Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cathrynne Henshall, Post-doctoral Fellow, School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University

It’s the time of year when shiny horses and colourful clothing fill our screens – the Spring Racing Carnival, which includes high profile races like The Everest, Melbourne Cup and Cox Plate.

It’s also the time of year when questions are asked about the welfare of racehorses that compete in the so-called “sport of kings”.

Previously, high profile deaths during races, the use of whips and what happens to horses after racing have been the focus of community concern.

Read more:
Black Caviar’s death has prompted uncomfortable questions about how champion mares spend their retirement

But recently, as we’ve come to know more about what makes a good life for a horse, questions are being raised about the daily lives of racehorses.

Industry participants will point to the high level care that racehorses receive – comfortable stables, specially formulated diets, the latest vet treatments and added extras such as massages and swimming sessions.

But does this care translate into good welfare?

The theory of ‘telos’

Firstly, a quick primer on the difference between care and welfare.

Care includes all the things that make sure racehorses get fit, stay fit and stay healthy. This care helps maximise the chance a horse will win races.

Welfare is the animal’s subjective or individual experience of its life – how it feels – and there are a number of ways to assess this.

One way is the concept of “telos”, originally developed by Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle.

Telos is a species’ anatomical, physiological, behavioural and cognitive characteristics that have been shaped by millions of years of evolution.

Telos helps us to identify what matters to animals – their behavioural, psychological and physiological needs.

So to consider if racehorse care actually translates to good welfare, we can assess how closely it provides the animal with the things that matter to them, based on their telos.

Equine telos involves living in groups, forming long-lived social relationships, grazing fibrous plants and being on the move for up to 18 hours a day, as well as staying safe by sensing danger and then moving away.

It also involves living in variable environments to solve challenges, learn, engage in curiosity and play.

Let’s compare that to the daily life of a racehorse.

Movement and feeding

Firstly, the vast majority of racehorses live in stables – sometimes up to 23 hours a day.

Multiple studies have found continuous stabling harms horse welfare.

Stables significantly restrict opportunities for voluntary movement, and studies show stabled horses spend the majority of the time inactive.

Even though stables house horses communally, most designs limit horses’ opportunities for social interaction.

Thirdly, there’s little for a horse to do in a stable other than eat, stand, drink or lie, and they often develop abnormal behaviours that are associated with stress. These are never seen in free-ranging horses.

When racehorses do get to move, they have little say over how far, how fast and for how long they move.

The kinds of physical exercise racehorses do are both significantly shorter in duration and at much higher speeds than horses voluntarily choose. It’s those speeds that place them at risk of suffering a serious injury.

What about diet?

Although a lot of time and effort is spent ensuring racehorses enjoy high quality diets, they are mostly comprised of concentrated energy sources such as grains, rather the fibre horses evolved to eat.

Horses are trickle feeders (grazers), with small stomachs that continuously secrete digestive juices.

In the wild, grazing keeps those stomachs full, which prevents the stomach lining from being damaged by digestive acids.

In comparison, racehorses often consume their food very quickly – instead of spending up to 75% of their day eating, they spend only 33%.

This means their stomachs are empty for most of the day, which is why up to 65% will get painful gastric ulcers.

And having to wait to be fed rather than eating when hungry, as happens in free-ranging horses, can lead to frustration.

Other difficulties

Racehorses may be whipped, and more than 50% will experience some form of musculoskeletal injury during racing, of which between 7-49% are fatal.

Social relationships, in the limited form possible in a racing stable, are also frequently disrupted because horse populations are highly transient due to spelling, retirement or even just going to the races.

So even if two horses are able to form a relationship of sorts, chances are one will be taken away. Separation distress is a significant stressor for horses.

Then there’s the gear that’s used to control them.

Horses, like most animal species, escape and avoid painful stimuli.

However, in racing (and many other equestrian activties) it is mandatory to use “bits” to control horses’ behaviour during riding and handling. Bits work by causing uncomfortable pressure and pain and may lead to mouth injuries.

Studies have shown many people don’t understand how to minimise the harm they can cause. In addition, people also vary widely in their ability to read and interpret behavioural responses to stress.

So, racehorses may be repeatedly exposed to pain from bits and perform a range of behaviours to try to escape that pain, like bolting, mouth opening or head tossing.

To remedy this, additional items of restrictive equipment, such as tongue ties, nosebands, lugging bits or bit burs may be used to control the horse.

Racehorses frequently show signs of difficulty coping with the stressors of racing life, including “going off their feed”, aggression towards handlers, becoming hard to control when ridden and a range of stress behaviours and health issues, such as bleeding from the lungs.

What about welfare?

Racehorse care is often directed towards managing issues that are the direct result of the demands of the racing environment.

Fancy stables and aqua sessions are not important to horses, and may even cause harm.

What matters to horses are opportunities to make meaningful choices, such as the freedom to move, form friendships and graze for the majority of the day.

Current racing industry practices often deny horses the chance to make these choices.

There’s no doubt people in racing care deeply about their horses. But to experience good welfare during racing, racehorses need more than just good care.

Cathrynne Henshall receives funding from the Hong Kong Jockey Club Welfare Foundation

– ref. How are racehorses really treated in the ‘sport of kings’? – https://theconversation.com/how-are-racehorses-really-treated-in-the-sport-of-kings-240998

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lesley Russell, Adjunct Associate Professor, Menzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, University of Sydney

Stark health disparities exist across the United States. Life expectancy is lower than in other wealthy countries – and declining. The richest American men live 15 years longer than their poorest counterparts. The richest American women live ten years longer.

Political differences are an interesting and provocative way of looking at these disparities.

Differences are frequently analysed by race, a proxy for other factors that influence health, such as housing, environmental pollution, nutrition and affordable access to health care.

But there are other ways to cut the data. This includes by state – whether it is “red” (governed by the Republican party) or “blue” (by the Democrats). We can also look at individual political affiliation.

One new study from the US looks at political polarisation as a risk factor for individual and collective wellbeing. It finds polarisation – where opinions and beliefs become concentrated at opposing extremes – has a major impact on health.

The paper explores the health risks of polarisation using the COVID pandemic as a case study. COVID saw Americans die at far higher rates than people in other wealthy nations.

Australia escaped the high death toll. But there are still significant lessons we can learn – about how increasing polarisation affects our health and wellbeing, and for the effective management of pandemics and other health crises.

Political orientation and health

The relationship between important health measures, political loyalties and voting patterns in US counties and states is significant. At the state level, policy-making has become increasingly linked to political ideology. With this, differences in lifespan and health status across states have grown.

On average, life expectancy for residents in Democratic-voting states is more than two years longer than in Republican states. Political orientation is also a strong predictor of obesity rates and chronic illnesses linked to obesity, such as heart disease and diabetes.

Red states have higher gun death rates than blue states.

The chronic use of prescription opioid drugs has also been linked to socio-economic disadvantage, health behaviours and the lack of mental health and substance abuse services in red states.

Much of this is due to differences in social policies, such as Medicaid. All of the ten states yet to take up the Obamacare expansion of Medicaid – which provides health insurance for poor people – are run by Republicans.

The scale of welfare programs and firearm regulations in these states also play a role.

Stress of a polarised political climate

Large numbers of Americans also report that politics takes a significant toll on their health. This is caused by stress, loss of sleep, suicidal thoughts, an inability to stop thinking about politics and engagement with social media, for example, making posts they later regret.

A study from 2021 showed people who are more ideologically extreme than their state’s average voter have worse physical and mental health.

This political partisanship has been greatly aggravated by Donald Trump’s arrival on the American political scene. The former Republican president has stoked social division and undermined trust in government, scientific expertise and public health organisations. Disinformation and misinformation continue to spread.

All of this was on show in how the Trump administration handled the COVID pandemic. Trump and other political leaders made the situation worse by linking health behaviours (such as mask-wearing and vaccination) to partisan identity.

There was a clear impact on the rates of COVID infection and death. Red states implemented fewer political decisions to mitigate COVID than blue states. And after vaccines became available, residents of pro-Trump counties – less likely to be vaccinated – were more than twice as likely to die from COVID as those in areas that supported Biden.

It is also interesting to look at the role of education here. Low education levels were found to be a strong and independent predictor of whether you were more likely to die from COVID in the United States. This might be explained by the relationship between education and both collective culture and individual literacy.

There is also a strong link between education and political affiliation.

College graduates are more likely to vote Democratic, while those without a degree, especially white Americans, are more likely to vote Republican. This was not explored in the new US study about health and polarisation.

Erosion of trust is dangerous for health

Trust in government is another key factor not addressed in that research. But in Australia, this is top of mind following the release of the COVID-19 Response Inquiry Report, which found the federal government must work to rebuild trust after lockdowns and other mandates.

Greater trust in government is linked to increased political participation, social cohesion and collaboration in tackling societal challenges. In both Europe and the United States, social cohesion and public trust in politicians and experts have been linked to lower excess mortality from COVID.

In Australia, the Australian Cohesion Index shows the pandemic and cost-of-living crisis have eroded trust in government and affected health and well-being. At the same time, Australians see the nation as increasingly polarised.

Read more:
Inquiry warns distrustful public wouldn’t accept COVID measures in future pandemic

The presidential election this week will decide much about the future of the United States as a polarised and divided nation. In Australia, the lessons and recommendations from the COVID report provide an opportunity to avert the choices facing the United States.

Lesley Russell has worked as a policy advisor for the Democrats in the US House of Representatives, for the Obama Administration and for the Australian Labor Party in the Australian Parliament.

– ref. In the US, political division can take a significant toll on people’s health. Australia should pay attention – https://theconversation.com/in-the-us-political-division-can-take-a-significant-toll-on-peoples-health-australia-should-pay-attention-242381

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Madeline Taylor, Lecturer, School of Design, Queensland University of Technology

You might have heard about your local Buy Nothing Project group on Facebook. If not, you probably know someone who’s a member. We estimate at least one million Australians are involved as members or live in households with a member (probably their mum).

Buy Nothing groups enable people to ask for and give away unneeded stuff in their neighbourhood. Whether it’s gifting excess garden produce or an outgrown toy, or asking for winter clothes or to borrow a power tool, the groups help people help others.

Australia has more than 500 of these groups, each with 500–3,000 members. While ordinary in operation and humble in commitment to neighbourhood generosity, these groups have extraordinary potential to reduce consumption and waste. Our research also suggests they improve community wellbeing.

Homes and neighbourhoods have a big role to play in the transition to a circular economy. This kind of economy shares, reuses, repairs, repurposes and recycles materials and products for as long as possible. This circularity is crucial, because getting to net zero is a difficult ask without public buy-in on reducing consumption.

However, our research also finds Buy Nothing groups are not immune to older gendered scripts of household labour. Most group members are women, many of them mothers. It is they who are taking, or expected to take, responsibility for finding or disposing of the stuff that fills their family’s homes and lives. This has troubling implications for how we think about action and responsibility for household waste.

How do Buy Nothing groups work?

Since its founding in the United States in 2013, the Buy Nothing Project has grown quickly. There are 128,000 Buy Nothing communities around the world today.

Other online platforms also help people redistribute used goods. But several membership rules make the project unique. The two strictest rules are:

• “give where you live” by joining only one hyper-localised Facebook group

• all products must be given or asked for, for free, with “no strings attached”.

Each local group covers just a few suburbs. Volunteer admins run these groups and enforce the project’s rules and values.

Why do people join?

In our study, members cited various reasons for joining and continuing to be involved. The “free stuff” was an obvious motivation. Yet they more often mentioned wanting to help others and sustainability and environmental concerns.

The minimal barriers to participation helped to reduce any perceived financial or logistical challenges associated with sustainable consumption.

Interviewees also said their involvement helped them connect with their community. People found much joy and satisfaction in building social networks and helping others.

People are even gifting items with substantial resale value, such as laptops or bikes. This suggests they value the community connection more than the money they might have been able to get from a sale.

The data we gathered show these groups have more “gifts” than “asks”. This indicates we have many unused items in our homes. It also highlights a common hesitancy to rely on others, which the Buy Nothing Project seeks to overcome.

Operating online offers people a high degree of control over when and how they take part. Buy Nothing participation varied based on life circumstances. Parenthood, natural disasters, pandemics, evolving personal values and educational experiences all influenced people’s engagement.

Participants appreciate the platform’s user information, such as names and profile images. This fostered feelings of familiarity, reciprocity and community.

But the online environment also allows some anonymity and a relaxed or blended approach to the “buy nothing” ethos. People still feel free to buy things when they need to.

Many participants engage regularly with the group via a quick daily scroll through Facebook. Using the for-profit platform caused some concerns for the founders, who felt it conflicted with the movement’s values. But attempts to move away from Facebook to an app were largely unsuccessful.

What are the broader benefits of Buy Nothing?

Buy Nothing membership can be very educational. Via a “drip feed” of materials in their social media feed, members see others like them engage in environmentally conscious behaviours. As one member said:

The more I have been in [the group], the more I am appreciating the concept.

Such exposure normalises circular gifting and asking behaviours, encouraging members to adopt them too.

Within households, group membership fosters discussions and behaviours related to sustainability. Many members talk with their children about product reuse, charity and awareness of others’ needs.

Households can play a crucial role in adopting environmental innovations. This is because they serve as hubs for social interactions and the spread of knowledge.

But conflicts over sustainable practices also arise within households. Members reported “pulling their families along”. One recalled her struggle to convince her husband to reduce household waste. She was “dragging him kicking and screaming along” but now he was “starting to appreciate some value” in her efforts to reduce their waste.

Our participants’ domestic frustrations mirrored broader anxieties about climate change and the environmental impacts of too many belongings and waste. They linked personal anxiety about clutter with global issues such as exporting waste to poor countries and low-quality donations overwhelming charities.

But gendered roles are troubling

Group admins told us 75-80% of group members are women, as were most admins themselves. This leads us to an uncomfortable tension: a desire to recognise overlooked economic practices while resisting the perpetuation of gender stereotypes. Just as household consumption and its excesses is positioned as women’s responsibility, managing household waste has historically disproportionately consumed women’s time.

Members said they managed both their belongings and those of others, including parents and children. One said:

I feel like I’m the only person who ever takes anything out of our house.

While celebrating this sustainable activity, we should recognise women are doing most of this work.

I am a member of my local Buy Nothing group – both for personal and research purposes.

– ref. Exploring the extraordinary potential (and avoiding the pitfalls) of your local Buy Nothing group – https://theconversation.com/exploring-the-extraordinary-potential-and-avoiding-the-pitfalls-of-your-local-buy-nothing-group-221986

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

The Qantas upgrades affair has turned from a missile targeted at Anthony Albanese to a cluster bomb hitting MPs on all sides.

On Sunday, Education Minister Jason Clare took the opportunity provided by an interview on Sky about the government’s proposal to slash 20% off student debt to relate, in detail, why he requested a Qantas upgrade in 2019 for a private trip to Singapore.

He’d had an operation on his leg. He was catching up with his family already overseas. He contacted someone – he’s forgotten who – in Qantas.

On the other side of politics, the Nationals’ Bridget McKenzie, who’s been in hot pursuit of Albanese over his upgrades, is yet to produce full details of her own situation.  She’s asked the airlines for the information.

Then there’s the Liberals’ Paul Fletcher, who apparently likes to book economy on flights of under two hours. He’s had 69 upgrades over almost 15 years.

It’s important to remember what the rules are. Parliamentarians in their work are entitled to fly business class on domestic trips.  In some cases, they choose to fly economy on short hauls and business on longer ones.

In the wake of the ongoing revelations, surely it is time to fix the rules. One obvious change should be a ban on upgrades for all personal travel, domestic or overseas, by parliamentarians. If MPs do not want the discomfort of economy class on holidays or other excursions, they should pay to avoid it.

Another change should be that the minister for transport, and the shadow minister, should decline upgrades for their official travel. That avoids any suggestion of being influenced by such perks.

This parliamentary week is devoted, in the Senate, to estimates hearings, so there will be some grilling on the first day about upgrades, and also about the fabled Qantas chairman’s lounge, a networking facility which those with power are invited to join.

“The Chairman’s Lounge” is the title of the book by journalist Joe Aston that kicked off the furore a week ago.

The estimates hearings are also likely to see opposition senators probe the entrails of whether Lidia Thorpe, who demonstrated  noisily at the parliamentary reception for the King, has or has not been properly sworn in as a senator.

Thorpe substituted the word “hairs” for “heirs” when she read the oath. But she signed the paper, and constitutional expert Anne Twomey thinks she’s met the requirements.

McKenzie has been among those targeting Thorpe. But  if, when the full Senate sits later in the month, the opposition tries to have action taken against Thorpe, it will just serve her cause.

Thorpe wants publicity and that would give her plenty more. To be attempting to censure or even have disqualified an Indigenous senator would send a bad signal, at home (where some Indigenous people back her) and abroad.

The House of Representatives this week will have a heap of legislation before it, including the bill on misinformation and disinformation. There will be another to keep the NBN in public hands, as well as the aged care reforms.

But we’re still awaiting an announcement on restricting gambling advertising, and a bill to put an age limit on young people signing up to social media accounts.

We won’t be seeing before the election legislation for the prime minister’s  announcement on  cutting student debt by 20%, and other changes relating to its repayment, that he unveiled at the weekend.

Unlike the government’s earlier change to the indexation of this debt, now before the Senate, these new measures are promises – conditional on Labor winning next year’s election.

If that happens, Albanese says this will be “the first piece of legislation we bring into the next parliament”. The  20% cut would be from loan accounts that exist on June 1 next year.

The government says this is worth $16 billion, although experts point out the real figure – that is, the cost to taxpayers – is several billion dollars less because a portion of these loans would never be repaid anyway.

We do not have a precise timeline for the cost, which the government says would be borne over the life of the debt. No doubt the estimates hearings will see some delving into this promise, that is squarely directed at millennial voters and those younger and focused on the cost of living.  

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

– ref. View from The Hill: it’s time to put some new rules around upgrades for parliamentarians – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-its-time-to-put-some-new-rules-around-upgrades-for-parliamentarians-242744

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Norton, Professor in the Practice of Higher Education Policy, Australian National University

Over the weekend, the Albanese government announced radical changes to student loans, which would kick in after the next federal election.

Three million Australians with student debt could see their balances cut by 20%. The remaining debt would be repaid under a new system, with no compulsory repayments for people earning less than A$67,000 a year. Both changes require parliamentary approval.

The changes will apply to everyone with a student debt, including all HELP (formerly HECS), vocational education and Australian apprenticeship support loans, as well as other student support loans.

People with student debt would undoubtedly benefit from the proposed changes. But they come with a hefty price tag and some disadvantages.

What are the proposed cuts to student debt?

As of June 30 this year, Australia’s higher education student debt totalled about $75.1 billion – although this is soon set to drop by about $3 billion. Legislation to partially reverse recent indexation to debts will go to the Senate later this month.

However, staying with the $75 billion, a 20% cut would be about $15 billion.

Using the government’s figures, someone with the average HELP debt of $27,600 would see around $5,520 cut from their HELP loans next year.

Vocational education students owed $8.4 billion as of June 30 2024. Their balances would reduce by about $1.7 billion under the changes.

Based on previous student support loan data, this debt is more than $3 billion. The changes would see it drop by about $600 million.

These reductions total $17.3 billion compared to the government’s estimate of $16 billion. But the upcoming indexation changes may explain this difference.

Repayments set to change

These changes have two important elements: the income at which repayments start and how repayments are calculated.

These changes come amid a cost-of-living crisis and rising fees for students.

There was a noted outcry earlier this year when the cost of an arts degree hit $50,000 for 2025.

No compulsory repayments if you earn under $67,000

With parliament’s approval, for 2025-26 compulsory repayments on student loans would not start until the debtor was earning $67,000. This is up from about $56,000.

This would help a significant number of Australians. In 2023-24 more than 400,000 debtors had incomes between $50,000 and $70,000.

Changes to how repayments are calculated

Another significant change is to how repayments are calculated. Currently, when a debtor’s income reaches one of 18 income levels they repay a higher percentage, based on all their income.

This can produce strange results. Take a graduate earning $62,850 a year. They are in the 1% of income repayment rate, so they owe the Australian Taxation Office $628.50 in HELP repayments. But if their income goes up by $1 to $62,851 they enter the 2% repayment bracket, and owe the tax office $1,257. So a $1 pay increase would reduce the graduate’s take home pay by more than $600.

Under the government’s proposal, repayments would be calculated on income above a threshold, ignoring all income below the first threshold.

The new system would start with a 15% repayment rate at incomes between $67,000 and $124,999. Income at $125,000 or above would have a 17% repayment rate.

So, take a graduate on $70,000 a year. Under the current system, they will repay 2.5% of all their income, which is $1,750. Under the proposed system their repayments will be calculated only on the $3,000 difference between $67,000 and $70,000. This means they pay 15% of $3,000 or $450.

The government says on average, repayments will drop by $680 per individual debtor.

But those earning $180,000 plus will repay more student debt each year due to the new system. This is not a large group.
Of the 1.16 million people who made a HELP repayment in 2021-22, all but 16,000 earned less than $180,000.

There are some disadvantages

The downside of reduced annual repayments is longer repayment periods and more indexation of HELP balances.

People who want to repay more quickly can make voluntary repayments, which have increased significantly in recent years. But most people take the default option of compulsory repayments only.

While people who currently hold debt will see their repayment times reduced after the 20% cut to their balance, future borrowers won’t have this benefit.

Given the pattern of recent announcements, it would not be surprising if the government also announced reduced student contributions for future borrowers.

But it is also surprising the government has been stalling for two years on the high cost of arts degrees, set to hit almost $17,000 a year next year. These high fees should have been reduced long ago.

The cost to government

The 20% reduction in student debt balances will also come at a very significant cost to government and taxpayers.

This will not be the full $16 billion they have announced, since that includes debt that is not expected to be repaid anyway.

For higher education debt, the government actuary estimates 24% of the debt outstanding as of June 30 this year will not be repaid. Even so, a 20% cut to the $57.1 billion “good” debt would still cost $11.4 billion.

Cutting vocational education debt by 20% would add around another $1 billion to the cost, after deducting debt that won’t be repaid. Debts for student income support tend to have high bad debt rates, but the 20% cut for them would also add to the government’s expenditure.

The government will also incur further costs from slowing down future repayments.

Is this the best way?

The last few years have highlighted how stressful and damaging high levels of student debt can be for younger Australians.

And as Labor looks ahead to the next federal poll, reducing individuals’ debts and repayments could be a useful election selling point.

However, the Albanese govenrment’s plan comes with a high price tag and the priorities may not be entirely right. Managing future debt, such as by reversing fee hikes under the Job-ready Graduates program, is as important as reducing old debt.

Andrew Norton 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. Albanese flags radical changes to student debt – with a 20% overall cut and drop in payment rates – https://theconversation.com/albanese-flags-radical-changes-to-student-debt-with-a-20-overall-cut-and-drop-in-payment-rates-242740

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

Water is essential for daily functioning and health, and we can only survive a few days without it. Yet we constantly lose water through sweat, urination and even evaporation when we breathe.

This is why we have evolved a way to regulate and maintain water in our bodies. Like other animals, our survival relies on a strong biological drive that tells us to find and drink water to balance fluid loss.

This is thirst – a sensation of dryness in the mouth signalling we need to have a drink. This basic physiological mechanism is controlled mainly by part of the brain’s “control centre”, called the hypothalamus. The hypothalamus receives signals from various regions of the body and in return, releases hormones that act as a messenger to signal the thirst sensation.

What is dehydration?

Staying hydrated (having enough water in our bodies) is important for several reasons, including:

• regulating body temperature through sweat and respiration
• lubricating joints and eyes
• preventing infections
• digesting and absorbing nutrients
• flushing out waste (via the kidneys)
• preventing constipation
• brain function (including memory and concentration)
• mood and energy levels
• physical performance and recovery from exercise
• skin health.

Dehydration occurs when our body doesn’t have enough water. Even slight drops in fluid levels have noticeable consequences, such as headaches, feeling dizzy, lethargy and struggling to concentrate.

Chronic dehydration can pose more serious health risks, including urinary tract infections, constipation and kidney stones.

What does the evidence say?

Despite thirst being one of the most basic biological drivers for good hydration, science suggests our feelings of thirst and subsequent fluid intake don’t always correlate with hydration levels.

For example, a recent study explored the impact of thirst on fluid intake and hydration status. Participants attended a lab in the morning and then later in the afternoon to provide markers of hydration status (such as urine, blood samples and body weight). The relationship between levels of thirst in the morning and afternoon hydration status was negligible.

Further, thirst may be driven by environmental factors, such as access to water. For example, one study looked at whether ample access to water in a lab influenced how much people drank and how hydrated they were. The link between how thirsty they felt and how hydrated they were was weak, suggesting the availability of water influenced their fluid intake more than thirst.

Exercise can also change our thirst mechanism, though studies are limited at this stage.

Interestingly, research shows women experience thirst more strongly than men, regardless of hydration status. To understand gender differences in thirst, researchers infused men and women with fluids and then measured their thirst and how hydrated they were. They found women generally reported thirst at a lower level of fluid loss. Women have also been found to respond more to feeling thirsty by drinking more water.

Other ways to tell if you need to drink some water

While acknowledging some people will need to drink more or less, for many people, eight cups (or two litres) a day is a good amount of water to aim for.

But beyond thirst, there are many other ways to tell whether you might need to drink more water.

1. urine colour: pale yellow urine typically indicates good hydration, while darker, concentrated urine suggests dehydration

2. frequency of going to the toilet: urinating regularly (around four to six times a day) indicates good hydration. Infrequent urination can signal dehydration

3. skin turgor test: gently pinching the skin (for example, on the back of the hand) and observing how quickly the skin returns to its normal position can help assess hydration. Slow return may indicate dehydration

4. mouth and lips: a dry mouth or cracked lips can be early signs of dehydration

5. headaches and fatigue: frequent headaches, dizziness, or unexplained fatigue can be signs of inadequate hydration

6. sweating: in physically active people, monitoring how much they sweat during activity can help estimate fluid loss and hydration needs. Higher levels of sweat may predispose a person to dehydration if they are unable to replace the fluid lost through water intake

These indicators, used together, provide a more comprehensive picture of hydration without solely depending on the sensation of thirst.

Of course, if you do feel thirsty, it’s still a good idea to drink some water.

Lauren Ball receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Queensland Health and Mater Misericordia. She is a Director of Dietitians Australia, a Director of Food Standards Australia and New Zealand, a Director of the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network and an Associate Member of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences.

Kiara Too is a PhD Candidate at The University Queensland (UQ) Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing. She receives the UQ Tuition Fee Offset and Stipend Scholarship and a King and Amy O’Malley Scholarship. Kiara is also an Accredited Practising Dietitian and a member of Dietitians Australia.

– ref. Is thirst a good predictor of dehydration? – https://theconversation.com/is-thirst-a-good-predictor-of-dehydration-242194

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexa Scarlata, Research Fellow, Media & Communication, RMIT University

As I write this, people around the country will be recovering from last night’s Halloween shenanigans, perhaps even experiencing a candy-induced comedown.

Luckily, this month’s streaming picks include a serial killer flick that’ll help keep the spooky season around a bit longer. There’s also Chimp Crazy, an audacious docuseries that’s horrific in its own way – as well as some slick new TV shows set against the idyllic scenery of the outback.

Whether you’re after funny, frightening or frivolous, there’s plenty to kick your feet up to.

Territory

Netflix

Territory takes place in the Northern Territory, on the “world’s largest cattle station”. The once-great dynasty of its owners, the Lawson family, is thrown into doubt when their heir apparent dies. The Top End’s most powerful players – billionaire miners, rival cattle barons, desert gangsters and Indigenous elders – immediately start circling.

Filmed in stunning remote locations, the show looks like the most ambitious and sophisticated Tourism Australia ad you’ve ever seen. The wildlife! The panoramic drone shots! The hat budget! The rest of the world could go from thinking we ride kangaroos to work, to assuming we’ve all got our own helicopters. While the male characters are brilliant sources of humour and violence, it’s the ladies in Territory that bring the heart.

Territory does a great job of establishing a simmering tension between the traditional owners of the land and the families and businesses that have taken possession of it – but these plotlines move at a frustratingly slow pace. Perhaps this is to cater to a global audience, which will likely lack the context that local viewers have. And maybe, for Australian viewers, the enduring subordination and struggle of the original landowners is the intended takeaway.

Territory is an ambitious and attractive series. It was wonderful to see so many resources poured into a new concept, filmed and set in a part of Australia that rarely sees the kind of spotlight it deserves.

– Alexa Scarlata

Read more:
Netflix’s Territory is a Succession-like drama packed with family rivalry and betrayal, set in Australia’s outback

Woman of the Hour

Netflix

Anna Kendrick’s directorial debut, Woman of the Hour, offers a glimpse into the horrific crimes of serial killer Rodney Alcala. Branded with the epithet “the Dating Game Killer” after his appearance on a popular 1970s dating game show, Alcala is thought to have been responsible for the rape and murder of up to 130 men, women and children.

Woman of the Hour is especially interested in the way women of the 1970s were pinned under a critical social gaze which expects them to be nurturing and compliant – resulting in their extreme psychological and physical vulnerability.

Alcala’s camera and the cameras of The Dating Game both frame and blind the women subjected to their gaze, highlighting social and gendered conventions and restrictions.

Kendrick is a compelling presence as a woman initially proud of and confident in her intelligence, before realising even she can be caught in Alcala’s web. Daniel Zovatto, as Alcala, is dangerously captivating in the predatory display of his simultaneous charisma and sadism.

Woman of the Hour departs from Kendrick’s past, lighter work; I look forward to seeing what she turns her hand to next.

– Jessica Gildersleeve

Rivals

Disney+

A “bonkbuster” needs three key things. It should be 1) full of sex (the bonking), 2) extremely popular (the -buster) and 3) wildly over-the-top (in other words, bonkers). Rivals, the new Disney+ adaptation of Dame Jilly Cooper’s 1988 novel of the same name, has 1 and 3 in spades. And if earlyreception is anything to go by, it’s well on its way to 2.

The show revels in the excesses and spectacle of its 1980s setting. It begins with Rupert Campbell-Black (Alex Hassell) having sex with a journalist in the bathroom of a Concorde – a scene which, ahem, climaxes when the plane breaks the sound barrier. The show continues much in the same vein for its eight episodes.

On the surface, the plot seems relatively dry. The titular rivals are two production companies competing for a local television franchise. Corinium is headed by villainous Tony Baddingham (David Tennant), while Venturer is run by Rupert and Declan O’Hara (Aidan Turner). Caught between them is the ruthlessly ambitious producer Cameron Cook (Nafessa Williams), who both sides are desperate to get in bed with (figuratively and literally).

However, the plot is surrounded by so much frothy fun, melodrama and naked tennis that there’s plenty of other things to become invested in. Rivals doesn’t take itself too seriously, yet it also has a lot of heart. Keep an eye out for the romance between Freddie Jones (Danny Dyer) and Lizzie Vereker (Katherine Parkinson), which is a real highlight.

– Jodi McAlister

Thou Shalt Not Steal

Stan

Thou Shalt Not Steal follows Aboriginal teen Robyn (the immensely talented Sherry-Lee Watson). She escapes juvenile detention and embarks on a defiant road trip from Alice Springs to Adelaide to uncover a long-held family secret.

Each episode begins with a tongue-in-cheek lesson from Robyn’s past. These range from the eponymous “thou shalt not steal” to “thou shalt never go to Coober Pedy”.

This deadpan humour cleverly introduces significant issues. There are the inordinate rates of incarceration of Indigenous youth, alcoholism, assault, toxic masculinity, bullying and weaponised religion, among others.

Over the first six of its eight short episodes, Thou Shalt Not Steal maintains a balance between acerbic comedy and perilous road trip. Its final episodes revel in a series of over-the-top scenarios that nevertheless tie up narrative loose ends in an enjoyable way. Indeed the shift to outright absurdity reveals the show’s gentler message: about finding a chosen family.

It is a slick, well-made series with terrific attention to detail. The gorgeous landscapes contrast with the dank, grimy spaces occupied by the antagonists and the soundtrack is its own treasure trove. Thou Shalt Not Steal is most definitely a fun ride.

– Kelly McWilliam

Read more:
Thou Shalt Not Steal: new Stan series is a perversely funny road trip through Central Australia

Fisk season 3

ABC iView

Nothing is certain but death, taxes and Fisk being hilarious – especially in relation to the first two. In season three, things are changing at small wills and probate firm Gruber & Fisk. The signature brown suit remains, but as a freshly named partner our “spiky little lawyer friend” Helen Tudor-Fisk (Kitty Flanagan) must tackle more responsibility, pressure and general idiocy than ever before.

In the office, Roz (Julia Zemiro) is giving her mediation business a red-hot go – to varying degrees of success – and scribbling ideas for an imminent hit album. Ray (Marty Sheargold) is loudly enamoured with his fashion psychologist “lady-love” Melissa (Justine Clarke), to everyone’s vexation. And probate clerk George (Aaron Chen) is in the crossfire from his usual post at the front desk while his role as The Webmaster faces competition.

The quiet hysteria of office life ramps up to a frenzy when threats are made and co-working space politics arise. There are also guffaws a-plenty to be found in Fisk’s handling of useless nepo hires, her ageing ex-judge father’s forthcoming memoir, suspicious will amendments scrawled in biro, and a scheming “grammer” (granny scammer).

Fisk’s star-studded third season doesn’t disappoint. It offers a smorgasbord of Australian comedic talent including Sam Campbell, Claudia Karvan, Tom Ballard and Rhys Nicholson, to name a few. With previous seasons given the approving title of “accurate” by law experts, I might find you in contempt if you don’t give it a watch.

– Marina Deller

Chimp Crazy

BINGE

Chimpanzees terrify me. They’re our closest genetic species; one minute they’re sweet – the next, angry and violent. Similarly, Chimp Crazy gave me the creeps. In this docuseries, hit Tiger King director Eric Goode focuses on another animal obsessive, Tonia Haddix.

Haddix entangles with great apes when she volunteers with a for-profit facility run by Connie Casey. This is where Haddix forms an attachment with a “humanzee” Tonka, who grew up performing in Hollywood films before disappearing from view.

However, Goode can’t get close to Haddix and Tonka: all bridges to the big animal community have been reduced to ashes thanks to how things went down with Joe Exotic. So Goode employs former circus clown Dwayne Cunningham as a proxy director.

While the issue of deforestation doesn’t rate a mention, Chimp Crazy comments subtly on the stratification of society in North America and on a lack of love. All the action occurs in the deep south, with “white trash” under the microscope.

Goode explores an alternative angle with representatives from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), who hound Haddix tooth and manicured nail. Their take is that chimps don’t need us and deserve “humane” conditions.

Ultimately, the docuseries erects another streaming era icon: Haddix is plastic, unapologetic, flawed and reminiscent of a mother who’s about to be separated from her offspring. It just so happens her kid is a 32-year-old chimpanzee.

– Phoebe Hart

The Office

Prime

The new Australian remake of The Office mirrors closely the American version: a romance storyline, tensions between office and warehouse, an old-school boss who loves, craves and needs camaraderie, and a staff for whom work life comes second to what they’d rather be doing.

Hannah Howard (Felicity Ward) is the devoted office manager who loves her job too much and runs an underperforming, dysfunctional workplace of uninterested staff. Like David Brent and Michael Scott before her, Hannah is optimistic, naive, relentless and terrible at staff management. She forces pyjama days and bus trips on her employees, who are clearly unwilling yet never actively rebel. There is plenty of comedy in the awkwardness and small moments.

The first Australian season of The Office might not be anything new, but I kept watching. It felt safe, even comforting. Perhaps in a similar way going to someone else’s family for Christmas lunch can feel familiar: recognisable foods, decorations, known characters – but with the frisson that maybe something different will happen this time.

This remake knows what it is. It’s been made to satisfy an audience wanting to be in a world that reflects their own experiences, but takes it just that bit too far. It’s not setting out to break moulds, but to bring the mould up to date and give it an Australian voice for the world to hear.

– Philippa Burne

Read more:
A decade after the US version ended, Australia remakes The Office. It’s not new, but it’s funny

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. Naked tennis, outback feuds and a chimp named Tonka: what we’re streaming in November – https://theconversation.com/naked-tennis-outback-feuds-and-a-chimp-named-tonka-what-were-streaming-in-november-242587

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Graham, Associate Professor in Digital Media, Queensland University of Technology

On July 13, shortly after Donald Trump was targeted by an assassination attempt, Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of X (formerly Twitter), tweeted to his more than 200 million followers:

I fully endorse President Trump and hope for his rapid recovery.

Musk’s efforts to influence who wins next week’s US presidential election have continued. For example, over the past three months, he has donated more than US$100 million to a political action committee called America PAC that’s promoting Trump.

But our new research (currently available in preprint form) indicates Musk may be wielding influence in other more subtle ways as well. However, the platform’s increasing opacity to researchers makes this difficult to say for certain.

Shortly after Musk endorsed Trump’s presidential campaign, there was a statistically anomalous boost in engagement with his X account. Suddenly, his posts were getting much higher views, retweets and likes in comparison to other prominent political accounts on the platform.

This raises suspicions as to whether Musk has tweaked the platform’s algorithm to increase the reach of his posts in advance of the US presidential election. It also demonstrates the problems with how social media platforms like X are currently regulated around the world.

Not the first time

Musk has history when it comes to tweaking X’s algorithms so his own content reaches more people.

Last year, he reportedly mobilised a team of around 80 engineers to algorithmically boost his posts. This came after his tweet supporting the Philadelphia Eagles during the Super Bowl was outperformed by a similar one from President Joe Biden. Musk seemed to confirm this happened, posting a picture depicting one woman labelled “Elon’s tweets” forcibly bottle feeding another woman labelled “Twitter”.

To see whether Musk has done this again in the leadup to the US election, we compared Musk’s engagement metrics – such as the number of views, retweets and likes – with a set of other prominent political accounts on the social media platform. The data spans the period from January 1 2024 to October 25 2024.

Other political accounts that served as a basis of comparison include those of right-wing commentators Jack Posobiec, Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump Jr. Our study also examined accounts at the other end of the political spectrum, including those of US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, US Senator Bernie Sanders and Vice-President Kamala Harris.

A sudden and significant increase

Since July, engagement with Musk’s X account has seen a sudden and significant increase.

The view counts for his posts increased by 138%, retweets by 238%, and likes by 186%.

In contrast, other prominent political accounts on X saw more moderate increases: 57% in view counts, 152% in retweets, and 130% in likes.

This suggests that while engagement went up for all accounts after July, Musk’s metrics saw a particularly large boost, particularly in retweets and likes.

The research further found that since July, other conservative and right-wing X accounts have performed better in terms of visibility of posts compared to progressive and left-wing accounts.

The Conversation sought comment from X about the research, but did not receive a reply before deadline.

Without backstage access to the workings of the company, it is impossible to know for sure whether changes to its curation system are boosting its owner’s posts. The platform has limited the access it provides to researchers since Musk took over. This means there are restrictions on the amount of data we were able to collect for this study.

However, the Washington Post recently found that tweets from Republicans are far more likely to go viral, receiving billions more views than those from Democrats. Similarly, an investigation by the Wall Street Journal revealed that new users to the platform “are being blanketed with political content” that disproportionately favours Trump.

Since Musk’s purchase of the platform, it has become more congenial to figures on the right, including people who were previously banned for spreading harmful and false information.

The myth of neutrality

The findings raise the question of the extent to which Musk’s influential social media platform is reinforcing its owner’s political agenda.

Musk, whose businesses have extensive government contracts, has made a public and financial spectacle of his unabashed support of Trump. The billionaire tech tycoon is reportedly Trump’s second-biggest financial donor. He also promoted Trump in a glitchy live interview on X and authored a stream of tweets promoting Trump’s campaign.

Musk is also handing out $1 million a day to selected registered voters. This plan (which has met with questions over its legality) apparently aims to boost voter registration among sympathisers in swing states.

Musk’s actions have torpedoed the fantasy that social media platforms such as X are neutral. Given he has previously tweaked X’s algorithm to amplify the reach of his posts, it would be surprising if he were not tilting the platform in favour of Trump, whom he believes is “the path to prosperity”.

For too long, social media platforms have enjoyed immunity for the information they selectively inject into users’ feeds. It’s time for governments to reconsider their approach to regulating the oligopolistic power over our information environment wielded by a handful of tech billionaires.

Timothy Graham receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) for his Discovery Early Career Researcher Award, ‘Combatting Coordinated Inauthentic Behaviour on Social Media’. He also receives ARC funding for the Discovery Project, ‘Understanding and combatting “Dark Political Communication”‘ (2024–2027).

Mark Andrejevic receives funding from the Australian Research Council through the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society and through the ARC Discovery Program for two projects (‘When Your Face is Your ID,’ 2020-2025; and “Mapping Australians’ Media Use and Civic Attitudes,’ 2023-2025).

– ref. Tech billionaire Elon Musk’s social media posts have had a ‘sudden boost’ since July, new research reveals – https://theconversation.com/tech-billionaire-elon-musks-social-media-posts-have-had-a-sudden-boost-since-july-new-research-reveals-242490

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Genauer, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, Flinders University

In recent months, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been pushing hard for the United States and European countries to double down on military support for his country until he can achieve his “victory plan” against Russia.

In September, Ukraine undertook a risky incursion into Russian territory for the first time, capturing a chunk of land in the Kursk region. At the same time, Ukraine renewed requests to use longer-range Western weapons to strike targets deep into Russian territory.

Driving these actions seems to be Zelensky’s desire to position Ukraine as strongly as possible before the US presidential election. Whoever wins, the new president has the potential to drastically change the shape of the war.

What would a Harris presidency mean?

If Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris wins, this would likely mean more continuity in US foreign policy and US military support for Ukraine.

A game-changer for Ukraine would be gaining membership to NATO. While Zelensky has publicly ruled out ceding territory in exchange for Russia accepting its membership in the military bloc, this is at least a conceivable possibility.

After more than two and a half years of full-scale war, polling data from the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology shows a steady increase in the percentage of Ukrainians willing to make some territorial concessions for peace (now at 32%). However, just over half remain opposed to any territorial concessions.

In addition, Zelensky has said joining NATO is a top priority.

However, Harris has stopped short of committing to supporting Ukraine’s membership in NATO, and Russian President Vladimir Putin has flatly refused to make this a part of negotiations.

Without NATO membership for Ukraine, a Harris presidency would likely result in a protracted war of attrition with Russia.

This will only end when both Russia and Ukraine view a settlement to be preferable to continued fighting. Unfortunately, the history of conflicts shows this can take many years to occur.

What would a Trump presidency mean?

Trump claims he would be able to end the war quickly with a negotiated settlement. There’s no evidence to suggest this is feasible.

In Trump’s first presidency, his foreign policy followed a populist style. Populist diplomacy tends to disregard the existing architecture of the international system and is more centralised and personalised in approach.

As such, Trump’s diplomacy relied heavily on personal relationships with his counterparts to drive outcomes. He was also focused on achieving rapid and easy solutions to complex problems – with limited success.

If elected, Trump would likely focus on his personal relationship with Putin, as well as his somewhat rocky relationship with Zelensky, to try to push a swift and decisive conclusion to the war.

The problem is, Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, has already suggested a possible peace plan that would give Putin what he wants: the Ukrainian territory Russia already holds and a neutral Ukraine not part of NATO.

Putin would likely agree to such a deal. Claiming a large chunk of Ukrainian territory could be presented as a victory to the Russian people, who are tired of the war and unnerved by Ukraine’s incursion into Kursk. Putin desperately needs a political win.

Until a majority of Ukrainians support territorial concessions, however, it would be political suicide for Zelensky to trade “land for peace”.

Yet, Zelensky may be forced into negotiations under pressure from Trump and the threat of US military aid being cut off. Ukraine is already struggling to hold off Russian advances due to a critical shortage in military equipment. Though European military aid has remained steady since the war began, it cannot fill the gap if the US cuts off Ukraine completely.

Trump has already depicted Zelensky as “the greatest salesman of all time” and vowed to have Ukrainian military aid “settled” quickly, if elected. It’s unclear if this means pressuring Zelensky to agree to a political settlement.

Ukraine may continue to fight without US support, but Russia could capture further territory from weakened and ill-equipped Ukrainian forces.

Another possibility, floated by a former Trump adviser in recent days, is the fighting stops without a declaration of a permanent ceasefire or political settlement.

This could lead to a frozen conflict similar to the end of the Korean War, with a demilitarised zone like the one that separates North and South Korea today. This would leave Ukraine in perpetual territorial limbo with no security assurance for the future.

What does all this mean for Zelensky’s leadership?

Zelensky’s popularity increased dramatically after the 2022 full-scale Russian invasion. Since then, however, his domestic support has gradually declined. Polling shows Ukrainians’ trust in Zelensky decreased from a high of 90% directly after the invasion to 59% in September 2024.

This year, Zelensky also postponed expected presidential elections due to Ukraine being under martial law. Ukrainians supported the decision at the time, but as trust in Zelensky declines, this may shift.

Zelensky’s domestic support depends on the perception at home that he can continue to deliver on Western support in the war with Russia.

If it looks like Zelensky will compromise on Ukrainian territory in a way that is unacceptable to the Ukrainian people or can no longer deliver material support from Western allies, his popularity may drop quickly and severely.

If that happens, Zelensky may be nudged by Western allies to hold presidential elections despite the ongoing war. Some conservative US politicians have already started calling for elections. Zelensky’s political rival, former President Petro Poroshenko, has said he will run for president in the next elections, too.

Much of this depends on who wins in Washington in a week. A Harris victory will give Zelensky more time, a continued stream of aid and even the possibility of future NATO membership.

If Trump wins, Zelensky may lose his aid and international support – and perhaps even his presidency. This outcome is far more uncertain for Ukraine and undoubtedly makes the country – and Zelensky – far more nervous.

Jessica Genauer 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. Could Ukraine be heading toward a frozen conflict? Why so much is hinging on the US election – https://theconversation.com/could-ukraine-be-heading-toward-a-frozen-conflict-why-so-much-is-hinging-on-the-us-election-241130

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

Sport and physical activity are an important part of Australian culture and society.

But how do we know which sports have the highest participation rates in Australia? And does this change depend on factors such as age, gender and location?

Since 2015, the Australian Sports Commission has been conducting the AusPlay survey to answer questions like these.

The data suggests those who are more physically active are generally younger, employed, highly educated, and earn a higher household income.

What is AusPlay?

AusPlay is a large national survey that focuses on how much sport and physical activity Australians participate in. It collects national, state and territory data on more than 600 different activities and who participates in them.

These activities include popular pursuits such as bushwalking and cycling, as well as less mainstream sports such as bobsledding and wheelchair rugby.

Other questions in the survey are about things like sports injuries, motivations for participating, barriers to participating, and use of technology like smart watches.

The data collected in the survey is used to do things like:

• inform government investment, policy and programs

• help sports organisations better understand participation and track it over time

• explore the links between participation and other factors (such as age, injuries as household income).

In 2023, AusPlay changed to an online survey instead of telephone interviewing. As such, this year’s results cannot be directly compared to earlier figures because the data have been collected differently.

AusPlay 2024 participation findings

The latest results include data collected from July 2023 to June 2024. Forty thousand adults (aged 15 and older) completed the survey. Some respondents are also parents, so data were also collected for around 8,800 children aged 14 and under.

The activities with the highest participation by Australians over 15 years old are walking, fitness/gym, bushwalking, running/jogging and swimming.

The top activities for children are swimming, soccer, dance, basketball and gymnastics.

While all these activities are popular for many Australians, there are some obvious differences between age groups.

Younger Australians participate in more team-based activities that require speed and agility, whereas older Australians prefer to participate in less intense aerobic activities.

Many of these sports are popular across genders. However, there are some differences: some examples of activities more popular with women include pilates, walking and yoga, whereas basketball, soccer and golf are more popular with men.

Some 84% of Australian adults and 71% of children are considered active, which is defined as participating in sport and physical activity at least once per year.

However, only 66% of adults and 40% of children are active at least once per week. Just 48% of adults and 14% of children are active at least three times per week.

These figures indicate the majority of Australians may not be meeting the national physical activity and exercise guidelines.

For example, these guidelines recommend adults be active most days, preferably every day.

The most popular activities for adults were non-organised – not run by an organisation or club, but likely to be organised by the adults themselves (66%) or with friends (50%) in a public place.

This finding supports the trend towards flexible, informal sport and physical activity that has been noticed by researchers in recent years.

About 40% of adults participated in an organised activity, which was most likely to occur in a sports club or association (13%) or gym/fitness centre (11%).

Sports club or association (27%) and gym/fitness club (19%) were also the most popular locations for children’s organised participation.

The ACT reported the highest rates of participation of any state or territory.

What else did AusPlay find?

More physically active adult Australians tended to be younger, employed, more highly educated, and earning a higher household income.

For example, 94% of adults with household incomes more than $200,000 participated in sport and physical activity, compared with 79% of adults with a household income of less than $70,000.

This finding may be related to the current cost of living crisis.

Read more:
No cash, no play? Have cost-of-living pressures impacted sports participation in Australia?

In terms of cost to participate in sport, adults paid an average of $1,238 each year; with men spending more ($1,377) than women ($1,074). Children paid an average of $944 each year to participate in sport. However, girls ($1,048) paid more than boys ($843).

The top reasons for Australian adults to be active are to improve fitness, for fun/enjoyment, to lose weight, to be outdoors and for social reasons.

Key barriers for adults include poor health/injury, increasing age, disability, laziness and lack of time. The main barriers for children are being too young, not liking physical activity, and cost.

The most common technology used were headphones, tracking apps and wearable technology.

New survey questions

Adding more questions to the online survey this year has meant there are new findings that will allow for better understanding of the participation behaviours of Australia’s diverse population.

These new findings include insights on volunteering, injuries, diversity and inclusion.

Volunteers contribute more than 145 million hours to sport in Australia each year, most commonly in roles such as umpiring and coaching.

The most common disabilities reported by participants aged 18+ were musculoskeletal conditions, mental health issues and cardiovascular conditions.

The most common types of injuries were soft-tissue injuries such as torn muscles and tendinitis.

In line with the Australian sport participation strategy “Play Well” and its motto “everyone has a place in sport,” additional demographic questions were included focused on sex at birth and sexual orientation for adults over the age of 18.

These questions will continue to be included in future AusPlay surveys.

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. Australians love sport, but which ones do they actually play? National survey results paint a surprising picture – https://theconversation.com/australians-love-sport-but-which-ones-do-they-actually-play-national-survey-results-paint-a-surprising-picture-242593

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Verity Truelove, Senior Research Fellow in Road Safety Research, University of the Sunshine Coast

Apps such as Google Maps, Apple Maps and Waze can tell drivers when they are approaching speed cameras or random breath testing stations. Countries such as Germany, France and Switzerland have banned apps from displaying these enforcement locations.

But what effect are these apps having in Australia – are they helping drivers break road rules?

Our new paper, published in the journal Safety Science, examined this question.

We found this technology can, in some cases, contribute to people thinking they are invincible on the roads. However, we also found they can sometimes help people drive more safely.

Being made aware of enforcement can help road safety

We conducted focus groups and interviews with a total of 58 drivers from Queensland, to understand how the use of this technology influences perceptions of being caught for breaking road rules.

One driver told us:

If I know it’s coming up, I’ll put my phone down. If I was, say, texting or checking something, but then like once a good few 100 metres away, I sort of pick it up again, depending though.

Another said:

It sort of depends where I am driving, I guess. Like, if I am driving on a country road and there is a speed camera there I would probably slow down for the speed camera and then sort of speed up again once I am sort of past that; it sort of depends on the circumstances.

We also found that, for some people, being made aware of enforcement locations can help drivers better regulate their speed. This helped them comply with road rules more consistently.

Waze also shows the speed limit in the area, which further assisted some drivers to stick to the speed limit. One driver told us:

I’m a bit careful if I just look at the speedo and just double check that I’m on the right amount of speed.

Another said:

It just gives you a warning like, ‘OK, you need to check your speed.’ Just to double-check you’re going on the right speed perhaps or when it’s a camera coming up.

Concerning behaviours

Concerningly, we also found some drivers who use these apps are looking at and touching their screens more than they otherwise would. This can distract drivers and increase their risk of crashing.

One driver told us they post traffic updates on the app they use while driving, “which I know is wrong.”

Another said:

Just hit the button on the phone. Just two steps after I go past the camera.

Another driver told us:

It’s so helpful […] Especially if it’s, say, late night and I’m coming home from a party, and I don’t want to end up getting arrested.

One driver said:

I probably feel slightly more invincible, which is probably not a good thing.

When asked why these apps are used, one driver said:

I guess the drug and the drink-driving.

Apps can help and hinder road safety

We know breaking road rules significantly contributes to crashes and road fatalities, with deaths on Australian roads continuing to increase over time.

On the one hand, when drivers are aware of enforcement measures like cameras and police, they are more likely to stop breaking the rules in those areas. That’s particularly true for behaviours such as speeding and using a phone while driving, we found.

Using apps that flag where cameras and police are located also means drivers would be more exposed to enforcement activities than they otherwise would be on a normal drive.

On the other hand, our results suggest some drivers are using these applications to break road rules more often in places where they think they won’t be caught.

These apps are also not always completely accurate.

For instance, even though Waze can display some police operation locations such as roadside breath testing, it can’t capture all on-road police activities. Further, camera locations are not always up to date or accurate.

Weighing benefits against risks

While these apps do have some benefits, it’s important to weigh these against the risks.

It’s also important to recognise traffic enforcement isn’t just there to make you comply with road rules at a specific point; it is meant to remind you of the constant risk of being caught and to encourage consistent rule compliance.

The goal is to ensure that drivers are following the traffic rules across the entire network, not just in isolated spots.

With road fatalities at some of the highest rates we’ve seen in recent years, we need everyone to work together to stop more preventable deaths and injuries.

Verity Truelove has received funding from the Motor Accident Insurance Commission (MAIC)/University of the Sunshine Coast (UniSC) Road Safety Research Collaboration Grant.

Michelle Nicolls has received funding from the Motor Accident Insurance Commission (MAIC)/University of the Sunshine Coast (UniSC) Road Safety Research Collaboration Grant.

Oscar Oviedo-Trespalacios was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award Fellowship.

– ref. ‘I’m coming home from a party, and I don’t want to end up getting arrested’: do driving apps help people break road rules? – https://theconversation.com/im-coming-home-from-a-party-and-i-dont-want-to-end-up-getting-arrested-do-driving-apps-help-people-break-road-rules-237664

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Blair Williams, Lecturer in Australian Politics, Monash University

Abortion became a key issue at the recent Queensland election, despite its decriminalisation in 2018.

Voting against the motion at the time, LNP leader David Crisafulli fumbled questions throughout the election campaign about whether LNP members would be allowed a conscience vote.

This debate has likewise reappeared in South Australian politics, but the bill was narrowly defeated in the Upper House.

Women’s under-representation in parliaments and the lack of gender equality policies, or more hostile policies such as winding back abortion rights, are related.

Read more:
Abortion is back in the headlines in Australia. The debates in the United States tell us why

How do the states and territories fare on gender equality?

In our forthcoming book chapter, we rank all Australian states and territories on their performance in achieving gender equality. This is based on three categories:

1. Representation – how many women get elected and what leadership positions they occupy

2. Infrastructure – how parliaments accommodate gender differences

3. Policy-making and policy adoption – how parliaments make policy and whether gender equality policies are adopted.

Here’s how the states measure up:

The ACT and Victoria clearly lead the way. Both states have reached gender parity, and include women and gender in all aspects of policy-making.

Representation

In 2024, women account for 44.2% of overall positions in state and territory parliaments in Australia. However, women are still underrepresented in six of eight state and territory parliaments.

The ACT is the exception, boasting a higher number of women than men. Victoria has achieved gender parity, with 64 women and 64 men legislators. The Northern Territory, Western Australia and Tasmania are nearing parity. Conversely, in Queensland and South Australia, women are outnumbered by men almost two to one.

Only the ACT unicameral Legislative Assembly has ever exceeded gender parity, breaking the record in 2016. Research shows proportional voting and multi-member electorates, used in the ACT’s Hare-Clark system, results in a greater number of women elected. But this is not the only factor.

Australia’s party system is crucial in either electing or gate-keeping women. Through adopting gender quotas, most Labor parties around the country have now achieved parity.

The Liberal and National parties continue to refuse affirmative action measures. Women make up only one-third of Liberal/National politicians across states and territories. Their resistance against quotas is a key barrier to achieving parliamentary gender parity.

Electing more women is linked to a greater number of women in positions of power. The ACT and Victoria have high percentages of women in cabinet (55.6% for ACT and 65.2% for Victoria in 2023) and in positions of power, such as speaker and committee chairs. Women can use these positions to further advance gender equality.

The Northern Territory has performed well in terms of representation. Since the recent election they have fallen across all three gender equality categories, even eliminating the minister for women portfolio.

Infrastructure

Parliaments have historically been designed by and for men. As such, the parliamentary infrastructure can serve as a barrier to the full participation of elected women.

While some progress has been made in all states and territories, the ACT and Victoria yet again come out on top. They both provide parliamentary infrastructure that accommodate gender differences in caring responsibility. There is no night sitting in either the ACT and Victoria, and both parliaments allow videoconferencing to help legislators perform their committee work.

The ACT is the only territory or state that provides gender affirmation leave and to have some form of a childcare policy.

These accommodations improves accessibility and helps all legislators combine their caring and work responsibilities.

What about policy?

How do states and territories fare when it comes to considering the interests of women and marginalised groups in the policy-making progress?

At the top of the pack, the ACT and Victoria mandate the use of gender-sensitive tools when public servants develop policy. They have also adopted gender responsive budgeting and a women’s budget statement. This shows a greater commitment and a legislative framework that includes the perspective of women.

The ACT also decriminalised abortion and male homosexuality earlier than the other states and territories.

Bottom of the pack

We rank Queensland as the worst for gender equality. Despite boasting a woman premier for most of the past two decades, it has the lowest proportion of women politicians, and the fewest women members in parliamentary bodies. The sunshine state also lags behind the rest in gender equality policy-making.

Despite South Australia’s historic leadership on issues of gender equality, the state has yet to see a woman lead its government. It also performs relatively poorly across all gender equality indicators. Notably, both South Australia and Queensland report the lowest proportion of women within their Liberal parties.

Both Queensland and South Australian governments have also failed to adopt the tools used by other states to include gender in the formulation of their policies and budget.

Having fewer women elected to parliament means fewer women in positions of power in the Cabinet or chairing committees. It means fewer opportunities for these states to address gender equality in their day-to-day business and the policies they prioritise.

So it’s not entirely surprising that abortion politics resurfaced in Queensland and South Australia over the past few weeks. Both states were late to decriminalise abortion — at least 10 years after Victoria and 16 years after the ACT.

While the poor performance of Queensland and South Australia can in part be explained by their lower percentages of elected women, another crucial factor might be ideology. Research shows that left-wing political parties fare better when it comes to women’s representation and the adoption of gender equality policy.

As the “Florida of Australia”, Queensland’s conservative traditions likely influence attitudes toward women in politics. It may also determine the types and scope of gender equality policy adopted.

Australian parliaments are becoming more inclusive, marked by rising women’s representation at all levels. We are also seeing a growing emphasis on gender equality evident in infrastructure, policies, and mechanisms.

However, as our analysis points out, there are notable disparities among states and territories, with clear winners and losers.

Katrine Beauregard received funding from Australian Research Council.

Blair Williams 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. Which Australian states and territories perform best on gender representation in parliament? We crunched the numbers – https://theconversation.com/which-australian-states-and-territories-perform-best-on-gender-representation-in-parliament-we-crunched-the-numbers-241920

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jim Radford, Associate Professor, Ecology and Environment, La Trobe University

The world is charging towards tipping points for species extinctions, ecosystem collapse and loss of genetic diversity. Crossing these tipping points will be devastating for nature and human existence alike.

Avoiding this catastrophe of humanity’s making is the purpose of the 16th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (COP16) in Cali, Colombia. COP16 has been reviewing progress on implementing the Global Biodiversity Framework adopted at COP15 in Montreal, Canada, in 2022. Progress has been incremental at best.

These pledges, plans and goals, while necessary and commendable, are also far removed and often intangible for everyday citizens. Collective global action is inherently political. It moves at glacial pace when urgent action is needed.

The issues can seem so colossal and complex that individuals often feel powerless. This may mean they do nothing or, worse, add to the problem. But, in fact, there are five steps individuals can take to help end the biodiversity crisis.

So why isn’t government action enough?

COP16 wraps up on November 1, but has so far failed to live up to expectations. The COP16 chair claims it has put biodiversity “on an equal footing” with climate. However, solid commitments have yet to emerge.

For example, before COP16, governments had pledged only US$250 million (A380 million) of the estimated $200 billion per year required by 2030 for the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund. Pledges of another $163 million this week take the total number of contributors to a mere 12.

Only 15% of countries (including Australia) met the deadline to submit their plans to meet the goals set at COP15. These include protecting at least 30% of the world’s land and water and restoring 30% of degraded ecosystems by 2030.

And plans do not guarantee action. Indeed, the world has never achieved a single global nature target set by such initiatives.

Our everyday decisions can’t be divorced from nature

“Natural capital” is a buzzword in global initiatives, government policies, marketing slogans and sustainability frameworks worldwide. Natural capital refers to all living and non-living natural resources that provide products and services of value to society. In essence, it’s what we commonly call “nature”.

Understanding and managing natural capital is crucial for conserving biodiversity, addressing climate change and ensuring future generations’ wellbeing by not exceeding our planetary boundaries. It’s why we’ve recently created the Natural Capital Primer. It’s a website that explains how our everyday lives, businesses and economies depend on nature.

By understanding our connection to nature, we can all reduce our impact on nature. Here are five ways you can make a difference, starting today.

1. Cut consumption when you can

Do you really need to update your mobile phone, your summer wardrobe or your flat-screen TV? What we buy reverberates around the globe.

Our demand for new products affects resource extraction (leading to habitat loss), carbon emissions (propelling climate change) and pollution (degrading habitat). These impacts are often far from where we make our purchases. From the lithium in our phones to the plastics in our clothes and the metals in our vehicles, our consumption drives demand, which almost inevitably harms biodiversity.

If you do need to replace something, consider buying second-hand or products made from recycled materials.

2. Watch what you eat

Agriculture is the single greatest driver of changes in land use and biodiversity loss. We all need to eat, of course, but where possible buy local and sustainably produced foods.

Reducing processed foods in your shopping trolley is a good start. Cutting your intake of over-fished, wild-caught seafood, red meat and palm oil-based products will also help. This issue is not straightforward because these products are available as a confusing mix of unsustainable and sustainable options.

A further complication, made worse by the rise of greenwashing, is that it can be hard to work out exactly what is in certain foods or where they came from. Sustainability certification and apps (GoodFish Australia, for example) can help consumers make better choices.

3. Choose renewable energy

The climate and biodiversity crises are inseparable. Neither can be resolved in isolation. For example, nature-based solutions, such as protecting forests as carbon sinks, will help with both the climate crisis and biodiversity.

With greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change, which threatens many species, a whole range of our choices determine the impacts of our energy use. From your mode of transport to powering your home, choose renewable energy sources.

Tech giants such as Google and Amazon are turning to nuclear energy to power their generative AI and cloud storage in an effort to reduce their climate impact. However, 100% renewable energy is realistic if consumers demand it from their power companies and governments.

4. Get your hands dirty

You can take direct action to protect and increase biodiversity. Volunteer or donate to environmental projects in your neighbourhood. Not only will this make you feel good, but revegetation and habitat restoration do improve local biodiversity.

Many grass-roots, community-driven projects are making a difference on the ground. They range from urban restoration work, such as the Merri Creek restoration in Melbourne, to forest stewardship projects, such as Tarwin River Forest in Gippsland, Victoria. Get local and get involved!

5. Adjust expectations and accept responsibility

People in wealthy countries (such as Australia) have both the biggest environmental footprints and the most capacity to adapt. They must lead change.

The process starts with increasing awareness of the issues and taking responsibility for change. That includes adjusting our expectations about how and where we live.

Small changes are magnified when repeated by millions of people. We should never doubt the power of cumulative impact. After all, it’s what got us into this mess in the first place.

So while governments and corporations haggle, posture and delay over global targets and policies, we can all start right now to make a difference through smarter decisions and sustainable choices.

Jim Radford receives funding from Australian Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water, the National Environmental Science Program Resilient Landscapes Hub, Transport for NSW, SmartSat CRC, Macdoch Foundation and Australian Wool Innovation. He is a member of Standards Australia Biodiversity Committee and North Central CMA Science Advisory Panel.

– ref. 5 things you can do to end the biodiversity crisis as the world talks about it at COP16 – https://theconversation.com/5-things-you-can-do-to-end-the-biodiversity-crisis-as-the-world-talks-about-it-at-cop16-242205

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Henry Fraser, Research Fellow in Law, Accountability and Data Science, Queensland University of Technology

Last week, the tragic news broke that US teenager Sewell Seltzer III took his own life after forming a deep emotional attachment to an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot on the Character.AI website.

As his relationship with the companion AI became increasingly intense, the 14-year-old began withdrawing from family and friends, and was getting in trouble at school.

In a lawsuit filed against Character.AI by the boy’s mother, chat transcripts show intimate and often highly sexual conversations between Sewell and the chatbot Dany, modelled on the Game of Thrones character Danaerys Targaryen. They discussed crime and suicide, and the chatbot used phrases such as “that’s not a reason not to go through with it”.

This is not the first known instance of a vulnerable person dying by suicide after interacting with a chatbot persona. A Belgian man took his life last year in a similar episode involving Character.AI’s main competitor, Chai AI. When this happened, the company told the media they were “working our hardest to minimise harm”.

In a statement to CNN, Character.AI has stated they “take the safety of our users very seriously” and have introduced “numerous new safety measures over the past six months”.

In a separate statement on the company’s website, they outline additional safety measures for users under the age of 18. (In their current terms of service, the age restriction is 16 for European Union citizens and 13 elsewhere in the world.)

However, these tragedies starkly illustrate the dangers of rapidly developing and widely available AI systems anyone can converse and interact with. We urgently need regulation to protect people from potentially dangerous, irresponsibly designed AI systems.

How can we regulate AI?

The Australian government is in the process of developing mandatory guardrails for high-risk AI systems. A trendy term in the world of AI governance, “guardrails” refer to processes in the design, development and deployment of AI systems. These include measures such as data governance, risk management, testing, documentation and human oversight.

One of the decisions the Australian government must make is how to define which systems are “high-risk”, and therefore captured by the guardrails.

The government is also considering whether guardrails should apply to all “general purpose models”. General purpose models are the engine under the hood of AI chatbots like Dany: AI algorithms that can generate text, images, videos and music from user prompts, and can be adapted for use in a variety of contexts.

In the European Union’s groundbreaking AI Act, high-risk systems are defined using a list, which regulators are empowered to regularly update.

An alternative is a principles-based approach, where a high-risk designation happens on a case-by-case basis. It would depend on multiple factors such as the risks of adverse impacts on rights, risks to physical or mental health, risks of legal impacts, and the severity and extent of those risks.

Chatbots should be ‘high-risk’ AI

In Europe, companion AI systems like Character.AI and Chai are not designated as high-risk. Essentially, their providers only need to let users know they are interacting with an AI system.

It has become clear, though, that companion chatbots are not low risk. Many users of these applications are children and teens. Some of the systems have even been marketed to people who are lonely or have a mental illness.

Chatbots are capable of generating unpredictable, inappropriate and manipulative content. They mimic toxic relationships all too easily. Transparency – labelling the output as AI-generated – is not enough to manage these risks.

Even when we are aware that we are talking to chatbots, human beings are psychologically primed to attribute human traits to something we converse with.

The suicide deaths reported in the media could be just the tip of the iceberg. We have no way of knowing how many vulnerable people are in addictive, toxic or even dangerous relationships with chatbots.

Guardrails and an ‘off switch’

When Australia finally introduces mandatory guardrails for high-risk AI systems, which may happen as early as next year, the guardrails should apply to both companion chatbots and the general purpose models the chatbots are built upon.

Guardrails – risk management, testing, monitoring – will be most effective if they get to the human heart of AI hazards. Risks from chatbots are not just technical risks with technical solutions.

Apart from the words a chatbot might use, the context of the product matters, too. In the case of Character.AI, the marketing promises to “empower” people, the interface mimics an ordinary text message exchange with a person, and the platform allows users to select from a range of pre-made characters, which include some problematic personas.

Truly effective AI guardrails should mandate more than just responsible processes, like risk management and testing. They also must demand thoughtful, humane design of interfaces, interactions and relationships between AI systems and their human users.

Even then, guardrails may not be enough. Just like companion chatbots, systems that at first appear to be low risk may cause unanticipated harms.

Regulators should have the power to remove AI systems from the market if they cause harm or pose unacceptable risks. In other words, we don’t just need guardrails for high risk AI. We also need an off switch.

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

Henry Fraser receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Deaths linked to chatbots show we must urgently revisit what counts as ‘high-risk’ AI – https://theconversation.com/deaths-linked-to-chatbots-show-we-must-urgently-revisit-what-counts-as-high-risk-ai-242289

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

A major takeout from the inquiry into the national response to COVID is that a lack of trust would likely mean a less cooperative public during a future pandemic.

Trust spiked early in the crisis, as fear ran high and people turned to known institutions and authority figures. Later, trust declined and frustrations rose, with people reacting against harsh measures.

Criticism has grown in retrospect. In a 2024 survey, 54% said the government’s handling at the time was appropriate. This had been 80% at the pandemic’s peak. By 2024, 29% said the government had overreacted; they were more likely to rate its performance poorly than were people earlier.

The review, by an independent panel, stressed the importance of better communication and coordination in planning for future crises. But a few wrinkles should also be considered.

If we had another pandemic in five years, people would indeed be more resistant to restrictions. But if the next similar crisis was, say, 50 years on, the then-public’s attitude would be anyone’s guess. Trust might surge and subside in a similar pattern.

The change in views is unsurprising. Looking back, memories of the threat fade somewhat – because overall Australia did well – while those of the restraints (some of them notable overreach) loom larger.

The pandemic’s lift in public trust was a blip – driven by extraordinary circumstances – in a long-term decline. This decline is a serious intractable problem in our democracy, as in many other countries.

You’d have to be super optimistic to expect a revival in trust in the foreseeable future. But if it continues to fall away, the foundations of our political institutions and our society will become shakier.

In the United States, Donald Trump made a huge assault on people’s trust in the electoral system after he lost the 2020 presidential election. There’d be fears he would do the same if he loses next week.

Thankfully, in Australia trust around election management remains absolutely solid. But there’s mounting concern about the corrosive effect of misinformation and disinformation in the political debate and, equally, distrust of proposals to curb these.

The polarisation in our media is a much paler version of what we see in the US, but is still wearing away at trust.

Distrust and cynicism are closely related, and can be fuelled by relatively small things.

Australians have always been disrespectful of the political class. To a degree this can be positive, if it is healthy scepticism. But if it descends into a belief politicians are more likely to serve themselves than serve the public good, that pulls democracy downwards.

Independent Helen Haines wrote this week: “in a world of aggressive lobbying, of jobs for mates, and acceptance of pork-barrelling, it is no surprise that in Australia there is diminishing trust in politics and governments”.

The furore over Anthony Albanese obtaining Qantas upgrades, arising from Joe Aston’s just-published The Chairman’s Lounge, might be seen as small beer, as “scandals” go.

But it raises suspicions, justified or not, in voters’ minds about decision-making. If big corporations are so cosy with politicians, are the politicians more likely to lend them sympathetic ears?

After all, the pursuit of access and influence is behind much of the money that’s donated to politics. The same applies to privileges extended.

Integrity is vital to trust. It didn’t pass the integrity test for Albanese to have accepted upgrades from Qantas, especially for personal travel, when he was transport minister in the former Labor government, overseeing regulation of the airline.

After dodging for days – he said it took a long time to check his records – Albanese finally denied ever contacting then Qantas chief Alan Joyce (or other executives) to request upgrades. But, it will be asked, did a mates network mean he didn’t need to?

Albanese is highly sensitive over the Qantas story, insisting to colleagues and others it is just a media beatup.

The affair has chipped away at public trust not just in the prime minister but, to an extent, more generally, as scrutiny stretched to travel largesse received by opposition figures, including Peter Dutton asking to use Gina Rinehart’s plane.

Research for the COVID inquiry showed a distrustful public wants more transparency from their politicians.

It’s a paradox that we’ve seen an expansion of mechanisms for transparency, yet there’s the perception, and often the reality, of things being deeply opaque.

In the upgrades affair, Albanese has made much of the fact he declared everything on his parliamentary register of interests. Yet that doesn’t get us to the core of the relationship between a senior politician and key people in an airline.

It’s the same with the gambling industry. What has been going on behind the scenes to delay the government’s decision on gambling reform, expected months ago? We can find from the record the donations the gambling industry gave, but not the influence exerted privately.

The increasing professionalisation of politics may have worked against trust. It distances voters from the politicians, and provides more tools for manipulating public opinion.

This may be one reason why “community candidates”, with their grassroots campaigning, have appealed. But the apparent shyness of Simon Holmes à Court, whose Climate 200 fund donates to some of these candidates, about finding himself on the Australian Financial Review’s “covert power” list only turned more attention to the backstory of money and politics.

Concern about integrity and trust was a driver of the Albanese government’s establishment, with much fanfare, of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). Now a scathing report released this week threatens to undermine public trust in that body.

It followed the NACC’s decision not to investigate six people referred to it by the royal commission into Robodebt.

Robodebt had delivered a massive blow to people’s trust in government and the public service, and it was vital full accountability was pursued.

The NACC head, Paul Brereton, delegated the decision-making on whether to open an investigation to another commissioner, because he’d had a professional relationship with one of the people referred.

But, in a damning report, the Inspector of the NACC found Brereton had not adequately excused himself.

“I found that the NACC Commissioner’s involvement in the decision-making was comprehensive, before, during and after the 19 October 2023 meeting at which the substantive decision was made not to investigate the referrals,” the Inspector concluded.

Brereton’s response has been to say mistakes happen, the important thing is to correct them, and this will be done – through the appointment of an “eminent person” to review whether the referrals should be investigated.

Both government and opposition are declaring faith in Brereton. But crossbench senator David Pocock argues Brereton should go. Anthony Whealy, former judge and chair of the Centre for Public Integrity, told the ABC that while Brereton hadn’t committed a sackable offence, in his shoes he would step down, to protect the NACC’s reputation.

Is that the price of maintaining trust in this institution that was supposed to help restore trust?

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: furore over Anthony Albanese’s Qantas perks chips away at public trust in politicians – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-furore-over-anthony-albaneses-qantas-perks-chips-away-at-public-trust-in-politicians-242589

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Holly Seale, Associate Professor, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney

Australia’s COVID vaccine roll-out started slowly, with supply shortages and logistical shortcomings. Once it got going, we immunised more than 95% of the population.

This week’s COVID inquiry report contains a number of recommendations to improve Australia’s vaccine preparedness the next time we face a pandemic or health emergency.

While the inquiry gets most things right, as vaccine experts, we argue the government response should be broadened in three areas:

• expanding compensation programs for people who suffer any type of vaccine injury
• better understanding why people aren’t up-to-date with their vaccinations
• equipping community helpers in marginalised communities to deliver information about vaccines and combat misinformation.

Australians should be compensated after vaccine injuries – not just during pandemics

The inquiry recommends reviewing Australia’s COVID vaccine claims scheme in the next 12 to 18 months, to inform future schemes in national health emergencies.

Early in the pandemic, vaccine experts called on the Australian government to establish a COVID vaccine injury compensation scheme.

This meant people who were injured after suffering a rare but serious injury, or the families of those who died, would receive compensation when there had been no fault in the manufacturing or administration of the vaccine.

Vaccine experts recommended the creation of such a scheme based on the principle of reciprocity. The Australian public was asked to accept the recommended COVID vaccines in good faith for their health benefit and the benefit of the community. So they should be compensated if something went wrong.

In 2021, the Australian government announced the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme. Australia had no such scheme before this, in stark contrast to 25 other countries including the United States, United Kingdom and New Zealand.

Australia’s scheme closed on September 30 2024.

The inquiry report recommends reviewing:

• the complexity of the claims process
• delayed or denied payments
• any links between the scheme and vaccine hesitancy.

However, this is currently framed only within the scope of the scheme being used for future epidemic or pandemic responses.

Instead, we need a permanent, ongoing vaccine compensation scheme for all routine vaccines available on the National Immunisation Program.

As we’ve learnt from similar schemes in other countries, this would contribute to the trust and confidence needed to improve the uptake of vaccines currently on the program, and new ones added in the future. It is also right and fair to look after those injured by vaccines in rare instances.

Not getting vaccinated isn’t just about a lack of trust

The COVID inquiry recommends developing a national strategy to rebuild community trust in vaccines and improve vaccination rates, including childhood (non-COVID) vaccine rates, which are currently declining.

The COVID vaccine program has affected trust in routine vaccines. Childhood vaccine coverage has declined 1–2%. And there is a persistent issue around timeliness – kids not getting their vaccines within 30 days of the recommended time point.

The national Vaxinsights project examined the social and behavioural drivers of under-vaccination among parents of children under five years. It found access issues were the main barriers to partially vaccinated children. Cost, difficulty making an appointment and the ability to prioritise appointments due to other conflicting needs were other barriers. Trust was not a major barrier for this group.

However for unvaccinated children, vaccine safety and effectiveness concerns, and trust in information from the health-care provider, were the leading issues, rather than access barriers.

To improve childhood vaccination rates, governments need to monitor the social and behavioural drivers of vaccination over time to track changes in vaccine acceptance. They also need to address barriers to accessing immunisation services, including affordability and clinic opening hours.

It is also imperative we learn from the lessons during COVID and better engage communities and priority populations, such as First Nations communities, people with disabilities and those from different cultural groups, to build trust and improve access through community drop-in and outreach vaccine programs.

To address the decline in adult COVID vaccination we need to focus on perceptions of need, risk and value, rather than just focusing on trust. If adults don’t think they are at risk, they won’t get the vaccine. Unfortunately, when it comes to COVID, people have moved on and few people believe they need boosters.

Variant changes or enhancements to the vaccine (such as combined vaccines to protect against COVID and flu, or RSV or vaccines with long last protection) may encourage people to get vaccinated in the future. In the meantime, we agree with the inquiry that we should focus on those most at risk of severe outcomes, including residents in aged care and those with chronic health conditions.

Invest in community-led strategies to improve uptake

The COVID inquiry recommends developing a communication strategy for health emergencies to ensure all Australians, including those in priority populations, families and industries, have the information they need.

While these are not strictly focused on the promotion of vaccination, the suggestions – including the need to work closely with and fund community and representative organisations – are aligned with what our COVID research showed.

However, the government should go one step further. Communication about vaccines must be tailored, translated for different cultural groups, and easy to understand.

In some settings, messages about the vaccines will have the most impact if they come from a health-care worker. But this is not always the case. Some people prefer to hear from trusted voices from their own communities. In First Nations communities, these roles are often combined in the form of Aboriginal Health Workers.

We must support these voices in future health emergencies.

During COVID, there was insufficient support and training for community helpers – such as community leaders, faith leaders, bilingual community workers, and other trusted voices – to support their vaccine communication efforts.

The government should consider implementing a national training program to support those tasked (or volunteering) to pass on information about vaccines during health emergencies. This would provide them with the information and confidence they need to undertake this role, as well as equipping them to address misinformation.

Holly Seale is an investigator on research studies funded by NHMRC and has previously received funding from NSW Ministry of Health, as well as from Sanofi Pasteur, Moderna and Pfizer for investigator driven research and consulting fees.

Julie Leask receives a fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council and research funding from the World Health Organization. She received reimbursement for overseas travel costs from Sanofi in April 2024.

Margie Danchin receives funding from the Victorian and Commonwealth governments, NHMRC/MRFF and DFAT.

– ref. Trust matters but we also need these 3 things to boost vaccine coverage – https://theconversation.com/trust-matters-but-we-also-need-these-3-things-to-boost-vaccine-coverage-242487

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Diane Charleson, Senior Lecturer in media School of Arts Australian Catholic University, Australian Catholic University

Award-winning director Madeleine Hetherton-Miau’s latest offering is an evocative and hard-hitting documentary with a strong message. Mozart’s Sister investigates the life of Maria Anna Mozart, the older sister of the more famous Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.

The film portrays a sensitive and well-researched investigation into Maria Anna’s life – illuminating how the draconian attitudes that prevailed during her time condemned her to a lesser life than her brother, even though she was similarly talented.

It also reminds us of the importance of championing women musicians today, as “if we don’t encourage women now, it (discrimination) only repeats”.

Who was Maria Anna Mozart?

Maria Anna was the first-born child of Leopold Mozart. He himself was a musician and composer and had his daughter schooled in music from a very young age.

Maria showed amazing talent – a child prodigy in playing and composing. When Wolfgang was born, he quickly became engrossed in playing and composing music with his sister.

Mozart’s Sister features wonderfully poignant recreations of this childhood bond over music – emphasising the siblings’ playfulness and engagement with music in a noncompetitive way.

Leopold recognised his children’s prodigious talents. He soon had them travelling and playing concerts all over Europe, where they were lauded by the highest aristocracy. Maria Anna and Wolfgang were inseparable during this time and composed many works together.

Women musicians in the 18th century

But all of this came to an abrupt end with Maria Anna turned 15. As custom would dictate, it was considered unsuitable and unseemly for a girl of that age to perform in public, likening this form of public performance to that of a prostitute.

The film portrays the unfortunate fate that befell many 18th-century women who wanted to pursue a career in music. Regardless of their aptitude, these women would have no real career prospects. They were even banned from playing musical instruments deemed unseemly, including the violin and cello.

Composing and playing music was largely taken up by the nuns in monasteries. As Mozart’s Sister highlights, even though this was a time of enlightenment, this “enlightenment” was reserved for men – and white men at that. It definitely didn’t flow on to women.

Maria Anna was forced to stay home while Wolfgang continued pursuing music uninterrupted – and the rest is history.

The film ponders what it must have been like for her to be left at home, away from her brother (who was once her constant companion) and unable to play as she used to. Her life is poignantly illustrated through her diary entries, which are mainly filled with references to the weather, as though nothing else was happening for her.

Maria Anna eventually married, but continued to practice music each day. Upon her husband’s death – now a woman of means and a baroness in her 50s – she returned to solo concert performances.

A documentary on two levels

Mozart’s Sister is a documentary that functions on many levels.

On one level, it’s a biopic that portrays Maria Anna’s story through recreations of her childhood in Austria, with a voiceover narration and interviews highlighting her relationship with her brother. Much is shot on location in Austria and framed through the perspective of present-day museum curators and experts.

On another level, the film is a broader statement on the underrepresentation of female composers. I thought the director did an excellent job in portraying this duality through the juxtaposition of Maria Anna’s with the young British composer Alma Deustger. Deustger displayed many of the characteristics we could imagine Maria Anna having.

Like Maria Anna, Deustger is a brilliant modern-day composer with a deep appreciation for for composing and conducting. But unlike Maria, she has been able to pursue her passion and turn it into a career. I was particularly struck by the film’s closing, in which Deustger discusses writing her waltz based on the police sirens of New York.

Mozart’s Sister follows in a recent literary trend of discussions of appropriation – and of the overlooking of talented women in history who have been overshadowed by their more famous male counterparts. Anna Funder’s Wifedom and Hernan Diaz’s Pulitzer Prize-winning book Trust are two other examples of this.

It is an interesting and provocative film that will appeal to classical music lovers, as well as those interested more broadly in the issue of female underrepresentation in the arts.

Mozart’s Sister is in cinemas from today.

Diane Charleson 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. Maria Anna Mozart was a musical prodigy overshadowed by her brother. A new documentary tells her story – https://theconversation.com/maria-anna-mozart-was-a-musical-prodigy-overshadowed-by-her-brother-a-new-documentary-tells-her-story-241794

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

The United States presidential election will be held next Tuesday, with results coming in Wednesday AEDT. In analyst Nate Silver’s aggregate of national polls, Democrat Kamala Harris leads Republican Donald Trump by 48.6–47.5, a slight gain for Trump since Monday, when Harris led by 48.6–47.4. Harris’ national lead peaked on October 2, when she led by 49.4–45.9.

The US president isn’t elected by the national popular vote, but by the Electoral College, in which each state receives electoral votes equal to its federal House seats (population based) and senators (always two). Almost all states award their electoral votes as winner-takes-all, and it takes 270 electoral votes to win (out of 538 total).

Relative to the national popular vote, the Electoral College is biased to Trump, with Harris needing at least a two-point popular vote win to be the narrow Electoral College favourite in Silver’s model.

In Silver’s averages, Trump has a 0.6-point lead in Pennsylvania (19 electoral votes), up from 0.3 on Monday. Trump has slightly larger leads of one to two points in North Carolina (16), Georgia (16) and Arizona (11). Harris is narrowly ahead by 0.1 point in Nevada (six) and about one point ahead in Michigan (15) and Wisconsin (ten).

If current polls are exactly right, Trump wins the Electoral College by 281–257. Not making Pennsylvania’s popular governor Josh Shapiro her running mate could be Harris’ biggest mistake.

In Silver’s model, Trump has a 54% chance to win the Electoral College, slightly higher than 53% on Monday. There’s a 29% chance that Harris wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College. The FiveThirtyEight forecast gives Trump a 51% win probability.

Without a major event, there isn’t likely to be much change in the polls before the election, but a polling error where one candidate overperforms their polls could still occur. Silver’s model gives Trump a 22% probability of sweeping the seven swing states and Harris a 12.5% probability.

I wrote about the US election for The Poll Bludger yesterday, and also covered three Canadian provincial elections and Japan’s conservative LDP, which has governed almost continuously since 1955, losing its majority at an election last Sunday.

Biden a drag on Harris and favourability ratings

Joe Biden remains unpopular with a net -16.5 approval in the FiveThirtyEight national aggregate, with 55.8% disapproving and 39.3% approving. As Harris is the incumbent party’s candidate, an unpopular president is a key reason for Trump’s edge.

Biden’s remarks on Tuesday, in which he seemed to call Trump supporters “garbage”, resembled Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” in the 2016 presidential campaign. This won’t help Harris.

Biden is almost 82, Trump is 78 and Harris is 60. Trump’s age should be a factor in this election that favours Harris, but Silver said on October 19 that Democrats spent so much time defending Biden before he withdrew on July 21 that it’s now difficult for them to attack Trump’s age without seeming hypocritical.

Harris’ net favourability in the FiveThirtyEight national aggregate is -1.5, with 47.8% unfavourable and 46.3% favourable. Her net favourability peaked at +1 in late September. Trump’s net favourability is -8.5 with 52.1% unfavourable and 43.6% favourable; his ratings have improved a little in the last two weeks.

While Harris is more likeable than Trump, that’s not reflected in head to head polls. Silver said on October 23 that Trump’s campaign is promoting him as not-nice, but on your side, and as someone who will get things done. They argue Harris’ campaign lacks clear policies.

Harris’ running mate Tim Walz is at +2.6 net favourable, while Trump’s running mate JD Vance is at -6.9 net favourable. In the past few weeks, Vance’s ratings have improved slightly while Walz’s have dropped back.

Congressional elections

I last wrote about the elections for the House of Representatives and Senate that will be held concurrently with the presidential election on October 14. The House has 435 single-member seats that are apportioned to states on a population basis, while there are two senators for each of the 50 states.

The House only has a two-year term, so the last House election was at the 2022 midterm elections, when Republicans won the House by 222–213 over Democrats. The FiveThirtyEight aggregate of polls of the national House race gives Democrats a 46.2–46.1 lead over Republicans, a drop for Democrats from a 47.1–45.9 Democratic lead on October 14.

Senators have six-year terms, with one-third up for election every two years. Democrats and aligned independents currently have a 51–49 Senate majority, but they are defending 23 of the 33 regular seats up, including seats in three states Trump won easily in both 2016 and 2020: West Virginia, Montana and Ohio.

West Virginia is a certain Republican gain after the retirement of former Democratic (now independent) Senator Joe Manchin at this election. Republicans have taken a 5.4-point lead in Montana in the FiveThirtyEight poll aggregate, while Democrats are just 1.6 points ahead in Ohio.

Republicans are being challenged by independent Dan Osborn in Nebraska, and he trails Republican Deb Fischer by 2.3 points. Democrats did not contest to avoid splitting the vote. In Democratic-held Wisconsin, Democrats lead by 2.1 points, while other incumbents are ahead by at least three points.

If Republicans gain West Virginia and Montana, but lose Nebraska to Osborn, and no other seats change hands, Republicans would have a 50–49 lead in the Senate. If Harris wins the presidency, Osborn would be the decisive vote as a Senate tie can be broken by the vice president, who would be Walz. This is the rosiest plausible scenario for Democrats.

The FiveThirtyEight congressional forecasts give Republicans a 53% chance of retaining control of the House, so it’s effectively a toss-up like the presidency. But Republicans have an 89% chance to gain control of the Senate.

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. Trump’s slight lead in Pennsylvania could give him Electoral College win; Biden a drag on Harris – https://theconversation.com/trumps-slight-lead-in-pennsylvania-could-give-him-electoral-college-win-biden-a-drag-on-harris-242393

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Singh, Research fellow, Allied Health & Human Performance, University of South Australia

The mental health benefits of exercise for adults are well known, easing depression and reducing anxiety.

Now, emerging research highlights its rising importance for children’s wellbeing. Staying active could be key to safeguarding and enhancing young people’s mental health.

Mood-boosting benefits

One in seven adolescents worldwide has a mental illness. As a result, parents and health-care providers are increasingly seeking effective prevention strategies.

Evidence is accumulating to suggest one surprisingly simple approach: physical fitness.

One recent study reveals even small improvements in fitness were linked to improved teen mental health. When adolescents improved their fitness by just 30 seconds on a running test, their risk of developing anxiety, depression, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) dropped by 7-8%.

This suggests something as straightforward as regular exercise could play a crucial role in protecting young people’s mental wellbeing.

For parents and health professionals looking to support adolescent mental health, encouraging participation in team sports could also be an especially effective strategy.

A study of more than 17,000 teenagers revealed a powerful link between sports and mental health: teens who participated in sports clubs were 60% less likely to experience depression compared to inactive kids.

This suggests team sports offer a unique environment for teens’ mental wellbeing, combining physical activity, social connection and structured routines.

Active kids do better in the classroom

Physical activity can also sharpen kids’ thinking and improve school performance: being active is associated with improvements in concentration, decision-making abilities, attention and academic performance.

Studies have also found positive links between physical activity and performance in maths and reading skills.

Even short ten-minute bouts of activity can have immediate positive effects on classroom performance.

Adding more physical activity to the school day — rather than cutting it for academic subjects — can not only boost students’ academic performance but also enhance their overall health and wellbeing.

Starting early: when and how

Age considerations

While there’s no one-size-fits-all approach, experts generally agree it’s never too early to encourage physical activity.

The World Health Organisation recommends children aged 3-4 should engage in at least 180 minutes of physical activity daily, with at least 60 minutes being moderate to vigorous intensity: activities that cause kids to huff and puff, such as running or playing sports.

For school-age children (five to 17 years), the recommendation is at least 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity daily, with activities that strengthen muscles and bones at least three times a week.

Getting started

The key to introducing fitness to children is to make it fun and age-appropriate. Here are some strategies:

1. Incorporate play: for younger children, focus on active play rather than structured exercise. Activities such as tag, hide-and-seek, or obstacle courses can be both fun and physically demanding.

2. Explore various activities: expose children to different sports and activities to help them find what they enjoy. This could include team sports, dance, martial arts, or swimming. Consider activities that are culturally relevant or significant to your family, as this can enhance their sense of belonging and interest.

3. Lead by example: children often mimic their parents’ behaviours, observing their actions. By being active yourself, you not only set a positive example but also encourage your children to do the same.

4. Make it a family affair: encourage physical activity by planning active family outings like hikes, bike rides, or trips to the park to foster a love of exercise in a fun and engaging way.

5. Limit screen time: Encourage outdoor play and physical activities as alternatives to sedentary screen time, fostering a healthier lifestyle and promoting wellbeing.

Potential risks and how to mitigate them

While the benefits of fitness for children are clear, it’s important to approach it safely. Some potential risks include:

1. Injuries from overexertion: children eager to push their limits can suffer from overuse injuries, such as sprains or strains. Encourage a variety of physical activities to prevent overuse injuries. Ensure adequate rest during training and competition, and promote proper a warm-up and cool-down.

2. Heat-related illness: children exercising in hot weather are at risk of heat exhaustion, with symptoms including dizziness and nausea. Emphasise hydration before, during and after exercise. Schedule activities during cooler times and provide shaded areas for breaks, teaching kids to recognise signs of overheating.

3. Improper technique and equipment: using incorrect form or inappropriate equipment can result in injuries and impede development. It’s essential to provide proper instruction, ensure equipment is size-appropriate, and supervise children during exercise. Programs should be designed to be safe and inclusive, accommodating children with disabilities, ensuring everyone can participate meaningfully without barriers.

4. Burnout: excessive exercise or pressure to perform can cause physical and mental burnout. This can lead to a loss of interest. To prevent burnout, it is important stick to national and international activity recommendations, ensure adequate rest, and encourage a balance between structured exercise and free play.

A love for movement and activity

The evidence is clear: fit kids are happier, healthier, and better equipped to handle life’s challenges.

By introducing fitness early and in an engaging, age-appropriate manner, we can set children on a path to lifelong physical and mental wellbeing.

Remember, the goal is to foster a love for movement and activity that will serve children well into adulthood.

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. Fit kids have better mental and physical health. What’s the best way to get them active? – https://theconversation.com/fit-kids-have-better-mental-and-physical-health-whats-the-best-way-to-get-them-active-242102