Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Melatos, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Sydney

Australia’s superannuation regulator has written to Australian superannuation funds raising concerns their spending might not be benefiting members.

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority is not just concerned with the type of expenses, but with the corporate governance around their approval, evaluation and reporting.

The letter refers to a “lack of robust governance and oversight of fund expenditure” and funds making “decisions not supported by an expenditure management framework”.

Concern about funds’ spending and governance has grown since construction industry super fund, CBUS, last year admitted it spent A$387,000 of members’ retirement savings on a 40th birthday bash attended by 750 guests.

At the same time the fund was being criticised for its links with the Construction, Forestry, Maritime Employees Union as three of its board members were members. The union was alleged to have been infiltrated by criminal elements.

Protecting members

Since July 1 2021, legislation requires regulated superannuation funds – industry and retail funds, but not self-managed funds – to act in the best financial interests of their members. This is referred to as their “best financial interest duty”.

In the superannuation industry, what economists call the principal-agent problem – in this case, ensuring super fund trustees (agents) protect the financial interests of members (principals) whose retirement savings they manage – is particularly acute.

Compared to public company shareholders, for example, super fund members have little opportunity to monitor and challenge management decisions. This includes spending decisions that affect their super balance. There is no annual general meeting at which members can vote or question their fund’s trustees.

Fund members also cannot rely to the same extent as shareholders on the market to optimise the performance of management. The threat of takeover and replacement of executives tends to be lower than for publicly listed companies. Apart from switching funds, the regulator’s oversight and enforcement are the main protection for members against trustee maladministration or malfeasance.

There is also a significant public interest in ensuring each super fund meets its financial duty obligations. The squandering of a member’s retirement savings increases the likelihood they will need to rely on the public pension, a cost for all taxpayers.

Can super fund expenses be justified?

It has been reported that spending under the regulator’s microscope includes “sports sponsorships, travel, conferences and other payments to affiliated unions or employer groups”.

Whether or not such expenses are compatible with members’ best financial interests is often difficult to judge. That is why funds are being asked to report and justify expenses more transparently.

For example, a fund’s spending on marketing and travel might be consistent with best financial interest duty if there is scope associated with increased membership and funds under management.

There are significant fixed administration and regulatory costs associated with running a super fund.

Core customer service functions, such as processing death benefit claims, require sensitive (and expensive) handling.

Spreading such costs over more members likely helps reduce fees charged to members and can encourage investment in improved customer service.

Large super funds are increasingly investing in alternative assets such as private equity and taking direct stakes in bespoke projects (such as airport ownership and apartment construction). While such investments can enhance returns, they usually require access to significant financial firepower.

Bigger may not always be better

In short, if size matters, and if, for example, sports sponsorship allows super funds to grow cost-effectively, then marketing and travel expenses may be compatible with best financial interest requirements. That might even include an executive’s travel to the AFL Grand Final to network with potential co-investors.

Neverthless, there may also be disadvantages associated with increased fund size. Larger funds are likely to find it harder to outperform the market and their peers, at least when investing in listed equities. So spending to grow membership may not always be in members’ interests.

Whether super fund payments to affiliated unions or employer groups are justifiable is complicated by legislative requirements. While a fund cannot give benefits to an employer or union, it can give benefits to a firm’s employees or a union’s members. This might include preferential death benefits or financial literacy seminars.

Questionable expenses

Some fund expenses might reflect the pursuit of “private benefits” by super fund executives or trustees. They might, for example, approve questionable investments that burnish their CVs for their next corporate gig. Or they might approve sponsorship of a football team so they can network with potential future employers or business partners at a game.

More innocently, but no less perniciously, the executive remuneration consultants super funds hire may define key performance indicators that are inappropriate for super fund executives (for example, membership growth at all costs).

What can the regulator do?

The superannuation regulator has broad powers to license and supervise superannuation funds to ensure they “keep the financial promises” made to their members.

Ultimately, a fund’s trustees are responsible for ensuring the fund is meeting its financial interests obligations.

One tool at the regulator’s disposal is to seek a court enforceable undertaking from an offending fund. This is a legal promise to address governance and legislative breaches. Failure to deliver can jeopardise a fund’s licence to operate.

Ultimately, the legal burden of proof in any civil legal action to show they have met their best financial interests responsibilities, now lies with the trustees.

Now the Prudential Regulation Authority has put super funds on notice to lift their game.

Mark Melatos 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. Australia’s superannuation regulator is worried about your fund’s spending. Should you be? – https://theconversation.com/australias-superannuation-regulator-is-worried-about-your-funds-spending-should-you-be-259881

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brittany Ferdinands, Lecturer in Digital Content Creation, Discipline of Media and Communications, University of Sydney

Emojis, as well as memes and other forms of short-form content, have become central to how we express ourselves and connect online. Yet as meanings shift across different contexts, so too does the potential for misunderstanding.

A senior colleague of mine recently encountered some commentary about the “slightly smiling” face emoji: 🙂

They approached me, asking whether it represented joy, as they had assumed, or if it had a more ominous meaning.

As a chronically-online millennial, who unironically identifies as a gen Z, I bore the news that I, along with most younger internet users, only ever use it sarcastically.

“It doesn’t actually signify happiness – more so fake happiness, or dry humour,” I explained.

I also told them how the thumbs up emoji is often interpreted as passive aggressive, and that the only time I’d use the laughing-crying (“face with tears of joy”) emoji is under duress.

Despite seeming like a universal language – and sometimes they do function that way – emojis can be at once more vague, and more specific, than words. That’s because you can’t separate the meaning of a smiley from the person who sent it, nor from the person receiving it.

Markers of age and identity

While emojis were originally developed in the late 1990s by Japanese artist Shigetaka Kurita to add emotional nuance to text-based messaging, their function has since evolved.

Today, emojis are not just emotional cues; they also operate as cultural symbols and markers of identity.

Research published last year highlights how these symbols can create subtle communication barriers across age groups. For instance, a study of Chinese-speaking WeChat users found younger and older people differed not only in how frequently they used emojis, but in how they interpreted and aesthetically preferred them.

One emoji that’s increasingly becoming a distinct marker of age is the previously mentioned laughing-crying emoji (😂). Despite being named Oxford Dictionary’s 2015 word of the year, and frequently topping the most-used emoji charts, this smiley is on the decline among gen Z – who decided in 2020 that it wasn’t cool anymore.

Instead, they prefer the skull emoji (💀), which is shorthand for the gen Z catch phrase “I’m dead”. This means something is funny (not that they’re literally deceased).

Such shifts may understandably be perplexing for older generations who are unfamiliar with evolving norms and slang.

A digital body language

Emojis can also take on distinct meanings on different platforms. They are embedded within “platform vernaculars”: the ever-evolving styles of communication that are unique to specific digital spaces.

For example, a thumbs up emoji (👍) from your boss at work is seemingly more acceptable, and less anxiety inducing, than from a romantic interest you’ve just sent a risky text to.

This dilemma was echoed in a recent viral TikTok by user @kaitlynghull, which prompted thousands to comment about their shared confusion over emoji use in the workplace.

This reaction highlights a deeper communication issue.

A survey of 10,000 workers across the US, France, Germany, India and Australia, conducted by YouGov and software company Atlassian, found 65% of workers used emojis to convey tone in the workplace. But while 88% of gen Z workers thought emojis were helpful, this dropped to 49% for baby boomers and gen X.

The survey concluded some emojis can be interpreted in multiple ways, and these double meanings aren’t always safe for work.

In with the ‘it’ crowd

Another example of platform-specific emoji use comes from social media content creators who deploy emojis to curate a certain aesthetic.

Under the Tiktok tag #emojicombo, you’ll find thousands of videos showcasing emoji combinations that provide aesthetic “inspo”. These combinations are used to represent different online identities or subcultures, such as “that girl”, “clean girl” or “old money”.

Users may include the combinations in their captions or videos to signal their personal style, or to express the mood or vibe of their online persona. In this way, the emojis help shape how they present themselves on the platform.

This example of emoji use is also a display of symbolic capital. It signals social alignment, in an environment where a user’s visibility (and popularity) is determined by their platform fluency.

Emojis, then, aren’t just tools for expression. They are badges of identity that index where a user stands in the online cultural hierarchy.

There’s a fragmentation in how we relate

A single emoji might communicate irony, sincerity or sarcasm, depending on who is using it, what platform they’re using it on, and what generation they belong to.

This gap points to deeper questions around online access and participation, and the systems that shape online cultures.

And when the meaning of an emoji is platform-dependent and socially stratified, it can become as much about fitting in with a cultural in-group than conveying emotion.

Brittany Ferdinands 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. Thumbs up: good or passive aggressive? How emojis became the most confusing kind of online language – https://theconversation.com/thumbs-up-good-or-passive-aggressive-how-emojis-became-the-most-confusing-kind-of-online-language-259151

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katy Bell, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney

There is much to commend about Australia’s lung cancer screening program, which started on July 1.

The program is based on gold-standard trial evidence showing this type of screening is likely to reduce lung cancer deaths.

Some people will have their life prolonged due to this screening, which involves taking low-dose CT scans to look for lung cancer in people with a significant smoking history.

In some of these people, cancer will be detected at an early stage, and they can be treated. Without screening, these people may have died of cancer because it would have been detected at a later, incurable stage.

However, for some people, screening could also harm.

How can screening harm?

Screening for disease, including cancer, can cause harm – during screening, diagnosis and treatment.

With lung cancer screening, a positive scan can prompt an invasive lung biopsy. This is where a sample of lung tissue is obtained with a special needle guided by imaging, or through surgery under anaesthesia.

If, after examination under the microscope, the pathologist thinks there is lung cancer, then more extensive surgery and other treatments will likely follow, all of which have a risk of side effects.

The diagnostic label “lung cancer” itself is distressing, and the stigma attached to the diagnosis may worsen this distress.

These harms and risks may be considered acceptable if the treatment prevents the person’s cancer from progressing.

However, as with other cancers, screening is likely to also cause overdiagnosis and overtreatment. That is, some of the lesions picked up through screening and diagnosed as cancer, would have never caused any trouble if they’d been left alone. If these lesions were left undetected (and untreated), they would never have caused symptoms or shortened the person’s life.

But all patients with a cancer diagnosis will be offered treatment – including surgery, radiotherapy and cancer drugs. Yet patients who really have an indolent (non-lethal) lesion have the same risk of harm from diagnosis and treatment as others, but without potentially benefiting from treatment.

A related issue is that of “incidental findings”. Reports from lung cancer screening programs overseas show there is a large potential to find things other than cancer on the CT scan.

For instance, some people have lung “nodules” (small spots on the scan) that fall short of being suspicious for cancer, but nonetheless need close monitoring with repeat scans for a while. For these people, we need to make sure health-care workers follow protocols that prevent unnecessary intervention in a nodule that is not growing.

The scans can also pick up other conditions. These include calcium in coronary arteries, small aneurysms of the aorta (bulges in the body’s largest artery), or abnormalities in abdominal organs such as the liver.

Some of these “incidental findings” may lead to early detection of disease that can be treated. However, in many cases the findings would not have caused any issues if they’d been left undetected, another example of overdiagnosis. These patients experience risks from further cascades of interventions triggered by the incidental finding, but without these interventions improving their health.

The potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment is greater if screening extends beyond the high-risk group with a history of heavy smoking. Some people who don’t meet the eligibility criteria may still want to be screened. For example, lung cancer awareness campaigns may lead to people who don’t smoke requesting screening. If screening staff decide to refer them for imaging, this may result in unofficial “leakage” of the screening program to include people at lower risk of cancer.

For example in the United States, an estimated 45% of scans done in its screening program are for people who do not meet eligibility criteria. In China, about 64% of those screened may be technically ineligible.

We see the results of this in a number of Asian countries with widespread, non-targeted screening, including of people who do not smoke. This has resulted in high rates of cancer diagnosis – much higher than we would expect in this low-risk group – and even higher rates of lung surgeries.

These surgeries, which involve cutting into the chest wall to remove lung tissue, carry significant operative risks. They may also cause longer-term impacts by removing normal lung tissue.

Regular independent evaluation needed

In Australia, for the eligible population with a significant smoking history, we anticipate net benefit, on balance, from the screening program.

However, if unintended consequences from screening are higher in real life than in the trials, then this could tip it the other way into net harm.

So, regular independent re-evaluation of the program is needed to ensure anticipated benefits are realised and harms are kept to a minimum.

This should include analysis of data across the population to look for signs of benefit, such as decreases in rates of advanced-stage lung cancer and deaths.

These data should also be scrutinised for signs of harm from overdiagnosis and overtreatment – including of both cancer and non-cancer conditions.

There is much excitement about the potential for lung cancer screening to prevent some Australians from dying from this devastating disease. We too have cautious optimism the program could make a real difference.

But we can’t let this optimism blind us to the potential for harm.

This is the next article in our ‘Finding lung cancer’ series, which explores Australia’s first new cancer screening program in almost 20 years. Read other articles in the series.

More information about the program is available. If you need support to quit smoking, call Quitline on 13 78 48.

Katy Bell receives funding from NHMRC. She co-leads the Wiser Healthcare Research Collaboration and is on the Board of the Preventing Overdiagnosis Conference.

Brooke Nickel receives fellowship funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). She is on the Scientific Committee of the Preventing Overdiagnosis Conference.

Professor Mark Morgan is chair of the RACGP Expert Committee for Quality Care and receives research support from the Medical Research Future Fund.

– ref. Lung cancer screening hopes to save lives. But we also need to watch for possible harms – https://theconversation.com/lung-cancer-screening-hopes-to-save-lives-but-we-also-need-to-watch-for-possible-harms-253625

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rich Mallett, Research Associate and Independent Researcher, ODI Global

Motorcycle-taxis are one of the fastest and most convenient ways to get around Uganda’s congested capital, Kampala. But they are also the most dangerous. Though they account for one-third of public transport trips taking place within the city, police reports suggest motorcycles were involved in 80% of all road-crash deaths registered in Kampala in 2023.

Promising to solve the safety problem while also improving the livelihoods of moto-taxi workers, digital ride-hail platforms emerged a decade ago on the city’s streets. It is no coincidence that Uganda’s ride-hailing pioneer and long-time market leader goes by the name of SafeBoda.

Conceived in 2014 as a “market-based approach to road safety”, the idea is to give riders a financial incentive to drive safely by making digital moto-taxi work pay better. SafeBoda claimed at the time that motorcyclists who signed up with it would increase their incomes by up to 50% relative to the traditional mode of operation, in which riders park at strategic locations called “stages” and wait for passengers.

In the years since, the efforts of SafeBoda and its ride-hail competitors to bring safety to the sector have largely been deemed a success. One study carried out in 2017 found that digital riders were more likely to wear a helmet and less likely to drive towards oncoming traffic. Early press coverage was particularly glowing, while recent academic studies continue to cite the Kampala case as evidence that ride-hailing platforms may hold the key to making African moto-taxi sectors a safer place to work and travel.

Read more:
Ride-hailing in Lagos: algorithmic impacts and driver resistance

Is it all as clear-cut as this? In a new paper based on PhD research, I suggest not. Because at its core the ride-hail model – in which riders are classified as independent contractors who do poorly paid “gig work” rather than as wage-earning employees – undermines its own safety ambitions.

Speed traps

In my study of Kampala’s vast moto-taxi industry – estimated to employ hundreds of thousands of people – I draw on 112 in-depth interviews and a survey of 370 moto-taxi riders to examine how livelihoods and working conditions have been affected by the arrival of the platforms.

To date, there has been only limited critical engagement with how this change has played out over the past decade. I wanted to get beneath the big corporate claims and alluring platform promises to understand how riders themselves had experienced the digital “transformation” of their industry, several years after it first began.

Read more:
Kenya’s ride-hailing drivers say their jobs offer dignity despite the challenges

One of the things I found was that, from a safety perspective, the ride-hail model represents a paradox. We can think of it as a kind of “speed trap”.

On one hand, ride-hail platforms try to moderate moto-taxi speeds and behaviours through managerial techniques. They make helmet use compulsory. They put riders through road safety training before letting them out onto the streets. And they enforce a professional “code of conduct” for riders.

In some cases, companies also deploy “field agents” to major road intersections around the city. Their task is to monitor the behaviour of riders in company uniform and, should they be spotted breaking the rules, discipline them.

On the other hand, however, the underlying economic structure of digital ride-hailing pulls transport workers in the opposite direction by systematically depressing trip fares and rewarding speed.

Under the “gig economy” model used by Uganda’s ride-hail platforms, the livelihood promise hangs not in the offer of a guaranteed wage but in the possibility of higher earnings. Crucially, it is a promise that only materialises if riders are able to reach and maintain a faster, harder work-rate throughout the day – completing enough jobs that pay “little money”, as one rider put it, to make the gig-work deal come good. Or, as summed up by another interviewee:

We are like stakeholders, I can say that. No basic salary, just commission. So it depends on your speed.

We already know from existing research that the gig economy places new pressures on transport workers to drive fast and take risky decisions. This is especially the case for workers on low, unsteady pay and without formal safety nets.

And yet, it is precisely these factors that routinely lead to road traffic accidents. Extensive research from across east Africa has shown that motorcycle crashes are strongly associated with financial pressure and the practices that lead directly from this, such as speeding, working long hours and performing high-risk manoeuvres. All are driven by the need to break even each day in a hyper-competitive informal labour market, with riders compelled to go fast by the raw economics of their work.

Deepening the pressure

Ride-hail platforms may not be the reason these circumstances exist in the first place. But the point is that they do not mark a departure from them.

If anything, my research suggests they may be making things worse. According to the survey data, riders working through the apps make on average 12% higher gross earnings each week relative to their analogue counterparts. This is because the online world gets them more jobs.

But to stay connected to that world they must shoulder higher operating costs, for: mobile data (to remain logged on); fuel (to perform more trips); the use of helmets and uniforms (which remain company property); and commissions extracted by the platform companies (as much as 15%-20% per trip).

As soon as these extras are factored in, the difference completely disappears. The digital rider works faster and harder – but for no extra reward.

Rethinking approaches to safety reform

Ride-hail platforms were welcomed onto the streets of Kampala as an exciting new solution to unsafe transport, boldly driven by technological innovation and “market-based” thinking.

Read more:
Uganda’s speedy motorbike taxis will slow down for cash – if incentives are cleverly designed

But it is important to remember that these are private enterprises with a clear bottom line: to one day turn a profit. As recent reports and my own thesis show, efforts to reach that point often alienate and ultimately repel the workers on whom these platforms depend – and whose livelihoods and safety standards they claim to be transforming.

A recent investment evaluation by one of SafeBoda’s first funders perhaps puts it best: it is time to reframe ride-hailing as a “risky vehicle” for safety reform in African cities, rather than a clear road to success.

Rich received funding for this research from the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).

– ref. Uganda’s ride-hailing motorbike service promised safety – but drivers are under pressure to speed – https://theconversation.com/ugandas-ride-hailing-motorbike-service-promised-safety-but-drivers-are-under-pressure-to-speed-259310

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jade Craig, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Mississippi

Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker’s Housing Opportunities Made Easy initiative, which was included in the city budget passed June 12, 2025, is an ambitious effort to address the city’s affordable housing challenges.

Parker has promised to create or preserve 30,000 affordable housing units throughout the city, at a cost of roughly US$2 billion.

To help fund the plan, the Parker administration says it will issue $800 million in housing bonds over the next three years.

In an April 2025 report on the housing plan, the Parker administration admits that, in light of declining federal investment in affordable housing, proceeds from municipal bonds issued by the local government “have taken on an outsized role” in Philadelphia’s housing programs.

Often, only city treasurers and the finance committees of city councils pay attention to the details behind these municipal bonds.

As a law professor who studies the social impact of municipal bonds, I believe it’s important that city residents understand how these bonds work as well.

While municipal bonds are integral to the city’s effort to increase access to affordable and market-rate housing, they can include hidden costs and requirements that raise prices in ways that make city services unaffordable for lower-income residents.

How municipal bonds work

Most people are aware that companies sell shares on the stock market to raise capital. State and local governments do the same thing in the form of municipal bonds, which help them raise money to cover their expenses and to finance infrastructure projects.

These bonds are a form of debt. Investors can purchase an interest in the bond and, in exchange, the local government promises to pay the money back with interest in a specified time period. The money from investors functions like a loan to the government.

Municipal bonds are often used so that one generation of taxpayers is not having to bear the full cost of a project that will benefit multiple generations of residents. The cost of building a bridge, for example, which will be in use for decades, can be spread out over 30 years so that residents pay back the loan slowly over time rather than saddle residents with huge tax increases one year to cover the cost.

However, the cost of borrowing pushes up the cost of projects by adding interest payments the same way a mortgage adds to the overall cost of buying a house. Overall, the market and state and local governments have historically viewed this cost as a worthy trade-off.

Some municipal bonds have limits

The Parker administration has several options when it comes to raising capital on the municipal market.

The most common method is through general obligation bonds, which are backed by the city’s authority to impose and collect taxes. Bondholders rely on the city’s “full faith and credit” to assure them that if the city has difficulty paying back the debt, the city will raise taxes on residents to secure the payment.

The city plans to use general obligation bonds to help fund its affordable housing plan, but there are limits on how much it can borrow this way. The state constitution limits Philadelphia’s ability to incur debt to a total of 13.5% of the value of its assessed taxable real estate, based on an average of this amount for the preceding 10 years.

Philly has another option

The city, however, also has the authority to take on another form of debt: revenue bonds. Revenue bonds rely on specific sources of revenue instead of the government’s taxing power. Jurisdictions issue revenue bonds to fund particular projects or services – usually ones that generate income from fees paid by users.

For example, a publicly owned water utility or electric company relies on water and sewage fees or electricity rates and charges to pay back their revenue bonds. Likewise, a transportation authority will rely on tolls to pay back revenue bonds issued to build a toll road, such as the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

Under state law, revenue bonds are “non-debt debts.” They are not debts owed by the city, because the city has not promised to repay the debt through the use of its own taxing powers. Instead, the people who pay the fees to use the service are paying back the debt.

Since states began to place stricter limits on debt in the wake of the Great Depression in the 1930s, cities across the U.S. have increasingly used revenue bonds to get around state debt limits and still fund valuable public services, including affordable housing projects.

When another government entity – rather than the city – issues the bond, and the city pays them a service fee for doing so, it’s a form of what’s called conduit debt. That obligation to pay the service fee to the other government entity is the conduit debt that the city pays out of its general fund.

In Philadelphia, conduit debt includes revenue bonds issued by the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development and Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority.

From fiscal years 2012 to 2021, the city’s outstanding debt from general obligation bonds paid for out of its general fund was between $1.3 billion to $1.7 billion per year. However, the city’s conduit debt outstripped that number every year, ranging from $1.8 billion to nearly $2.3 billion. In more recent years, conduit debt has been less than the city’s debt from general obligation bonds.

The city keeps conduit debt on its books – and is obligated to pay it back – even though it comes from bonds issued by the development authorities, because these debts loop back to the city. In the bonds issued by these agencies, the city actually becomes like a client of the agency. The city is typically obligated to pay the agency service fees as part of a contractual obligation that cannot be canceled.

The revenue on which the development agencies’ bonds rely, the money from which bondholders expect to be paid back, does not come from fees that residents pay out of their own pocket – for example through ticket sales from a sports stadium built with revenue bonds. The money instead comes out of the city’s treasury.

A loophole to affordable housing

Essentially this is a loophole for the city to bypass debt limits set for Philadelphia in the state constitution. Sometimes creativity in government requires using loopholes to get the job done – to get to yes instead of a stalemate.

Consider this analogy. Say your sister takes out a bank loan to buy a car for you because your credit limit is maxed out. She is relying on you to pay her back, and she uses your payment to pay the bank. But if you don’t pay her back, she’s not responsible by law for paying the bank herself. So, it’s your debt, but she is the conduit.

If the city holds itself accountable, it can use conduit debt responsibly to make affordable housing construction a reality.

The mayor’s office did not respond to my questions about whether they plan to use conduit debt issued by a development authority, whether that conduit debt would include service fees, and what funds would be used to pay those fees.

In its quest to increase access to affordable housing, the Parker administration should, in my view, be mindful of limiting the service fees it agrees to pay – which have no legally prescribed limits – and also account for where it will find income to cover these costs. For example, will it come from the sale of city-owned land? Fees charged to developers? Or some other source?

Otherwise, taxpayers may be left to foot a bill that is essentially unlimited.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia.

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

– ref. Philadelphia’s $2B affordable housing plan relies heavily on municipal bonds, which can come with hidden costs for taxpayers – https://theconversation.com/philadelphias-2b-affordable-housing-plan-relies-heavily-on-municipal-bonds-which-can-come-with-hidden-costs-for-taxpayers-253522

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Merdith, DECRA Fellow, School of Earth Sciences, University of Adelaide

Some 252 million years ago, almost all life on Earth disappeared.

Known as the Permian–Triassic mass extinction – or the Great Dying – this was the most catastrophic of the five mass extinction events recognised in the past 539 million years of our planet’s history.

Up to 94% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate families were wiped out. Tropical forests – which served, as they do today, as important carbon sinks that helped regulate the planet’s temperature – also experienced massive declines.

Scientists have long agreed this event was triggered by a sudden surge in greenhouse gases which resulted in an intense and rapid warming of Earth. But what has remained a mystery is why these extremely hot conditions persisted for millions of years.

Our new paper, published today in Nature Communications, provides an answer. The decline of tropical forests locked Earth in a hothouse state, confirming scientists’ suspicion that when our planet’s climate crosses certain “tipping points”, truly catastrophic ecological collapse can follow.

A massive eruption

The trigger for the Permian–Triassic mass extinction event was the eruption of massive amounts of molten rock in modern day Siberia, named the Siberian Traps. This molten rock erupted in a sedimentary basin, rich in organic matter.

The molten rock was hot enough to melt the surrounding rocks and release massive amounts of carbon dioxide into Earth’s atmosphere over a period as short as 50,000 years but possibly as long as 500,000 years. This rapid increase in carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere and the resulting temperature increase is thought to be the primary kill mechanism for much of life at the time.

On land it is thought surface temperatures increased by as much as 6°C to 10°C – too rapid for many life forms to evolve and adapt. In other similar eruptions, the climate system usually returns to its previous state within 100,000 to a million years.

But these “super greenhouse” conditions, which resulted in equatorial average surface temperatures upwards of 34°C (roughly 8°C warmer than the current equatorial average temperature) persisted for roughly five million years. In our study we sought to answer why.

The forests die out

We looked at the fossil record of a wide range of land plant biomes, such as arid, tropical, subtropical, temperate and scrub. We analysed how the biomes changed from just before the mass extinction event, until about eight million years after.

We hypothesised that Earth warmed too rapidly, leading to the dying out of low- to mid-latitude vegetation, especially the rainforests. As a result the efficiency of the organic carbon cycle was greatly reduced immediately after the volcanic eruptions.

Plants, because they are unable to simply get up and move, were very strongly affected by the changing conditions.

Before the event, many peat bogs and tropical and subtropical forests existed around the equator and soaked up carbon

However, when we reconstructed plant fossils from fieldwork, records and databases around the event we saw that these biomes were completely wiped out from the tropical continents. This led to a multimillion year “coal gap” in the geological record.

These forests were replaced by tiny lycopods, only two to 20 centimetres in height.

Enclaves of larger plants remained towards the poles, in coastal and in slightly mountainous regions where the temperature was slightly cooler. After about five million years they had mostly recolonised Earth. However these types of plants were also less efficient at fixing carbon in the organic carbon cycle.

This is analogous in some ways to considering the impact of replacing all rainforests at present day with the mallee-scrub and spinifex flora that we might expect to see in the Australian outback.

Finally, the forests return

Using evidence from the present day, we estimated the rate at which plants take atmospheric carbon dioxide and store it as organic matter of each different biome (or its “net primary productivity”) that was suggested in the fossil record.

We then used a recently developed carbon cycle model called SCION to test our hypothesis numerically. When we analysed our model results we found that the initial increase in temperature from the Siberian Traps was preserved for five to six million years after the event because of the reduction in net primary productivity.

It was only as plants re-established themselves and the organic carbon cycle restarted that Earth slowly started to ease out of the super greenhouse conditions.

Maintaining a climate equilibrium

It’s always difficult to draw analogies between past climate change in the geological record and what we’re experiencing today. That’s because the extent of past changes is usually measured over tens to hundreds of thousands of years while at present day we are experiencing change over decades to centuries.

A key implication of our work, however, is that life on Earth, while resilient, is unable to respond to massive changes on short time scales without drastic rewirings of the biotic landscape.

In the case of the Permian–Triassic mass extinction, plants were unable to respond on as rapid a time scale as 1,000 to 10,000 years. This resulted in a large extinction event.

Overall, our results underline how important tropical and subtropical plant biomes and environments are to maintaining a climate equilibrium. In turn, they show how the loss of these biomes can contribute to additional climate warming – and serve as a devastating climate tipping point.

Zhen Xu was the lead author of the study, which was part of her PhD work.

Andrew Merdith receives funding from the Australian Research Council as part of the Discovery Early Career Researcher Award.

Benjamin J. W. Mills receives funding from UK Research and Innovation.

Zhen Xu receives funding from UK Research and Innovation and the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

– ref. Around 250 million years ago, Earth was near-lifeless and locked in a hothouse state. Now scientists know why – https://theconversation.com/around-250-million-years-ago-earth-was-near-lifeless-and-locked-in-a-hothouse-state-now-scientists-know-why-260203

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

By the end of this year, the experience of using search engines in Australia won’t be as simple as it has always been.

That’s thanks to a new online safety code announced yesterday by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant. Among other measures, it will require all Australian users to provide assurance of their age when they sign into a search engine account.

So what’s the new code about? How will it work in practice? And how exactly will it affect kids – and adults – in Australia who use search engines such as Google?

What’s in the new code?

The code orders providers of internet search-engine services such as Google and Microsoft (which owns Bing) to “implement appropriate age assurance measures for account holders” within six months.

The code requires providers to review and mitigate “the risk that Australian children will access or be exposed to online pornography, high-impact violence material, and self-harm material” in search engine results.

While the code does not define the age of a “child” as being under 18, or another age, a search engine must apply tools and settings that “at a minimum” filter out online pornography and extremely violent material from search results. Providers must also ensure advertising in these content areas is not served up in search results to child account holders.

Currently, Google account holders must be at least 13 years old.

The code creates several other rules for search engine providers that will impact everyone.

For example, providers must “prevent autocomplete predictions that are sexually explicit or violent” and prominently display crisis-prevention information, such as helplines, in the results for queries relating to topics such as self-harm, suicide and eating disorders.

Search engine providers will also have to blur some images in search results by default to reduce the risk of kids inadvertently accessing or being exposed to pornographic or violent material. And they will have to provide parental controls to limit or alter children’s access to adult material.

On top of these measures, the code requires search-engine providers to report to eSafety, invest in safety and moderation teams, and engage with community organisations.

The new code has been in development since July 2024. It was co-drafted by the Digital Industry Group Inc, an industry association representing tech companies including Google, Meta and Microsoft. A single breach could result in a search engine provider copping a fine of up to A$49.5 million.

How will the code work in practice?

The code does not spell out the measures to be used to assure someone’s age.

They could including asking for government-issued ID or be similar to strategies currently being assessed for the Australian government’s under 16s social media ban, such as facial recognition technology.

Yet, the government’s recent age assurance trials highlighted concerns about the accuracy of age estimation tools, despite claims of their overall effectiveness.

Changing how people search

Once implemented, age assurance requirements will likely change how people engage with search engines and other applications.

Google is used by more than 90% of Australians and for more than just searching. The Google ecosystem includes Gmail, Google Drive, and Google Maps, providing seamless integration between search and other tools and tasks.

Repeated age assurance requests could disrupt the seamlessness of content-sharing across devices that users now experience.

Many people also opt to remain logged into their accounts on multiple devices, to quickly enable cross-device activities. This means within a family, users of multiple ages may access content on a single account, even when they don’t intend to do so.

Will search engines need to change this functionality, to more regularly log users off their accounts, and reconfirm the account holder’s age? And how will the code affect features such as Google’s “incognito mode”, which is used for private searching?

The code will apply to “any features integrated within the search functionality and the user interface” of the service, including results generated by artificial intelligence (AI). This means results generated by Google’s Gemini AI service fall under the code, alongside traditional search results.

However, the code doesn’t apply to “standalone applications or tools that are not integrated within the internet search engine service”. This means that while a browser extension such as ChatGPT for Google may fall under the code, as an integrated search engine service, the standalone ChatGPT app could be excluded.

This may make searching even more confusing for users, as many people may not understand the limitations of treating generative AI tools like search engines – but they are not.

Will the code work?

As with all age assurance checks, there may be ways people can get around these new search engine controls.

For example, they may use VPNs to trick the system into believing they are outside of Australia (and therefore not subject to age assurance checks). Or, children may access content on older people’s accounts and devices.

However, the code does preempt concerns that children might get around controls by simply not logging in to their accounts. And, the code’s insistence on reporting mechanisms means people of all ages will be able to report material and raise complaints about potential code violations.

In this way, the code seems to reflect the government’s previously proposed (but now, paused) “digital duty of care” legislation, which aimed to hold technology companies to account for the content they provide.

One crucial question remains: will the steps companies take to comply with the code meet Australians’ expectations for seamless, integrated search practices and personal privacy as they access information online?

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

– ref. Australians will soon need their age checked to log into online search tools – here’s why – https://theconversation.com/australians-will-soon-need-their-age-checked-to-log-into-online-search-tools-heres-why-260199

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martyn Mills-Bayne, Senior Lecturer in Early Childhood Education, University of South Australia

Horrific allegations of child sexual abuse in childcare centres across Melbourne have put the role of men in early childhood education back in the spotlight.

Coming after other major media reports of child mistreatment in care, many parents are feeling very anxious about the safety of their children.

Some may be deeply suspicious of men working so closely with children. That caution is totally justified.

But there are many innocent, well-intentioned and caring men working in centres across the country. They’re playing a vital role in a sector already plagued by well-documented staff shortages.

Driving them out of the workforce would be a mistake for the sector, for parents and for children.

Read more:
Parents of kids in daycare are terrified following Melbourne abuse allegations. What can they do?

Hyper-viligant behaviour

Men are still a rarity in childcare centres nationally.

The latest workforce data show about 8% of early childhood educators are male, though that statistic could include men who don’t work with children directly.

We don’t know precisely how many early childhood educators are male, but best estimates are somewhere between 2–4% of the total workforce.

Given there are so few of them, male educators often report being hyper-vigilant about how they do their jobs.

I was once an early childhood teacher myself. Now in my academic research, I’ve spent almost 20 years mentoring men in the sector, including close to 100 male students coming through initial teacher education programs.

They are extremely aware of protecting children and themselves. They talk about trying to make sure they’re never alone with children and use distancing strategies to keep themselves safe and in full view of colleagues and parents.

If they’re changing nappies, they do so in open spaces, where others can see them. If a child is hurt or needs support, they often think twice about the most appropriate way to provide it.

The men I hear from feel they are surveilled and monitored more closely than their female colleagues. Male educators must use a heightened degree of caution in their day-to-day caring work due to broad (largely unspoken) suspicions of sexual misconduct. This is an inherent part of being a male early childhood educator.

There’s been no research done to determine whether men are watched more closely than women, but regardless, most don’t begrudge it. They fear ever harming a child, and would rather the extra supervision, perceived or real, to make everyone feel safer.

Leaving the sector

But early childhood education has an issue with worker attrition.

This is especially concerning as pre-school for three-year-olds is rolled out in South Australia, Victoria and the ACT, increasing the demand for staff and pressure on services to meet staff ratios and keep children safe.

Against this backdrop, it’s crucial we stem the tide of workers leaving the sector, including men.

Unfortunately, men are often the first to leave, especially after cases of sexual abuse at other centres.

In New Zealand, Peter Ellis was jailed in the 1990s for child sexual abuse in a creche, though his conviction was overturned posthumously in 2022.

Read more:
What are working with children checks? Why aren’t they keeping kids safe at daycare?

The high profile case had long lasting negative impacts. Less than 1% of the childcare workforce in the country are men – one of the lowest participation rates in the world.

Parental and societal concerns around the risk of abuse have a profound impact on retaining and attracting more male educators in early childhood education.

This is also true at the student level. Typically, I see very few men enrol to study early childhood education (about four in a cohort of 150), but only about half that graduate. Many of these potential early childhood teachers drop their studies or move into primary teaching programs after they experience a sense of distrust during their professional placements in childcare.

Keeping children safer

Children who are abused experience lifelong trauma. Keeping them safe at all times should be the number one priority of educators and society at large.

The Melbourne case has left many parents rightly cautious and feeling uncertain about leaving their children in the care of men. We may well see less interest from centres in employing men, as has happened after similar cases in the past.

This would build on existing suspicions parents have of male educators.

There’s no easy answer to this. But there are some things that may make early education safer.

The first is to strengthen working with children screening checks, something the Victorian government has already flagged it will do.

Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan has also announced a statewide register of childcare workers to introduce “an extra layer of checks and balances”.

Another is to ensure no educator, regardless of gender, is ever alone with a child. Though this may be challenging to achieve within tight staffing levels, it’s needed to prevent future abuse.

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse highlighted the need to make sure the physical environment minimises opportunity for abuse to occur. This includes glass walls around toilet and nappy change areas and no blind spots in centres.

And finally, for parents to be scared and angry about this is to be human. But it’s also important to remember many men are doing the right thing, and male educators in the sector are also angry and concerned about this.

Better processes and regulations would help restore confidence in parents that their children are safe in a man’s care. But it would also help male educators, who can do their work safe in the knowledge they’ve passed a robust set of requirements to get there.

The Victorian government has set up a dedicated website and advice line for parents whose children may have been involved in the alleged offences.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, you can call 1800 Respect on 1800 737 732, Lifeline on 131 114, Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800, or Bravehearts (counselling and support for survivors of child sexual abuse) on 1800 272 831.

Martyn Mills-Bayne 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. Parents are feeling anxious about men in childcare centres. Stronger rules would make everyone feel safer – https://theconversation.com/parents-are-feeling-anxious-about-men-in-childcare-centres-stronger-rules-would-make-everyone-feel-safer-260282

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thomas Jeffries, Senior Lecturer in Microbiology, Western Sydney University

Coles is recalling two of its homebrand peanut butter products, over concerns they have been contaminated with aflatoxin, a toxic chemical linked to liver cancer.

The supermarket chain has issued the recall notice for Coles Smooth Peanut Butter 1kg and Coles Crunchy Peanut Butter 1kg, with the best before date of February 5 2027. They were sold in supermarkets and online nationally between May 1 and June 30 this year.

Aflatoxin can cause injury or illness if eaten, according to Australia’s food safety authority.

But what is aflatoxin? How does it get into food? And what is the risk if you eat it?

What is aflatoxin? Where does it occur?

Aflatoxins are a toxic chemical (a mycotoxin) produced by fungi. The mould-like fungi that produce aflatoxins belong to a large group called Aspergillus.

These fungi are found in all environments, for example in soils, compost, building surfaces and on crops and other plants, and can cause infections or poisoning in humans and animals.

Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus, which produce aflatoxins, thrive mainly in agricultural crops but also in soils, rotting food and compost. The fungi emerge as spores and form networks of microscopic filaments that can grow on products such as grains and nuts.

As these fungi grow they release a range of chemicals, including aflatoxins, that can lead to contamination of produce before and after harvest, or after processing.

Aflatoxins are some of the most poisonous types of mycotoxin.

Different kinds of aflatoxins usually affect contaminated food (aflatoxins B1, B2, G1), crops (G2) and milk (M1).

Which foods are most risky?

Crops produced and stored in warm, humid or moist tropical locations are most at risk, as toxin-producing moulds thrive in these conditions.

High-risk foods include peanuts, corn and tree nuts (such as brazil, walnut and pistachio nuts). The toxin-producing fungi can also grow on wheat, rice, sorghum and spice crops such as turmeric, chilli, ginger and coriander.

If animals graze on contaminated crops, their milk and meat can also become contaminated.

Internationally, the Joint Food and Agriculture Administration and World Health Organization is responsible for setting guidelines and monitoring standards for mycotoxins via its expert committee on food additives.

In Australia, aflatoxin food contamination is not common. In the past decade, there have only been a handful of recalls.

Why are aflatoxins dangerous?

Aflatoxins can damage your liver and cause cancer.

Eating a lot of contaminated foods over a short period of time can lead to aflatoxicosis, acute poisoning that immediately damages the liver. Symptoms can include nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and convulsions, and may be life-threating.

Over a long period, smaller amounts of contaminated foods can lead to liver cancer, birth defects, kidney disease and immune system dysfunction.

There is no specific treatment for alfatoxins. Management after acute or long-term exposure focuses on addressing symptoms and monitoring liver health.

How can I stay safe?

There is not much individuals can do to control the presence of aflatoxin and other mycotoxins in foods, as contamination occurs during agriculture and processing.

You should store nuts and nut products in a way that stops mould growing. Use well-sealed containers kept in dry and cool conditions.

Freezing and cooking may kill the fungi, but the toxin can survive extreme temperatures.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to see the fungi with the naked eye. However you should avoid visibly mouldy foods and throw away nuts and grains that are shrivelled or discoloured.

What should I do if I’ve bought or eaten these products?

Coles has advised customers to return the products to stores and contact its hotline for more information (1800 061 562).

If you’re concerned you may have eaten contaminated peanut butter, speak to a health professional.

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. What is aflatoxin, the toxic chemical behind Coles’ peanut butter recall? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-aflatoxin-the-toxic-chemical-behind-coles-peanut-butter-recall-260194

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rosemary Sheehan, Professor of Social Work, Monash University

Disturbing allegations have emerged about a Melbourne childcare worker, who has been charged with more than 70 offences, including sexual assault and producing child abuse material.

Health authorities have urged about 1,200 children to get screening for potential infection.

The man who has been charged, Joshua Dale Brown, had a valid working with children check.

What is a working with children check? And how can they be reformed to keep children safe in the wake of yet more claims of abuse in childcare centres?

Read more:
Parents of kids in daycare are terrified following Melbourne abuse allegations. What can they do?

Working with children checks

Working with children checks are done on a state-by-state basis, but every jurisdiction approaches it in much the same way.

In Victoria, it involves a simple application and proof of identity. There is no cost if it is for a voluntary position (for example, coaching your child’s soccer team) and a small fee if you are doing it as paid work (for example, as an early childhood educator or school teacher).

It will then look at:

• your criminal record in all Australian states and territories, including any charges, regardless of the outcome

• your professional conduct as determined by groups such as the state’s institute of teaching

• whether you’re required to report under sex offender legislation.

But does it work?

Regulation of the working with children check system is poor. Once you get your card, it lasts five years. There are no interim measures to check whether an offence has emerged in the meantime. So people can be flying under the radar.

There is also a high threshold for issues to come to the surface. It might be possible for someone to have complaints made against them, that don’t reach the level of charges laid. These would not necessarily show up in a police check.

On Wednesday, federal Education Minister Jason Clare said governments were working to improve information sharing between states “when there’s changes to people’s criminal history”.

He also suggested there should be a national register of early childhood educators: “there’s a register for teachers; there’s not a register for educators in centres”.

In 2015, the royal commission into child abuse did a specific report on working with children checks. It cautioned against an over-reliance on the checks. The report noted they can “provide a false sense of comfort to parents and communities”, who may believe people who have undergone the checks do not pose any risk to children.

Read more:
There’s a new ban on vaping in childcare centres, but what else do we need to keep kids safe?

Employment history is important

We need to have more checks in place beyond the police system.

As the child abuse royal commission also noted in 2015, working with children checks are an “important tool” but only one component of making organisations safe for children.

Employers must exercise due diligence in hiring staff, checking with previous employers, asking about staff performance, and ensuring proper staff supervision.

According to the Victorian government, Brown worked at 20 childcare centres across Melbourne between January 2017 and May 2025. Some of this was casual work.

This type of employment history – where someone has cycled through many employers – may be a red flag.

If someone has such a fragmented employment history, it is difficult to check they can perform properly and appropriately in a role. It also goes against childcare wellbeing standards, which prioritise stability and continuity of care.

How many staff are around?

Supervision of staff is also important to keep children safe.

There are set ratios for educators and children in childcare, depending on the ages of the children.

But this may vary, depending on where children are in a centre. For example, does a child need particular help with toileting or have they had an accident or need first aid?

Staff also need certain levels of qualifications to work in childcare centres. But there can be waivers if an individual is “actively working towards qualification” – so they may not have completed a formal childcare training certificate yet.

We also need to make sure there is compulsory ongoing training for staff so they stay on top of best practice in terms of safety as well as education and care.

The bigger question

On Wednesday, Victorian Premier Jacinta Allen announced an urgent review into child safety.

There are also growing calls for a national inquiry into childcare, including from National Children’s Commissioner Anne Hollonds.

She told the ABC, “child safety and wellbeing is not a priority in this country”.

Any inquiry would need to look at the systemic factors that shape the provision of childcare as well as what checks and balances need to be in place.

Brown worked at centres run by two major private childcare chains: Affinity Education and G8 Education. Both say they followed the required security protocols.

About 70% of daycare centres in Australia are run by for-profit services, which on average employ fewer qualified staff and are rated lower by the national quality system. We need to closely examine why an essential social service to vulnerable people can be provided for private profit.

The Victorian government has set up a dedicated website and advice line for parents whose children may have been involved in the alleged offences.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, you can call 1800 Respect on 1800 737 732, Lifeline on 131 114, Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800, or Bravehearts (counselling and support for survivors of child sexual abuse) on 1800 272 831.

Rosemary Sheehan receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is chair of Pathways Response Victoria, an organisation which receives complaints of abuse by officers of the Catholic Church.

– ref. What are working with children checks? Why aren’t they keeping kids safe at daycare? – https://theconversation.com/what-are-working-with-children-checks-why-arent-they-keeping-kids-safe-at-daycare-260209

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Coghlan, Senior Lecturer in Digital Ethics, Deputy Director Centre for AI and Digital Ethics, School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne

Some video game players recently criticised the cover art on a new video game for being generated with artificial intelligence (AI). Yet the cover art for Little Droid, which also featured in the game’s launch trailer on YouTube, was not concocted by AI. It was, the developers claim, carefully designed by a human artist.

Surprised by the attacks on “AI slop”, the studio Stamina Zero posted a video showing earlier versions of the artist’s handiwork. But while some accepted this evidence, others remained sceptical.

In addition, several players felt that even if the Little Droid cover art was human made, it nonetheless resembled AI-generated work.

However, some art is deliberately designed to have the futuristic glossy appearance associated with image generators like Midjourney, DALL-E, and Stable Diffusion.

It’s becoming increasingly easy for images, videos or audio made with AI to be deceptively passed off as authentic or human made. The twist in cases like Little Droid is that what is human or “real” may be incorrectly perceived as machine generated – resulting in misplaced backlash.

Such cases highlight the increasing problem of the balance of trust and distrust in the generative AI era. In this new world, both cynicism and gullibility about what we encounter online are potential problems – and can lead to harm.

Wrongful accusations

This issue extends well beyond gaming. There are growing criticisms of AI being used to generate and publish music on platforms like Spotify.

Yet as a result, some indie music artists have been wrongfully accused of generating AI music, resulting in damage to their burgeoning careers as musicians.

In 2023, an Australian photographer was wrongly disqualified from a photo contest due to the erroneous judgement her entry was produced by artificial intelligence.

Writers, including students submitting essays, can also be falsely accused of sneakily using AI. Currently available AI detection tools are far from foolproof – and some argue they may never be entirely reliable.

Recent discussions have drawn attention to common characteristics of AI writing, including the em dash – which, as authors, we often employ ourselves.

Given that text from systems like ChatGPT has characteristic features, writers face a difficult decision: should they continue writing in their own style and risk being accused of using AI, or should they try to write differently?

Read more:
Google’s SynthID is the latest tool for catching AI-made content. What is AI ‘watermarking’ and does it work?

The delicate balance of trust and distrust

Graphic designers, voice actors and many others are rightly worried about AI replacing them. They are also understandably concerned about tech companies using their labour to train AI models without consent, credit or compensation.

There are further ethical concerns that AI-generated images threaten Indigenous inclusion by erasing cultural nuances and challenging Indigenous cultural and intellectual property rights.

At the same time, the cases above illustrate the risks of rejecting authentic human effort and creativity due to a false belief it is AI. This too can be unfair. People wrongly accused of using AI can suffer emotional, financial and reputational harm.

On the one hand, being fooled that AI content is authentic is a problem. Consider deepfakes, bogus videos and false images of politicians or celebrities. AI content purporting to be real can be linked to scams and dangerous misinformation.

On the other hand, mistakenly distrusting authentic content is also a problem. For example, rejecting the authenticity of a video of war crimes or hate speech by politicians – based on the mistaken or deliberate belief that the content was AI generated – can lead to great harm and injustice.

Unfortunately, the growth of dubious content allows unscrupulous individuals to claim that video, audio or images exposing real wrongdoing are fake.

As distrust increases, democracy and social cohesion may begin to fray. Given the potential consequences, we must be wary of excessive scepticism about the origin or provenance of online content.

A path forward

AI is a cultural and social technology. It mediates and shapes our relationships with one another, and has potentially transformational effects on how we learn and share information.

The fact that AI is challenging our trust relationships with companies, content and each other is not surprising. And people are not always to blame when they are fooled by AI-manufactured material. Such outputs are increasingly realistic.

Furthermore, the responsibility to avoid deception should not fall entirely on internet users and the public. Digital platforms, AI developers, tech companies and producers of AI material should be held accountable through regulation and transparency requirements around AI use.

Even so, internet users will still need to adapt. The need to exercise a balanced and fair sense of scepticism toward online material is becoming more urgent.

This means adopting the right level of trust and distrust in digital environments.

The philosopher Aristotle spoke of practical wisdom. Through experience, education and practice, a practically wise person develops skills to judge well in life. Because they tend to avoid poor judgement, including excessive scepticism and naivete, the practically wise person is better able to flourish and do well by others.

We need to hold tech companies and platforms to account for harm and deception caused by AI. We also need to educate ourselves, our communities, and the next generation to judge well and develop some practical wisdom in a world awash with AI content.

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. Distrust in AI is on the rise – but along with healthy scepticism comes the risk of harm – https://theconversation.com/distrust-in-ai-is-on-the-rise-but-along-with-healthy-scepticism-comes-the-risk-of-harm-260189

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steve Turton, Adjunct Professor of Environmental Geography, CQUniversity Australia

Millions of people in New South Wales hunkered down last night as an intense “bomb cyclone” swept in. Falling trees took out power lines, leaving about 40,000 people without power, while some areas copped 200mm of rain in 24 hours.

Evacuation orders are in place at Wamberal, an erosion hotspot on the NSW Central Coast. Flood warnings are in place for the Nepean and Hawkesbury Rivers in Sydney.

But it could have been significantly worse. That’s because a second, slightly weaker low has formed out to sea, sucking energy away from the main storm. Without it, wave heights would likely have been much higher, and winds and rain would have been more intense. The main storm’s sustained winds offshore were downgraded from storm force (88–116km per hour) to gale force (63–87km per hour).

It’s one reason why the storm didn’t end up being classified as an East Coast Low – an intense and often damaging low-pressure system – but rather as a complex, but vigorous coastal low.

But we can’t relax yet. These two lows may begin to slingshot around each other. One of the storms may well spin off and approach coastlines further south.

A tricky storm to classify

Ahead of its arrival, this storm was shaping up as an East Coast Low – a specific type of very strong storm that emerges when a cold trough high up in the atmosphere triggers a strong low down at sea level.

But while the storm underwent “explosive cyclogenesis” – intensifying rapidly enough to make it a “bomb cyclone” – it didn’t meet the criteria for an East Coast Low.

The emergence of the second low out at sea drew some of the main storm’s energy away and reduced wind speeds and wave heights. This is why it’s considered a complex low. The storm also fell short of the duration of heavy rainfall and severe winds speeds needed to consider it an East Coast Low.

Meteorologists are rightly cautious about classifying a storm as an East Coast Low. That’s because these systems pack a real punch and deserve to be taken seriously on land and at sea.

The infamous 1998 Sydney to Hobart yacht race was hit by a sudden and severe East Coast Low. These storms normally form in cooler months, but this summer storm formed suddenly and made a direct hit on the yacht fleet. Six people died and many more had to be rescued. Intense winds destroyed masts and wild seas made rescue very difficult. That storm was also a bomb cyclone, as it intensified extremely quickly.

In 2007, five East Coast Lows hit. The biggest of these drove the huge Pasha Bulker coal carrier onto Nobbys Beach in Newcastle. In 2016, another East Coast Low led to the memorable image of a swimming pool collapsing onto a beach after huge waves caused erosion.

Spinning storms

One unusual thing about this storm is its core. If you didn’t know better, you might think it was a tropical cyclone.

Storms like this one can also be classified as extratropical cyclones if they’re strong enough. That’s because they have the characteristic whirling cyclonic shape on radar. But there are important differences.

Tropical cyclones have warm cores and their strongest winds near the core, whereas these storms affecting more southerly regions mostly have cold cores and the strongest winds further out. At certain times of year, they may be “hybrid” systems, showing both tropical and extratropical features.

The emergence of the second low is likely to trigger the “dumb-belling effect”, a two-way interaction very similar to the Fujiwhara effect in which two tropical cyclones begin to spin around each other.

How does this happen? When two tropical or extratropical cyclones form close to each other, their low-pressure centres begin to orbit around a common point influenced by the intensity and relative size of each cyclone. This interaction can lead to the cyclones merging, intensifying or even altering their paths.

In the southern hemisphere, the two orbiting storms spin clockwise. That means it’s most likely the stronger low sitting off NSW will be spun northwest back out to sea, and the second low will spin southeast, possibly bringing more heavy rain and strong winds to southern NSW and eastern Victoria.

Steve Turton has received funding from the Australian government.

– ref. What’s next for NSW’s intense storm? Heavy rains, fallen trees – and a chance of a storm ‘slingshot’ – https://theconversation.com/whats-next-for-nsws-intense-storm-heavy-rains-fallen-trees-and-a-chance-of-a-storm-slingshot-260283

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Belinda Wheaton, Professor, School of Psychological and Social Sciences, University of Waikato

New Zealanders with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) will now have easier access to diagnosis and medication after the government changed prescribing rules.

But there is still so much we don’t know about ADHD in Aotearoa. And while these changes will help many, easier access to medication alone won’t fill the gaps in other supports people with ADHD need to live well.

From February 2026 trained GPS and nurse practitioners will be able to diagnose and treat ADHD. Under the current system, only paediatricians or psychiatrists can make the diagnosis. GPs and nurse practitioners then provide followup care.

The current process – which is both time-consuming and expensive – has been widely criticised. The government’s changes are expected to at least partially address these issues.

ADHD in New Zealand

One major barrier to progress is the general lack of knowledge about adult ADHD.

he condition is broadly understood as causing persistent patterns of inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity. In adults, ADHD can have a profound impact in family and work situations, substance abuse and a wide range of psychiatric disorders. But it has largely been ignored in older age groups, with some believing people “grow out” of the condition.

People with ADHD also often possess strengths, including creativity, spontaneity, high energy, risk tolerance and an ability to think divergently. Many also demonstrate strong problem-solving skills under pressure, passion-driven focus and persistence when engaged in meaningful tasks.

Worldwide estimates suggest ADHD in adults ranges from 2.5% to 3.4% of most populations. But England’s 2023 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey found 13.9% of adults met criteria warranting clinical assessment. Only 0.5% had been professionally diagnosed.

In New Zealand, estimates rely on indirect measures such as medication dispensing rates.

Recent research found 0.6% of the adult population in New Zealand was receiving drug treatment for ADHD. Based on a conservative estimate of 2.6% of adults with ADHD, this shows a large “treatment gap” exists.

Drug dispensing data in New Zealand also show gaps in who gets diagnosed with ADHD.

Māori and Pacific peoples are less likely to receive ADHD medications. These inequities begin early. Tamariki Māori screened for ADHD at age four are less likely to receive medication than their non-Māori peers.

There are also substantial differences in the age of diagnosis across sociodemographic groups. These inequities raise serious concerns about access and systemic bias.

International research shows untreated ADHD is linked to worse mental and physical health, higher mortality, and reduced life expectancy.

ADHD prevalence is also five times higher among youth prisoners and ten times higher among adult prisoners compared to the general population. In Australia, ADHD’s social and economic costs are estimated at A$20.42 billion per year, or $25,071 per person.

Waiting too long for help

Our ongoing research, including a survey, looks at the lived experiences of adults with diagnosed or suspected ADHD in New Zealand. Many have described the healthcare system as “broken”.

Survey respondents reported long wait times, high costs for diagnosis and treatment and a lack of expertise amongst health professionals. They also described ongoing stigma and misunderstanding about the lived reality of ADHD.

The survey mirrors international research showing how longstanding myths and stigmas about what ADHD is and who it affects have impeded societal understanding.

Adult women were overrepresented in the sample, constituting 83% of the 689 participants, with over 80% reporting being diagnosed after age 24, reflecting global trends of underdiagnosis in early age among women.

Research suggests ADHD in women is often missed or misdiagnosed, partly due to outdated knowledge and lack of understanding about its presentation in women, compounded by high rates of coexisting conditions such as anxiety, depression, substance use and autism.

Treatment matters

Growing evidence shows many of the negative outcomes of ADHD are mitigated by treatment with medication. One study from Sweden found a significant association between initiating ADHD medication treatment and lower mortality.

However, medication is only part of the solution. Strategies focused on the strengths of people with ADHD can have huge benefits for the individual, their whānau and communities. Particularly when they receive timely diagnosis, treatment and necessary accommodations.

Researchers argue that while ADHD medications provide effective treatment, they should never be the only form of treatment offered.

More than meds

Expanding prescribing authority is a vital step, but this alone will do little to increase access to psychological and allied health supports to ensure the right care can be provided to people with ADHD.

There continues to be an urgent need to address gaps in data and understanding, to provide an evidence-based assessment of the areas where research, funding and policy initiatives need to be targeted.

Trends show that some groups, including Māori and women, are disproportionately affected by a lack of knowledge and services. As the government revises how ADHD is diagnosed and treated, it must address these discrepancies.

There is also a complex but poorly understood relationship between ADHD and other neurodevelopmental conditions, such as autism, that needs further investigation. As ADHD New Zealand chairperson Darrin Bull has argued, a “whole-of-system” approach is required to support those with ADHD in New Zealand.

Belinda Wheaton is collaborating with ADHD NZ on research to improve understanding of ADHD in NZ,

Byron Rangiwai has received funding from Health Research Council. Byron is currently receiving funding from Apple Computers until October 2025.

Nicholas Bowden has received funding for ADHD-related research through MBIE’s A Better Start National Science Challenge.

Stephanie D’Souza has received funding for ADHD-related research through MBIE’s A Better Start National Science Challenge.

– ref. More than meds: why easier access to ADHD treatment has to be part of a whole-system approach – https://theconversation.com/more-than-meds-why-easier-access-to-adhd-treatment-has-to-be-part-of-a-whole-system-approach-259981

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Arlanda Harris, Associate Professor in Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University

Parents have been left reeling by news a male Melbourne childcare worker has been charged with 70 counts related to the alleged sexual abuse of young children in his care.

The charges include sexual penetration and producing child abuse material for use through a carriage service. The man has tested positive for a sexually transmitted disease, with more than 1,200 children now needing to be tested.

If you’ve got a child in daycare, or are planning to enrol them in one soon, you might be wondering: what can I do to reduce the risk of this happening to my child at care?

I’ve researched prevention of child sexual abuse for decades. Here are my main recommendations for parents.

Scrutinise the childcare centre

You need to make sure you know who is looking after your kids. Ask yourself:

• who is playing with them during the day?
• who are their main carers?
• who helps them with naptime and toileting or nappy change?

High staff turnover at the centre should be a warning sign for employers and parents alike. You want to go to a place where the employees have been there for decades. Obviously, that is not always possible but it is something to look for.

Don’t be distracted with shiny play equipment; look for places where the staff are actually interacting with the children.

Ask the childcare centre the uncomfortable questions. Both the director and regular staff should be able to answer questions such as:

• what is your recruitment policy and process?
• what would you do if you saw a colleague kiss a child or touch a child inappropriately?
• what is your child protection plan?
• what do you do if a parent or child alleges there’s been an incident? What exact steps will you follow?
• how do you ensure no worker is ever left alone with a child?

Any resistance to answering questions about policies and protocol should be a red flag. Trust your gut.

What to look for

Go to the childcare centre for a spot visit at an unexpected time.

That means going when it’s not drop-off or pick-up time. Everyone can put on a show at 8am and 5pm but go at 2pm or 3pm when the staff are starting to flag and the children are grumpy.

Any resistance is a problem. A good centre will let you visit any time.

You want glass walls for nappy change areas, or a really clear line of sight so nobody is able to be in there unseen.

Kids are most likely to be abused during nappy change, toileting and nap time. Look closely at these places and understand the workflow in those areas.

Look for nooks and crannies – any secret spaces that have been created.

At naptime, everyone should be sleeping out in the open; there should be no closed areas.

No worker should be alone with a child, ever. This should be made very clear to you when you ask the childcare centre about their safety policies.

Childcare workers should not have their personal phones with them on the floor. The centre should have one phone for the whole place but the staff should not have their personal phones on them at any time. There is no need for it and it creates risk.

What should I say to my kids?

It’s really important to talk to your children, even if they are very young. Give them the language to talk about this and understand what’s appropriate and what’s not.

Use proper anatomical terms for body parts so they have the language to disclose if something happens.

Let them know they can speak up and make sure they understand the steps to disclose.

For example, when you do a nappy change, narrate what you are doing so they understand what a “normal” nappy change is and can learn the words for these steps.

Ask: what’s it like when Mister James wipes your bottom? What did he do? Tell them: if you don’t like the way he wipes your bottom you can tell Miss Tracy or me.

It is never too early to start talking about this stuff and they’ll pick it up faster than you realise. If you’re not talking with your children about this stuff, you’re not preventing child sexual abuse.

Talk about “safe touching” and “unsafe touching”. Make sure they know they don’t have to hug someone if they don’t want to. They can always say no and they can give a high five instead. They need to learn: my body, my rules.

Talk with your child about what it’s like at naptime and at nappy change time at daycare.

And if your child seems like they really don’t want to talk to a particular instructor, that can be a warning sign.

Systemic change is needed

Obviously, childcare workers are poorly paid and we need to overhaul the system. Higher pay would mean people could stay longer in one job and would reduce staff turnover.

The working with children check is just one piece in a large and complicated puzzle. It just means that on the day that person applied for the job they hadn’t been convicted of an offence.

But the fact is a lot of people don’t have a choice but to send their child to daycare when they are pre-verbal.

So parents need to have uncomfortable conversations with childcare staff (and with their kids); lean into the discomfort and ask the questions anyway.

Danielle Arlanda Harris has received funding from the Australian Research Council, Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety and the National Centre for Action on Child Sexual Abuse. She is on the national clinical reference group of the National Office for Child Safety.

– ref. Parents of kids in daycare are terrified following Melbourne abuse allegations. What can they do? – https://theconversation.com/parents-of-kids-in-daycare-are-terrified-following-melbourne-abuse-allegations-what-can-they-do-260285

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tom Lee, Senior Lecturer, School of Design, University of Technology Sydney

Australian farms are at the forefront of a wave of technological change coming to agriculture. Over the past decade, more than US$200 billion (A$305 billion) has been invested globally into the likes of pollination robots, smart soil sensors and artificial intelligence (AI) systems to help make decisions.

What do the people working the land make of it all? We interviewed dozens of Australian farmers about AI and digital technology, and found they had a sophisticated understanding of their own needs and how technology might help – as well as a wariness of tech companies’ utopian promises.

The future of farming

The supposed revolution coming to agriculture goes by several names: “precision agriculture”, “smart farming”, and “agriculture 4.0” are some of the more common ones.

These names all gesture towards a future in which the relationship between humans, computing and nature have been significantly reconfigured. Perhaps remote sensing technology will monitor ever more of a farm system, autonomous vehicles will patrol it, and AI will predict crop growth or cattle weight gain.

But there’s another story to tell about the way technological change happens. It involves people and communities creating their own future, their own sense of important change from the past.

AI, country style

Our research team conducted more than 35 interviews with farmers, specifically livestock producers, from across Australia.

The dominant themes of their responses were captured in two pithy quotes: “shit in, shit out” and “more automation, less features”.

“Shit in, shit out” is an earthier version of the “garbage in, garbage out” adage in computer science. If the data going into a model is unreliable or overly abstract, then the outputs will be shaped by those errors.

This captured a real concern for many farmers. They didn’t feel they could trust new technologies if they didn’t understand what knowledge and information they had been built with.

A different kind of automation

On the other hand, “more automation, less features” is what farmers want: technologies that may not have a lot of bells and whistles, but can reliably take a task off their hands.

Australian farmers have a ready appetite for labour-saving technologies. When human bodies are scarce, as they often are in rural Australia, machines are created to fill the void.

Windmills, wire fences, and even the iconic Australian sheepdog have been a crucial part of the technological narrative of settler colonial farming. These things are not “autonomous” in the same way as computer-powered vehicles and drones, but they offer similar advantages to farmers.

What these classic farm technologies have in common is a simplicity that derives from a clarity of purpose. They are the opposite of the “everything apps” that fuel the dreams of many Silicon Valley entrepreneurs.

“More automation, less features” is in this sense a farmer envisaging a digital product that fits with their image of a useful technology: transparent in its operations, and a reliable replacement for or an addition to human labour.

The lesson of the Suzuki Sierra Stockman

When speaking with one farmer about favoured technologies of her lifetime, she mentioned the Suzuki Sierra Stockman. These small, no-frills, four-wheel-drive vehicles became something of an icon on Australian sheep and cattle farms through the 1970s, ‘80s and ’90s.

Reflecting on her memories of first using the vehicle, the farmer said:

Once I learnt that I could actually draft cattle out with the Suzuki, that changed everything. You could do exactly what you did on a horse with a vehicle.

It seems unlikely that Suzuki’s engineers in Japan envisaged their little jeep chasing cattle in the paddocks of Central West of NSW. The Suzuki was in a sense remade by farmers who found innovative uses for it.

Future technology must be simple, adaptable and reliable

The combustion engine was a key technological change on farms in the 20th century. Computers may play a similar role in the 21st.

We are perhaps yet to see a digital product as iconic as wire fences, windmills, sheepdogs and the Suzuki Stockman. Computers are still largely technologies of the office, not the paddock.

However, this is changing as computers get smaller and are wired into water tanks, soil monitors and in-paddock scales. More data input from these sensors means AI systems have more scope to help farmers make decisions.

AI may well become a much-loved tool for farmers. But that journey to iconic status will depend as much on how farmers adapt the technology as on how the developers build it. And we can guess at what it will look like: simple, adaptable and reliable.

This article is based on research conducted by the Foragecaster project, led by AgriWebb and supported by funding from Food Agility CRC Ltd, funded under the Commonwealth Government CRC Program. The CRC Program supports industry-led collaborations between industry, researchers and the community. This project was also supported by funding from Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA).

– ref. ‘Shit in, shit out’: AI is coming for agriculture, but farmers aren’t convinced – https://theconversation.com/shit-in-shit-out-ai-is-coming-for-agriculture-but-farmers-arent-convinced-259997

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By A J Brown, Professor of Public Policy & Law, Centre for Governance & Public Policy, Griffith University

The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) opened its doors two years ago this week amid much fanfare and high expectations.

Since then the body has attracted considerable criticism, overshadowing a solid, if slow, start to a whole new anti-corruption system across federal government.

Established with strong powers after a history of much weaker proposals, what has it achieved in its first two years?

Early hurdles

On its first day, the decision to livestream the opening ceremony showed the Commission was alive to public expectations.

However, the Commission’s reputation faced major early challenges: fears its transparency had been “nobbled”, and its damaging initial decision not to investigate officials referred by the Robodebt Royal Commission.

The first challenge flowed from the politics that birthed the Commission.

In 2022, despite otherwise state-of-the-art powers, the Albanese government made a late decision to insert an “exceptional circumstances” test to its ability to hold public hearings in corruption investigations.

The shift created a bad impression. Many voices, including cross-bench parliamentarians, were left with good reason to question the very institution they helped create.

The problem will haunt the NACC until the unnecessary threshold is removed.

Public recognition

In reality, the NACC still has hefty public hearing powers, but they are as yet to be used.

When the need arises for royal commission-scale transparency, it will deliver an important side benefit the NACC still badly needs: public visibility.

The challenge is confirmed by research on public trust, yet to be published, by Griffith University. Surveyed in March this year, only 12% of respondents said they knew at least a fair amount about the NACC, while a third had never heard of it at all, or didn’t know.

This contrasts with the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption, now 37 years old and the country’s heaviest user of public hearings. Over a quarter (26%) of NSW respondents said they knew at least a fair amount about the ICAC.

Building visibility is a slow road, and does not mean the NACC is not doing its job. But with recognition a cornerstone of confidence, it’s a key tool the Commission clearly still needs to learn how to use.

Workload

In fact, the NACC’s heavy pipeline of work is finally starting to give it more to talk about.

About 4,500 corruption complaints or referrals have been assessed since 1 July 2023, leading to more then 40 full investigations, including 31 currently underway.

It will take time for this workload to pay off, in dealing with and preventing corruption, as well as reinforcing the public trust everyone needs. But even if slow, the first results confirm the importance of the investment.

This week, the Commission published its fourth investigation report, revealing details of serious corrupt conduct by a Department of Home Affairs Senior Executive who abused her office by dishonestly advantaging her sister’s fiance for a job.

Small fry? Maybe to some. But the fact 15 of the current investigations relate to senior officials takes the fight against nepotism and cronyism right to where it needs to be.

Before the NACC, there was little confidence in how this kind of soft corruption was being dealt with by federal agencies.

Hard corruption

In its first two years, the NACC has also monitored 40 internal investigations by agencies which previously would have gone unsupervised, if they happened at all.

On harder corruption, some results tell an even stronger tale.

Last year, the NACC finalised an investigation which saw a former Australian Taxation Office employee jailed for five years, for accepting A$150,000 in bribes to reduce the tax debts of a Sydney businessman – also since jailed.

And in December, a former Western Sydney Airport manager pleaded guilty to soliciting a A$200,000 bribe in exchange for a A$5 million services contract at Badgery’s Creek.

Prior to the NACC, this was exactly the type of hard corruption many federal politicians and public servants claimed did not occur. No-one believed it, but now there’s a system for getting it under control.

Politicians not immune

The fact 13 of the NACC’s current investigations relate to former or current federal politicians or their staff is also reassuring. Of all the public officials in Australia, they have long been the most immune from integrity oversight.

Known referrals include former Liberal Minister Stuart Robert in relation to alledged improper financial dealings with Canberra lobbyist, Synergy 360.

A separate review found $374 million in contracts linked to Robert and the firm were poor value for money or plagued with perceived conflicts of interest.

Even if Robert’s denials are correct, the NACC has good scope to help ensure no such dealings are possible in the future.

The NACC’s strategic priorities highlight “senior public official decision-making” as an area where “even the perception of corruption can significantly harm trust in government”. This is especially important given the lack of regulation covering contractor, consultant and departmental relationships.

Robodebt setback

Tackling such fundamental issues, and not just driving a hamster wheel of criminal investigations, is the big challenge. It is underscored by the worst hurdle confronted by the NACC: its initial refusal to investigate Robodebt.

The NACC’s independent inspector, Gail Furness, found that decision was contaminated by a badly managed conflict of interest, which caused the Commission reputational damage.

But the poor handling also provided the circuit breaker needed for an independent reconsideration.

Since February, the NACC is now investigating whether six individuals referred by the Robodebt Royal Commission engaged in corrupt conduct.

It is a chance for the Commission to show it’s more than a compliance-focused enforcement agency, and is ready to play a positive part ensuring accountability and justice for victims when officials abuse their power.

The larger mission

Accepting this larger mission is a challenge for all anti-corruption commissions, but the NACC’s ability to do so is aided by some special powers.

Its broad definition of “corrupt conduct” means it can tackle any kind of serious integrity failure, including breaches of trust or abuses of power, which don’t involve the types of private gain often associated with corruption in the past.

A second key tool – also the likely solution to its visibility problem – is the Commission’s unique power to tackle larger issues through public inquiries.

Also yet to be used, this power extends to any “corruption risks and vulnerabilities” or “measures to prevent corruption” the Commission sees fit. Unlike individual investigation hearings, it does not require “exceptional circumstances”.

The last two years have seen the NACC well and truly blooded in its role as the cornerstone of the federal integrity transformation we needed to have.

Now the question is more about the Commission’s choices of direction, including how it nurtures its relationship with the public, than whether it has capacity to get the job done.

A J Brown AM is Chair of Transparency International Australia. He has received funding from the Australian Research Council and all Australian governments for research on public interest whistleblowing, integrity and anti-corruption reform through partners including Australia’s federal and state Ombudsmen and other regulatory agencies, parliaments, state anti-corruption agencies, and private sector industry bodies. He currently leads an ARC Discovery Project on mapping and harnessing public trust and distrust, in partnership with Sydney, La Trobe and Bond Universities. He is a former senior investigator for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, was a member of the Commonwealth Ministerial Expert Panel on Whistleblowing and is a member of the Queensland Public Sector Governance Council.

– ref. The National Anti-Corruption Commission turns 2 – has it restored integrity to federal government? – https://theconversation.com/the-national-anti-corruption-commission-turns-2-has-it-restored-integrity-to-federal-government-257889

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bonnie Clough, Senior Lecturer, School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University

People with poor mental health face many challenges. One that’s perhaps lesser known is that they’re more likely than the overall population to have poor oral health.

Research has shown people with serious mental illness are four times more likely than the general population to have gum disease. They’re nearly three times more likely to have lost all their teeth due to problems such as gum disease and tooth decay.

Serious mental illnesses include major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder and psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia. These conditions affect about 800,000 Australians.

People living with schizophrenia have, on average, eight more teeth that are decayed, missing or filled than the general population.

So why does this link exist? And what can we do to address the problem?

Why is this a problem?

Oral health problems are expensive to fix and can make it hard for people to eat, socialise, work or even just smile.

What’s more, dental issues can land people in hospital. Our research shows dental conditions are the third most common reason for preventable hospital admissions among people with serious mental illness.

Meanwhile, poor oral health is linked with long-term health conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, some cancers, and even cognitive problems. This is because the bacteria associated with gum diseases can cause inflammation throughout the body, which affects other systems in the body.

Why are mental health and oral health linked?

Poor mental and oral health share common risk factors. Social factors such as isolation, unemployment and housing insecurity can worsen both oral and mental health.

For example, unemployment increases the risk of oral disease. This can be due to financial difficulties, reduced access to oral health care, or potential changes to diet and hygiene practices.

At the same time, oral disease can increase barriers to finding employment, due to stigma, discrimination, dental pain and associated long-term health conditions.

It’s clear the relationship between oral health and mental health goes both ways. Dental disease can reduce self-esteem and increase psychological distress. Meanwhile, symptoms of mental health conditions, such as low motivation, can make engaging in good oral health practices, including brushing, flossing, and visiting the dentist, more difficult.

And like many people, those with serious mental illness can experience significant anxiety about going to the dentist. They may also have experienced trauma in the past, which can make visiting a dental clinic a frightening experience.

Separately, poor oral health can be made worse by some medications for mental health conditions. Certain medications can interfere with saliva production, reducing the protective barrier that covers the teeth. Some may also increase sugar cravings, which heightens the risk of tooth decay.

Our research

In a recent study, we interviewed young people with mental illness. Our findings show the significant personal costs of dental disease among people with mental illness, and highlight the relationship between oral and mental health.

Smiling is one of our best ways to communicate, but we found people with serious mental illness were sometimes embarrassed and ashamed to smile due to poor oral health.

One participant told us:

[poor oral health is] not only [about] the physical aspects of restricting how you eat, but it’s also about your mental health in terms of your self-esteem, your self-confidence, and basic wellbeing, which sort of drives me to become more isolated.

Another said:

for me, it was that serious fear of – God my teeth are looking really crap, and in the past they’ve [dental practitioners] asked, “Hey, you’ve missed this spot; what’s happening?”. How do I explain to them, hey, I’ve had some really shitty stuff happening and I have a very serious episode of depression?

What can we do?

Another of our recent studies focused on improving oral health awareness and behaviours among young adults experiencing mental health difficulties. We found a brief online oral health education program improved participants’ oral health knowledge and attitudes.

Improving oral health can result in improved mental wellbeing, self-esteem and quality of life. But achieving this isn’t always easy.

Limited Medicare coverage for dental care means oral diseases are frequently treated late, particularly among people with mental illness. By this time, more invasive treatments, such as removal of teeth, are often required.

It’s crucial the health system takes a holistic approach to caring for people experiencing serious mental illness. That means we have mental health staff who ask questions about oral health, and dental practitioners who are trained to manage the unique oral health needs of people with serious mental illness.

It also means increasing government funding for oral health services – promotion, prevention and improved interdisciplinary care. This includes better collaboration between oral health, mental health, and peer and informal support sectors.

Amanda Wheeler is an investigator on a MetroSouth Health 2025 grant exploring use of Queensland Emergency Departments for people with mental ill-health seeking acute care for oral health problems.

Steve Kisely has received a grant on oral health from Metro South Research Foundation and one from the Medical Research Future Fund.

Bonnie Clough, Caroline Victoria Robertson, and Santosh Tadakamadla 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. Gum disease, decay, missing teeth: why people with mental illness have poorer oral health – https://theconversation.com/gum-disease-decay-missing-teeth-why-people-with-mental-illness-have-poorer-oral-health-258403

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michalis Hadjikakou, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Sustainability, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, Engineering & Built Environment, Deakin University

The way we currently produce and consume food takes a big toll on the environment.

Worldwide, farming is responsible for more than 20% of greenhouse gas emissions and uses more than 70% of all fresh water taken from rivers, lakes and groundwater. It’s the leading driver of deforestation and nutrient pollution, largely from fertiliser run-off. All of these pose a serious threat to ecosystems.

If this sounds serious, it’s because it is. If emissions and land clearing trends continue, the world’s food system alone could make it impossible to meet climate targets. If we continue eating and producing food in the same way we are now, we will almost certainly exceed crucial environmental limits by 2050.

What can be done? In our new research, we looked for ways to keep the food system within environmental limits by 2050. We found only one approach worked: combine high-impact changes such as shifting to flexitarian (low meat) diets, improving farming practices and reducing food waste.

Why will farming take us past environmental limits?

Environmental limits are also known as planetary boundaries. These nine boundaries are Earth’s natural safety limits. They range from freshwater resources to the biosphere to the climate. Human activities have pushed past six out of nine safe boundaries through clearing too much land, overusing water for irrigation, overapplying fertilisers or emitting more than our shrinking carbon budget permits.

If we cross these thresholds, we risk dangerous and irreversible changes to the conditions supporting a stable planet.

Transforming the way we farm and eat is essential if we are to keep humanity in a safe operating space within environmental limits.

What does this transformation look like?

The challenge of making food production sustainable is long-running. Previous research has compared the effectiveness of different changes authorities and consumers could make. But most studies used different models, making it hard to compare changes.

To overcome this problem, we synthesised information from previous studies and built a database of thousands of future food system scenarios and possible changes. Then we performed a meta-analysis to combine data from multiple studies and draw more robust conclusions.

This approach allows policymakers and researchers to compare apples and apples, as well as see which combination of changes would let us stay within crucial safety limits by 2050.

We focused on four vital indicators: how much land and water is used for farming; the amount of greenhouse gases emitted; and the flows of two key nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus.

What works best?

What stood out was the sheer variation in effectiveness. Some changes would work very well across several areas, while others would take a lot of effort for not enough result.

Two changes punch well above their weight on land, water and emissions.

The first is shifting to a flexitarian diet with fewer foods sourced from animals. This is similar to traditional regional diets such as the Mediterranean and Okinawan diets, where meat and dairy are eaten in much smaller proportions compared to whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes.

Returning to this diet could shrink how much land we use for farming by almost a quarter (24%), cut water demand by 14% and slash greenhouse gas emissions by 47%.

The second is breeding better livestock. Livestock today are much better at converting their feed into meat or milk than their precursors. But this could be better still. More productive animals could enable an 18% reduction in land use, a 10% drop in water use and a 34% cut to emissions.

Modern fertilisers have made it possible to produce many more crops and fodder. But if too much fertiliser is applied, it can wash off after rain and pollute waterways.

Better timed and more precise application of fertiliser is by far the best way to cut nutrient pollution. Major improvements here could cut nitrogen pollution by 39% and phosphorus pollution by 42%. As a side benefit, it could save farmers money.

Increasing crop yields, lowering agricultural emissions through better soil management and other practices, and taking up technologies such as methane-reducing supplements can significantly reduce our risk of exceeding environmental limits. So too can cutting food waste and using water more wisely in farming. Our extended results show the relative benefits of ten possible interventions.

There is no silver bullet

We found no single change was up to the task of making food production and consumption sustainable.

We considered over a million possible combinations of changes. Of these combinations, only a tiny fraction – 0.02% – give us a fighting chance of staying within all environmental limits.

In almost all successful combinations, the world would need to make significant cuts to how many calories come from animals, make big improvements to fertiliser use and nutrient management, and focus research and development on finding ways to farm land and livestock with less resources and emissions.

Most successful combinations also rely on halving food waste and reducing overconsumption.

Is it still possible?

Farming within the limits of Earth’s systems will be hard. But it is possible.

Some work is already being done. Global organisations such as the United Nations are making a concerted effort to accelerate changes to food systems across many countries.

Research like ours can make people feel powerless. But individual change is always worthwhile. Reducing your intake of animal products benefits your health and the planet.

Properly addressing these very real issues will take concerted, collective work. If we don’t succeed, we risk triggering ecological collapse – and threatening the foundation for human civilisation.

The knowledge and tools are at hand. What’s needed now is ambition – and a sense of what’s at stake.

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. Farming within Earth’s limits is still possible – but it will take a Herculean effort – https://theconversation.com/farming-within-earths-limits-is-still-possible-but-it-will-take-a-herculean-effort-259901

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kerrie Sadiq, Professor of Taxation, QUT Business School, and ARC Future Fellow, Queensland University of Technology

The beginning of the financial year means for the first time in Australia the public will see previously unreleased tax reports produced by multinational taxpayers.

These documents, known as country-by-country reports, or CbCR for short, contain information about the tax practices of large Australian businesses and foreign businesses operating in Australia. This information, previously only available to the taxpayer and the Australian Tax Office, will be made public.

Country-by-country reports, announced in the October 2022-2023 budget, were introduced with other measures designed to improve corporate tax behaviour. The reports will be released from this week as part of corporate reporting practices. Multinationals have 12 months to comply.

A fairer tax system

Country-by-country reporting forms part of the government’s multinational tax integrity election commitment package. The aim is to ensure a fairer and more sustainable tax system. Large firms will be required to publish a statement on their global activities plus tax information for each jurisdiction in which they operate.

Until now, large multinationals only had to prepare annual consolidated financial statements under international financial reporting standards. The traditional reports aggregate results and provide limited geographic reporting information.

Traditional high-level reporting allows multinationals to conceal their country-level activities. This hides questionable tax practices.

Country-by-country reporting allows us to better see where a multinational operates. More importantly, the amount of activity in each jurisdiction is reported. The information provides clues as to whether artificial profit shifting has occurred.

Anyone interested can uncover details about how multinationals structure their global operations. Information may reveal a misalignment between the company’s real economic presence in a country, the profits they book and taxes they pay in that country.

Bringing Australia into line with the EU

Country-by-country reporting is not new. It is the requirement that the information be made public that has changed.

Australian firms have been required to provide such reports to the Australian Tax Office since 2016. However, the information has been confidential.

The new public disclosure law brings Australia in line with large firms operating in the European Union which brought in the change last year.

How country-by-country reporting works

A taxpayer with annual global income above A$1 billion and at least A$10 million of its turnover Australian-sourced will need to produce a report. The obligation to disclose rests with the parent entity no matter where they are located.

Australia’s largest companies, including mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP, biotech firm CSL, and investment bank Macquarie Group, will be among those expected to report, as will foreign tech behemoths such as Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Meta.

These tech giants are the same US firms likely to be excluded from the global minimum tax rules under a G7 agreement reached last week. Under the agreement, US multinationals were exempted from paying more corporate tax overseas. Other G7 members gave in to protect their own companies from the US’s threat of retaliation.

Under the law change in Australia, a parent entity will provide its name, the names of all members of the group, a description of their approach to tax, and information about operations in certain countries. Included on the list are countries that attract multinationals due to reduced tax obligations, such as Singapore, Switzerland, and the Bahamas.

Everyone will be able to see where a multinational is operating. They will also see the types of business activities conducted, number of employees, assets, revenue, and taxes paid. Large profits in a country but little business activity and very few employees may raise questions, especially if a country has a low tax rate.

Benefits of better transparency

Access to the extra information will help investors assess the tax and reputational risk of a firm. A multinational that shifts profits to low tax countries may be audited and pay extra tax and penalties.

Increased transparency allows greater scrutiny. In turn, it is hoped multinationals will reduce aggressive tax planning due to potential risk to their reputation.

If multinationals shift less taxable profits out of Australia to low-tax or no-tax jurisdictions, this will lead to Australia receiving a greater share of much needed corporate tax revenue.

Reducing profit shifting

Recent academic research on public country-by-country reporting reveals it provides additional information to better identify tax haven activity. However, it does not result in a significant drop in corporate tax avoidance.

Increased tax transparency helps investors and tax authorities to better understand a multinational’s economic and tax geographic footprint. It is also important when it seems that US giants will be excluded from the 15% global minimum tax rules. Transparency by itself, however, does not lead to multinationals paying more corporate taxes.

By its very nature, tax avoidance is legal but pushes the boundaries by going against the spirit of the law. Indeed, many large multinationals argue tax is a legal obligation and is not voluntary. They maintain they pay the tax required of them according to the law.

Undoubtedly, Australia’s new public country-by-country regime is a positive step for tax transparency. As a country initiative, it has been applauded as groundbreaking and world leading. However, it is not a panacea to corporate tax avoidance.

To limit corporate tax avoidance and have multinationals pay more corporate taxes, we must get to the heart of the problem. We must change the law that dictates the way multinationals are taxed.

Kerrie Sadiq currently receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She has previously received research grants from CPA Australia and CAANZ.

Rodney Brown has previously received research grants from CPA Australia and CAANZ.

– ref. News laws to make it harder for large Australian and foreign companies to avoid paying tax – https://theconversation.com/news-laws-to-make-it-harder-for-large-australian-and-foreign-companies-to-avoid-paying-tax-260004

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thomas J. Derrick, Gale Research Fellow in Ancient Glass and Material Culture, Macquarie University

The roar of the arena crowd, the bustle of the Roman forum, the grand temples, the Roman army in red with glistening shields and armour – when people imagine ancient Rome, they often think of its sights and sounds. We know less, however, about the scents of ancient Rome.

We cannot, of course, go back and sniff to find out. But the literary texts, physical remains of structures, objects, and environmental evidence (such as plants and animals) can offer clues.

So what might ancient Rome have smelled like?

Honestly, often pretty rank

In describing the smells of plants, author and naturalist Pliny the Elder uses words such as iucundus (agreeable), acutus (pungent), vis (strong), or dilutus (weak).

None of that language is particularly evocative in its power to transport us back in time, unfortunately.

But we can probably safely assume that, in many areas, Rome was likely pretty dirty and rank-smelling. Property owners did not commonly connect their toilets to the sewers in large Roman towns and cities – perhaps fearing rodent incursions or odours.

Roman sewers were more like storm drains, and served to take standing water away from public areas.

Professionals collected faeces for fertiliser and urine for cloth processing from domestic and public latrines and cesspits. Chamber pots were also used, which could later be dumped in cesspits.

This waste disposal process was just for those who could afford to live in houses; many lived in small, non-domestic spaces, barely furnished apartments, or on the streets.

A common whiff in the Roman city would have come from the animals and the waste they created. Roman bakeries frequently used large lava stone mills (or “querns”) turned by mules or donkeys. Then there was the smell of pack animals and livestock being brought into town for slaughter or sale.

The large “stepping-stones” still seen in the streets of Pompeii were likely so people could cross streets and avoid the assorted feculence that covered the paving stones.

Disposal of corpses (animals and human) was not formulaic. Depending on the class of the person who had died, people might well have been left out in the open without cremation or burial.

Bodies, potentially decaying, were a more common sight in ancient Rome than now.

Suetonius, writing in the first century CE, famously wrote of a dog carrying a severed human hand to the dining table of the Emperor Vespasian.

Deodorants and toothpastes

In a world devoid of today’s modern scented products – and daily bathing by most of the population – ancient Roman settlements would have smelt of body odour.

Classical literature has some recipes for toothpaste and even deodorants.

However, many of the deodorants were to be used orally (chewed or swallowed) to stop one’s armpits smelling.

One was made by boiling golden thistle root in fine wine to induce urination (which was thought to flush out odour).

The Roman baths would likely not have been as hygienic as they may appear to tourists visiting today. A small tub in a public bath could hold between eight and 12 bathers.

The Romans had soap, but it wasn’t commonly used for personal hygiene. Olive oil (including scented oil) was preferred. It was scraped off the skin with a strigil (a bronze curved tool).

This oil and skin combination was then discarded (maybe even slung at a wall). Baths had drains – but as oil and water don’t mix, it was likely pretty grimy.

Scented perfumes

The Romans did have perfumes and incense.

The invention of glassblowing in the late first century BCE (likely in Roman-controlled Jerusalem) made glass readily available, and glass perfume bottles are a common archaeological find.

Animal and plant fats were infused with scents – such as rose, cinnamon, iris, frankincense and saffron – and were mixed with medicinal ingredients and pigments.

The roses of Paestum in Campania (southern Italy) were particularly prized, and a perfume shop has even been excavated in the city’s Roman forum.

The trading power of the vast Roman empire meant spices could be sourced from India and the surrounding regions.

There were warehouses for storing spices such as pepper, cinnamon and myrrh in the centre of Rome.

In a recent Oxford Journal of Archaeology article, researcher Cecilie Brøns writes that even ancient statues could be perfumed with scented oils.

Sources frequently do not describe the smell of perfumes used to anoint the statues, but a predominantly rose-based perfume is specifically mentioned for this purpose in inscriptions from the Greek city of Delos (at which archaeologists have also identified perfume workshops). Beeswax was likely added to perfumes as a stabiliser.

Enhancing the scent of statues (particularly those of gods and goddesses) with perfumes and garlands was important in their veneration and worship.

An olfactory onslaught

The ancient city would have smelt like human waste, wood smoke, rotting and decay, cremating flesh, cooking food, perfumes and incense, and many other things.

It sounds awful to a modern person, but it seems the Romans did not complain about the smell of the ancient city that much.

Perhaps, as historian Neville Morley has suggested, to them these were the smells of home or even of the height of civilisation.

Thomas J. Derrick 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. What did ancient Rome smell like? Honestly, often pretty rank – https://theconversation.com/what-did-ancient-rome-smell-like-honestly-often-pretty-rank-257111

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeffrey McNeill, Honorary Research Associate, School of People, Environment and Planning, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University

If the headlines are anything to go by, New Zealand’s regional councils are on life support.

Regional Development Minister Shane Jones recently wondered whether “there’s going to be a compelling case for regional government to continue to exist”. And Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is open to exploring the possibility of scrapping the councils.

This has all been driven by the realisation that the government’s proposed resource management reforms would essentially gut local authorities of their basic planning and environmental management functions. Various mayors and other interested parties have agreed. While some are circumspect, there’s broad agreement a review is needed.

At present, each territorial council writes its own city or district plan. Regional councils write a series of thematic plans addressing different environmental issues. All the plans contain the councils’ regulatory “rules” that determine what people can or cannot do.

Under the coming reforms, the territorial and regional councils of each region would have only a single chapter each within a broader regional spatial plan. Their function would, for the main part, involve tweaking all-embracing national policies and standards.

Further, all compliance and monitoring – now a predominantly regional council activity – is to be taken over by a national agency (possibly the Environment Protection Authority). This won’t leave much for regional councils to do, compared with their broad remits now.

How regional government evolved

In truth, regional councils have been targets since they were created as part of the Labour government’s 1989 local government reform. Carried out in lockstep with the drafting of the Resource Management Act (passed in 1991), this established two levels of local government.

City and district councils were to be responsible for infrastructure and the built environment. The new regional councils were more opaque, essentially multi-function, special-purpose authorities, recognising that some government actions are bigger than local but smaller than national.

In the event, they became what in many countries would be thought of as environmental protection agencies. Their boundaries were drawn to capture river catchments, reflecting their catchment board antecedents, which looked after soil erosion and flood management.

Other functions were drawn from other government departments. Air-quality management came from the old Department of Health. Coastal management was partly inherited from the Ministry of Transport, shared with the Department of Conservation.

Public transport and civil defence were tacked on, given their cross-territorial scale and lack of anywhere else to put them.

Parochialism and politics

All their various functions have meant regional councils determine who gets to use the region’s resources – and who misses out. And political decisions are a surefire way to make enemies.

For example, the Resource Management Act applied the presumption that no one could discharge any contaminant into water unless expressly allowed by a rule or a resource consent. Regional councils therefore required their territorial councils to upgrade their rubbish dumps and sewage treatment systems.

Similarly, farmers could no longer simply take water to irrigate or empty cowshed effluent straight into the nearest stream as of right. The necessary infrastructure upgrades were expensive.

Ironically, these attempts to minimise the immediate impacts of such demands on water users saw urban voters and environmental groups criticise the councils and the government for being too soft on “dirty dairying” and other polluters.

Parochialism also plays a part, as does the feeling in some rural communities that they’re forgotten by their regions’ cities, where most voters live. The perceived poor handling of events such as last year’s Hawke’s Bay flooding and the 2018 Wellington bus network failure have not helped.

The government even replaced Environment Canterbury’s elected council with appointed commissioners in 2010 over performance concerns, particularly in water management.

Yet the regional council model has largely survived intact – with two exceptions. The Nelson-Marlborough Regional Council was replaced by the Nelson City and Marlborough and Tasman District unitary councils in 1992, as a token sacrifice to the conservative wing of the National government, which vehemently opposed the new regions.

The genesis of the Auckland Council super-region can be traced to the 1999–2008 Labour government’s frustration at getting a unified position from the city’s seven councils on where to build a stadium for the 2011 Rugby World Cup. Not everyone is happy with the resulting metro-regional solution.

Who will be accountable?

If regional government is indeed put to rest, it will be another phase in this piecemeal evolutionary process. But the new model will still require central government to have a significant regional presence – and commensurate central government funding.

But central government has had a regional-scale presence for a long time. Police, the fire service, economic development and social welfare agencies all have their own regional boundaries. Public health and tertiary training and education are also essentially regional.

All these functions are inherently political. And in many other countries, they are are delivered by regional governments. Maybe, once the implications are looked at more closely, leaving regional councils intact will seem the easier and cheaper option. Indeed, there is a counter argument that we need more regional government, not less.

The current impulse for local government change – including district council amalgamation – continues an ad hoc process going back more than 30 years. As I have argued previously, the form, function and funding of local government need to be considered together.

The regional level of administration will not go away. But the overriding question remains: who should speak for and be accountable to their communities for what are ultimately still political decisions, whoever makes them?

Jeffrey McNeill 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. Memo to Shane Jones: what if NZ needs more regional government, not less? – https://theconversation.com/memo-to-shane-jones-what-if-nz-needs-more-regional-government-not-less-259778

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Reza Shabahang, Research Fellow in Human Cybersecurity, Monash University and Academic Researcher in Media Psychology, Flinders University

If you’re feeling like the news is particularly bad at the moment, you’re not alone.

But many of us can’t look away – and don’t want to. Engaging with news can help us make sense of what’s going on and, for many of us, is an ethical stance.

So, how can you also take care of your mental health? Here’s how to balance staying informed with the impact negative news can have on our wellbeing.

Why am I feeling so affected by the news?

Our brains are wired to prioritise safety and survival, and respond rapidly to danger. Repeatedly activating such processes by consuming distressing news content – often called doomscrolling – can be mentally draining.

Unfiltered or uncensored images can have an especially powerful psychological impact. Graphic footage of tragedies circulating on social media may have a stronger effect than traditional media (such as television and newspapers) which are more regulated.

Research shows consuming negative news is linked to lower wellbeing and psychological difficulties, such as anxiety and feelings of uncertainty and insecurity. It can make us feel more pessimistic towards ourselves, other people, humanity and life in general.

In some cases, consuming a lot of distressing news can even cause vicarious trauma. This means you may experience post-traumatic stress symptoms such as flashbacks and trouble sleeping despite not being directly involved in the traumatic events.

But this doesn’t stop us seeking it out. In fact, we are more likely to read, engage with, and share stories that are negative.

Is there a better way to consume news?

Switching off may not be an option for everyone.

For example, if you have friends or family in areas affected by conflict, you may be especially concerned and following closely to see how they’re affected.

Even without personal ties to the conflict, many people want to stay informed and understand what is unfolding. For some, this is a moral decision which they feel may lead to action and positive change.

This is why, in research I co-authored, we suggest simply restricting your exposure to negative news is not always possible or practical.

Instead, we recommend engaging more mindfully with news. This means paying attention to shifts in your emotions, noticing how the news makes you feel, and slowing down when needed.

How to consume news more mindfully

When you plan to engage with news, there are some steps you can take.

1. Pause and take a few deep breaths. Take a moment to observe how your body is feeling and what your mind is doing.

2. Check in. Are you feeling tense? What else do you have going on today? Maybe you’re already feeling worried or emotionally stretched. Think about whether you’re feeling equipped to process negative news right now.

3. Reflect. What is motivating you to engage right now? What are you trying to find out?

4. Stay critical. As you read an article or watch a video, pay attention to how credible the source is, the level of detail provided and where the information comes from.

5. Tune into how it’s making you feel. Do you notice any physical signs of stress, such as tension, sweating or restlessness?

6. Take time. Before quickly moving on to another piece of news, allow yourself to process the information you’ve received as well as your response. Has it changed your emotions, thoughts or attitudes? Did it fulfil your intention? Do you still have energy to engage with more news?

It may not always be possible to take all these steps. But engaging more mindfully before, during and after you’re exposed to negative news can help you make more informed decisions about how and when to consume it – and when to take a break.

Signs the news is affecting your mental health

If you’re feeling emotionally overwhelmed, you’re more likely to have an automatic and emotion-driven response to what you’re reading or watching.

Signs your negative news consumption may be affecting your mental health include:

• compulsive engagement, feeling like you can’t stop checking or following negative news

• experiencing feelings of despair, hopelessness, or lack of motivation

• feeling irritable

• difficulty concentrating

• fatigue

• strong physical symptoms (such as an upset stomach)

• trouble sleeping

• an increase in rash or risky behaviours, or behaviours you don’t usually display when you’re calm, such as panic shopping and hoarding following news about bad events.

What should I do when I’m feeling upset?

First, take a break. This could be a few minutes or a few days – as long as it takes you to feel emotionally steady and ready to re-engage with negative news.

You might find it useful to reflect by writing down observations about how news is making you feel, and keeping track of intense fluctuations in emotions.

It can also be helpful to connect with supportive people around you and do activities you enjoy. Spending time outdoors and doing hands-on tasks, such as gardening, painting or sewing, can be particularly helpful when you’re feeling anxious or emotional.

But if you’re feeling overwhelmed and it’s affecting your work, life or relationships, it’s a good idea to seek professional help.

In Australia, the government provides free mental health support at walk-in Medicare Mental Health Centres, Kids Hubs or via phone.

Other free resources – including a symptom checker and links to online chat support – are available at Health Direct.

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

Reza Shabahang 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. Distressed by all the bad news? Here’s how to stay informed but still look after yourself – https://theconversation.com/distressed-by-all-the-bad-news-heres-how-to-stay-informed-but-still-look-after-yourself-259913

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kelly Hine, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, University of the Sunshine Coast

Earlier this week, former Greens candidate Hannah Thomas was hospitalised with serious injuries after being arrested at a protest in Sydney. This incident sparked public outcry, raising questions about the limits of police power and what happens when things go wrong.

Protests are becoming more common and more intense across Australia and worldwide. This surge stems from growing social and political concerns.

The right to peacefully protest is a fundamental aspect of democratic societies. It gives people the freedom to gather, speak out, and push for change.

But that right is not unlimited and can be subject to certain restrictions. While the public has a right to protest, police have a responsibility to ensure the safety of everyone involved including protesters, bystanders and officers. Maintaining public order and respecting the right to peaceful assembly is a balance.

So, what exactly are police allowed to do at protests? And if someone is hurt in the process, who is responsible, and who keeps police in check?

Why do things go wrong at protests?

Peaceful protesting is lawful in Australia and people have the right to gather and express their views. But that doesn’t mean anything goes.

If someone’s behaviour at a protest threatens public safety or breaches the law, police have a responsibility to intervene, and individuals can be charged with an offence.

Protests are emotionally charged events. Some groups may come to protests already hostile, especially those with strong anti-authority views or past negative experiences with police. In turn, this can increase the risk of confrontation from the outset.

Often protests are driven by a shared sense of injustice. This can build strong group identity and solidarity among protesters, but it can also intensify resistance towards police who are seen as symbols of authority.

When people act as part of a crowd, emotions can spread quickly. In these settings, individuals may feel less personally responsible for their actions and behave more impulsively or aggressively.

At the same time, police responses play a big role in how protests unfold. Tactics that are seen as heavy-handed (like blocking movement or using force) can heighten tensions and lead to confrontation.

In contrast, strategies focused on communication and de-escalation are more likely to calm things down and prevent violence.

Typically, protests don’t turn violent on their own. Instead, it’s a mix of crowd dynamics and police response that often determines the outcome.

What powers do police have at protests?

Police have wide-ranging powers to respond to protests to prevent behaviour escalation. A person does not need to be committing an offence for police to exercise powers during a protest. Police consider the behaviour of individual protesters, or the risk they’re perceived to pose, rather than waiting for a specific law to be broken.

While the specific laws differ between states and territories in Australia, there are several common features.

Police can tell community members to move on in some circumstances. If a protester is in a public place and causing disruption, interfering with others, endangering others or being disorderly, police can direct that person to leave. An offence does not need to be committed for police to direct community members to move on.

Where a person does not follow a police officer’s lawful direction, they are contravening the law and can be arrested.

However, move-on powers are limited when there is a peaceful protest. Police cannot direct a person to move on just because they are peacefully protesting something, picketing or publicly sharing their views (such as speaking loudly or carrying a sign).

States and territories have also criminalised certain behaviour related to protests. For example, it is unlawful to harass, intimidate or threaten a person accessing a place of worship in New South Wales.

Police can use force to maintain peace or prevent violence. The force used must only be “reasonably necessary”. This means police can only use the minimum amount of force needed that is proportionate to the event.

It might be appropriate for police to restrain a protester using their hands or handcuffs and individual circumstances will be relevant to whether use of force is permitted. Lethal force, though, would not be permitted against a protester unless a protester was endangering the life of another person.

Injuries can occur during police arrests. It has been alleged that Hannah Thomas’ injury arising during her arrest was the result of “excessive use of force”. However, just because a person is injured during an arrest does not automatically mean a police officer acted inappropriately.

Who holds police accountable if someone gets hurt?

Where concerns arise about police behaviour during a protest (including the use of force or other actions), there are different ways police can be held accountable.

Policing organisations have internal processes for investigating police conduct. Each policing organisation has a professional or ethical standards unit that investigates allegations of conduct.

But integrity bodies have flagged police investigating police can perpetuate potentially problematic “cover up behaviours that can mask police misconduct”.

Australia’s states and territories also have independent statutory organisations which target crime and corruption in the public service. These are generally corruption or integrity commissions and apply to all public service workers, including police officers. The relevant ombudsman can also assist to resolve complaints.

Community members can also sue a policing organisation for injuries they sustained during an arrest.

What’s the right balance?

Protest is a democratic right, but it also presents real public safety challenges.

Police face genuine risks and have a difficult job managing dynamic and often unpredictable situations.

They need certain powers to do their job, but those powers must come with strong accountability. If police exceed their power, it damages public trust and can escalate tensions further.

Good policing practices mean talking to protest organisers early, keeping communication clear, using de-escalation tactics and responding proportionally to individuals – not treating the whole crowd the same.

Protesters also play a role by staying peaceful, notifying police of a protest, knowing their rights, and helping to de-escalate tensions. The goal should always be to protect everyone. This includes protesters, police and the general public.

Dominique is a former police officer who was previously employed by the Queensland Police Service.

Hena Prince and Kelly Hine 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. What are police allowed to do at protests and who keeps them in check? – https://theconversation.com/what-are-police-allowed-to-do-at-protests-and-who-keeps-them-in-check-260096

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marika Sosnowski, Postdoctoral research fellow, The University of Melbourne

Hopes are rising that Israel and Hamas could be inching closer to a ceasefire in the 20-month war in Gaza.

US President Donald Trump is urging progress, taking to social media to demand:

MAKE THE DEAL IN GAZA. GET THE HOSTAGES BACK!!!

Trump further raised expectations, saying there could be an agreement between Israel and Hamas “within the next week”.

But what are the prospects for a genuine, lasting ceasefire in Gaza?

Ceasefires are generally complicated to negotiate because they need to take into account competing demands and pressures. They usually (but not always) require both sides to compromise.

Gaza is no exception. In a conflict that has been going on for more than 70 years, compromise and concession have become a game of cat and mouse.

Israel is the cat that holds the military strength and the majority of the political power. Hamas is the mouse that can dart and delay, but in the end has little choice but to accept the terms of a ceasefire if it wants to halt the violence currently being inflicted on Palestinians.

Trump the peacemaker?

Trump appears buoyed by what he perceives as the recent success of his efforts to broker a truce in the Israel–Iran war. He may think he can use similar tactics to pressure Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into making a ceasefire deal for Gaza.

Netanyahu will return to Washington next week for talks at the White House. This is a good sign some US pressure is being brought to bear.

Trump’s current push for a Gaza ceasefire may also signal he is keen for a return to the normalisation of economic ties previously delivered by the Abraham Accords between Israel and various Arab states. A ceasefire could unlock frozen regional relationships, potentially boosting the US economy (and Trump’s own personal wealth).

Israeli opportunities

Another positive sign a ceasefire may be on the cards is Netanyahu’s recent comments that the war with Iran had created opportunities for Israel in Gaza.

During its 12-day war with Iran, Israel assassinated 30 Iranian security chiefs and 11 nuclear scientists. Iran’s weakened security apparatus might disrupt its support for Hamas and help advance Israeli objectives.

Similar to what happened in Iran, this might enable Netanyahu to publicly declare Israeli victory in Gaza and agree to a ceasefire without losing face or political backing from his government’s right wing.

Domestic Israeli politics have also played a role in the Gaza ceasefire negotiations. As part of the current round, Trump reportedly demanded the cancellation of Netanyahu’s ongoing trial on corruption charges. The idea is to enable Netanyahu to reach a ceasefire without the threat of criminal conviction, and potentially prison, awaiting him afterwards.

Given there are no political or legal prescriptions or rules around what terms need to be included in a ceasefire, it is possible for such a demand to be made, although it is unclear how it would be accommodated by Israeli law.

Difficult terms

The current ceasefire deal, as proposed by Qatar and Egypt, seems to pick up where the deal negotiated in January fell apart – with a 60-day ceasefire.

Reports suggest it requires Hamas’ leadership to go into exile and that four Arab states, including the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, would be tasked with jointly governing Gaza.

Hamas has said for many months that it is open to a
more permanent ceasefire deal that Israel has so far refused. However, the proposed terms appear too far-reaching to make it likely Hamas would accept them in their current form.

The uptick in Israel’s military bombardment, as well as recent evacuation orders for parts of northern Gaza, suggest that even if there is a deal it may well mean Israel retains permanent territorial control of the northern Gaza Strip.

As part of any ceasefire, it also seems likely Israel would retain control over all Gaza crossings.

This, and the ongoing highly problematic promotion by Israel and the United States of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation as the only organisation authorised to deliver and administer aid in Gaza, will be difficult for Hamas, and Palestinians, to accept.

There have also been reports a deal would enable Gazans wishing to emigrate to be absorbed by several as-yet-unnamed countries. Such a term would continue the Trump administration’s earlier calls for the forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, as well as Israel’s insistence such displacement would be a humanitarian initiative rather than a war crime.

It would also not be the first time the terms of a ceasefire were used to forcibly displace civilian populations.

Hope for the future?

Many dynamics are wrapped up in getting to a ceasefire in Gaza.

They include US allyship and pressure, domestic Israeli politics, and the recent war between Israel and Iran. There is also the international opprobrium of Israel’s actions in Gaza which, for public (if not legal) purposes, amount to a genocide.

Ideally, any negotiated ceasefire would have detailed terms to ensure the parties know what they should do and when. Detailed terms would also enable international actors and other third parties to denounce any violations of the deal.

However, a ceasefire would only ever be a short-term win. In the best case, it would enable a reduction in violence and an increase of aid into Gaza, and the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners.

However, amid the deep-seated sense of injustice and anxiety in the region, any ceasefire that does not address historic oppression and is forced on the parties would inevitably have deleterious consequences in the months and years to come.

Marika Sosnowski 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. Trump demands an end to the war in Gaza – could a ceasefire be close? – https://theconversation.com/trump-demands-an-end-to-the-war-in-gaza-could-a-ceasefire-be-close-260185

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

Two Tasmanian state polls imply another hung parliament at the July 19 election under Tasmania’s proportional system. In one of these polls, Labor leads the Liberals, while in the other the Liberals lead.

A Tasmanian snap state election will be held on July 19, just 16 months after the previous election in March 2024. This election is being held owing to a successful early June no-confidence vote in Liberal Premier Jeremy Rockliff.

Tasmania uses the proportional Hare-Clark system to elect its lower house. There are five electorates corresponding to Tasmania’s five federal seats, and each electorate returns seven members, for a total of 35 lower house MPs.

Under this system, a quota for election is one-eighth of the vote or 12.5%, but half of this (6.2%) is usually enough to give a reasonable chance of election. There’s no above the line section like for the federal Senate. Instead, people vote for candidates not parties, with at least seven preferences required for a formal vote.

Robson rotation means that candidates for each party are randomised across ballot papers for that electorate, so that on some ballot papers a candidate will appear at the top of their party’s ticket and on others at the bottom.

This means parties can’t control the ordering of their candidates. Independents can be listed in single-candidate columns.

At the last election, the Liberals won 14 of the 35 seats, Labor ten, the Greens five, the Jacqui Lambie Network (JLN) three and independents three. Two of the three JLN MPs were later expelled from their party, but remained in parliament as independents.

Candidate nominations were declared last Friday. There are 31 candidates in Bass, 38 in Braddon, 26 in Clark, 31 in Franklin and 35 in Lyons, for a total of 161 candidates, or 4.6 candidates per vacancy.

The JLN isn’t running candidates, but the Nationals are running in Bass, Braddon and Lyons, and they include two former JLN MPs. Previous Tasmanian attempts by the Nationals have been failures, with their last effort in 2014 earning them just 0.8% of the statewide vote.

YouGov and DemosAU polls

A Tasmanian YouGov poll, conducted June 12–24 from a sample of 1,287, gave Labor 34% of the vote, the Liberals 31%, the Greens 13%, independents 18% and others 4%. Despite trailing on voting intentions, Rockliff led Labor’s Dean Winter by 43–36 as preferred premier.

Respondents were asked to select the three most important items they wanted their candidate to agree with. Investing more in health was selected by 52%, building more public housing by 45% and reducing state debt by taxing those who can afford to pay by 41%.

Opposing privatisation and asset sales was selected by 34%, while supporting privatisation was selected by 18%. Being anti-Macquarie AFL stadium was selected by 33%, while being pro-stadium was selected by 22%. When asked specifically about privatisation, voters were opposed by 47–36.

Analyst Kevin Bonham reported a DemosAU poll, conducted June 19–26 from a sample of 4,289, gave the Liberals 34% of the vote, Labor 27.3%, the Greens 15.1% and independents 19.3%, leaving 4.7% presumably for others. This poll was originally reported in The Advocate, and was taken for an “unnamed peak body”.

Bonham thinks it is likely that the independent vote in both these polls is overstated. These polls were both conducted before nominations were declared.

If the DemosAU poll is correct, the Liberals would be likely to win more seats than Labor, while Labor would be likely to win more seats if the YouGov poll is right. But in both cases, the winning party would be well short of the 18 seats needed for a single-party majority.

From 2010 to 2014, Labor governed in coalition with the Greens, and its heavy loss at the 2014 election was widely blamed on this coalition. Labor has tried to distance itself from the Greens since. In the last parliament, Labor may have been able to form government with the Greens’ assistance, but they refused to attempt to form one.

If the YouGov poll is right, Labor may be able to form government with independents and not require the Greens. If the DemosAU poll is right, the result of this election is likely to be similar to the 2024 result, and Labor would need the Greens and some independents to form government.

Federal Morgan poll: Labor far ahead

A national Morgan poll, conducted June 23–29 from a sample of 1,522, gave federal Labor a 57.5–42.5 lead by headline respondent preferences, a 0.5-point gain for the Coalition since the June 2–22 Morgan poll.

Primary votes were 36.5% Labor (down one), 30.5% Coalition (down 0.5), 12% Greens (steady), 8.5% One Nation (up 2.5) and 12.5% for all Others (down one). Using 2025 election preference flows, Labor’s lead was reduced to 56.5–43.5.

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

– ref. 2 polls have Tasmania headed for another hung parliament, but disagree on which party is ahead – https://theconversation.com/2-polls-have-tasmania-headed-for-another-hung-parliament-but-disagree-on-which-party-is-ahead-260062