Australia, wreaking havoc on kids’ sporting competitions. As mums, it has been frustrating to see so many of our kids’ sport matches (and training sessions) cancelled because of waterlogged grounds.

When footy, rugby, league tag, soccer or netball get cancelled because of ground closures, our kids miss out on valuable exercise and growth opportunities. It means less time to develop sport skills, practise teamwork, boost resilience and mental health, engage with positive role models and play with friends. It often means more time on the couch, and parents lamenting the money they spent on registration fees and sports uniforms.

With climate change predicted to bring more intense rainfall events, this situation isn’t going away. The good news is a growing body of research offers insights into how we can address this problem through smarter urban design and green infrastructure.

What’s green infrastructure?

The term “green infrastructure” can mean many things but in this context it refers to nature-based infrastructure we can build to better filter and absorb rainwater.

The fundamental principle is that concrete doesn’t absorb water. Rain that falls on it just gets channelled to stormwater drains (which can quickly overflow), or to the nearest bit of green space. Often, that’s the local sporting field.

The solution? Create more soil-based or nature-based spaces that allow for rainwater to be absorbed into the earth well before it gets to the local sports grounds.

This can include:

• green roofs and rooftop farms, which use roof space to grow plants and food

• green walls, where the walls of buildings are repurposed as places to support plants

• urban forest projects

• urban parks

• planting and preserving more street trees, which help absorb rainwater through their roots

• using less concrete in our urban spaces

• rain gardens, which are specially designed gardens that can rapidly absorb rainfall during wet weather

• special vegetated channels called swales, which absorb rainwater.

Green infrastructure doesn’t just reduce flooding. It can also make our urban spaces more sustainable, cut urban heat, lower noise pollution and even reduce people’s stress.

Some cities and suburbs have made great strides in installing and tending to green infrastructure.

But why aren’t these principles of urban design more widely implemented?

Yes, it costs money – but it’s worth it

Too often, governments do not advocate for investment in green infrastructure. According to the World Economic Forum, less than 0.3% of current urban infrastructure spending goes to nature-based solutions.

Yes, green infrastructure requires investment but our current concrete-based approach to cities is also enormously expensive. One study found:

Nature-based infrastructure costs around 50% less than equivalent built infrastructure while delivering the same — or better — outcomes. As well as the lower initial costs, nature-based infrastructure tends to be cheaper to maintain and more resilient to climate change.

Research has also found green infrastructure can deliver broader health benefits to the community that may represent savings to the public health bill.

New South Wales already has a planning framework, released last year, that aims to:

provide a standardised, robust and comprehensive approach to identify, quantify and monetise common costs and benefits associated with green infrastructure and public spaces.

That’s a strong start. But more could be done to embed green infrastructure principles into development application processes. This could encourage the development of green infrastructure that can absorb rain. That, in turn, could mean fewer closures of waterlogged sports grounds.

It is also possible to improve drainage on existing sports grounds. Managers of the Maryland SoccerPlex in the United States, for example, used a green infrastructure technique known as “sand slit drainage” – which involves installing special pipes and adding sand to the field – to vastly upgrade drainage. This allows people to play sports throughout the rain season.

Can’t we just make sports grounds out of artificial grass?

Sure, fake grass sports grounds would allow fields to accommodate some games when real grass fields wash out – but it would be a huge loss for biodiversity, quality of life, our health and the broader sustainability of our neighbourhoods.

Residents in some parts of NSW have already voiced concerns artificial grass can radiate heat on very warm days. It also produces plastic pollution.

Instead, we need to rethink the design of sport fields. We should view them as valuable green spaces. They are part of the green infrastructure network and help regulate urban temperatures and enhance ecological systems in and around our cities.

They should be seen as sponges to absorb rainwater – but they cannot be the only ones. Without more green infrastructure in our cities, our sports ground sponges will quickly become overloaded and waterlogged.

Jua Cilliers is the president of the Commonwealth Association of Planners. She is the Director of the UTS Green Infrastructure Lab.

Mehrafarin Takin is currently a PhD candidate at University of Technology Sydney. She has a research scholarship from Australian government.

– ref. Kids’ sport always cancelled due to rain-soaked grounds? Green infrastructure can help – https://theconversation.com/kids-sport-always-cancelled-due-to-rain-soaked-grounds-green-infrastructure-can-help-235109

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Linda J. Graham, Professor and Director of the Centre for Inclusive Education, Queensland University of Technology

We have just received the long-awaited response from the Australian government to the disability royal commission’s final report.

One of the most controversial aspects of the final report was a split between the commissioners on the issue of school segregation – or students with disability being sent to special schools.

The three commissioners with close experience of disability recommended the phasing out of special schools. They said segregation is “inherently linked with the devaluation of people with disability”. The three commissioners without such experience said we should retain a dual-track system, with more interaction between special and mainstream schools.

In its national response, released on Wednesday, the federal government sidestepped this debate, noting schools are the responsibility of states and territories. That said, it then opened the door to keeping the current system by acknowledging “differing views”, as well as the “ongoing role” for special schools and the importance of families having a choice.

What does this mean for inclusive education (having all children in the same classrooms with support and adjustments) in Australia?

Read more:
‘Lacklustre’ and ‘disappointing’ – experts react to the government’s disability royal commission response

‘On an equal basis’

While running schools is indeed a state responsibility, this does not mean the federal government has nothing to do with students with disability.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities says signatories need to ensure an “inclusive education system at all levels”.

It also says

children with disabilities are not excluded from free and compulsory primary education, or from secondary education, on the basis of disability.

This should be “on an equal basis with others in the communities in which they live”.

Importantly, a child’s right to an inclusive education is not subordinate to a parent’s right to choose the type of school they attend.

In ratifying the convention in 2008, the Australian government agreed to uphold these rights. And yet, in 2024, it has not even provided an aspirational statement about special schools – it passed the issue to the states.

What do the states and territories say?

The states and territories have also responded individually to the royal commission. Here we have a range of responses, with most jurisdictions pointing back to the national response (which notes the different community views).

In Western Australia, the government said it would give the issue of phasing out segregated schools “further consideration”. It talks positively of change and says it will set up “timelines” and supports “fully inclusive” education.

The response from Queensland also keeps options open, saying it wants to strengthen inclusive education in all Queensland state schools and “provide a real choice for parents”.

At the other end of the spectrum is Victoria, which has the highest number of students in special schools of all the states and territories (unlike New South Wales, it does not have segregated support classes in mainstream schools). Victoria categorically said it does “not accept” the call to end special schools and “values” their role in its education system.

NSW also said special schools play a “crucial role” in meeting the diverse needs of students, in a sign it does not support a change.

What happens now?

Researchers have long noted the importance of leadership when it comes to inclusive education. This typically places focus on school principals, but they are limited by the political and policy context in which they work. So we also need political leadership, at both the federal and state levels.

During the royal commission hearings we heard a lot about the failure of the status quo – the current situation is not working for people with disability. And genuine inclusive education is crucial because it is the gateway to employment, independence and inclusion later in adult life.

But as this response to the issue of special schools shows, we are in danger of being stuck with the status quo.

It is very difficult to make the mainstream school system inclusive when human and financial capital is flowing to another system. And as long as there is another system to take “those kids”, there isn’t a real incentive for local schools to get inclusion right. And there isn’t a genuine choice for families.

Linda J. Graham receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Queensland government’s Education Horizon scheme.

– ref. The federal government has only ‘noted’ a call to end special schools. What does this mean for students with disability? – https://theconversation.com/the-federal-government-has-only-noted-a-call-to-end-special-schools-what-does-this-mean-for-students-with-disability-235958

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Dodd, Director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

Rupert Murdoch’s attempt to continue controlling his company from beyond the grave would be better labelled Project Hegemony, than Harmony, because it’s designed to cement one sibling’s dominance over the others and shield the business from possible progressive reform.

But, in attempting to revoke the “irrevocable” family trust that sets out the company’s governance after his death, Murdoch has laid bare his own business. He has exposed what many observers have long suspected about the company, and revealed just how much is now at stake. Most of the revelations are not pretty, but some hint at a very different future for the global media empire.

We can now be certain that Rupert believes the company’s future is dependent on remaining trenchantly right-wing. This is most apparent in the US, where Fox News dominates cable TV ratings because it is the voice of MAGA Republicans. Murdoch now sees no other way to maintain that edge than by aligning with the reactionary wing of the party.

He wavered for a while when his New York Post championed Ron De Santis as an alternative Republican nominee to Donald Trump. But when the Florida governor failed in the early primaries, News Corp quickly circled back, fully committed to the Trump cause. Now Murdoch knows wavering could erode the loyalty of Fox viewers, perhaps sending a significant number to rival conservative media channels like NewsMax.

So much for Murdoch driving the right or steering the agenda. The 93-year-old has come to realise that if he was ever in charge, he isn’t anymore.

He may have lit the spark of reactionary politics and fanned the flames of anger in his audiences, but now it’s a movement and it’s raging like a Californian wildfire. In a sense, Murdoch has become captive to the masses who demand that their prejudices remain unchallenged. He has learnt that to lead he must follow.

Lachlan, and only Lachlan

All of this means there’s only one person in Rupert’s mind who can ensure the company’s ongoing success, and that’s his eldest son, Lachlan. In turn, this confirms at least one of two things; either Lachlan really is the most right-wing of Rupert’s four oldest children, or he is the most in sync with the company’s business model of serving up whatever content the audience demands to keep watching.

It appears Rupert thinks Lachlan is both.

Yes, many have long suspected Lachlan’s leanings, given his guidance of Fox in the lead-up to the January 6 insurrection. Lachlan was in charge when the network condoned the conspiracy-mongering and the big lie in the wake of Trump’s election loss in 2020.

He did little to curb the transphobia across the organisation or its obsession with “wokeism” as the latest frontier in the culture wars. He watched on as News smeared climate scientists and ridiculed Australian firefighters who linked the 2019/20 bushfires to climate change. The company’s coverage and support of Trump finally led James Murdoch to walk away from News in 2019.

Even though this much is known, it’s still shocking to realise that Murdoch has seen it too and that, after weighing up his children’s political views, has gone and driven a wedge between them because three of them aren’t right-wing enough.

Murdoch plans to rewrite the trust to “consolidate decision-making power in Lachlan’s hands and give him permanent, exclusive control”, even when he is in a minority of one against siblings Elizabeth and James and half-sister Prudence, who share power under the existing deed.

The Nevada probate commissioner has ruled that Murdoch can amend the trust if he can demonstrate he’s acting in good faith for the sole benefit of his heirs. When the matter goes to court next month, Murdoch will argue everyone will benefit because changing the trust will prevent endless power struggles resulting from the “lack of consensus” between the four children. If unchecked, Murdoch believes, the fighting “would impact the strategic direction at both companies including a potential reorientation of editorial policy and content”.

One suspects it’s not the endless fighting that worries Murdoch, so much as the fact that, without amendment, Lachlan may be quickly outvoted and ousted from company control.

The arrangement Murdoch wants is no less democratic than the provisions that have given the Murdochs control of the company with only 39% of the stock. But again, it’s shocking to see Murdoch wants to enshrine something so brazen within what is still essentially a family business.

On the other hand, similar rules already exist to shut out third wife Wendi Deng’s two children, Chloe and Grace. They hold equal shares in the company’s equity but don’t get a vote.

A more interesting question is what this tells us about Murdoch’s deepest fears. Has the emeritus chairman been spending sleepless nights fretting about Prudence, James and Elizabeth ganging up to relegate Lachlan to a non-executive role? Is he really worried that James will sack some of the many climate deniers who lurk around his publications? If so, he won’t need to sack the leading one in Australia, as Andrew Bolt has already promised to go of his own accord if James ends up in charge.

What is it that’s really driving Rupert?

If he’s thinking along these lines, then perhaps the three siblings are too. Perhaps they have gamed what they would do when – not if – they join forces? Maybe they’ve begun to imagine a different News Corp, based on a fresh business model, where balanced journalism is reinstated and respected and actually practised?

Now that’s an endlessly fascinating question, especially in this age of media disruption. Can a pluralist news outfit that practises good journalism create profits on the same scale as an outlet like Fox, which thrives commercially by serving one section of the market and dispensing with journalistic standards?

It’s not media economics that prevents reform. A channel like Sky News in Australia could easily alter its line-up so that after dark a wider range of views are canvassed and challenged. That would not imperil its bottom line, but it would make for better programming. Sky wouldn’t even have to stop being right-of-centre, it would just have to remember to be respectful to the other half of the population that has completely different views.

Another view is that Rupert just doesn’t want the empire he spent a lifetime building being broken up. Perhaps he thinks one-person rule will ensure it remains cohesive.

But what we know about Rupert suggests he is pragmatic on such questions and is prepared to merge and divest whenever it’s strategic or opportune. The fact that his business is now housed in two companies, Fox and News Corp, is testament to that.

If it’s not about the bottom line or the cohesion of the empire, then what is driving Rupert to act like this in his twilight years? This is a variation of the question Murdoch-watchers endlessly ask: why does Rupert do what he does, is it the money or the power? Some speculate it’s both, because making money creates ways to exert influence, which in turn lead to more ways to make money, and so on.

Keeping a winning formula, even beyond the grave

But impending mortality changes that equation. Even Murdoch knows his money won’t be much use to him after his death. Instead, this is about ensuring the legacy that now most matters to him.

He has spent seven decades building a reactionary force across three continents and he likes the effects it continues to create. Yes, it isn’t what it once was and sometimes the issues get away from him, but at least the debates are happening, and the so-called elites and the establishment continue to be rattled.

He watches his acolytes in action, such as Fox presenters Sean Hannity and Greg Gutfeld and columnists Miranda Devine and Bolt, and he likes what he sees. He likes that they sow division. He likes that they mock people who are progressive and bolster those who are cruel. He doesn’t agree with all their conspiracy theories, but he kind of likes that they’re out there creating hegemony, undermining harmony.

He likes it all and he doesn’t want it to end. Not now. Not even when he’s dead.

Andrew Dodd 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. Rupert Murdoch’s succession plan reveals a lot about his empire – and most of it is not pretty – https://theconversation.com/rupert-murdochs-succession-plan-reveals-a-lot-about-his-empire-and-most-of-it-is-not-pretty-235583

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

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has vowed to inflict “harsh punishment” on Israel in retaliation for the assassination of the top Hamas political leader, Ismail Haniyeh, in Tehran.

Haniyeh’s killing is a critical escalation in the already volatile and increasingly hostile region. But the severity of Iran’s response to Israel will depend on a number of factors. An all-out war is not a sure thing.

A strong, but calculated response

Ever since the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7 and Israel’s subsequent invasion of Gaza, Iran and Israel have demonstrated significant restraint towards one another, drawing nuanced red lines in their proxy conflict.

Neither side has wanted to escalate the tensions into a full-scale war that could engulf the entire region. Instead, they have sought to flex their muscles to avoid appearing weak, while stopping short of provoking a major conflict.

This was evident in April when an apparent Israeli strike on an Iranian diplomatic compound in Syria killed senior Iranian military commanders. Iran retaliated with a direct drone and missile strike against Israel. The attack was seemingly intentionally designed to not cause major casualities or harm to Israel. It was also telegraphed in advance, allowing Israel and its allies to shoot down the weapons.

Iran has mostly relied on its regional allies to keep the pressure on Israel as the Gaza war has continued. These allies include Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and its proxy militant groups in Syria and Iraq.

Israel, by contrast, has followed a dual strategy: responding forcefully to Iran’s allies and confronting Iran directly on its soil in targeted strikes.

The assassination of Haniyeh will necessitate retaliation from Iran and its proxies. Khamenei tweeted that avenging his death is Iran’s “duty”.

However, it’s unlikely this act has reached the point of justifying an open war. Iranian foreign policy has adopted a high level of pragmatism, carefully calculating the military’s actions and avoiding anything that might launch a costly war with economic, political and security implications.

This doesn’t mean there won’t be a strong response. Iran’s allies, in particular Hezbollah, possess the capability of inflicting serious damage on Israel, far exceeding what they have demonstrated so far. Their attacks could intensify significantly.

A balancing act for Iran’s new government

Iran has also recently elected a new moderate government under the presidency of Masoud Pezeshkian. He has said he wants to prioritise reforming Iran’s foreign policy to create a more amicable environment in the region. This could also pave the way for better relations with Western powers, including the United States.

His administration has signalled its intention to revive the nuclear deal that then-US President Donald Trump scrapped in 2018. Iran wants relief from the international sanctions that have significantly harmed its economy and the lives of the Iranian people.

However, the assassination of Haniyeh has created a precarious situation for Iran’s government. It must balance the need for a robust response with the desire to pursue diplomatic and economic reforms. There are two important aspects to this.

First, the attack occurred in Tehran, which compels the government to issue a strong response. Pezeshkian’s tweet after the incident demonstrates this:

Iran will defend its territorial integrity and honour and make the terrorist invaders regret their cowardly action.

Any retaliation would likely increase tensions with Western countries and could hinder Pezeshkian’s diplomatic aims.

Second, Iran’s hardliners will seize this opportunity to criticise the new government, questioning its policy of reconciliation with the West. They will argue that such policies are ineffective and advocate for a more confrontational stance, thereby undermining the government’s reformist agenda.

A tactical win for Israel with potential downsides

Even though Israel has not claimed responsibility for the assassination, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government may view it as a tactical win. It continues to showcase Israel’s ability to target high-profile adversaries.

Israel has either confirmed it has (or is believed to have) eliminated other Hamas leaders, such as deputy political chief Saleh al-Arouri, deputy chief of military operations Marwan Issa and potentially the commander of the al-Qassam Brigades, Mohammed Deif (though his death has not been confirmed).

This week, Israel also claimed responsibility for killing a senior Hezbollah commander, Fuad Shukr, in a strike in Lebanon.

However, given the significance of Haniyeh to Hamas and the fact the killing occurred in Tehran, it comes with significant risks and potential downsides.

The assassination will almost certainly hinder the ceasefire negotiations between Hamas and Israel. This will complicate efforts to secure the release of the remaining Israeli hostages. The Israeli public is already deeply divided, with the government facing criticism for its security failures in the October 7 attack and its inability to bring the hostages home.

Cracks have also begun to emerge between Israeli military leaders and the government over the war in Gaza.

In this context, the assassination of Haniyeh is unlikely to unite Israelis. Instead, it may exacerbate existing divisions, particularly if it leads to more conflict.

Where does Hamas go from here?

Haniyeh had a significant role in Hamas’s leadership. He facilitated strategic relationships with influential regional players, including Iran, Turkey and Qatar. He also played a crucial role in mediating between different factions within Hamas, and between Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups.

This is especially important due to the recent agreement struck in China between 14 Palestinian factions, including Hamas and its main rival, Fatah. This deal aims to unite them to create a strong political entity to pursue a potential peace process with Israel.

His absence will undoubtedly affect Hamas. However, it is not the first time Hamas has lost prominent leaders; Israel assassinated Hamas founder Ahmed Yassin in 2004, among others.

Despite these losses, Hamas has maintained strong leadership and regional backing, particularly from Iran, Turkey and Qatar.

It is still too early to determine who will replace Haniyeh, but his successor will need to possess a similar level of regional connections and public support.

A likely candidate could be someone like Khaled Mashal, who has previously held leadership roles within Hamas and has substantial regional influence.

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

– ref. Iran has vowed ‘harsh punishment’ for Ismail Haniyeh’s killing, but how likely is all-out war with Israel? – https://theconversation.com/iran-has-vowed-harsh-punishment-for-ismail-haniyehs-killing-but-how-likely-is-all-out-war-with-israel-235896

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gemma Blackwood, Lecturer, Media, University of Tasmania

Even if you weren’t lucky enough to spot the aurora light shows visible across southern Australia this week (and which may potentially reappear in coming days), you probably did encounter the onslaught of online news articles and photos that followed.

Just 35 years ago, however, this wouldn’t have been the case. Even digital cameras weren’t easily available until the mid-1990s, which means any dazzling aurora sightings would have been a privileged view for a select few.

Read more:
Our obsession with taking photos is changing how we remember the past

According to Photutorial founder Matic Broz, about 1.94 trillion photographs will be taken globally over 2024 – with more than 90% of these taken by smartphones.

Taking photos is also increasingly becoming a part of our experience of the natural world. What was once just stargazing has branched off into the massive field of astrophotography. Our cameras enable a new way of experiencing nature that’s far-removed from how earlier generations would do so.

New technology brings new opportunities

In the case of auroras and other forms of astrophotography, night-friendly photo settings have allowed us to see the world after dark.

Improvements in “night mode” technologies have been in development since smartphones were invented. That said, Google could be considered the first company to have released technology that enables simple astrophotography, with its introduction of “night sight” for Pixel phones in 2018.

Then, in 2019, Apple released a similar “night mode” setting for the iPhone 11 – and for many smartphone users, the need to manually apply exposure settings on a camera suddenly disappeared.

In one of Apple’s night mode ads released in 2020, we see a montage of “before and after” images highlighting the difference in quality when the mode is applied. The montage is set against the Smashing Pumpkins song We Only Come Out At Night, as an aurora photo appears in the set.

Today, there are numerous official and unofficial guides (and even entire books) to help people harness their smartphone camera’s capabilities.

In her book The Aurora Chaser’s Handbook: In Search of Tasmania’s Southern Lights, author Margaret Sonnemann provides a how-to for “photographing the aurora on a mobile phone”. She suggests using apps to enhance the visual settings and switching to “night” or “astro” mode.

Is nature enhanced through the artificial lens?

There are several reasons why you might want to capture the beauty of nature through your smartphone.

For one thing, doing so helps “democratise” our collective experience of the natural world. Sharing photos of nature gives many more people the ability to come across incredible natural sights. This is especially valuable for those who may be financially or physically unable to travel to the distant lands where these sights are found.

Then there’s the fact that photos and video allow us to watch and rewatch natural phenomena. Apart from being a cool thing to do, this provides opportunities for education and analysis of the natural world. Indeed, sharing photos to increase public interest in nature could even be considered a form of environmental communication.

Technology also helps “enhance” our view of the natural world. Aurora photos, for instance, use prolonged exposure times to greatly enhance colours and lights in a way that can’t be seen by the naked eye. This provides an additional incentive to whip out your phone if you do come across one.

Similarly, prolonged exposure times allow us to take “flowing” photographs of waterfalls and surf waves. And time-lapse settings let us create stop-motion videos of slow-moving nature, such as cloud movements or flower buds opening.

Is nature tainted through the artificial lens?

As aurora photography and similar forms become increasingly common, we should also ask the following question: how is this new way of interacting with nature impacting our relationship with it?

Digitally enhanced images literally change what we would otherwise see with the naked eye. Might this distort our ideas of nature?

Many widely shared photos of auroras may not even be real. Post-editing techniques are often used to further enhance aurora shots, or to add an aurora to a shot that never even had one. Some striking images that circulated earlier this year were deliberately faked.

The increasing sophistication of artificial intelligence will only make it harder to distinguish between the truly phenomenal and the phony. As such, the large set of photographs that appear on social media carry with them a whole new set of representational concerns.

Visual culture professor Nicolas Mirzeoff suggests we are compelled to take photos as a “key part of our effort to understand the changing world around us and our place within it”. But photos risk becoming visual commodities when they are extraneously edited (or faked) and plastered online in the millions.

And then there is the concern that a cultural obsession with photographing nature might divert our focus from what’s truly in front of us, taking us out of the magical moment. So, as these new photo technologies enable new ways of connecting with nature, so too do we need to consider how they might be distracting or removing us from it.

Gemma Blackwood 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. Smartphones allow us to capture nature like never before – but are they also distorting our view? – https://theconversation.com/smartphones-allow-us-to-capture-nature-like-never-before-but-are-they-also-distorting-our-view-230550

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shane Keating, Associate Professor, UNSW Sydney

There has been plenty of rain, sweat and tears shed at the Paris Olympics this week. But the pool at the heart of La Defénce Arena has suffered a drought of world records that has athletes and officials scratching their heads.

After five days, Paris 2024 has seen only a single world record fall in a swimming event. That compares with six new swimming world records set at Tokyo in 2021 and eight at Rio in 2018. Even the much-hyped women’s 400 metre freestyle – billed as the “race of the century” – failed to topple any personal bests from the three most recent world-record holders, Ariarne Titmus (Australia), Summer McIntosh (Canada) and Katie Ledecky (United States).

To earn a spot on the winners’ podium, of course, place – not pace – is what matters. But the near-absence of the letters WR alongside any of the finishing times on the Olympic scoreboard has coaches, competitors and commentators searching for a culprit.

Several athletes, including Titmus, have pointed to problems with the accommodation, food and transport at the games. And some are pointing to the Olympic pool itself with cries of “J’accuse…!”

The slow pool theory

It is undeniable that the pool at La Défence Arena is shallower than at recent Olympics. It’s 2.15m deep – deeper than the required minimum of 2m but quite a bit shallower than the standard 3m used at the Tokyo and Rio games.

Why would this make a difference? Well, when swimmers dive into the pool and power through the water, they naturally create waves that radiate outwards. Some of these waves will propagate along the surface of the pool and be damped by gutters at the edge. Others will travel downward, bounce off the bottom of the pool, and return to the surface to create turbulence.

Turbulence can slow a swimmer down in two ways. First, it creates a choppy pool surface that can disrupt a swimmer’s rhythm and reduce their speed.

Second, turbulence increases the effect of water drag by dissipating the swimmer’s momentum – the water motion literally “sucks” the speed from the swimmer.

The slow pool theory says the shallower pool means more waves bounce back to the surface, creating more turbulence and slowing swimmers down. But does it hold water?

Not according to Roberto Colletto, chief executive of the Italian company that constructed the pool in Paris. “On the technical side, there is no problem with the pool,” he told French broadcaster RMC Sport.

And scientifically speaking, the theory has some holes. One problem is that the waves bouncing off the pool bottom are quite different from the ones that travel across the surface. Subsurface waves are essentially sound waves generated by differences in water pressure.

Sound waves travel at about 1,500m per second in water. In a 2.15m-deep pool, a sound wave takes a little under 3 milliseconds to bounce off the bottom and return to the surface, compared with 4 milliseconds in a 3m pool. This millisecond difference in travel time likely has a negligible effect on the generation of turbulence at the pool surface.

On the surface

Water depth does have an effect on the waves at the pool surface, however. Surface waves travel more slowly in shallow water – which is why you see ocean waves piling up and breaking as they approach the beach.

So the waves the swimmers are creating at the surface of the competition pool in Paris will be travelling marginally more slowly than the waves in a 3m-deep pool.

Elite swimmers can take advantage of the surface waves they generate in the pool. By adjusting their swimming speed, they can create a wave that has a wavelength close to their own body length. This means the swimmer can position themselves between two crests to effectively “surf” the wave.

This critical speed, known as “hull velocity”, is well known in sailing. For elite middle- and long-distance swimmers, swimming at their own personal hull velocity can save energy – and win races.

Because the competition pool at the Paris Olympics is shallower than a standard 3m pool, the hull velocity of each swimmer will be slightly slower. So it is possible that some of the swimmers – especially in middle-distance races such as the 400m freestyle – may unconsciously be adjusting their pace to match the slower hull velocity. But, since the effect is the same for all competitors, no one will have an unfair advantage.

That’s only one possible explanation for the dreaded “slow pool”. It’s also possible that the perception of a slow pool has a larger effect than the reality.

As some have pointed out, the Australian Olympic Trials at the Brisbane Aquatic Centre resulted in a new world record in the women’s 200m freestyle – despite the pool being only 2m deep.

Faster, higher, stronger

It’s also possible swimmers are approaching the limits of human performance – at least until we work out how to break those limits once again.

New technology, improved nutrition and training, and greater access to clubs and coaches have boosted elite performance. But each toppled record reduces the likelihood of another, even better performance.

It shouldn’t be surprising that the rate of record-breaking performances will decrease over time.

In marathon running, for example, the men’s world record fell by 12 minutes over the 1950s and ‘60s. But further progress has been slow: it has only dropped another 8 minutes in the past 60 years, and now stubbornly hovers just above the two-hour mark. A statistical study published in 2019 predicted there is only a 1 in 4 chance anyone would beat the two-hour threshold in a competitive event by 2027.

Compared to track events, swimming seems to still have plenty of capacity to shatter records.

At Tokyo in 2021, the winning times in three-quarters of the swimming events were faster than at the Beijing Games in 2008. This was despite the use of swimming suits in the Beijing games that were later banned by the sport’s governing body. Over the past decade, swimming world records have been broken 43% more often than in Olympic track races.

The desire to push our limits, to break the unbreakable barrier, is at the heart of the Olympic motto: “Faster, higher, stronger.”

It just might take a little longer to get there.

Shane Keating receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the NSW Defence Innovation Network. He has also receives funding from industry and government partners including the Bureau of Meteorology, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, and Naval Group Pacific.

– ref. Is the shallow pool in Paris really slowing Olympic swimmers down? Here’s what the science says – https://theconversation.com/is-the-shallow-pool-in-paris-really-slowing-olympic-swimmers-down-heres-what-the-science-says-235884

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher Mesagno, Senior Lecturer – Sport and Exercise Psychology, Research Fellow – Institute for Health and Sport, Victoria University

Australia’s soccer team entered Paris with high hopes of notching their first Olympic medal but those aspirations came crashing down with defeat to the United States.

Even without star striker Sam Kerr, the Matildas – who enjoyed a famous run to finish fourth at the 2023 FIFA World Cup – were considered medal fancies but couldn’t progress past the group stage.

It was a devastating loss – but how do these athletes (and others who don’t achieve their goals in Paris) rebound from the disappointment?

The pressure of performing

Every four years, billions of viewers around the world unite in awe of the skill and perseverance of Olympians and Paralympians.

The athletes fortunate enough to compete in Paris 2024 will have done their best to put years of dedicated preparation into their performances.

Many will have performed well and some achieved their goal of claiming a medal. Others, though, will finish the games with the feeling they did not fully realise their potential when it counted most.

This leaves many athletes finishing the games with crushing disappointment.

Famously, legendary swimmer (and now retired) Cate Campbell experienced this after her results at the Rio Olympics, which led to awful abuse and harassment from a portion of the Australian public.

Research has shown that many athletes report lower wellbeing after returning from the Olympics, including a sense of loneliness, disappointment, and lack of direction.

One of the reasons Olympic disappointment is so difficult is the deep ways in which an athlete’s identity gets wrapped up in their performance.

That is, after years of being seen as “an athlete”, many begin to feel who they are as a person is dependent on how they perform.

Athlete mental health and the role of self-criticism

The mental health challenges faced by many athletes are now well recognised. Research here in Australia has found elite athletes show rates of mental ill-health at similar, if not greater, numbers than the general public. Major performance disappointments are well known contributors to this.

Perhaps adding salt to the wound, one of the ways that elite athletes deal with disappointment is through self-criticism. This can include hostile ways of relating to oneself, which can lead to feelings of worthlessness and inferiority.

Being self-critical is seen in many pursuits as the only way to get ahead, in an attempt to remove weakness and demand self-improvement.

However, research repeatedly shows that most forms of self-criticism are associated with symptoms of mental ill-health. Moreover, harsh forms of internal judgement are far less effective at motivating growth and development than we might think.

Athletes, like the rest of us, need to find another way to handle the inevitable setbacks and disappointments as they arise.

A role for compassion

A growing body of research and practice has suggested self-compassion might fit the bill.

Compassion can be defined as the sensitivity to suffering in self and others, with a commitment to try to reduce or prevent the suffering.

It can be directed to others, received from others, or directed internally (self-compassion).

For an athlete experiencing post-Olympic distress, showing self-compassion involves turning towards that distress rather than avoiding, judging, or criticising, and then identifying what they need to address it.

This is harder than it may seem.

One of the reasons self-compassion is so difficult is because it goes against many of the ways in which we have learned to self-motivate. Indeed, many athletes will report a common worry: that being self-compassionate might lower their standards.

That’s just not the case. Research has shown self-compassion can motivate self-improvement and athletes with higher levels of self-compassion show positive performance outcomes in sport. This is in contrast to self-criticism.

Research has also shown athletes who engage in more self-compassion tend to report a range of benefits including better mental health, and more helpful responses to disappointment.

For this reason, there is a growing focus within clinical and sport psychology to help develop self-compassion among athletes as a resource for resilience.

Building self-compassion

So, how can athletes (and the rest of us) build an ability to be self-compassionate?

There are lots of ways. A great start is using our inner wisdom to recognise how we would offer compassion to another person we care for, and then directing it inwards.

Perhaps ask yourself: “how would I respond to a close friend in this situation?”

Other strategies aim to trigger a soothing response in our bodies which can affect both our psychology and physiology. For example we can actively change the tone of our inner thoughts and outward facial expression to be friendly rather than neutral or hostile.

Additional practices involve mental imagery (or visualisation) to develop our “compassionate self”, which we can then learn to step into. These practices make up some of the key ingredients to compassionate mind training and compassion-focused therapy, which have been shown to reduce depression and self-criticism.

In this way, athletes can offer themselves the support they need to get through the difficulties of Olympic and Paralympic disappointment.

More than self-compassion

Just as important as an athlete’s self-compassion is the receiving of compassion from others.

After her Rio disappointment, Cate Campbell said

Australians love winners — I felt like the only way I could endear myself to the Australian public was to come back with one of those shiny gold medals.

So during and after these Olympic and Paralympic Games, let’s come together and support our athletes, no matter their result.

For more on this topic, check out episode one of PsychTalks, a podcast by the University of Melbourne’s School of Psychological Sciences.

Courtney Walton receives funding through an MSPS Academic Fellowship at the University of Melbourne. He has advised a number of elite sports codes and organisations nationally.

Christopher Mesagno 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. Despair after four years of pressure: how do Olympians deal with disappointment? – https://theconversation.com/despair-after-four-years-of-pressure-how-do-olympians-deal-with-disappointment-227904

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Louise Phillips, Associate Professor in Education, The University of Queensland

In recent years, the climate emergency has sparked a global response from children and young people. The School Strikes for Climate movement is a prominent example.

Through this activism, children express their frustration at political systems that exclude their voices. This situation is particularly important because children will bear the brunt of future climate catastrophes.

It seems their message might be getting through. Our recent research demonstrates adults in Australia and New Zealand generally support children being heard in government decisions about the environment.

So what has prompted this support, and how can it be turned into action?

Our study

Despite ongoing political debate about whether and how children’s voices should be incorporated in environmental decisions, we know surprisingly little about general public attitudes.

To address this, we added a question to national surveys in both New Zealand and Australia as part of the 2020 International Social Survey Programme. The surveys included roughly 1,000 respondents each, and sampling weights were applied for the results to be nationally representative.

We asked how strongly respondents support children and young people’s views being included in government decision-making about the environment. The question was asked in relation to four different age groups: 3–5-year-olds, 6–10-year-olds, 11–14-year-olds and 15–18-year-olds.

What we found

We found a majority of surveyed adults in both countries support 11–14-year-olds (62% in Australia and 59% in New Zealand) and 15–18-year-olds (79% in Australia and 80% in New Zealand) having opportunities to influence government decisions on the environment.

Our analyses also revealed that various population groups agreed more than others to children’s voices being included in environmental decisions. For example, across all child age groups, women were consistently more likely than men to express support.

Historically, women have felt the brunt of exclusion from political participation, while also being key in nurturing children via mothering and teaching roles. This context may mean greater respect and empathy from women and therefore greater support for children’s views being heard.

Green party voters, members of environmental organisations and 18–30-year-olds were also more likely than other population groups to support children’s views being included.

Attempts to be heard

Our finding of a high degree of public support for young people being heard aligns with lobbying to lower the voting age to 16 in both countries.

Young people in Australia launched the “Make it 16” campaign in June 2023. In New Zealand, the current National-led coalition government recently rejected steps to progress legislation to extend the voting age. This had been introduced by the previous government in response to a successful Supreme Court case taken by the New Zealand Make it 16 campaign to legislate to extend the voting age.

Rejecting this ruling is an undemocratic breach of human rights, as outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The UN published a “comment” in response to children’s calls for action. It clearly outlines what governments must do. It states that governments must ensure that children’s views are heard at all stages of environmental decision-making processes. This applies to decisions being made at the local, national and international level.

Winds of change

Our findings indicate the public in Australia and New Zealand is responsive to calls for greater involvement of children in environmental decision-making.

Indeed, our results reflect greater levels of public support than those observed in earlier research study focused on a broader question seeking adult views on children and young people’s involvement in government decision-making.

School climate strikes may be having a positive influence on adult attitudes towards including children in the political sphere. Media coverage of young people being politically active could also be shifting adults’ beliefs on young people’s political engagement.

In other words, the more adults hear and see stories of children and young people’s concerns and restorative actions for the environment, the greater potential there is for adults to understand and support their perspectives.

The way forward

How can we move towards greater consideration of children’s views in government decisions regarding the environment? There are some foundational courses of actions that could be pursued.

Members of parliament could do this by listening to children and youth in their electorates. Early childhood education centres, schools and arts, cultural and sports centres can support MPs’ access to child and youth forums.

Further, youth parliamentary programs such as the YMCA program could be officially embedded in the Australian parliamentary system. This would ensure that bills that youth table are heard and voted on. Similarly, the parliamentary system in New Zealand could take more heed of the triennial Youth Parliament.

Children and young people deserve to have their concerns heard and influence policies that will greatly impact their future lives – well beyond those of current politicians.

Louise Phillips receives funding from Australia Research Council, Queensland Education Department, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Spencer Foundation and Swedish Research Council. She is the Vice-President of the Australian Council for Human Rights Education. Louise acknowledges the significant work of the Australian Consortium for Social and Political Research in conducting the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes (AuSSA) 2020 survey. The views expressed here are not intended to represent those of any of these organisations.

Jenny Ritchie is a Research Associate with the Child Poverty Action Group, Aotearoa and with He Whenua Taurikura | A Land at Peace. She is a past co-president of the New Zealand Association for Research in Education. Jenny has previously received research funding from the New Zealand Teaching and Learning Research Initiative, the New Zealand Ministry of Education, the Spencer Foundation, and the New Zealand National Commission for UNESCO. She gratefully acknowledges support of COMPASS at Auckland University Waipapa Taumata Rau in conducting the New Zealand iteration of the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). The views expressed here are not intended to represent those of any of these organisations.

Francisco Perales 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. Are young climate activists finally being heard? Our research shows adults support youth voice to parliament – https://theconversation.com/are-young-climate-activists-finally-being-heard-our-research-shows-adults-support-youth-voice-to-parliament-235409

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hannah Schunker, ARC Future Fellow, University of Newcastle

Few sights in the night sky are as awe-inspiring as aurora. The vibrant dancing lights – usually seen close to the planet’s poles – are produced by a wind of charged particles streaming from the Sun into Earth’s atmosphere. The resulting disturbances are called geomagnetic storms.

Earlier in 2024, the world was treated to an exceptional show of aurora borealis (northern hemisphere) and aurora australis (southern hemisphere). A particularly strong geomagnetic storm produced bright auroras visible at latitudes much closer to the equator than usual.

This has reignited public interest in aurora, and you might see more frequent headlines in the media promising auroras are returning to the night skies.

The Sun is going through a particularly active time, so the chances of aurora are good – but forecasting them is tricky business. Here’s how you can stay up to date.

The Bureau of Meteorology has issued an ‘aurora watch’! What does this mean?

For hopeful aurora chasers in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, the Bureau of Meteorology’s Australian Space Weather Forecasting Centre issues regional aurora outlooks, watches and alerts:

• aurora outlooks are warnings with lead times of 3–7 days
• aurora watches are warnings with lead times of up to 48 hours
• aurora alerts will follow if visible space weather activity at Earth actually occurs.

You can subscribe to all of these alerts on their website.

I’m checking the alerts – so what’s a K index?

The space weather website has a lot of information, so here’s what you need to look out for.

On the first page you see the “K index”. This is a measure of the disturbance of Earth’s magnetic field, and the first point of info we need for aurora predictions.

The value shown on the page is a three-hour average:

• less than 5 and green in colour means there’s only a mild disturbance to Earth’s magnetic field
• up to 7 and yellow in colour is classified as a moderate geomagnetic storm
• if it reaches 9 and is red in colour, this is a major geomagnetic storm.

Underneath the K index, you will see the current “solar wind parameters”: velocity is the speed of the wind towards Earth, and Bz is the magnetic field strength. If Bz is negative it means it is pointed from north to south, opposite to Earth’s magnetic field.

From the velocity of the solar wind (in kilometres per second) we can calculate when we expect it to reach Earth. From the strength of the solar wind’s magnetic field (in Tesla, T) and direction (positive or negative), we can estimate how it will interact with Earth’s magnetic field.

To put it all together: for a strong geomagnetic storm, the solar wind would have a speed of about 700 km/s and a negative magnetic field with a value something like -20 nT.

So, in this case it would take about 35 minutes to reach Earth and generate a strong geomagnetic storm and aurora activity.

Now, let’s look at the 30 minute forecast

All this data is used to produce the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 30 minute forecast.

This animation of a green glow surrounding Earth’s poles gives a clear visual idea of where the aurora is likely to be strongest (usually on Earth’s night-time side).

If it’s red, the aurora is forecast to be very strong! The aurora doesn’t have to lie directly over Australia to be visible – you just need to be able to see it on the horizon looking south. This is why Tasmania and southern New Zealand generally have the best chance.

There’s an aurora alert and the 30 minute forecast looks promising. What do I do now?

There are a few other things to consider before you rush outside to see an aurora.

Firstly, it needs to be dark, so a winter’s night in a dark location is ideal. Secondly, as those of us in Sydney and Newcastle are painfully aware, the sky must be clear of clouds.

Lastly, a direct view to the horizon in the south is generally needed for us in the southern hemisphere (it is very rare to see the aurora overhead so close to the equator).

Aurora usually last for between 15 to 30 glorious minutes, but if you’re super lucky this could extend to a few hours. So, plan to be looking south for some time.

I still didn’t see anything! Why?

Space weather forecasts are notoriously difficult. Solar physicists monitor the Sun to predict eruptions that might cause geomagnetic storms and phenomena like aurora, and the Sun’s magnetic field is constantly changing.

We have very few observations between the Sun and Earth, so we rely heavily on models of the solar wind to predict if and when an eruption at the Sun will arrive.

Only when the particles from the Sun reach 1.5 million kilometres from Earth can we actually measure the solar wind speed and magnetic field. This gives only about 30 minutes notice.

Even then, the measurements are made at a single point, known as L1. That measurement may not be representative of all of nearby space.

Researchers in solar physics, space physics and ionospheric physics are working towards piecing together each critical component in the space weather chain to make more precise forecasts. But for the time being, we are essentially limited to “nowcasting”. So keep an eye on social media for live aurora updates, too.

Hannah Schunker receives funding from the Australian Research Council Future Fellowship Award.

– ref. I heard there’s an aurora coming. How do I check? – https://theconversation.com/i-heard-theres-an-aurora-coming-how-do-i-check-235869

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kevin Dew, Professor of Sociology, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

A diagnosis of life-limiting cancer can be overwhelming and cause feelings of panic and anxiety. But for some people, it provides a license to live life differently, including quitting toxic jobs and becoming more adventurous.

In our recently published research, we sought to understand the impact of a cancer diagnosis and subsequent experiences for cancer survivors.

We talked with 81 New Zealanders (23 Māori and 58 non-Māori) who had lived longer than expected with a life-limiting or terminal diagnosis of cancer (four to 32 years since first diagnosis), and 25 people who were identified as their supporters.

We found there are vastly different ways in which people experience and respond to a cancer diagnosis, but for some it’s a prompt to make significant changes. Of the 81 participants, 26 expressed the view, unsolicited, that cancer had some positive impact on their lives – without downplaying the negative impacts it could have as well.

A licence to change

Being told you only have limited time left to live can undoubtedly be a shock. But it can lead to profound change.

It’s not uncommon for people who receive a serious diagnosis to draw up a “bucket list”. Some people in our study took the opportunity to travel or move to a new home.

For others, the diagnosis provided a chance to rethink their lives and make more significant changes to the way they lived. They decided to be culturally more adventurous and to take up new skills.

Many of these people quit their jobs or changed to jobs that suited them better. Many changed their relationships with the people around them. One talked about showing more affection for his children, another was kinder and stopped fretting over small things.

Some decided to be more selective and no longer be around people who were negative. Others took up new hobbies or crafts which they felt were healing. For one person, the cancer diagnosis provided the impetus to look at things and people differently, which they thought would not have happened otherwise.

Individuals could also undergo a transformation to become what they felt they were meant to be in life. One person, given two months to live, embraced rongoā (Māori traditional healing), including its spiritual side. They now love their “journey” and feel this was what they were “supposed to do”.

For many, a diagnosis of cancer gave them license to be different people and to resist conforming to social norms, including having a job, being thrifty or not taking risks.

Disrupting diagnoses

One person, given only months to live, moved out of her flat, gave away her possessions, quit her job that she described was toxic, and returned home to say goodbye to her family.

Most importantly for her, she worked on experiencing “joy” – after receiving the diagnosis, she realised she had lost it. But she continues to live many years later. After a while, she had to find a new flat, get a new job and the recovery of her joy was challenged:

I had to start working again. And, of course, with working again, joy goes down, time goes down, rest goes down, spirituality goes down.

But not everyone has the opportunity to change. Some peoples’ lives were limited because of the physical effects of the cancer, its treatment, or because of their personal, social or financial resources.

Some go to great lengths to ensure their lives change as little as possible after diagnosis to maintain a sense of normality.

Why we need to know

Given the fear a cancer diagnosis can elicit, it is important to see there are different ways of responding.

It is also worth knowing there are people who live longer than expected. Many people in our study were given just months to live, but one woman was still alive 12 years after being told she had a year left.

Beyond that, this research documents how the disruption produced by a cancer diagnosis can prompt people to breach social norms. Where people have the capacity and resources to change, those around them and their health professionals can support them in taking opportunities to live life differently.

We heard people say they think of their cancer as a friend or an amazing opportunity. Some even felt thankful.

The possibility of cancer providing opportunities for some in no way diminishes the grief or a sense of loss, fear and anxiety that can accompany such diagnoses.

Our research supports a reframing of cancer narratives, to consider ways of tempering the negative impacts of a diagnosis – while remaining cognisant of the struggle that can follow such news, and the variability in people’s capacity to engage with that struggle.

Kevin Dew receives funding from The Marsden Fund..

Alex Broom receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Kerry Chamberlain receives funding from the Marsden Fund.

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

– ref. Cancer diagnosis can be devastating, but for some it gives permission to live more radically – https://theconversation.com/cancer-diagnosis-can-be-devastating-but-for-some-it-gives-permission-to-live-more-radically-233782

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hayley Green, Senior Lecturer – Forensic Anthropology, Western Sydney University

Sometimes it’s unclear how or why a person died. A detailed examination of the body after death, known as an autopsy or postmortem, can help find answers.

Despite what you may have seen on TV crime shows, most autopsies are minimally invasive; body often stays intact throughout a mostly observational procedure.

Sometimes, though, a more extended investigation is needed.

Through each step of the autopsy process, the dignity and respect of the deceased is prioritised by all involved.

Not every death will result in an autopsy

If someone dies from natural causes, there is no evidence of suspicious circumstances or there is a recent medical history, the death is certified by a doctor. The person is then taken into the care of a funeral service.

But when questions about the death remain, specialist doctors, technicians and support staff might investigate further. Sometimes this involves an autopsy.

Non-coronial and coronial autopsies

Depending on the circumstances of death, there are two types of autopsies in Australia: non-coronial and coronial.

A non-coronial autopsy is done when the cause of death is known but more information is needed. For example, the family may wish to know:

• the extent of a known medical condition that led to the death

• how effective any treatments leading up to the time of death were, or

• if there’s evidence of a potential undiagnosed medical condition that may have contributed to the death.

Non-coronial autopsies are done in a hospital mortuary or a forensic pathology facility by an anatomical pathologist or forensic pathologist. An anatomical pathologist is a specialist in the detection and diagnosis of disease in organs and tissues (mainly in the living). A forensic pathologist takes part in medico-legal investigations and examines the body and its organs to look for disease or injury that may have caused death.

A coronial autopsy happens when death is unexpected, violent, unnatural or the result of an accident.

Deaths like these are classified as “reportable” deaths; by law they must be reported to the coroner, who is a magistrate of the court with legal training.

These reports (typically prepared by the police), as well as the legislation relevant to the state, assist the coroner to decide whether or not to order an autopsy.

This order can be a minimally invasive external examination, an internal examination of a single body cavity or an invasive multiple cavity autopsy.

Coronial autopsies are done in a forensic pathology facility by a forensic pathologist.

The first steps

Someone who has died under “reportable” circumstances will be admitted to the forensic facility. The person’s identity will be established, where possible.

If the coroner orders an autopsy, the body first undergoes a CT scan, which may be enough for the forensic pathologist to determine cause of death without further investigation.

If not, the body will then be laid carefully on an examination table where any clothing and personal belongings are removed.

The pathologist will then do an external examination, searching the body surface and recording any visible signs of cause of death or identifying marks. These might include tattoos or scars that can establish or confirm the identity of the deceased.

Photographs of the body can be taken, and body fluids such as urine, blood and vitreous fluid from the eyes are sampled and tested for drugs, poisons or other substances.

In many cases, the cause of death can be determined from the external examination alone and no further examination is necessary.

Other times, more invasive methods are needed.

Organ removal

Evisceration is the important process of removing organs for the pathologist to examine in detail to help determine cause of death.

The most common evisceration technique used in Australia is known as the Letulle method (sometimes called the en masse method), where organs are removed in a single large block that starts at the tongue and throat and extends to the rectum.

The first step of this process involves using a scalpel to make a large incision in the skin known commonly as the y-incision.

This incision extends from behind each ear, or at times, the collar bones, to the mid line of the chest (just above the sternum).

The incision will be extended through the centre of the chest towards the abdomen, stopping at the front of the pelvic bone.

Skin, fat and muscle layers are pulled back to expose the neck structures, abdominal organs and the rib cage. The rib cage will then be cut on each side using shears to allow the front of the chest plate to be removed, revealing the heart and lungs.

After an inspection of the positioning of the organs in the chest and abdomen, the bowel can be removed.

Connections between organs and the body wall are separated and the organ block is then lifted from the body.

Once out, the pathologist can do a detailed examination, weighing each organ individually. They will then dissect it to determine if there are any visible signs of disease or trauma that could have contributed to the cause of death.

Tissue samples will be taken from each organ for histology (studying it under a microscope) to look for evidence of a cause of death.

The brain

A coroner may also request an examination of the brain. This involves an incision across the scalp within the hairline where possible, so the skin can be peeled back to expose the skull.

The top of the skull will be removed using an oscillating saw to access the brain, which will then be removed (after separating it from the brainstem).

The pathologist will look for signs of blood clots, trauma or disease. In some cases, the coroner may make an order to keep the brain for a longer period of time for a more detailed and thorough examination.

After the autopsy is over, the organs are returned to the abdominal cavity and all incisions are stitched closed.

The body can then be released to the family and funeral arrangements made. An interim report on the cause of death is prepared for the coroner and made available to the family.

This will be updated with a final determination on the cause of death after test results come back. Sometimes the cause of death will be listed as “unascertained”, meaning the cause of death could not be determined.

Hayley Green has received industry funding in the past from ANZPAA (the Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency)/NIFS (the National Institute of Forensic Science). In her capacity as the academic in charge of the Bachelor of Medical Science (Forensic Mortuary Practice) she has a working relationship with the NSW Department of Forensic Medicine, as her students do their clinical placements there. She has provided expert consultant services for the NSW Department of Forensic Medicine in the past.

– ref. What happens in an autopsy? A forensics expert explains – https://theconversation.com/what-happens-in-an-autopsy-a-forensics-expert-explains-232603

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marc C-Scott, Deputy Associate Dean of Learning & Teaching, Senior Lecturer in Screen Media, Victoria University

If you’ve watched the nightly news on Channel 7 or the ABC lately, you might think their Olympics coverage is lacking vision of, well, the Olympics.

The ABC’s sports program Offsiders ran a montage of still images as part of its Sunday episode – a seemingly odd choice for a platform best suited to video.

This is because the International Olympic Committee (IOC) awarded the broadcast rights to the games to Channel Nine. Everyone one else must fall into line with strict rules or face harsh financial penalties.

So how does this system work? What are the rules that decide which parts of the games we see on our screens, and where?

From three cameras to thousands

Today the Olympics are broadcast globally, but this hasn’t always been the case.

The first broadcast of the Olympic games was in Berlin during 1936, only available to areas in and around Berlin. It used three cameras, of which only one could provide live coverage, to reach a total of 162,000 viewers.

A single-country broadcast was the norm until Rome 1960, when far more countries had introduced television. For Rome 1960, 21 countries broadcast the games. This was live to 18 European countries and delayed to the United States, Canada and Japan. Interestingly, it was not until Sydney 2000 that the IOC listed the Olympics as having a global reach.

Nowadays, the media rights are awarded by the IOC, which is “the guardian of the Olympic Games and the leader of the Olympic Movement”.

The IOC owns the global media rights to the games. Its Olympic Broadcasting Services (OBS) serves as the host broadcaster for the games, with the coverage then made available to the media rights holders through a live cloud system.

Pages of rules

While Nine has the “exclusive free and subscription audio-visual rights” to the Olympics, what does this really mean?

Well, there is a 20-page document just for Australian media, setting out all regulations.

The rules document what Australian media can and cannot do with “Olympic material”, which includes the sounds or moving images of any event. This includes:

[…] training venues, sporting action, the Opening Ceremony, the Closing Ceremony and medal ceremonies, mixed zones, interviews or other activities which occur at Olympic Venues, including Olympic Village.

Australian media organisations must not broadcast any Olympic material that has not been broadcast by Nine. If the footage is broadcast by Nine or associated channels, the watermark must remain on the broadcast.

For Australian TV news there are a few more rules, including the 3x3x3 rule. This means a broadcaster cannot show Olympic material for “more than three news programs per day”, and the “duration of Olympic material used in any one news program shall not exceed a total of 3 minutes”. Finally, “news programs in which Olympic material appears must be separated by at least three hours”.

As you can imagine, this severely limits what channels other than Nine can show.

There is also the 6 x 1½ rule, which is an option for 24-hour news channels. This rule states that, “Olympic material is used in no more than six news programs
per day and does not exceed a total of one and one half minutes in any one”.

If broadcasters are to use Olympic games coverage, there must be “no advertising, promotion, publicity or other message” appearing at the same time. This includes superimposed or split-screen content.

In addition to sanction for the misuse of Olympic material by non-rights holders, the IOC may suspend a media outlet’s access to any Olympic venue, remove accreditation, or revoke access to Olympic materials. There can also be legal action and claims for damages by the IOC.

For the Rio 2016 games, the Australian Olympic Committee took Telstra to the Federal Court for its “I go to Rio” advertisements, which it argued misled Australians that Telstra was an official Olympic sponsor, rather than its competitor, Optus.

Although the case was dismissed, it gives a good indication of the fine line media and brands walk in using Olympic material.

Funding the games

Above are just a few of the rules listed within the document that Australian non-rights holders must abide by. The strict restrictions on Olympic materials use stems from the limited duration of the event (just a few weeks every four years), necessitating that rights holders maximise their exclusive usage.

Protecting these exclusive rights ensures the rights holders perceive value in their significant financial investment. Safeguarding these media rights is crucial for the IOC, as these rights have been its primary source of revenue for more than three decades.

In 2013–16, broadcast rights made up 74% of IOC revenue, a total of A$6.3 billion.

From 2017–20, broadcast rights declined to 61% of IOC revenue, but the financial amount grew to A$6.9 billion.

The decline in the revenue percentage for broadcast was due to a more than doubling in revenue from the top-tier global sponsorship program.

Big rights, big money

This is Channel Nine’s first Olympics broadcast in more than a decade – a privilege it paid A$305 million to obtain. The most recent deal gives Nine the rights of the Olympics until after Brisbane 2032.

For comparison, NBC in the US paid US$7.75 billion (A$11.8 billion) in 2014 for the rights to broadcast the Olympics until 2032.

Nine would be hoping to have more success than the previous joint partnership with Foxtel for the London 2012 games, which reportedly lost up to A$25 million.

Nine’s Chief Executive, Mike Sneesby, has stated the organisation had “invested significantly to bring unrivalled coverage of the 2024 Games to our valued audiences through Nine’s world-leading journalism”.

Despite early reports the coverage would run at a loss, Sneesby has promised it will be profitable.

Given what’s at stake, the internal issues at the network couldn’t have come at a worse time. Journalists from its newspapers commenced strike action just days before the start of the games, including 20 journalists in Paris.

Is it worth the money?

Despite Nine’s long hiatus as Australia’s go-to Olympic broadcaster, this year’s coverage appears to be a ratings success.

The Sunday broadcast of the games (up until 2:00am Monday AEST), reached 10.7 million Australians across Nine, 9Gem and 9Now.

Despite the opening ceremony being at 3:30am local time, it still had an audience reach of more than 2.1 million. That’s strikingly similar to the 2.12 million people for Seven’s coverage of the Tokyo 2020 games opening ceremony, which had a far smaller timezone difference.

The Paris 2024 Opening ceremony replay (1pm–6pm), saw Nine more than double the audience reach of the live event, with a national total TV reach of 4.616 million. The day one coverage also rated well, as has its coverage on streaming service Stan.

While Nine has experienced great ratings success early on, it can be argued the popularity of swimming and the Australian team’s success could be a contributing factor. It will be fascinating to see whether Australians will continue to watch the coverage at the same level.

Marc C-Scott 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. Why is there so little Olympics footage in the news? Here’s how the multibillion-dollar video rights industry works – https://theconversation.com/why-is-there-so-little-olympics-footage-in-the-news-heres-how-the-multibillion-dollar-video-rights-industry-works-235763

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deanna Stuart-Butler, Indigenous Research Officer, The University of Queensland

Australian national data show First Nations women face almost twice the risk of stillbirth or “sorry business babies” compared to non-First Nations women.

To address this inequity, Australia’s national stillbirth action plan focuses on ensuring culturally safe stillbirth prevention and care for First Nations women.

But first, we must understand the underlying reasons for the ongoing disparities in stillbirth rates and other pregnancy-related outcomes.

We argue much of the inequity can be linked to the ongoing impact of colonisation on First Nations women and birthing. Here’s why.

Ongoing intergenerational trauma

First Nations people have lived in Australia for at least 65,000 years. Prior to European invasion and settlement in 1788, more than 2,000 generations of First Nations people lived in connection to family, community, Country and their ancestors.

Colonisation saw First Nations women stripped of their traditional pregnancy and birthing practices, including use of medicinal plants, techniques for active labour and pain control, and songs for labour.

From the mid-1800s to the 1970s, First Nations babies and children were forcibly removed from their communities and placed with non-First Nations families.

Loss of land, violence and abuse, medical experimentation, cultural suppression and other systemic injustices have led to widespread intergenerational trauma that contributes to poorer health outcomes today.

Maternity services aren’t designed for First Nations women

Historical violence and exclusion have led to an intergenerational distrust of colonial systems, services and spaces among First Nations people. First Nations people have been expected to adapt to a Western health service, rather than these services adapting to First Nations people’s ways of knowing, being and doing.

There is also a shortage of First Nations health-care workers. This further limits First Nations people’s access to culturally responsive care.

Recognition of the importance of Birthing on Country has led to services like Waminda and Birthing In Our Community.

But there aren’t enough of these services for all First Nations women. And barriers to setting up the services persist.

Resources aren’t designed for First Nations women

Pregnancy information resources have historically been designed for a colonial audience. These resources do not speak to First Nations women and have rarely been developed by and with First Nations people.

More contemporary initiatives have better engaged First Nations people in, or have them lead, resource development.

The Centre of Research Excellence in Stillbirth’s Indigenous Advisory Group recently led the development of the Stronger Bubba Born pregnancy information website and resources for First Nations women. The information is the same as that given to non-First Nations women, as part of the Safer Baby Bundle, but it has been culturally adapted for its target audience.

Racism and discrimination in maternity services

While some First Nations women face overt racism in maternity services, many more are discriminated against through implicit biases. This is where care providers’ unconsciously held beliefs about First Nations people influence their judgements of and interactions with pregnant First Nations women.

Active stereotypes that are commonly applied to pregnant First Nations women include assuming drug and alcohol use and a perceived unsuitability for motherhood. This stems from the historical marginalisation of First Nations people.

But implicit bias isn’t the only source. Institutional racism also contributes to worse health outcomes among First Nations women. It occurs because of embedded structures or policies that perpetuate racial disparities, and it often goes unnoticed by non-First Nations midwives. Institutional racism plays out in various ways, including restrictions on the numbers of family/support people able to visit.

All of this leads to power imbalances and First Nations women being less likely to attend antenatal appointments.

Providers don’t understand First Nations health

The Australian First Nations view of health differs from the Western view. Connection to family, Country and community defines First Nations people’s health, rather than illness, disease, and notions of “risk”.

Physical, spiritual, cultural, social, emotional and mental health are interconnected, and land is a source of strength, identity and healing.

These concepts form the foundation of Birthing on Country and underscore the importance of self-determination in providing culturally responsive maternity care.

Yet maternity care providers have limited knowledge of First Nations women’s cultural needs and little education and training on this.

Where to from here?

To eliminate racial disparities in stillbirth rates in Australia, our health system and broader society needs to recognise the effects of colonisation and the structural forces that continue to influence First Nations people’s health.

This requires acknowledging and sitting in discomfort with Australia’s history.

The Healthy Yarning Guide is a workshop based on two-way learning and yarning for non-First Nations maternity care providers and maternity service administrations.

The workshop aims to empower people to sensitively discuss stillbirth prevention with First Nations women. Participants learn about Australia’s history and the effects of colonisation in First Nations women and birthing, as well as what culturally responsive care looks like for First Nations families.

We have a long way to go in ensuring First Nations women and families receive high-quality, culturally responsive maternity care. But formal education within maternity services is a crucial place to start.

In this article, we use the term “First Nations” to refer Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia. We acknowledge there is variation in preferences for the terms “First Nations”, “Indigenous” and “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander”.

Aleena Wojcieszek has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Stillbirth Foundation Australia

Vicki Flenady receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Deanna Stuart-Butler, Sarah Graham, and Valerie Ah Chee do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. First Nations women are at greater risk of stillbirth. Here’s why – and what we can do about it – https://theconversation.com/first-nations-women-are-at-greater-risk-of-stillbirth-heres-why-and-what-we-can-do-about-it-232914

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eileen Baldry, Professor Emerita of Criminology, UNSW Sydney

In 2008, Australia agreed to six targets to “close the gap” – to reduce the disparities between Indigenous people and the rest of the population in health, education and employment.

There was little progress in the years following, and it was agreed that, if Indigenous people’s health was to improve and children were to fare better at school, other inter-related aspects of life – such as incarceration rates, housing, and social and emotional wellbeing – also needed to improve.

So, in 2020, several additional targets addressing socioeconomic equity were included, making 19 in total. Each year, the Productivity Commission reports on whether these Closing the Gap targets are on track, or not.

The most recent report, out this week, finds few of the targets are on track, and some are worsening. One of those going backwards is incarceration.

What does the data show?

The Closing the Gap target pertaining to criminal justice is that by 2031, we reduce the rate of Indigenous adults in prison by at least 15%.

This new report uses data on incarceration up to June 30, 2023, and compares it with 2019, the “baseline” year.

To quantify incarceration, the basic measure used in this report is the total number of people in prison in each state and territory as well as added together for a national figure, translated into a rate per 100,000.

The rate of Indigenous prisoners in 2023 was 2,266 per 100,000 compared to 2,143 per 100,000 in 2019. This is compared with non-Indigenous Australians’ incarceration rate of 149 per 100,000 in 2023 which has been steady or decreasing since 2019.

If we go back to 2009 the rate of Indigenous incarceration was 1,539 in every 100,000.

So rather than incarceration rates decreasing towards the Closing the Gap target, they’ve increased over time, and Indigenous people continue to be grossly over-represented in Australian prisons.

Separate figures indicate Indigenous men are 17 times more likely and Indigenous women are 25 times more likely to be incarcerated than non-Indigenous men and women respectively.

Youth justice is little better

The youth justice Closing the Gap target is that by 2031, we reduce the rate of Indigenous young people (10–⁠17 years) in detention by at least 30%.

The Productivity Commission measures progress on this target by the number of young people aged 10–⁠17 in detention on an average day per 10,000 (though it’s presented in the graph below per 100,000).

The 2022–23 rate – just under 30 per 10,000 Indigenous children and young people in detention – is a small decrease from 32 per 10,000 in 2018–19 (the baseline year). But it’s above the previous three years (from a low of 24 per 10,000 in 2020–21).

On this basis, the Productivity Commission report has assessed this target as unchanged from baseline.

Meanwhile, the rate of non-Indigenous young people in detention was just one per 10,000 in 2022–23. So like Indigenous adults, Indigenous young people continue to be disproportionately represented in juvenile justice systems.

Why is this happening?

We know these disparities are not only, or even primarily, about criminal justice. The social determinants of health and justice tell us there are a variety of factors that put Indigenous children and adults onto criminal justice conveyor belts in these large numbers. These include:

• spending time in out-of-home care as a child

• having contact with the police early in life

• being a victim of violence and abuse

• experiencing poverty

• having poor or no safe housing

• poor school education

• having a mental health disorder or cognitive disability, and not receiving adequate support

• early introduction to alcohol and other drugs

• experiencing racism or discrimination.

The more of these factors a person experiences, the worse their health and social outcomes are likely to be and the more likely they are to end up in prison. And all of these factors are more likely to affect an Indigenous Australian compared to a non-Indigenous Australian.

Taking a couple of examples from this list can show us how strongly these factors correlate with incarceration. The new report indicates around 43% of Indigenous adults who entered prison in 2022 had been told they had a mental health disorder at some stage in their lives.

Some 71% of of Indigenous people entering prison in 2022 reported they had used an illicit substance within the previous 12 months.

Similarly, when we look at Indigenous people in prison, a higher proportion than in the general population, or in the broader prison population, has cognitive and other disabilities.

All these three factors are experienced at higher rates among First Nations prisoners than non-Indigenous prisoners and the general population, according to the Australian Law Reform Commission and the disability royal commission.

Research I conducted with colleagues – which included quantitative data and interviewing Indigenous people who had been incarcerated, Elders and service providers in communities – indicated that upwards of 90% of Indigenous prisoners in New South Wales have complex health and disability support needs.

These findings have been confirmed by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, with the data showing most First Nations prisoners have one or more issues related to mental health, disability, trauma from violence and abuse, and drug and alcohol issues.

What next?

It’s a national disgrace that incarceration rates for Indigenous people are going up rather than down, particularly when it means many people with the most complex health and disability needs are being locked up.

Inspectors of prisons, children’s commissioners, the disability royal commission, Aboriginal legal services, legal aid and Aboriginal community-controlled organisations across Australia are urging governments to address poverty and disadvantage, improve education opportunities, stop the police being the frontline service for mental health and disability matters, and listen to and act on First Nations community knowledge and insight.

Eileen Baldry receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council.

– ref. New Closing the Gap data shows more First Nations Australians are in prison. Why? – https://theconversation.com/new-closing-the-gap-data-shows-more-first-nations-australians-are-in-prison-why-235786

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Levan Tielidze, Research Fellow in glacial geomorphology, Monash University

As global temperatures inch upwards year after year, the world’s glaciers retreat. These rivers of ice and the even larger ice sheets which cover Greenland and Antarctica are melting – and the melt is speeding up.

Glaciers and ice sheets have only a few species which can live on them, from ice worms to snow fleas and snow algae. When the ice melts, these species have to retreat with them.

But what happens to the areas the glaciers leave behind? Does life move in?

Our international team of researchers has spent the last decade investigating what happens to the newly uncovered ground as glaciers retreat further up mountain ranges. We tracked what’s happening at 46 retreating glaciers: from the Himalayas to the Andes, from the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard to as far south as New Zealand, and even tropical glaciers in Mexico.

What our new research has found is life quickly moves to colonise these new habitats, from microorganisms to hardy lichens and mosses, to pioneer species such as grasses. More plants arrive – and then, following them, come the animals. Over time, we’ve watched as new ecosystems emerged.

Life finds a way

When a glacier melts, what’s left behind is a barren landscape of bare rock and sediment. Over time, these areas gradually transform into a complex and diverse post-glacial ecosystem.

What we wanted to know was how this happens, how long it takes, and how life goes about colonising new habitat.

Between roughly the 14th and 19th centuries, the world was in the grip of the “Little Ice Age” – a period of moderate cooling largely affecting the northern hemisphere. During this period, many glaciers in this hemisphere expanded.

From the late 19th century onwards, human activities – especially the routine burning of fossil fuels – began to trap more heat and warm the planet, slowly at first but now accelerating.

We chose our glacial landscapes with care, selecting only those glaciers where we could accurately date the beginning of the retreat of the ice using a range of data sources, including topographical maps, field measurements, photographs, paintings, remote imaging and field data. Our team covered many parts of the world, but we did less sampling in polar regions.

We collected soil samples from more than 1,200 plots across our 46 glaciers and analysed them in the laboratory to track which species arrived when. We tracked ecosystem formation by analysing soil properties and nutrients and the evidence of carbon capture by plants. We also used environmental DNA sampling techniques to capture DNA traces left by animal species to gauge local biodiversity.

We could then cross-reference the arrival of species with when each glacier began to retreat.

What did we find? A surprisingly widespread pattern of ecosystem formation.

The first lifeforms to arrive were the smallest. Microorganisms such as bacteria, protists and algae colonise the ground. These tiny lifeforms can form surprisingly rich communities all by themselves.

It takes about a decade of colonisation by microorganisms before larger species can arrive. Some microorganisms can make minerals in the rocks available for other species.

Next comes hardy pioneer species such as lichens, mosses, and grasses able to tolerate tough conditions. Even though the ice has gone, these areas are still scoured by wind and cold.

After pioneer species grow and die, they leave behind organic material. This gradually enriches the thin soils. When there’s enough organic matter, more complex plants can take root. Larger animals arrived last, as herbivores need thriving plant communities to survive and predators need prey animals to eat.

How do different species form an ecosystem?

Ecosystems can be very simple through to hugely complex. For instance, on ice-free parts of the Antarctic peninsula, the ecosystem is dominated by mosses and hardy species of tardigrade and springtail.

What makes ecosystems become more complex?

As our research shows, the most important feature is time, rather than species interaction. As time passes, more new species are likely to colonise these post-glacial landscapes.

But it’s the interactions between organisms which makes ecosystems function.

Microorganisms often help pioneer plants by accelerating the development of fertile soils. How? Bacteria and fungi break down organic matter from dead plants into simpler compounds. This process creates humus, a rich, fertile component of soil which improves its structure and nutrient content.

In turn, plants create new habitat and food sources for animals. Animals begin to interact with each other, through predator-prey relationships such as arctic foxes and rabbits, or as “ecosystem engineers” such as earthworms, who pave the way for more animals by eating dead plant matter and improving nutrient availability in the soil.

Even in seemingly barren environments, the way organisms interact with each other and their environment can be extremely complex and rich.

Levan Tielidze was supported by the Australian Research Council (ARC) Special Research Initiative (SRI) Securing Antarctica’s Environmental Future (SR200100005).

– ref. From microbes to mammals: we tracked the rapid rise of new ecosystems as glaciers retreat and ice sheets melt – https://theconversation.com/from-microbes-to-mammals-we-tracked-the-rapid-rise-of-new-ecosystems-as-glaciers-retreat-and-ice-sheets-melt-235687

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christine Cowie, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Air Quality and Health Research and Evaluation, Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney; Senior Research Fellow, South West Sydney Clinical School, UNSW Sydney

We now have a dizzying array of heating technologies to consider, besides the fire that warmed our ancestors.

Salespeople will highlight any number of features and minor conveniences. You will be made aware of limited-offer discounts, product warranties, trends in certain Nordic countries, or their low cost (at least in the short-term). What you are less likely to read on the box is, well, the stuff that really matters: the long-term effects on your health and the health of your family, your neighbours and the environment.

Yes, a heater should keep you warm affordably. After all, a warm home is vital for your health. But would you run a heater that you knew was increasing the likelihood of your child developing asthma, your partner developing lung cancer, and your neighbour or your grandparent suffering a stroke or heart attack?

Many peer-reviewed studies have found domestic heating to be a major source of air pollution and of ill health in Australia. So which heaters are high-risk and which are low-risk? Let’s consider, firstly, the most dangerous heaters.

Extreme-risk heaters

Two rules reduce the risks:

1. never burn anything (wood, gas or other fuel) in your home without adequate ventilation such as a chimney, exhaust or flue

2. never use an outdoor appliance (heater, cooker, barbecue) inside.

Concerningly, a 2022 Asthma Australia survey found 7% of Australians used an unflued gas heater.

When gas or other fuel is burnt indoors it releases a range of particles and toxic gases. Most dangerous of all is carbon monoxide (CO). This colourless, odourless gas can build up in unventilated homes, resulting in serious poisoning and death.

A recent case of carbon monoxide intoxication left three people unconscious in a Sydney home after an outdoor barbecue was used inside as a heater. Outdoor heaters, cookers and barbecues are especially potent sources of carbon monoxide and should never be brought inside.

If you have a gas appliance in your home, even if it is ventilated, install a carbon monoxide alarm for as little as $30.

High-risk heaters

The evidence is now very clear: wood heater smoke is a potent source of air pollution and significant cause of ill-health in Australia.

The more often you burn, the greater the risk. One large population study found even infrequent wood heater use (30 days or more each year) increases the risk of lung cancer by 68%.

Wood heaters spill smoke into the home when refuelling. They also suck smoke from outside back into the home as air is drawn up the chimney.

If you can smell your wood heater, it is harming your health and exposing you to a toxic mix of particles and gases.

For the wider community, the cumulative health impacts of wood heaters are significant.

Less than 10% of Australian households use a wood heater. Yet they are the largest source of particulate air pollution in most Australian cities and towns, including Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Adelaide and Hobart. Even in temperate Sydney, wood heaters emit more of this pollution than all the cars, trucks, boats and buses combined, and more than coal-fired power stations and industry.

Centre for Safe Air researchers estimate wood heaters cause between 558 and 1,555 excess deaths a year in Australia. That’s roughly equivalent to the annual road toll.

Fine particles (2.5 microns or less in diameter – also known as PM2.5) are a major component of wood smoke. PM2.5 increases rates of heart disease and stroke, lung disease, dementia and other neurological conditions and asthma attacks. Risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes and poorer learning outcomes in children are also increased.

Low-risk heaters

Evidence suggests there is no “safe” level of air pollution, with health effects seen at very low levels.

Even ducted gas heating, where most of the toxins are ventilated, can expose residents to low levels of PM2.5, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide and formaldehyde. Over time, this can have a range of health impacts, including worsening asthma and respiratory symptoms.

Burning gas for heating also adds to greenhouse gas emissions.

As Australia transitions to a zero-carbon society, some states and territories are phasing out installation of new wood heaters, such as in the ACT, and gas connections, such as in Victoria. Subsidies to help people replace unhealthy heaters are excellent investments in the environment, public health and health equity.

Healthy heaters

Ultimately, heaters that do not rely on burning fuel inside the home are the safest, and often more affordable, heating option.

A well-maintained reverse-cycle air conditioner, sometimes called a heat pump, actually cleans the air inside your home.

These air conditioners have the additional benefit of cooling your home in summer. As heatwaves become more severe and frequent, efficient cooling is increasingly important for health.

As for affordability, an efficient reverse-cycle air conditioner can be up to seven times as efficient as a gas wall heater in the energy it uses for a given amount of heat.

There are many other electric heating technologies – such as fan heaters, oil column heaters, panel heaters, or infrared heaters – that do not release toxins into the home.

Heater manufacturers are often reluctant to talk about the health impacts of their products, and regulators are slow to catch up with the science.

By thinking about heating in terms of health, you can make your home safer
for yourself and the people around you.

After all, there’s nothing cosier than a healthy home.

Christine Cowie receives funding from the NHMRC, a Perpetual Impact grant, a NSW Health Department project grant, a NSW EPA project grant, a Commonwealth Government project grant and a SWC project grant. She is an affiliate of the Centre for Safe Air (CSA), Expert Partner for Global Cooksafe Coalition (Australia Program), NFP (Nov 2023-), member of Clean Air Society of Australia and NZ (CASANZ), and member of the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology.

Bill Dodd 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. Snug but unsafe: your heater may be harming your health. What are your safest choices? – https://theconversation.com/snug-but-unsafe-your-heater-may-be-harming-your-health-what-are-your-safest-choices-235102

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Grace Sarra, Professor, Faculty of Creative Industries, Education and Social Justice, Queensland University of Technology

The latest Closing the Gap data contains some good news – there is a marked increase in early childhood enrolments for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. The report shows how in the year before full-time schooling, there has been a 25% increase in enrolments over the past seven years.

In 2016, 76.7% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students were enrolled in a preschool program. In 2023, it was 101.8% (this figure is more than 100% due to different sources of data and will be updated once we have 2021 Census population figures).

This shows we are both improving on track to meet the target of 95% of students enrolled in early education before they start school by 2025.

Does enrolment equal outcomes?

But it isn’t all positive news, particularly when it comes to children thriving in their early years.

While it is not new data, the report also notes only 34.3% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were “developmentally on track” when they started school as of 2021.

This was a decrease from 35.2% in 2018. The target of 55% is also not on track to be met.

The developmental assessment involves five measures: physical health and wellbeing, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive skills and communication skills and general knowledge.

As the Closing the Gap report notes, this developmental assessment is “based on a Western paradigm [and] it may not fully demonstrate the progress and strengths of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children”.

But this result is puzzling when we can see the majority of Indigenous children are engaged in early childhood education, which is supposed to prepare students to be ready for school.

What does the research say?

We know it is important for children to receive quality early education before they begin school, it has benefits both for their wellbeing and for their learning.

Research on Indigenous children has shown it can help build their literacy in both the short and long-term and numeracy skills in the long-term.

A systematic review published in 2020 investigated whether early childhood education programs support positive education and developmental outcomes for Indigenous students. It showed preschool education has the potential to provide long-term benefits and prepare Indigenous students for school.

However, the authors also noted it matters what kind of education they are getting. The preschool programs need to be high quality – exactly what this entails, and how we evaluate it, is still being determined.

For Indigenous children, research suggests affirming their cultural identities as well as having strong engagement and connection with their families and communities is vital.

How can we do it better?

Our latest, as yet unpublished research looks at how we can create culturally responsible resources for Indigenous children. This means resources are meaningful to kids.

With educators and community members on Wakka Wakka Country and Bindal and Wulgurukaba Country we co-designed curriculum resources for children aged 0-5 years using Indigenous voices and cultures.

This included using Indigenous languages, animals and symbols children in digital literacy and numeracy resources.

For example, instead of having cows and pigs, we have echidnas and emus with the names in English and Wakka Wakka. Instead of counting three apples or five cats, children count kangaroos, fish and mud crabs, featuring Indigenous designs.

These offer ways of exploring the world that connect to chidlren’s real life experiences and acknowledge and embrace their cultural identities.

As one community member told us during our research:

People who have experienced other peoples cultures are better human beings, because that speaks to one’s humanity by the fact that we should be respecting each and every one of us and all our forms and shapes and our histories.

What can we do now?

Our research emphasises how early childhood educators can embed identity-affirming practices. But there are many other aspects of high quality early childhood education, such as key indicators of literacy and numeracy, that need investigating.

We are in the position now where most Indigenous children are enrolled in early childhoood educational programs. The focus should turn to developing a robust evidence base for what quality looks like for Indigenous children and how it can be implemented across the nation.

Research assistant Chelsey Priddle did design work for the curricuulum resources for this project.

Grace Sarra receives funding from the Australian Research Council. The research in this article is part of project for the ARC Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child.

Marnee Shay receives funding from the Australian government, Australian Research Council and Queensland government.

– ref. More Indigenous children are going to preschool, but is this enough? – https://theconversation.com/more-indigenous-children-are-going-to-preschool-but-is-this-enough-235787

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vaughan Cruickshank, Senior Lecturer in Health and Physical Education, University of Tasmania

Simone Biles is the most decorated gymnast, male or female, in history. She won her first world championship all-around gold medal in 2013 and has not lost an all-around competition since.

She arrived in Paris with 37 medals from World Championships and Olympics, including 27 golds.

She has since added to this total, winning team gold – her eighth Olympic medal – and she looks set to increase her tally when she competes in the finals for all-around, beam, floor and vault.

Biles returns to the Olympics after a difficult experience at Tokyo 2020. The athlete we have seen perform so far at Paris is more relaxed, more mature and still giving us the performances of the best gymnast in the world.

A difficult second Olympics

At her first Olympics, Rio 2016, Biles won gold in the team all-around, vault and floor competitions, and bronze on beam.

She was expected to repeat the feat in Tokyo in 2021, but she was forced to withdraw from most events because of mental health concerns and the “twisties” – the name gymnasts give to the phenomenon of losing sense of where they are in the air, making performing complicated moves dangerous.

In the end, she contributed one vault to the team final, where the women from the United States took silver, and she received a bronze medal on beam – far from the multiple golds she was expected to take home.

Many elite gymnasts get the twisties. They just didn’t talk about them so openly. Since Biles first spoke about it, other elite gymnasts such as Joscelyn Roberson and Laurie Hernandez have spoken about sharing the experience.

Biles has said the twisties were caused by a combination of trauma related to abuse by a former USA team doctor, isolation during the COVID affected games and the weight of high expectations of success.

Changing the discussion around mental health

Biles’ decision to prioritise her mental health and not compete has changed perceptions of elite gymnasts and their mental health.

Many former elite gymnasts have spoken about how they did not have agency over their bodies and decision-making while training and competing, and were forced to compete while injured.

Biles speaking about her mental health, alongside athletes like basketballer Kevin Love and tennis player Naomi Osaka, has reduced stigma, and increased the number of athletes talking about their mental health.

This year, inspired by this discussion, the US Olympic and Paralympic committee has made sure athletes have access to more mental health resources while they compete in Paris.

Changing the sport

Biles is also a trailblazer in competition.

She has five unique moves named after her across floor, balance beam and vault.

Only one of these moves has ever been performed by another gymnast in an international competition, when Hillary Heron of Panama performed a double layout with a half-twist in the second flip on floor this week in Paris.

She is a role model for many young African American girls, who are increasingly enrolling in gymnastics clubs.

Women’s gymnastics has long been dominated by younger athletes. There has not been an Olympic all-around women’s champion in her 20s for over 50 years.

The 2024 US team is one of the oldest in the country’s history, with an average age of 22. By way of contrast, in 2012, the oldest member of the team was 18-year-old Aly Raisman. Other medal contenders such as Brazil, have teams even older.

At 27, Biles could become the oldest woman to win Olympic all-around gold since 1952.

More experienced gymnasts competing at Olympic level reflects a change in recent years. Athletes have been able to maintain their elite abilities longer due to advances in sports medicine and training.

Her success as an older athlete also reflects her improved mental health and maturity.

Coming close to walking away from gymnastics after Tokyo, Biles was in and out of the gym for over a year and a half as she built from occasional gentle trampoline and mat exercises to more complex skills and routines.

When she returned to competition in 2023, she won her sixth all-around world championship and ninth all-around US championship.

As she details in her recent Netflix documentary, she now has much more balance in her life, with new priorities outside the gym. She still wants to win, but not winning isn’t the end of the world.

Paris 2024

Biles has called Paris her “redemption tour”. Again, she arrived at the Olympics with the pressure of being the favourite. But this time she is noticeably more relaxed, regularly seen chatting and laughing with teammates.

So far in Paris, her physical health has been more of a concern. She has a heavily strapped lower leg and has been seen limping. Her coach has said the injury is minor, and she will still be able to compete in the rest of the competition.

In her documentary, Biles talks about the importance of ending her career on her terms.

She has already changed the sport, both inside and outside the gym. If she can complete her remarkable comeback with individual all-around gold in Paris this will truly cement her legacy as the greatest gymnast of all time.

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

– ref. How to win on your own terms: Simone Biles claims her eighth Olympic gold on her Paris 2024 ‘redemption tour’ – https://theconversation.com/how-to-win-on-your-own-terms-simone-biles-claims-her-eighth-olympic-gold-on-her-paris-2024-redemption-tour-235659

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Parmeter, Research Scholar, Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies, Australian National University

Palestinian militant group Hamas says its top political leader, Ismail Haniyeh, has been killed in his home in Tehran. It blames Israel for the attack, saying it was “a Zionist airstrike on his residence in Tehran after he participated in the inauguration of Iran’s new president”.

Iran has not yet given any details on how Haniyeh was killed, but says it is under investigation.

With the war in Gaza showing no sign of abating and the whole Middle East on a knife’s edge, the killing raises questions about whether it may spark a wider regional war.

Who is Ismail Haniyeh?

Haniyeh is the most senior political leader of Hamas, based in Doha, Qatar. He was essentially the Hamas leader for the ceasefire negotiations with Israel in the Gaza War, brokered by the United States, Egypt and Qatar. These negotiations will obviously now be on hold.

While Israel has not yet claimed responsibility for his death – and this is unlikely, given it does not typically claim responsibility for covert actions – Haniyeh has long been on its list of targets.

What is surprising, though, is where and how it was done. Haniyeh was in Tehran to attend the swearing-in ceremony of Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian. Details of exactly what happened are still sketchy, but it appears Haniyeh was killed along with one of his bodyguards by an explosion in his building. We do not yet know if the explosion was from a remotely controlled bomb or a missile attack.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is investigating the killing.

What does this mean for a wider regional war?

There are two important issues that will be under close scrutiny in the coming hours and days.

The first is that, assuming it was Israel that was responsible for Haniyeh’s killing, it raises the question of whether Iran will retaliate because Haniyeh was under the country’s protection when he was killed. His death is likely to cause enormous anger in Iran, and may in turn prompt retaliation against Israel on top of that from Hamas.

Tensions between Iran and Israel have been long been high. In April, Iran launched more than 300 missiles and drones at Israel in retaliation for an attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus. The attack killed several senior IRGC leaders.

The attack on Haniyeh is indicative of a remarkable degree of intelligence and operational access that Israel seems to have in Iran at the moment. In recent years there has been a steady stream of Iranian scientists working on the nuclear program who have been killed. This includes the program’s “father”, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, who was killed by a sophisticated remote-controlled machine gun in 2020.

However, there remain Hamas leaders on Israel’s list who, as far as can be discerned, are still alive. Gaza political leader Yahya Sinwar is apparently still directing the operations of militants there. In July, Israel carried out a strike that was believed to have killed the elusive military leader Mohammed Deif. However, Hamas has not acknowledged this, and Deif has survived several previous assassination attempts.

The second major question is whether Lebanon-based Hezbollah will launch an attack on Israel, at Iran’s behest.

The Haniyeh killing comes within hours of an Israeli airstrike in southern Beirut, in which Israeli officials believe they have killed senior Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr.

If Iran were to retaliate, it might be through Hezbollah from Lebanon. A major missile barrage from Hezbollah could potentially overwhelm Israel’s Iron Dome missile defence system.

Iran also has other allies on which it can call, including Shia militant groups in Syria and Iraq, as well as the Houthis in Yemen who have already launched a drone strike on Tel Aviv last week. Israel quickly retaliated.

What happens now is difficult to say until there is more information. But what is certain is that the killing of Haniyeh is likely to cause a significant escalation in the Gaza War, and possibly in the wider Middle East.

Ian Parmeter 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. Hamas leader’s killing in Tehran likely to further escalate violence in Middle East – https://theconversation.com/hamas-leaders-killing-in-tehran-likely-to-further-escalate-violence-in-middle-east-235886

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Bentham, Adjunct Associate Professor School of Biology, Flinders University

Melbourne is experiencing an “explosive” and unusual outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease.

Since Friday afternoon, Victoria’s Department of Health has confirmed 33 cases (with ten more suspected) of this severe and sometimes life-threatening lung disease. Most of those infected have ended up in hospital.

Investigations are under way to identify the source of the outbreak.

Here’s what we know so far.

What is Legionnaires’ disease and how does it spread?

Legionnaires’ disease is a bacterial infection caused by inhaling contaminated water droplets. The water droplets need to be small enough to be inhaled deeply into the lungs to cause disease.

The disease isn’t transmitted between people.

Legionnaires’ disease usually only infects people with weakened immune systems or underlying health problems. People are at greater risk of infection if they:

• are over 40 years old
• are smokers
• have a chronic lung disease or existing respiratory conditions
• have a weakened immune system, such as transplant recipients
• have other underlying health conditions, such as diabetes, heart or kidney disease.

Legionnaires’ disease usually causes a severe pneumonia, which is a chest infection with symptoms such as cough, headache, fever, chills, and muscle aches and pains.

Less common symptoms are nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and confusion. In extreme cases, Legionnaires’ disease can cause kidney impairment.

How is Legionnaires’ disease treated?

Early diagnosis and treatment with the right antibiotics is important to prevent the disease becoming severe.

If no action is taken, or the wrong antibiotic is prescribed, Legionnaires’ disease can lead to serious illness and hospitalisation.

GPs in Victoria are now on alert not to prescribe inappropriate antibiotics for people presenting with respiratory symptoms.

That’s because it may take several days of taking antibiotics for people with Legionnaires’ to realise the drugs are not effective – and that window for treatment is crucial.

What do we know about the Melbourne outbreak?

The current outbreak in Melbourne is an example of this community-acquired disease.

Investigations are under way to identify its source. The large number of cases in a short period indicates a single source, likely some equipment releasing contaminated aerosols into the environment, usually outside the building. This type of outbreak is sometimes described as “explosive”.

A cooling tower attached to a building is most likely responsible. Most explosive outbreaks of Legionnaires’ disease are associated with cooling towers.

The strain is another indicator: the Legionella pneumophila S1 subtype that has been identified in Melbourne is very different from Legionnaires’ disease caused by potting mixes.

The Victorian government has advised all cooling tower operators to ensure they’re up to date with testing, servicing and auditing requirements. But it’s not unusual for the source to remain undetected.

The high density of cooling towers in a city like Melbourne make identifying a single source incredibly complex.

How are Legionella bacteria released into the air?

It’s unusual for an outbreak like this to occur mid-winter. Legionnaires’ disease outbreaks associated with cooling towers usually happen in late summer/autumn, when air conditioning systems are being turned on after a cool period.

In winter the biofilm (biological slime) dies back and Legionella do not multiply below 20°C. If towers operate all year round then Legionella can proliferate all year round.

Cooling towers are common devices used to recycle and evaporate water for buildings, especially air conditioning systems. As part of their operation they must release water into the environment. They release large amount of aerosol into the air, even when operated optimally.

This aerosol can travel considerable distances (a kilometre or more) from the source. If it is contaminated, there is the potential for inhalation and disease.

Without good management the cooling tower may act as an incubator for the Legionella bacteria. The warm and nutrient-rich conditions inside cooling water systems are ideal for the biological slimes (biofilms) Legionella need to grow.

If sediment and slimes are disturbed – for example, when the system is turned on after months of dormancy – a sudden “bloom” of Legionella may escape in the aerosol.

The fact the outbreak is occurring in winter indicates cooling towers being used to cool something other than air conditioning, such as computer or phone systems. It is likely there has been some disruption to the system operation to initiate the outbreak.

What should I do if I’m worried?

Healthy people may inhale droplets contaminated with Legionella and experience no infection.

But for those with compromised immune systems or lung damage, the disease can be serious.

Victoria’s Department of Health advises people with symptoms to seek urgent medical care if they live in, or have visited, metropolitan Melbourne and surrounding areas. Symptoms may be flu-like and include muscle pain, a dry cough, fever and loss of appetite.

Richard Bentham works for Built Water Solutions as a risk management consultant for Legionella contamination.

– ref. Legionnaires’ cases in Melbourne are growing. Here’s what you need to know about this serious lung infection – https://theconversation.com/legionnaires-cases-in-melbourne-are-growing-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-this-serious-lung-infection-235871

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Glenn C. Savage, Associate Professor of Education Policy and the Future of Schooling, The University of Melbourne

The Albanese government has released details of the next funding agreement for Australian schools.

The Better and Fairer Schools Agreement is a new ten-year agreement that will have significant power to shape what happens in schools until 2034.

It will replace the National School Reform Agreement from January 1 2025.

The agreement will require states and territories to adopt specific actions and measures to improve student outcomes. In return, they will get increased federal funding for schools.

How did we get here?

This new agreement follows a scathing review by the Productivity Commission in 2023, which found the current agreement had “done little” to lift student outcomes.

The government then commissioned its own review to advise ministers on reforms and targets to be tied to funding in the next agreement.

This year has been marked by extensive and highly politicised negotiations with state and territory governments, First Nations education representatives, and non-government peak education bodies.

This work has focused on two major questions:

• what reforms and targets will be in the new agreement?

• how much extra money will the federal government contribute?

So far, only Western Australia and the Northern Territory have reached agreements with the federal government over funding.

The release of the new agreement has been fast tracked to allow the NT government to sign this week before entering caretaker mode for its election. Western Australia is expected to officially sign in the coming weeks.

The remaining jurisdictions have yet to indicate their support for the new agreement. They have been demanding an extra 5% in funding from the federal government, but so far there is only 2.5% on the table.

Education Minister Jason Clare has issued a “sign-or-suffer” ultimatum. He says states must agree to the proposed 2.5% increase by the end of September or risk losing A$16 billion in extra funding from the Commonwealth.

What are the key reforms and targets?

The new agreement outlines multiple key reforms. These include:

• a Year 1 phonics check and early years of schooling numeracy check to identify students needing support

• evidence-based teaching and small-group or catch-up tutoring for students falling behind

• resources and supports to improve student wellbeing and mental health

• initiatives to attract and retain teachers and school leaders, especially in schools needing additional support

• improved access to evidence-based professional learning and curriculum resources for teachers and school leaders.

It also includes ambitious targets over the life of the agreement. These include:

• increasing the proportion of students leaving school with a Year 12 certificate to 83.8%, up from 76.3% in 2022. This would be the highest rate ever achieved

• increasing the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (age 20–24) attaining a Year 12 or equivalent qualification to 96% by 2031, reflecting the Closing the Gap target

• reducing the proportion of students in the “needs additional support” NAPLAN category for reading and numeracy by 10% and increasing those in the “strong” and “exceeding” categories by 10% by 2030

• raising the student attendance rate to pre-COVID levels (91.4%), up from 88.6% in 2023.

What does it mean for school funding?

The new agreement outlines reforms and targets to improve student outcomes and increase funding transparency. But it does not specify exact funding amounts for states and territories or determine the schooling resource standard used by the federal government to calculate school funding.

The schooling resource standard is designed as a “needs-based” funding model. It involves a base rate amount of funding per student, with extra loadings to provide additional funding for students with disability, students from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds, students with socio-educational disadvantage, students with low English proficiency as well as smaller, regional and remote schools.

State and territory funding will be determined through individual bilateral agreements with the federal government. These agreements also set out the specific actions that systems will adopt to pursue the reforms and targets in the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement.

What are the challenges moving forward?

There are multiple challenges ahead to bring the new agreement to life and achieve its reform ambitions over the next decade. Five factors stand out.

1. A political fight

The next two months will see Clare negotiate with the remaining states and territories to finalise bilateral funding agreements. All signs suggest this could be a brutal political battle, given remaining state education ministers insist a 5% increase in federal spending is needed.

2. The ‘funding wars’

The new agreement is unlikely to end the “funding wars” that have plagued Australian schooling reform for the past two decades. Clare’s ambition is for all schools to reach “full funding” under the schooling resource standard by 2029.

However, the agreement leaves the window open for this date to be extended in bilateral agreements, meaning there is a chance that public schools in some states and territories might not achieve full funding until the 2030s. If schools do not have adequate resources, this will make it harder to achieve the proposed reforms.

3. A new Gonski?

The agreement includes a commitment to review the current schooling resource standard methodology (commonly known as “the Gonksi model”) by mid-2029. This is a reasonable step as the model was established more than a decade ago following the 2011 Gonski Review.

Given the intense and longstanding volatility of Australian school funding debates, a review of the schooling resource standard will be a major point of political contention and will no doubt reignite debates about Australia’s complex funding system.

4. A risk of new reporting burdens

The new agreement seeks to strengthen reporting and transparency requirements. This includes annual reports to the Commonwealth on progress relating to the agreement, a new public reporting dashboard, and requirements for states and territories to provide clearer information about how funding is being distributed to schools.

These are important reforms but if they are not navigated carefully, they risk adding new burdens to schools and systems, who already have significant administrative work linked to national reform initiatives.

5. The devil is in the enactment

While the new agreement establishes a national road map for schooling policy until 2034, the success of these reforms will primarily be determined by states and territories. Each jurisdiction will be responsible for executing and following through on the policy actions outlined in its bilateral agreement.

While some reforms, like the phonics and numeracy checks, will be easier to implement, the more ambitious targets, such as increasing Year 12 attainment rates, present major policy challenges.

Historically, Australian governments have struggled to meet such targets, indicating substantial efforts will be required across jurisdictions to achieve these goals.

Glenn C. Savage receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. There’s a new 10-year plan for Australian schools. But will all states agree to sign on? – https://theconversation.com/theres-a-new-10-year-plan-for-australian-schools-but-will-all-states-agree-to-sign-on-235872