Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Merja Myllylahti, Senior Lecturer, Co-Director Research Centre for Journalism, Media & Democracy, Auckland University of Technology

Evidence is mounting that the new generative AI internet search tools provided by OpenAI, Google and Microsoft can increase the risk of returning false, misleading or partially correct information.

Despite the implications of this for the news industry and an informed democracy, the New Zealand government has decided to leave AI considerations out of its plans to revive the previous government’s Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill.

The proposed law will require Google and Meta (which runs Facebook and Instagram) to pay news companies for their content. While plenty of local news organisations receive money from Google, they don’t receive payments from Meta.

Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith says the proposed bill will have some amendments, but these will not be related to the increasing role of generative AI in news searches. The “broad issue of AI” would be considered later, he says.

However, the bill will give the minister the power to decide which companies will be included under a new law, potentially opening the door to bring the likes of Microsoft and OpenAI to the negotiating table.

How do news companies respond?

AI-powered chatbots such as Google’s Gemini, Microsoft’s Copilot and OpenAI’s ChatGPT respond to user prompts, giving answers based on information “scraped” from the internet, including news media sites. They also use news content – or any content they can find – to “train” their AI models.

As AI companies are struggling to find enough data to do this training, they are making deals with news companies to use their content, including archives, to feed into their models.

Therefore, it is not surprising many big news companies – including News Corp, The Financial Times (owned by Nikkei) and Germany’s Axel Springer – have signed commercial deals for their content with AI companies.

On the other hand, companies such as The New York Times and Alden Global Capital (the second largest newspaper owner in the US) have taken a different approach. They are suing Microsoft and OpenAI for “illegally using news articles to power their AI chatbots”.

Alden says OpenAI and Microsoft use “millions of its copyrighted articles without permission and it uses these to train and feed their generative AI products”.

In 2023, leading New Zealand news publisher Stuff stopped ChatGPT from using its stories to feed its software models. Since then, my new research shows Stuff’s news content has also dropped in visibility in Google’s and Microsoft’s searches.

News diversity is shrinking

I analysed what Microsoft’s and Google’s search engines and their respective chatbots, Copilot and Gemini, offer as news.

In general, search engines return results based on a user’s inquiry, linking to information. Chatbots use large language models to create answers by scraping data from sources, often without any links to information.

The study gathered three months of data in 2023 and again in 2024. Search engines were prompted to offer the “main news in New Zealand today”, and chatbots were asked to provide links and sources to news stories.

The results showed news diversity shrank in Google and Microsoft search. While both search engines offered news from legacy news media outlets, the category “other sources” grew dramatically between 2023 and 2024.

What these AI-powered search engines offer as “news” sources is worrying. They increasingly link to random, non-news sources such as industry forums and press releases.

Furthermore, the Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot chatbots offered old stories as the main news of the day, did not give links to the specific news stories, and gave no sources in the answers they provided.

Having been asked about the main news in New Zealand today, the search engines were then asked: can you give any sources for the stories? This from Google Gemini was representative of the responses:

I am a large language model, and I am able to communicate and generate human-like text in response to a wide range of prompts and questions. Is there anything else I can do to help you with this request?

As more data is fed into AI-powered searches and chatbots, they may become more accurate. Until then, however, users should be careful about the reliability or independence of information sourced this way.

Democracy, news and AI

Dealing with AI companies has left news organisations in a difficult situation. If they don’t make deals, they may lose potential extra revenue. If they do, there is no guarantee how their content will appear in generative AI search or chatbots.

In May this year, for example, Google confirmed its search engine will offer more AI answers than website links. This means it will provide detailed AI responses to user prompts, and snapshot summaries without linking to any sources of information.

If the links disappear from the AI-generated search responses, it potentially means Google and other providers don’t need to pay news companies for the snippets and links they have been using in their services. This may have implications for the revived Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill.

On the other hand, AI providers are already paying some news companies for their current and archived content to train their chatbots, which could lead to better search results.

How this all plays out will have consequences for democracy as much as for media revenues, which my ongoing research aims to investigate.

Merja Myllylahti 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. AI search tools and chatbots may make NZ news less visible and reliable – new study – https://theconversation.com/ai-search-tools-and-chatbots-may-make-nz-news-less-visible-and-reliable-new-study-233980

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Huw Griffiths, Associate Professor of English Literature, University of Sydney

The figure of Dracula has always lived somewhere between the written word, screen projections and our fantasy lives. His story is tailor-made for one of Kip Williams’ hybrid adaptations.

Williams’ technique is, by now, familiar to Sydney audiences. Again with Dracula, the third part of this loose trilogy, he makes spectacular use of live action, live filming and recorded video, all interwoven into exciting spectacles that drive the story forward.

Dracula on screen

Bram Stoker’s novel was first published in 1897. It only took 24 years for the count to make his way onto screen. This first film version appeared more than a hundred years ago: a lost 1921 Austrian silent movie, Drakula halála.

More familiar is F.W. Murnau’s loose adaptation, Nosferatu (1922), with its startling central performance from Max Schreck.

From these early appearances, cinema did not look back, bringing us multiple Hammer Horror appearances, the camp romanticism of Coppola’s more faithful adaptation in 1992, and onwards to this year’s much-anticipated revisiting of the Murnau film from director, Robert Eggers.

The Sydney Theatre Company production makes some cheeky references to these screen versions while developing a compelling visual language of its own. It all centres on Zahra Newman’s utterly brilliant performance of all 23 characters.

Her virtuosic shifts between the count’s victims, his multiple hunters, and the glamorous vampire himself ensure the audience is drawn into a world of desire, fantasy and horror from start to finish.

A queer rewriting

Dracula’s use of journals, newspaper reports, and letters really lends itself to this kind of stage treatment, but the difficulty of adapting a long-ish novel into a short live production does strain the audience’s capacity to keep up at times.

If you aren’t familiar with the story (and perhaps it’s OK to assume that people are familiar with it?) then some sequences might escape you.

Williams’ habit of faithfully reproducing the prose really worked in Jekyll and Hyde, mainly because Stevenson is a beautiful writer.

But Stoker’s strengths as a writer do not lie in his prose style and, in the word-laden first half of this production, there is a sense of trying to cram in too much.

That said, Williams has made some judicious cuts throughout, all of which lead to a stunning and subtly celebratory queer rewriting of the novel’s final passages.

About half way through the production, the monologues give way to much more intense visual spectacle. Some of the production’s welcome humour falls away, to be replaced by some really sexy uses of the stage, much of it leaving the audience gasping with gleeful surprise.

An emerging modern world

In common with the other two pieces of writing from the 1890s Williams has brought to the stage as a trilogy, Dorian Gray and Jekyll and Hyde, Stoker’s Dracula reflects on an emerging modern world at the turn of the century and considers whether older ideas of crime, sin, virtue and heroism will still be of use.

The way the story of the novel is told is firmly wedded to the modern world: diaries are recorded on phonograph and transcribed by typewriters that produce automatic copies; people communicate via telegram as well as in letters; journeys are taken by train and steam ship as well by horse and sail.

It is a world in which it seems like an old world is being replaced by modernity.

But, with the vampire’s refusal to die, old ideas reassert themselves: superstitions and old moralities cannot be left behind quite so easily. As Van Helsing says:

It is the fault of our science that it wants to explain all; and if it explain not, then it says there is nothing to explain.

Where Stoker’s novel might lean, albeit ambiguously, towards endorsing a reassertion of traditional morality in an modern uncertain world, subsequent adaptations have never been so sure.

This story has not persisted into our cinemas and within our imaginations because we side with Van Helsing and his brotherhood of Christian warriors but because, like the poor doomed Lucy Westenra, we are all half in lust with the vampire.

In this production, Williams extends the capacities of his hybrid staging, making it all much more private, personal and intimate.

Between the live action and the screened action, we see mouths, lips and eyes being continually overlaid.

Distinctions are blurred not only between the living and the dead but between the monster and his victims, and between the desirer and the desired. The count is dead; long live the count.

Dracula is at the Sydney Theatre Company until August 4.

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

– ref. Sydney Theatre Company’s Dracula: a virtuosic performance, sexy staging, and a queer rewriting – https://theconversation.com/sydney-theatre-companys-dracula-a-virtuosic-performance-sexy-staging-and-a-queer-rewriting-231806

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

Olympic Games are big affairs that require massive infrastructure projects to build the various stadiums and venues.

Many of the sports have specific requirements – fake whitewater and rocks for kayaking, huge slopes for ski jumps, or sand for beach volleyball. On top of that, these venues need to be able to support large crowds and the technology needed to manage the events.

As former Victorian premier Dan Andrews discovered in 2023, hosting big sporting events costs big money.

The Tokyo Olympics are estimated to have cost A$23 billion dollars, a lot of which was spent building infrastructure.

A 2022 report from the International Olympic Committee revealed that 85% of the stadiums, venues and structures used in the Olympics are currently still in use.

But how are they used, were they new structures and what happened to the 15% of venues that have fallen into disuse?

Stadiums

The all-marble Panathenaic Stadium hosted the first modern Olympics in Athens, Greece in 1896. It was used again during the 2004 Olympics (archery and the marathon finish) and is now a popular tourist attraction that has hosted events such as concerts and fashion shows in recent years.

Francis Olympic Field in St Louis in the United States was used as the main venue for the 1904 Summer Olympics. It is the oldest Olympic stadium still in regular use for official sporting events.

It has been renovated several times and is currently used by Washington University’s track and field, cross country, football, and soccer teams.

Many Olympic stadiums continue to be used for local, national and international sports such as athletics and soccer, as well as large concerts and performances.

For example, the 1960 Summer Olympic Stadium in Rome, Italy is the home ground of the national rugby union team and soccer clubs Roma and Lazio. It has also hosted matches in the 1990 FIFA Soccer World Cup, UEFA Soccer Champions League, World Athletics Championships and more.

Fisht Stadium in Sochi, Russia hosted the 2014 Winter Olympics and Paralympics. It also hosted games in the 2018 Soccer World Cup (including Australia vs Peru) and is now the home stadium for soccer team PFC Sochi.

Cities that have hosted multiple Olympics have refurbished and reused venues.

For example Tokyo reused 1964 venues such as the Tokyo Metropolitan Gymnasium and Nippon Budokan Hall in 2021; the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and Rose Bowl were both Summer Olympic sites in 1932 and 1984 and will be used again in 2028.

Venues

Olympic venues continue to be used for sporting and non-sporting activities.

Many existing venues such as skiing slopes and summer venues such as Banyoles Lake (rowing – 1992 Barcelona Summer Olympics) and Wimbledon (tennis – 1908 and 2012 London Summer Olympics) hosted their sport before the Olympics and have continued to host it after the Olympics.

Other venues have been reused in a variety of ways.

For example, the stadium and skating and ice hockey venues used in the 1928 and 1948 Winter Olympics in St Moritz, Italy are now part of a private residence.

The 1980 Winter Olympic village in Lake Placid, US, is now a federal prison.

The Water Cube (swimming, diving, water polo – 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics) is now a popular water park.

Unused Venues

Some Olympic venues such as the Mt Eniwa downhill events site (alpine skiing – 1972 Sapporo Winter Olympics) and Copacabana beach volleyball arena (beach volleyball – 2016 Rio Summer Olympics) were temporary venues that were dismantled after the games as planned.

Many other older venues have been renovated and redeveloped.

Other venues have unfortunately fallen into disrepair for various reasons.

The Trebevic Olympic Bobsleigh and Luge Track (bobsleigh, luge – 1984 Sarajevo Winter Olympics) was damaged during the Bosnian War (1992-1995) and has not been repaired. It is now overgrown and covered with graffiti.

Alonzo Herndon Stadium (hockey – 1996 Atlanta Summer Olympics) is in a similar graffiti-covered state of disrepair.

Most of the Helliniko Olympic Complex (softball, canoe/kayak, hockey, baseball, basketball – 2004 Athens Summer Olympics) is closed or has been demolished due to poor planning and political, economic and administrative upheaval.

Australia

So how have Australia’s Olympic venues fared? In short, pretty well.

Most Melbourne 1956 Summer Olympic venues such as the Melbourne Cricket Ground (athletics, soccer, hockey, opening and closing ceremonies) and Exhibition Building (basketball, weightlifting, wrestling, modern pentathlon) are still used regularly.

Only the Melbourne Olympic Park Velodrome (cycling, currently a medical centre) and the Merritt Rifle Range (shooting, currently a housing estate) are not in use.

Venues built specifically for the Sydney 2000 Summer Olympics such as the Sydney International Aquatic Centre (swimming, diving, water polo) and Penrith Whitewater Stadium (canoeing, kayaking) continue to be some of the premier locations for their sports in Australia. The Olympic Village is now part of the suburb on Newington.

Some temporary venues such as the Bondi beach volleyball arena were dismantled after the games as planned. The Sydney Entertainment Centre (volleyball) is the only non-temporary venue no longer in use. It was demolished in 2016 as part of the redevelopment of Darling Harbour.

As we head towards the Brisbane Olympics in 2032, careful planning will be needed to ensure that planned infrastructure is cost effective and can be used by local residents, and others, for many years after the games have finished.

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. Looking back at the Olympic venues since 1896 – are they still in use? – https://theconversation.com/looking-back-at-the-olympic-venues-since-1896-are-they-still-in-use-229606

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karinna Saxby, Research Fellow, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne

Policies designed to ensure Indigenous Australians have equitable access to medicines aren’t being accessed uniformly across the nation, our research shows.

We mapped where Indigenous Australians are using a program to access free or discounted medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). We found access was patchy and depended on where you live.

This is particularly concerning as many Indigenous Australians in areas with high rates of chronic conditions are not using the program.

Here’s what could explain our findings and what needs to happen next.

What are ‘Closing the Gap’ scripts?

In 2010, the Australian government introduced the Closing the Gap PBS Co-payment Program (colloquially known as CTG scripts).

This program continues today and means Indigenous Australians:

• who would otherwise pay A$31.60 for a script, pay the concessional rate instead ($7.70)

• who would otherwise pay the concessional rate ($7.70) get their scripts for free.

The program was initially aimed at people with chronic disease. However, the program was changed in 2021 to increase access.

Now, Indigenous Australians can qualify regardless of age, chronic disease status, and provider location. Changes now mean all PBS prescribers and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Practitioners can register patients. Registration is now one-off and lasts for a patient’s lifetime.

Initial research shows this program went some way to reduce inequities in access to health care. After it was introduced, Indigenous Australians used more prescription medicines and chronic disease services, and made more GP visits.

Other studies also suggest areas with higher uptake of the program had fewer hospitalisations for chronic conditions.

But uptake is patchy

Despite these benefits, our research shows uptake varied dramatically depending on where Indigenous Australians live.

We used census-linked data to estimate regional differences in the proportion of Indigenous patients who had ever received a CTG script between 2011 and 2020.

In parts of northern Australia less than 30% of the Indigenous population had ever received a CTG script. In Tasmania this was around 30-40%. This was ten years after the policy was introduced.

Uptake in other states, such as Victoria and New South Wales, varied considerably, ranging from 15% to 87%.

Why the regional differences?

There appear to be multiple and potentially interacting factors influencing uptake of the scheme.

1. Higher rates of chronic conditions in some areas

In some rural and remote areas – particularly in NSW, South Australia, and Victoria – higher uptake could be explained by higher rates of chronic conditions among Indigenous populations. People with chronic conditions are more likely to need ongoing scripts.

However, we don’t see this pattern in remote parts of Western Australia, the Northern Territory, Australian Capital Territory, Queensland and Tasmania, where we also see high rates of chronic conditions.

2. People may already be accessing other medicine subsidy programs

Broadly, Indigenous populations in remote areas are less likely to access CTG scripts. That’s because they can receive free prescription medicines through the Remote Area Aboriginal Health Services Program. So, for many Indigenous Australians in these regions there may be little perceived benefit to registering for CTG scripts.

However, this is not the case for Tasmania and Victoria where there is little-to-no access to this alternative program.

The rates of uptake of CTG scripts in Tasmania and the ACT were among the lowest in the country. However, the Indigenous populations in these regions have some of the highest rates of chronic conditions in the country. So other factors must be at play.

3. Red tape, not all health services on board

We also need to look at what’s happening in primary health care. Not all Indigenous patients are accurately identified. This could be because patients fear poorer care and don’t tell health services or because no-one asks. Smaller practices with less administrative support and those in more remote areas were also less likely to participate in the program.

Until 2021, when access to the program widened, fewer providers were eligible to register Indigenous patients to receive CTG scripts. This may have also affected access.

So this red tape and overall program complexity appears to have hindered Indigenous people from accessing the program.

How could we improve access?

1. Support Indigenous patients to feel safe

Many researchers and community leaders have written about the need to provide culturally safe health care, necessary to deliver safe, accessible and responsive health care free of racism.

Providing culturally safe care can make Indigenous people more likely to identify. This helps tailor care, so patients can access relevant and appropriate health services, such as CTG scripts, to improve health.

2. Engage communities

The regional variation of CTG uptake suggests community-level solutions are needed. Policymakers could consider additional targeting of resources based on location and community-specific factors. This might mean administrative or program support to deliver these initiatives, including via Aboriginal Health Services and better use of the Indigenous health workforce. We know these community programs have improved medicines access and continuity of care.

3. We need a data strategy

There is minimal analyses on CTG uptake and impacts since 2020. But this isn’t the only data gap, nor are all data about Indigenous Australians’ use of medicines linked.

For instance, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare no longer reports data on Indigenous people’s use of PBS medicines; there is still no national system to capture remote medicines use; and minimal Indigenous data is reported for relevant community pharmacy programs, to name a few.

As outlined in the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, Indigenous Australians are the key stakeholders of the data discussed here. This means Indigenous Australians must “own” the data, and govern how it’s collected and used. Any program or policies involving that data must also be co-designed with Indigenous Australians.

Such principles are fundamental to ensure further evaluation and ongoing roll-out of programs, such as CTG scripts, are equitable and effective for Indigenous Australians.

For this article, we have used the term Indigenous Australians. We respectfully acknowledge the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The authors would like to acknowledge the lands of the Kabi Kabi, Wurundjeri and Palawa peoples. We acknowledge the Traditional Owners of these lands on which we have compiled this article and pay our respects to past, current and emerging Elders.

Karinna Saxby has previously received funding from the Department of Health and Aged Care.

Kerry Hall receives grant funding from Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources for grant MRFQI000023.

Mike Stephens is Director of Medicines Policy and Programs at the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO).

– ref. Indigenous people can get cheap or free medicines. But we show access depends on your postcode – https://theconversation.com/indigenous-people-can-get-cheap-or-free-medicines-but-we-show-access-depends-on-your-postcode-233430

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Asma Aziz, Senior Lecturer in Power Engineering, Edith Cowan University

Keeping the lights on in Australia is a complex task. Enough capacity must be ensured everywhere in the country, at every moment. Surplus in one location won’t solve shortages in another, unless we have the transmission infrastructure to transmit electricity between them.

The transmission network largely consists of high-voltage lines and towers, as well as transformers which transfer electrical energy from one circuit to another.

Australia’s transmission network is one of the oldest and longest in the world. As coal stations close and more renewable energy is built, the task of upgrading the system becomes even more pressing. So formidable is the challenge, it’s one of the biggest roadblocks Australia faces in reaching its crucial goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

The Coalition’s plan for seven nuclear energy plants in Australia further complicates the task. A clear policy direction for Australia’s electricity system is urgently needed.

Lots of work to do

In technical terms, transmission congestion occurs when an element on the network, such as a high-voltage power line or transformer, reaches capacity and cannot carry more electricity.

Think of it as like traffic in a city. During rush hour, bottlenecks occur when there are more vehicles than the roads can handle. During times of peak electricity demand, electricity lines and transformers can also reach their limits. Exceeding the limits of the network can damage equipment and lead to power outages.

Between now and 2050, Australia’s electricity consumption will surge. We’ll need to draw power from increasingly diverse and far-flung sources. Coal power plants, typically located near large population centres, will close. Energy generation from solar and wind farms, usually located in regional and remote areas, will increase.

Importantly, we must make the distinction between electricity capacity and whether that electricity is “dispatchable”, or can be released on demand. That’s one reason why we need new transmission lines – to move electricity around the system as needed. The sooner we can build this capability, the quicker and cheaper our energy transition will be.

So far this decade, 490 kilometres of new transmission lines have reportedly been added to the National Electricity Market, which serves the east coast and South Australia. A further 2,090 km of transmission lines are progressing from the planning phase to the construction phase.

There’s still a lot of work to do: around 10,000 km of new transmission lines is needed by 2050. Western Australia’s main electricity network also needs more than 4,000 km of new high-capacity transmission lines.

A looming problem

The network’s ability to carry electricity is influenced by several factors. They include weather conditions, patterns of electricity generation and demand, the capacity of individual elements such as transmission lines and transformers, and their reliability.

Congested transmission can cause fluctuations in power prices. If cheaper electricity cannot be transported to where it’s needed, more expensive generators are dispatched to meet demand. This increases the price of electricity for both energy retailers and consumers. It can also lead to higher prices in some areas than others and poses financial risks for energy providers.

Transmission congestion in Australia is a looming problem. For example, South Australian transmission company ElectraNet forecasts rising congestion on that state’s network due to planned expansions of electricity generators, peaking in the late 2020s and 2030s.

What’s more, planning studies have identified ageing assets in Queensland’s transmission network, requiring new routes to manage constraints and ensure reliable supply.

Where does nuclear fit in?

All this has implications for the Coalition’s nuclear plan, if it comes to fruition.

The CSIRO and others say a nuclear power plant of any size would not be operational in Australia until after 2040.

If transmission lines are congested at that future point, nuclear power plants may not be able to send all their electricity to the grid.

Nuclear plants are expensive to build and run. But they typically generate electricity continuously, helping to offset these costs. If the plants can’t feed into the grid, or can’t sell their electricity at competitive prices, they may lose revenue and struggle to cover their costs, affecting their long-term viability.

The continuous high output of nuclear plants also helps them run efficiently. Frequently adjusting energy output leads to more wear, lower efficiency and reduced energy production over time.

Constraining nuclear output can have broader repercussions, too. In France, for instance, nuclear output is at a 30-year low, forcing the country to import electricity and prepare for potential blackouts. The reactors are offline for maintenance, not due to transmission issues. But the example highlights the consequences when nuclear energy is taken out of the mix for any reason.

Clarity is needed

Finally, the increasing share of renewable energy in our electricity grid means there’s no guarantee transmission capacity will be available for nuclear energy.

As South Australia’s energy minister Tom Koutsantonis noted on X, this poses challenges for the Coalition’s plan to build a nuclear plant at the site of an old coal station at Port Augusta and use existing transmission infrastructure:

The myth that a nuclear reactor could just plug into the old Pt Augusta coal power station transmission lines is not true. The transmission lines are already nearly full from new renewables. In truth, a nuclear reactor at Pt Augusta would need new transmission lines, the exact thing the LNP are complaining about.

So what’s the upshot of all this? Transmission infrastructure is a thorny policy problem, and divergent views among policymakers about energy policy only add to the challenges.

A clear direction on the future of Australia’s electricity grid, including transmission infrastructure, is essential. Without it, the energy transition will be slower and more expensive.

Asma Aziz 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. Without a massive grid upgrade, the Coalition’s nuclear plan faces a high-voltage hurdle – https://theconversation.com/without-a-massive-grid-upgrade-the-coalitions-nuclear-plan-faces-a-high-voltage-hurdle-233458

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Tham, Research fellow, Victoria University

Next month, thousands of students and their families will find out whether they have been offered a place in Year 7 at a selective high school in New South Wales.

Selective schools dominate the top Year 12 results, and demand for places always outstrips supply. About 18,500 students sat the NSW selective high school test this year, for 4,200 spots next year.

The NSW government says gifted students “benefit both academically and socially” from learning alongside other students with similar abilities in selective schools. But there are few published studies on whether selective schooling pays off for individuals in terms of better outcomes later in life.

In the first research of its kind in Australia, our research tracked almost 3,000 young people from age 15 to 25 to see if there are longer-term benefits to attending a selective school.

Our results suggest the benefits are very minimal. Participants who attended selective schools reported higher general life satisfaction at age 25, but all other measures around employment and education were not significant.

What are selective schools?

Fully selective schools are public schools that enrol the top-performing students according to an entrance exam held each year.

They make up about 1% of government schools around Australia, but most are in NSW, which has 21 fully selective schools. Victoria has four, and Queensland and Western Australia have one each.

There are also 35 partially selective schools in Victoria and 24 in NSW. These schools enrol the majority of their students from the local area, but non-local students are selected for academically streamed classes.

Our research

We analysed data from the 2009 cohort of the Longitudinal Study of Australian Youth, which tracks young people as they move from school into further study, work and their adult lives.

The survey looks at whether academic performance was considered as part of a student’s enrolment into high school (always, sometimes or never). These were used as our measure for a school’s selective status.

We then used a statistical technique called “nearest-neighbour matching” to compare selective school students to their non-selective peers. This meant students had similar characteristics such as gender, socioeconomic status and reading and maths scores in Year 9 before we compared their outcomes as adults.

At 19, we looked at whether they had finished high school and to what extent they were studying or working. At age 25, we looked again at the extent to which students were working or studying as well as the number of years they had spent in education, and their general life satisfaction.

Our findings

At ages 19 and 25, there was no significant difference between selective and non-selective students in terms of whether they had graduated from high school, the extent to which they were working or studying, or the total number of years spent in education.

There was a slight difference in terms of general life satisfaction. General life satisfaction is measured using the average score after students were asked to rate factors such as how satisfied they were with their homes lives, jobs/careers, social lives, spare time activities, standard of living, independence and lives as a whole.

For 25-year-olds, those who attended a school that “always” applied academic selection (was fully selective) had greater general life satisfaction, on average, by 0.19 points. This was based on a scale of 0–10.

Weighing up the costs as well as the benefits

Selective school students have some of the highest Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) scores. Unsurprisingly, many parents see a spot in a selective schools as a way to ensure future success, and spend a lot of time and money to try and secure a spot. Research also shows private tutoring is “booming”.

Along with the hope of academic success, one of the many reasons families want a selective place is they are seen as providing a more supportive and challenging environment .

But as Melissa Tham’s 2020 research showed, the experience of selective schooling is highly varied. Many students report positive experiences, but many also describe mixed or negative experiences to do with immense pressure, competition and stress on a daily basis.

More broadly, education researchers note there are big equity problems about selective schools. There may be no fees like at private schools, but selective school students are more likely to come from families who are university educated and work in professional jobs. This can concentrate disadvantage in non-selective schools.

We need more research

Our research suggests despite the hype, pressure and effort around getting a place at selective school, students are no more likely to go to university or be working by the age of 25.

Our results indicate they may have slightly greater life satisfaction, but we need more research and transparency around Australian selective schools to examine whether these schools benefit students.

More answers are crucial to the students and families who seek a selective education. They also matter to state governments who operate them and taxpayers who foot the bill.

If the supposed benefits are not proven, we should reconsider the purpose of selective schooling and whether they need to be scaled back.

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. Does going to a selective school make you more likely to go to uni, get a job and be satisfied in life? – https://theconversation.com/does-going-to-a-selective-school-make-you-more-likely-to-go-to-uni-get-a-job-and-be-satisfied-in-life-232254

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emmy van Esch, Lecturer in Management and International Business, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Four years after the pandemic forced workers home, companies in New Zealand and elsewhere are summoning staff back to the office.

But office workers are not necessarily thrilled about the prospect. Recent research found returning to the office can negatively affect staff wellbeing. In particular, it can make many employees feel more stressed.

This adds to the decline in wellbeing many have experienced since the COVID-19 pandemic due to social distancing, isolation, daily uncertainty and fear. As a result, there has been an increase in people experiencing stress, anxiety, frustration, isolation and depression.

So how can organisations bring employees back to the office while taking their wellbeing into account?

The view trumps flash perks

Yoga classes? Onsite gyms? Childcare? When it comes to employee wellbeing, flashy perks seem less attractive for workers than a more basic but often overlooked one: a window with a good view.

In a survey of 1,614 North American office workers, over half said views of the outdoors were the number one perk they wanted. And 78% said it improved their happiness and wellbeing.

The survey participants valued office views more than other perks such as fitness facilities and cafeterias, or benefits such as onsite childcare.

But what is it about office window views that workers find attractive? Is it the overall vista? Or are there particular features within the view?

Focusing on the features

Many people believe natural window views (trees, grass) are good for workers and urban window views (buildings, streets) are bad. But that’s not what we found.

Our team analysed the office window views of hundreds of employees in the US who spend the majority of the working day inside.

We found even the small amount of outdoor exposure from an office window view can explain why a worker does – or does not – feel good at work.

But at the same time, the research found some – but not all – natural views are good for us. The same was true for urban views. Some urban views are good for workers, others are not.

What matters most for an employee’s psychological, physical, and job-specific wellbeing are the specific features of their office window view. Our research found the two view features most likely to boost wellbeing are what we termed “mystery” and “coherence”.

Mysterious views (think of a mountain range or a city in the distance) hide information and make people curious to explore more. Coherent views (think of a savanna or skyscrapers) look symmetrical and organised which helps people to make sense of the environment.

The two worst features for our wellbeing are “refuge” and “complexity”. Refuge views (think of dense shrubs or narrow dark alleys) are excellent hiding places for predators, which people prefer to avoid. Complex views (think of a tangled forest or crowded urban areas) offer many shapes and textures, which can be overwhelming.

A passive way to boost wellbeing

Our research shows improving office window views is an efficient intervention to enhance employee wellbeing. Many popular employee perks require training (mindfulness), a designated time or place (the company’s onsite fitness programmes and gym), or motivation to engage in the activity (showing up for those).

But window views are passive, they require no effort from employees, and operate on a more or less continuous basis.

The pandemic raised awareness of the importance of access to the outdoors. We often feel better when exposed to the outdoor environment. Our findings could help organisations “build back better” as offices reopen.

A growing number of organisations are already redesigning workplaces to give employees greater exposure to the outdoors. And an easy way to achieve this is with office windows. Many companies now have floor-to-ceiling windows throughout the building.

It is clear companies and their staff need to take a closer look at their window view. The features beyond the glass may explain why workers do – or do not – feel good at work.

Emmy van Esch 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. Skip the fancy perks – better staff wellbeing could be as simple as the view from the office window – https://theconversation.com/skip-the-fancy-perks-better-staff-wellbeing-could-be-as-simple-as-the-view-from-the-office-window-233970

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Connie Zheng, Associate Professor in Human Resource Management at UniSA Business, University of South Australia

Being “ghosted” – cut off from all communications without an explanation – isn’t a pleasant experience in any situation.

So when you’re in the middle of a job hunt – and may have poured your heart and soul into application forms and interviews – it can really sting.

A recent survey in the UK by hiring platform Greenhouse found that almost 45% of candidates had been “ghosted” by recruiters after an initial conversation.

Respondents from historically underrepresented backgrounds were significantly more likely to have been ghosted than white candidates.

But job-hunt ghosting seems to be happening in both directions. A recent Edge Recruitment survey of Gen Z job hunters in South Australia found that 15% had ghosted an employer once, and 34% had done it multiple times.

New recruitment technologies – such as online application forms and artificial intelligence for candidate screening – aim to maximise efficiency. But good communication is a two-way process, an important rule we seem to be forgetting.

So why are we ghosting each other, and what should recruiters and candidates do about it?

Why do candidates ghost?

Preferred communication styles have seen a shift in the workplace, particularly among Gen Z, those born between 1997 and 2012.

As digital natives, many have different attitudes towards workplace communications and career development than previous generations.

Gen Z employees really value immediate, meaningful feedback at work. But their tech-savviness means many prefer instant messaging, video conferencing, and collaborative tools for teamwork.

The etiquette around these tools is still evolving, and differs from that of phone calls and talking in person, where failing to reply immediately is almost unthinkable.

Read more:
Young people hate making phone calls – could it be hurting their careers?

There are other generational differences. Along with millennials, Gen Z are changing jobs more frequently than older generations.

This is in part due to the greater uncertainty and rapid changes in the modern workplace they have experienced as they’ve started their careers, making them less inclined to commit to a single employer long-term.

But this sense of having “options” could be contributing to “ghosting” behaviour, if it causes them to disengage suddenly when their values and expectations misalign with a prospective employer.

Why do recruiters ghost?

On the other side of the coin, modern technologies such as AI-supported candidate screening have streamlined much of the recruitment process for employers.

They’ve also made it easier for organisations to communicate with candidates anywhere, anytime.

So why is communication still breaking down? There are likely several factors at play.

For roles with a large number of applicants, recruiters often prioritise responding to a select few. This leaves many others ghosted simply due to time constraints, even if they’ve put considerable amounts of effort into applying.

The shifting needs of an organisation can also quickly change hiring priorities. Some positions may end up being redefined or put on hold in the middle of the hiring process, without immediate updates to those who’d applied.

Technical issues, like emails landing in spam folders, can lead to further unintended ghosting. As can poor communication between hiring managers and recruiters.

And unfortunately, some of it comes down to the emotional discomfort of rejection. Delivering clear rejection messages or communicating uncertain circumstances can be taxing for recruiters, prompting some to ghost out of avoidance.

This can be made worse if organisations have vague recruitment policies and weak accountability practices.

Setting our expectations

Establishing a clear road map of the recruitment process early on is crucial. Candidates should know what to expect and when.

While it may not eliminate ghosting entirely, better communication of both sides’ expectations can help avoid some of the hurt.

In a multi-generational work environment, communication preferences vary. Some people thrive in face-to-face meetings, while others prefer written communication for its clarity.

Potential job candidates, particularly from Gen Z, should directly voice their own communication preferences to recruiters early on – how they want to be contacted, and when. They should also seek to get a good grasp on the organisation’s own preferences.

Recruiters themselves need to recognise and adjust to the diverse communication styles that exist across their workforce (and those looking to join it). This means embracing various communication methods, and being willing to adapt to different candidate preferences and job contexts.

Formal emails, for example, remain ideal for significant announcements, whereas instant messaging is useful for quick exchanges that keep people in the loop.

Fostering healthy employment relationships begins at the recruitment stage. Employers should offer basic courtesy to everyone, even those who don’t ultimately progress further.

A strong sense of connection is important. A 2021 study found that greater communication with recruiters and more knowledge about a firm made candidates less likely to ghost.

The goal is a culture that values timely responses and establishes clear expectations – but can also adapt to the changing world of work.

Connie Zheng 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. Recruiters and job seekers are ‘ghosting’ each other. Can we save the lost art of replying? – https://theconversation.com/recruiters-and-job-seekers-are-ghosting-each-other-can-we-save-the-lost-art-of-replying-233881

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Shaw, Professor of Politics, Massey University

At first glance, Keir Starmer’s Labour Party has just put in a performance for the ages in the British general election.

The incoming prime minister controls a comfortable parliamentary majority, Tory bastions have fallen to the left and the right, and any number of curtains have been brought down on the careers of Tory MPs and ministers.

Whisper it quietly, but the curtain might also have fallen on the electoral system that delivered Starmer his moment of triumph.

On closer inspection, in fact, there are several striking similarities between what has been going on at Westminster and the circumstances that led to the adoption of the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system in Aotearoa New Zealand in 1993.

A single-party state

Manufactured parliamentary majorities? Check. With the exception of 1951, every postwar election held in New Zealand under the old first-past-the-post (FPP) electoral system – the one they still use in the UK – produced a government comprising a single party voted for by a minority of voters but which controlled a majority of parliamentary seats.

Starmer’s Labour has won 63% of the 650 seats in the House of Commons on the basis of just 33.7% of the vote

Declining voter support for major parties? Check. In New Zealand, the proportion of all votes won jointly by the two parties that have dominated politics for the better part of a century, National and Labour, began falling in the 1970s. In 2023, they won just 65% of the vote between them.

On election day the UK Labour and Conservative parties picked up a miserable 57.5% of the vote between them. They may have been rewarded with 82% of all Commons seats, but their tides are going out.

Smaller parties rising in popularity but being punished by FPP? Check. Support for what we used to call minor parties here in New Zealand grew steadily from the 1970s and ‘80s, but under FPP was never rewarded with proportionate numbers of parliamentary seats.

Most famously, in 1981, Social Credit won 20% of the vote but just two seats. In the UK, the Liberal Democrats and Reform UK won more than 25% of the vote between them – and just 11% of parliamentary seats.

Disaffection and low turnout

Disaffected voters? Check. In New Zealand, much of the impetus behind electoral reform came from voters who had tired of an electoral system that stacked the odds in favour of the two large parties.

That system routinely delivered single-party majority governments (supported by a minority of voters) who were inclined to throw their executive weight around.

The disgruntlement was also reflected in declining rates of voting. Turnout in the UK was just 60% of eligible voters, the lowest since 2001. One estimate put turnout below 50% in 59 constituencies.

Governments out of touch? Check. The referendum that led to a new electoral system in New Zealand came after decades of executive obfuscation, arrogance and overreach from both Labour and National governments.

The UK’s Conservative government, which unleashed austerity on poor people, took its country out of Europe on dubious grounds, behaved disgracefully during a global pandemic, and tried to create a new form of macroeconomics in which neither the markets nor governing institutions had any faith, has just been put out of its misery.

Careful what you wish for

There is one final historical parallel. In New Zealand, the Electoral Reform Coalition – a loose alliance which lobbied for a new electoral system – provided a focus for citizens with differing and disparate reasons for feeling grumpy with the FPP electoral system.

There is an equivalent group in the UK, the Electoral Reform Society – coincidentally, led by former New Zealand Labour MP and minister Darren Hughes. The manifest disproportionality of the UK’s electoral rules has just given it some very good reasons to push harder for reform.

Consider what this UK election might have produced had it been held under New Zealand’s MMP system. Leaving aside the messy details of thresholds, coat-tailing rules and overhangs, Starmer would be leading a caucus of 219 MPs, not the 412 he actually has.

The Conservatives would have 154 seats (33 more than they won); the Lib Dems would have 79 spots. And Reform UK’s MPs would be sitting in 93 seats, not five, making Nigel Farage the leader of the third-largest party in the Commons.

In this world there is no Labour landslide. In fact, there is no parliamentary majority for Starmer at all – and perhaps no Labour government, which could not get to a parliamentary majority of 326 even with the support of the Lib Dems.

Neither, for that matter, could a Tory–Reform coalition. Instead, there would be a hung parliament and the prospect of a protracted process of government formation.

For many reasons, of course, things would have been quite different had the 2024 UK election actually been held under an MMP electoral system. But it bears saying, nonetheless, that with electoral law reform, as with most things, you need to be careful what you wish for.

Richard Shaw 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. Disproportional representation: what the UK election landslide would look like under NZ’s MMP system – https://theconversation.com/disproportional-representation-what-the-uk-election-landslide-would-look-like-under-nzs-mmp-system-234138

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gary Sacks, Professor of Public Health Policy, Deakin University

There are renewed calls this week for the Australian government to implement a range of measures aimed at improving our diets. These include restrictions on junk food advertising, improvements to food labelling, and a levy on sugary drinks.

This time the recommendations come from a parliamentary inquiry into diabetes in Australia. Its final report, tabled in parliament on Wednesday, was prepared by a parliamentary committee comprising members from across the political spectrum.

The release of this report could be an indication that Australia is finally going to implement the evidence-based healthy eating policies public health experts have been recommending for years.

But we know Australian governments have historically been unwilling to introduce policies the powerful food industry opposes. The question is whether the current government will put the health of Australians above the profits of companies selling unhealthy food.

Diabetes in Australia

Diabetes is one of the fastest growing chronic health conditions in the nation, with more than 1.3 million people affected. Projections show the number of Australians diagnosed with the condition is set to rise rapidly in coming decades.

Type 2 diabetes accounts for the vast majority of cases of diabetes. It’s largely preventable, with obesity among the strongest risk factors.

This latest report makes it clear we need an urgent focus on obesity prevention to reduce the burden of diabetes. Type 2 diabetes and obesity cost the Australian economy billions of dollars each year and preventive solutions are highly cost-effective.

This means the money spent on preventing obesity and diabetes would save the government huge amounts in health care costs. Prevention is also essential to avoid our health systems being overwhelmed in the future.

What does the report recommend?

The report puts forward 23 recommendations for addressing diabetes and obesity. These include:

• restrictions on the marketing of unhealthy foods to children, including on TV and online

• improvements to food labelling that would make it easier for people to understand products’ added sugar content

• a levy on sugary drinks, where products with higher sugar content would be taxed at a higher rate (commonly called a sugar tax).

These key recommendations echo those prioritised in a range of reports on obesity prevention over the past decade. There’s compelling evidence they’re likely to work.

Restrictions on unhealthy food marketing

There was universal support from the committee for the government to consider regulating marketing of unhealthy food to children.

Public health groups have consistently called for comprehensive mandatory legislation to protect children from exposure to marketing of unhealthy foods and related brands.

An increasing number of countries, including Chile and the United Kingdom, have legislated unhealthy food marketing restrictions across a range of settings including on TV, online and in supermarkets. There’s evidence comprehensive policies like these are having positive results.

In Australia, the food industry has made voluntary commitments to reduce some unhealthy food ads directly targeting children. But these promises are widely viewed as ineffective.

The government is currently conducting a feasibility study on additional options to limit unhealthy food marketing to children.

But the effectiveness of any new policies will depend on how comprehensive they are. Food companies are likely to rapidly shift their marketing techniques to maximise their impact. If any new government restrictions do not include all marketing channels (such as TV, online and on packaging) and techniques (including both product and brand marketing), they’re likely to fail to adequately protect children.

Food labelling

Food regulatory authorities are currently considering a range of improvements to food labelling in Australia.

For example, food ministers in Australia and New Zealand are soon set to consider mandating the health star rating front-of-pack labelling scheme.

Public health groups have consistently recommended mandatory implementation of health star ratings as a priority for improving Australian diets. Such changes are likely to result in meaningful improvements to the healthiness of what we eat.

Regulators are also reviewing potential changes to how added sugar is labelled on product packages. The recommendation from the committee to include added sugar labelling on the front of product packaging is likely to support this ongoing work.

But changes to food labelling laws are notoriously slow in Australia. And food companies are known to oppose and delay any policy changes that might hurt their profits.

A sugary drinks tax

Of the report’s 23 recommendations, the sugary drinks levy was the only one that wasn’t universally supported by the committee. The four Liberal and National party members of the committee opposed implementation of this policy.

As part of their rationale, the dissenting members cited submissions from food industry groups that argued against the measure. This follows a long history of the Liberal party siding with the sugary drinks industry to oppose a levy on their products.

The dissenting members didn’t acknowledge the strong evidence that a sugary drinks levy has worked as intended in a wide range of countries.

In the UK, for example, a levy on sugary drinks implemented in 2018 has successfully lowered the sugar content in UK soft drinks and reduced sugar consumption.

The dissenting committee members argued a sugary drinks levy would hurt families on lower incomes. But previous Australian modelling has shown the two most disadvantaged quintiles would reap the greatest health benefits from such a levy, and accrue the highest savings in health-care costs.

What happens now?

Improvements to population diets and prevention of obesity will require a comprehensive and coordinated package of policy reforms.

Globally, a range of countries facing rising epidemics of obesity and diabetes are starting to take such strong preventive action.

In Australia, after years of inaction, this week’s report is the latest sign that long-awaited policy change may be near.

But meaningful and effective policy change will require politicians to listen to the public health evidence rather than the protestations of food companies concerned about their bottom line.

Gary Sacks receives funding from the National Health and Medical Reearch Council (NHMRC), the Australian Research Council (ARC), VicHealth, the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF.

– ref. From banning junk food ads to a sugar tax: with diabetes on the rise, we can’t afford to ignore the evidence any longer – https://theconversation.com/from-banning-junk-food-ads-to-a-sugar-tax-with-diabetes-on-the-rise-we-cant-afford-to-ignore-the-evidence-any-longer-233976

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane McMahon, Research Associate, Discipline of Archaeology, University of Sydney

To date, little has been known about people living in north-western Saudi Arabia during the Neolithic – the period traditionally defined by the shift to humans controlling food production and settling into communities with agriculture and domesticated animals.

The piecemeal evidence available hinted traditional ideas – of small struggling groups constantly on the move across the barren lands – needed to be revisited.

Now, an Australian-led team has released new research on monumental buildings we call “standing stone circles”. The findings are helping to rewrite what we know about the people who lived on this land between 6,500 and 8,000 years ago.

Our evidence reveals what they ate, what tools they used and even the jewellery they wore. It leads us to think these people weren’t struggling so much after all, but rather had found complex and strategic ways to thrive on the land for millennia.

The project

Over the past five years, our team of researchers has studied 431 standing stone circles in the AlUla and Khaybar regions of north-west Saudi Arabia, as part of an ongoing project sponsored by the Royal Commission for AlUla. Of the 431 structures, 52 have been surveyed in detail and 11 excavated.

Our latest findings come from a selection of buildings found on the Harrat ‘Uwayrid – a volcanic plateau formed over millennia. The dense clusters of standing stone circles on the harrat show us how complex these mobile pastoralist communities actually were. We also recovered remnants left behind by the people who lived in these buildings for more than 1,000 years.

We used a range of modern and traditional techniques to tackle the practical limitations of working in such a remote and rugged landscape. Aerial survey by helicopter helped us identify examples of the dwellings across 40,000 square kilometres of basalt and sandy desert. Drones were also used to make plans of the sites, some almost three hectares in size.

More than just a house

Our’s is the first published evidence for domestic architecture from this period. These buildings are substantial, between 4 and 8 metres wide. They are formed by two concentric rows of large stones placed end-to-end in a circle.

We theorise the space created between the two rows of stone acted as a foundation for timber posts wedged between the rows to support the dwelling’s roof. Another slab in the centre supported a central timber post lashed to it.

Based on the tools and animal remains we’ve found, we think the occupants probably threw animal skins across the top of the structure to enclose it, forming a roof of sorts.

These structures – which we think of more as shelters than “houses” – were used for any and all activities. Inside, we found evidence of stone tool-making, cooking and eating, as well as lost and broken tools used for processing animal hides.

A diverse palate

Our analysis of the animal bones found inside the structures shows these people mostly ate domesticated species, such as goats, sheep and a smaller number of cattle. They supplemented this with wild species such as gazelles and birds.

This means they could respond to changes in their environment with flexibility – giving them resilience at a time when climate change would have been affecting the availability of water and vegetation.

This adaptability also extended to their use of plants. They left behind many grindstones – slabs of basalt worn flat by the grinding of wild grasses and local plants.

Nomadic or mobile?

We assume these people didn’t stay in one place, since they lived in buildings that could be partially dismantled and moved. Goats and sheep also need fresh pastures and water to survive.

That said, these people spent enough time at each site to justify the time and effort required to source and manipulate basalt blocks weighing up to one tonne each. This suggests they returned to these locations time and again for hundreds of years, if not more than 1,200 years.

They left behind materials collected from near and far. While the local basalt was sufficient for everyday tools, the best materials made from chert (a tough sedimentary rock) were brought up to the Harrat Uwayrid to make fine arrowheads, drills and scrapers.

They also collected red stone to be crushed into pigment. It may have been used for rock art, or perhaps for painting bodies and hides.

Small shells were brought from the Red Sea (some 120 kilometres away) to make beads. Other objects we found included bracelets and pendants carved and polished from exotic stone.

Trading in the Levant

It seems likely these people formed a culturally distinct group who interacted with their neighbours in the Levant to the north, a region which includes modern-day Jordan, Palestine and Syria, among others.

Our findings suggest they imported their animals and stone tool technologies. Some of the tools resemble those found at earlier sites across Jordan, which suggests they either traded or learned how to make them from further north.

Domesticated goats and sheep would have also been sourced from further afield, as there were no wild versions of these animals in the area. Everything they brought was incorporated usefully into their way of life, to suit the lands they already knew so well.

Our work is just beginning to fill in the gaps of what life was like in north-western Arabia, helping reintroduce it – and its people – into the picture of the wider region.

Jane McMahon receives funding from the Royal Commission for AlUla. She works for the University of Sydney, and is an honorary research fellow at the University of Western Australia.

– ref. A struggling people languishing across barren lands? No, evidence shows life in ancient Saudi Arabia was complex and thriving – https://theconversation.com/a-struggling-people-languishing-across-barren-lands-no-evidence-shows-life-in-ancient-saudi-arabia-was-complex-and-thriving-233560

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Veal, Adjunct Professor, Business School, University of Technology Sydney

Growing populations and housing shortages are affecting cities worldwide, including in Australia. It’s driving them to adopt high-density development near public transport hubs instead of endless suburban sprawl on city fringes.

In Sydney, the state government has plans for transport-oriented developments within 400 metres of 37 existing train stations. These will include 170,000 new dwellings.

In Melbourne, work has begun on a massive project, the Suburban Rail Loop. In the first of four stages (SRL East), 70,000 dwellings will be built around six new stations.

These developments pose unique challenges for urban planners. In particular, residents of these higher-density precincts will still need public open space and recreation facilities.

Communities and local councils are concerned higher residential densities will increase pressures on infrastructure, services and open space. Local residents often oppose such developments. They fear these new, denser communities may lack vital infrastructure and services, shifting the burden of meeting these needs onto neighbouring areas.

Open spaces are crucial for physical activity and an attractive and healthy urban environment. However, traditional methods of planning open space are designed for lower-density suburbs. They struggle to meet residents’ recreational needs in high-density areas.

We’ve developed a new planning tool to help ensure higher-density developments provide enough recreational space.

High density challenges traditional planning

We reviewed open space and recreation planning methods around the world and assessed their suitability for meeting recreational needs in high-density areas.

The most common “standards” method specifies a certain area of open space, such as hectares per 1,000 population. Our review found it has been criticised for its “one size fits all” approach and lack of supporting research evidence. The approach may work in low-density suburbs but not in high-density areas that simply don’t have enough open space to meet the specified standard.

Another traditional approach is the “demand-based” model. It relies on consultation with an existing population.

But the population of the transport-oriented development is not resident at the time of planning. It’s also likely to differ from the surrounding population – for example, in age structure.

A better approach is needed. Our solution is the Recreational Activity Benchmark (RAB) model.

This model focuses on the new population’s likely level of recreation participation. This benchmark is based on anticipated characteristics of the new residents, such as age structure, and associated recreation patterns. Existing survey data from across the metropolitan area indicate the patterns we can expect.

A mix of strategies is needed

To meet this benchmark level of recreation demand in the limited space available requires a mix of strategies.

The first strategy is to rely more on indoor facilities such as sports halls, gyms and swimming pools. These allow for high levels of physical activity using much less land than traditional playing fields. They can be open for longer hours, are unaffected by weather and can be built as part of high-density, multi-purpose developments.

The second strategy is repurposing non-traditional open spaces for recreation. In particular, designing streets, footpaths and pavements as pleasant green areas encourages walking and cycling. Maintaining these areas for such activities thus also provides for recreation.

As part of this strategy, rooftops, school yards and other unconventional areas can be transformed into active recreation zones. Cities around the world have used innovative design solutions.

Singapore’s Dual-Use Scheme opens school yards to the public after hours. Seoul has creatively transformed a former highway overpass into an attractive walkway and public space.

Other solutions include green streets, vertical gardens, multi-functional street furniture and water features.

Specific examples include Tokyo’s “green roads” and Seoul’s street workout stations. The Singapore Sports Hub employs a dedicated team to offer diverse activities, making the best use of limited space.

These solutions all help meet physical recreation needs in high-density developments. The limited amount of open space can then be reserved for informal recreation, such as walking and quiet contemplation.

Making sure recreation needs will be met

Higher-density development around transport hubs aims to overcome housing shortages and avoid the harmful impacts of urban sprawl. Our planning tool can help overcome community concerns about these developments lacking spaces for recreation.

This tool establishes a benchmark recreational activity level derived from participation rates per person across the metropolitan area. It calculates the land needed to support recreation and reallocates participation to activities that require less land or can be done indoors. In this way, it ensures high-density areas can still meet residents’ recreational needs.

The RAB model enables planners to produce a range of possible scenarios. Different mixes of facilities and activities can be flexibly developed to suit different local environments and different anticipated resident populations.

Anthony Veal received funding from the Planning for Open Space and Recreation in High-Density Areas project, which was independent research funded through the Landcom Roundtable to explore ways to plan for open space and recreation opportunities in transport-oriented developments. Landcom has noted the findings as a contribution to the ongoing exploration but does not endorse specific conclusions.

This article is produced from the findings of the ‘Planning for Open Space and Recreation in High-Density Areas’ research project in the NSW government’s Landcom Universities Roundtable collaborative research program. The research was funded by Landcom. However, the specific conclusions in this article are not endorsed by the agency.

– ref. How to ensure higher-density housing developments still have enough space for residents’ recreation needs – https://theconversation.com/how-to-ensure-higher-density-housing-developments-still-have-enough-space-for-residents-recreation-needs-228791

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

News of a potential new rocket launch site in Canterbury has largely been enthusiastically received. Boosts to the regional and national economies, and to New Zealand’s competitiveness in a crowded sector, have been welcomed.

But it also shines a light on the rapidly growing military-industrial use of space, and the pressing need for both national and international law to keep up.

The establishment of a National Space Agency in 2016 and appointment of the first minister for space (Judith Collins) last year are a start. But the challenges are significant in such a fast-moving area.

If and when the new launch site is operational, it will join Rocket Lab’s “spaceport” on the Mahia Peninsula in the North Island, which opened in 2016. Rocket Lab signed a major deal in June to launch ten rockets for Japanese satellite data company Synspective.

While Rocket Lab says it does not carry military payloads, critics have argued its vehicles have the capacity, and there are no real legal or regulatory safeguards to prevent such uses.

Furthermore, Rocket Lab’s main base is now the US, where it is quickly advancing as an important supplier to the American military. It also launched an experimental communications satellite for the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) in April.

At the same time, New Zealand is now a partner (along with Five Eyes allies Britain, Australia and Canada, as well as France and Germany) with Space Force, part of the overall US Armed Forces.

What the partnership involves remains unclear. But if New Zealand were to join pillar two of the AUKUS security pact, its role could well expand. Either way, it will need fit-for-purpose rules and regulations for this new space age.

Old rules in a new world

The international rules governing outer space and its peaceful use – astronaut rescue, accident liability and the registration of objects sent above the atmosphere – reflect understandings now nearly five decades old.

This is largely also reflected in New Zealand’s Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Act 2017, which covers the local space industry and compliance with existing international law.

The current regime gives considerable latitude to the minister, who has a “broad discretion” is deciding what is in the national interest when authorising payload deliveries. A prohibition on military hardware, and the goal of demilitarisation of space, are not listed objectives.

To its credit, New Zealand is advocating at the United Nations for enhanced “norms, rules and principles of responsible behaviours in space”. These include ensuring space activities are for peaceful purposes and in the interest of maintaining international peace and
security.

The previous foreign minister, Nanaia Mahuta, also spoke out against destructive ground-launched anti-satellite missile tests and supported related efforts at the UN, despite objections from Russia and China.

Crowded space

As of last year, an estimated 7,560 satellites operated in various orbits around Earth. The lion’s share belonged to the United States (5,184), followed by China (628) and Russia (181).

Of the US satellites, most (4,741) are commercial. But the division between categories is not always tight, with commercial operators often doing work for the military.

According to the NZDF, space-based systems and technologies are a “critical enabler of more than 90% of military capability”. They provide all forms of intelligence, from early warning and global positioning systems to missile guidance.

If any country loses control of this information in space, the risk of losing a war on Earth is high. Defence of its military and intelligence-gathering satellites is a high priority for the US and other nations.

The same applies to sites or infrastructure associated with defence data collection, communication links and launch pads. The threat of a “Space Pearl Harbour” is taken very seriously.

Non-military targets

These fears escalate with each new iteration of anti-satellite missiles, which America, China, India and Russia have all tested.

Given some firms operate in grey zones of dual-use military and non-military technologies (Starlink’s connection to the war in Ukraine, for example), the risk of commercial infrastructure becoming a target remains real.

But while establishing new rules for a new world is essential, it is not an end in itself. Rather, it should be part of the overall goal of meaningfully expanding the peaceful use of space: seeking demilitarisation where possible and the prevention of an orbital arms race.

It will also require addressing the currently blurred lines between developing and deploying weapons for offensive and defensive purposes, and between military and commercial operators.

Those commercial operators provide a vast amount of essential satellite information for peaceful purposes. Protecting them from any future conflict is in the national interest.

While there are clear benefits available in this new space age, there needs to be wider discussion of the potential risks. New Zealand’s remote and unique geographic position allows satellite observation and communication not possible from other places. This makes the country both valuable and vulnerable in any large-scale conflict.

National sovereignty should govern policy-making, and cross-party political co‑operation will help. Above all, New Zealanders should be aware of the potential implications, so decisions are made with their full and informed consent.

Alexander Gillespie 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. NZ’s commercial rocket industry is taking off, but national space law needs a boost – https://theconversation.com/nzs-commercial-rocket-industry-is-taking-off-but-national-space-law-needs-a-boost-233969

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Levinson, Professor of Transport, University of Sydney

There’s nothing wrong with tolls on roads. Designed well, they can both pay for roads and ensure they are used efficiently.

Without tolls, drivers considering whether or not to travel on particular roads at particular times need only consider the delays they themselves experience – those caused by the cars in front of them.

They don’t need to consider the delays they impose on the users behind them. It’s one of the reasons we have too much congestion.

Properly designed tolls that vary with distance, location and time of day can make those costs apparent and get drivers to drive in ways that minimise congestion.

But as drivers in Australia’s three largest cities of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane know especially well, Australia’s tolls are exceedingly poorly designed.

Sydney might or might not be the “most tolled city in the world” but many of its tolls are very high and many of the surrounding roads aren’t tolled at all. This encourages drivers to under-use toll roads and over-use suburban streets, needlessly exposing people on those streets to noise, pollution and danger.

It is also unfair to those drivers who have no choice but to use toll roads. Other drivers who can use freeways that aren’t tolled don’t have to pay.

Private ownership stops properly designed tolls

Getting a system of tolls that is well designed ought to be easy, but the existing toll road operators have long-term contracts with state governments requiring compensation if what they can charge is changed.

Private ownership of public roads has long been regarded as less than ideal, including by the father of modern economics, Adam Smith, who in 1776 argued:

The tolls for the maintenance of a high road cannot with any safety be made the property of private persons.

If a state’s government operated toll roads in that state, it could charge for their use sensibly, but in NSW a single corporation, Transurban, operates most of them. Transurban is a public company listed on the stock exchange and also runs toll roads in Brisbane, Melbourne, and the United States.

Transurban charges tolls that will maximise the profits accruing to its shareholders, rather than tolls that will ensure its roads are well used.

Some of its contracts with the NSW government allow it to increase its tolls by the higher of inflation or 4% each year.

NSW should buy Transurban

Renegotiating the morass of existing contracts, each with its own set of interlocking ownership agreements and counterparties, contract-by-contract, would benefit only lawyers and not enable a comprehensive transformation.

In order to set tolls properly, the NSW government ought to buy Transurban, as well as its partners on individual roads.

With a market value of A$38 billion at the time of writing, buying Transurban might seem daunting.

But only about half of this value relates to Sydney. The rest is split between Victoria (27%), Queensland (16%) and the United States (7%). This means the net cost for NSW would most likely be less than $20 billion after selling off parts.

That cost could be financed by issuing bonds that would be paid off with future toll revenues. The organisations that currently hold Transurban shares might even buy the bonds. As with Transurban, they would be a safe bet.

It would be open to Victoria and Queensland to buy their parts of what’s left, take back control of their toll roads and issue bonds funded by future tolls to pay for the transaction.

Under public control, tolls could be set properly

Once it had obtained the right to set tolls, NSW could set them in a way that optimised traffic flow and reduced congestion in order to cut travel times.

It could be done without political interference by an organisation such as the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, which currently determines maximum public transport fares.

Operations and management of the newly acquired motorways could be contracted out and regulated as appropriate, just as are bus operations, where contractors run the buses but the independent tribunal determines the fares.

Applied to all major roads instead of just some, the toll revenues could be lower on average, and could also be used to improve public transport.

Navigating the legal complexities and financial risks would be difficult, but the interim report of the NSW independent toll review released in March made a number of recommendations that would move tolling in this direction, including establishing a state TollCo that would negotiate tolls with the operators.

Taking over the operators is the next logical step.

David Levinson receives funding from Australian Research Council. He is affiliated with WalkSydney and Peaceful Bayside. His superannuation fund may own shares in TransUrban.

– ref. Toll roads charge too much yet we don’t have enough of them. To fix both things, NSW should buy their private owners – https://theconversation.com/toll-roads-charge-too-much-yet-we-dont-have-enough-of-them-to-fix-both-things-nsw-should-buy-their-private-owners-229124

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Martin, Senior Research Fellow, City Futures Research Centre, UNSW Sydney

There’s a new bill before federal parliament calling for housing to be considered a fundamental human right.

The bill, introduced last week by independent federal parliamentarians Kylea Tink and David Pocock, would require the government to create a ten year National Housing and Homelessness Plan.

One part of the bill states housing should be considered a fundamental human right for all Australians. Here’s how this would work.

Read more:
To deliver enough affordable housing and end homelessness, what must a national strategy do?

Housing under Albanese

Since its election in 2022, the Albanese government has had to fight political battles to pass its housing policies.

This includes the Housing Australia Future Fund: a $10 billion fund to provide an annual $500 million for social and affordable rental housing. It passed the parliament last year.

There’s also the “Help to Buy” shared equity scheme. Under this scheme, 10,000 households a year would be eligible for a government equity contribution of up to 40% of the purchase price of a new home. It’s yet to pass the parliament.

But many in the community continue to struggle with unaffordable rents, barriers to home ownership and rising rates of homelessness.

Housing and homelessness problems are complex because they crossover different areas of policy and different levels of government. There are many agencies that do housing policy.

But so far, the government has not had a clear plan. Its election promise to develop a National Housing and Homelessness Plan is still under development. And at the moment, it does not appear to be addressing important policy areas like tax and finance.

We need a plan that coordinates all government activities, to really address housing as a system.

Our research

Last year, colleagues and I published research for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute on how to make an effective national housing plan.

We recommended the plan should include a law that requires the government of the day to have a plan, and report on progress, according to some overarching objectives.

Since then, more than 100 other housing researchers, industry experts, civil society leaders and politicians of different political persuasions have supported our idea for a legal basis for a housing plan.

Tink and Pocock have also taken up our research and turned it into the National Housing and Homelessness Plan Bill.

What’s in the bill?

The bill would require the housing minister of the day to develop and implement a ten year National Housing and Homelessness Plan. This would mean taking a view of housing policy beyond three-year election cycles.

The legislation would also set some basic directions for the government’s plan, including “ensuring that everyone in Australia has adequate housing”, and “preventing and ending homelessness”. This reflects the legislation’s human rights-based approach.

The legislation would also require the housing minister to be collaborative and establish some new sources of information and advice for government. This includes a “consumer council”, including people with experience of homelessness. This would operate alongside the existing National Housing Supply and Affordability Council: an independent group providing the government with expert advice. The consumer council would be able to escalate matters directly to the minister to ensure it’s heard.

The existing government agency Housing Australia would be nominated as the lead agency assisting the minister with the plan. A new government officer, the National Housing and Homelessness Advocate, would independently investigate housing policy issues and monitor the progress against the plan. The housing minister would also be required to periodically report to parliament on progress.

At the end of the ten years, the minister would be required to review and develop a new plan.

Importantly, it would still be for the government of the day to decide what’s in the plan. The legislation sets objectives and directions, but not policy details. The legislation does not say, for example, “thou shalt repeal negative gearing”! One government might devise a more market-orientated plan, while another might plan for greater non-market housing provision.

A government could still come up with a bad plan. But it will more likely make a good plan when it is required to take a human rights-based approach, adopt a long view, receive independent information and feedback and report on progress.

Why should housing be a human right?

The bill formally recognises housing as a human right for two reasons.

First, it serves as the constitutional basis for the legislation. The right to adequate housing is a human right under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which Australia ratified almost 50 years ago.

This brings it within the parliament’s “external affairs” power. The parliament relied on this power and the human right to housing when it passed the original legislation establishing the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (now Housing Australia). Basically, it gives the government the legal authority to make a such a plan.

Secondly, an effective plan that’s going to work across different policy areas and bring in the range of institutions needs a place to start. Human rights provides a way to organise the policy across all the different branches of government that need to be involved.

The bill wouldn’t create the right for individual people to sue the government for inadequate housing. Instead, it would enshrine the right to housing as an objective that guides housing policy-making for Australians generally.

As it’s a private members bill, it would require substantial support in both houses to pass, which may not be forthcoming. Nonetheless, it’s important to consider what can be done to better address the country’s housing woes.

Chris Martin receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI). Research completed for AHURI was used in the bill being discussed in this article.

– ref. A new bill is proposing a human right to housing. How would this work? – https://theconversation.com/a-new-bill-is-proposing-a-human-right-to-housing-how-would-this-work-233327

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hussein Dia, Professor of Future Urban Mobility, Swinburne University of Technology

Transport is Australia’s third-largest and fastest-growing source of emissions, accounting for 23% of the total. Without intervention, transport is expected to be the leading source of emissions by 2030.

Transport emissions increased by 3.6% from 2022 to 2023. Emissions from on-road diesel, which dominates the freight sector, were up by 3.7%.

Diesel vehicle numbers (passenger, light commercial, freight and buses) in Australia have grown by 84% since 2014, compared to 5% for petrol vehicles. Passenger cars account for 44% of all transport emissions and freight trucks 23%.

One of the quickest ways to cut these emissions is to electrify vehicles. It’s relatively easy to do for cars. Trucks are a harder challenge.

To find out how best to decarbonise trucks in Australia, our research evaluated the lifecycle emissions from low-emission trucks. We focused on electric and hydrogen trucks. We also compared their performance to diesel trucks across five types of rigid and three types of articulated trucks.

Our results show electric trucks are the better, faster option to decarbonise road freight by the legislated target dates for emission cuts. In some cases, hydrogen trucks had two to three times the emissions intensity (the amount of greenhouse gases emitted per kilometre travelled) of electric trucks.

Why is a lifecycle analysis needed?

In the race to rapidly decarbonise road freight, it’s important to identify the most efficient and cost-effective technology.

Electric and hydrogen trucks both have zero tailpipe emissions. However, we must consider their full lifecycle to assess overall carbon footprints. The production, use and recycling phases of the two kinds of trucks produce different emissions.

Electric trucks use batteries that are charged directly from a power source. The cleaner the electricity source, the lower the emissions.

Hydrogen trucks also have batteries, though smaller than in electric trucks, but rely mainly on fuel cells powered by hydrogen to produce electricity that drives the wheels.

Currently, around 96% of the world’s hydrogen comes from coal or natural gas. This results in large emissions.

Hydrogen can be produced using renewables to power a process of electrolysis that extracts it from water. But this involves many steps, each with energy penalties and losses.

Hydrogen storage tanks and delivery equipment are also needed. These are complex, costly and energy is lost at each step in the supply chain. On average, only 38% of the source energy remains to drive the wheels of a hydrogen truck, compared to around 80% for battery electric trucks.

What did the study look at?

We analysed lifecycle emissions for freight trucks in eight different scenarios of renewable energy mixes and adoption rates.

First, the lifecycle analysis considers emissions from fuel and electricity production using primary energy sources (fossil fuels and renewables).

It also takes into account emissions from making trucks. This phase includes extracting raw materials, processing, production and truck assembly.

In the operations phase, we consider emissions from driving, maintenance and servicing.

Finally, our analysis evaluates end-of-life emissions from repurposing components, recycling materials and disposal.

What did we find?

We applied the widely used GREET lifecycle analysis model, adapted to Australian conditions.

We first modelled a baseline scenario. It reflected Australia’s 2019 energy mix, truck fleet composition and validated travel distances for each truck type.

We then modelled eight scenarios with different energy mixes of fossil fuels and renewables. (Click here for full details.)

The scenarios also included different mixes of diesel, electric and hydrogen trucks. We modelled truck adoption rates and the impacts on emissions.

As expected, scenarios that combined high rates of renewable energy and adoption would lead to lower emissions than other scenarios.

Under a fully renewable scenario with 50% electric and 30% hydrogen trucks, freight emissions would fall by 76%, from 24.68 million tonnes (Mt) to 5.89 Mt.

In all scenarios with fossil fuels in the energy mix, hydrogen trucks had a higher lifecycle emissions intensity than electric trucks. In some cases, hydrogen trucks produced roughly three times the emissions of electric trucks.

Our findings highlight the challenge of cutting emissions from manufacturing, maintenance and disposal. On average, they account for 90 grams per kilometre for electric trucks and 40g/km for hydrogen trucks.

If we don’t cut these emissions, they end up accounting for a big share of lifecycle emissions. For example, in the 2033 energy mix scenario they would account for 79% of emissions for electric trucks and 39% for hydrogen trucks.

Emissions from making and disposing of batteries will likely fall as their design evolves to aid recycling.

Is the industry ready for the transition?

We also conducted an online survey involving 40 small, 60 medium and 30 large trucking organisations.

Around 47% of participants rated their knowledge of electric and hydrogen trucks as basic, 42% as intermediate and 11% as advanced.

About 62% of operators said they had a formal decarbonisation strategy. Those with larger fleet sizes and/or involved in long-haul trucking were more committed to decarbonisation.

Only seven out of 130 participants were ready to absorb the higher purchase cost of low-emissions trucks. Most thought customers would not be willing to pay more for green freight services. They viewed high upfront purchase costs, total ownership costs and a lack of supporting infrastructure as barriers to adoption.

The road ahead

To overcome these barriers and speed up the shift to low-emissions trucks, a mix of industry interventions and policies is needed.

Global investment in truck manufacturing will make more suitable models and a variety of sizes available and more affordable. Tighter emission standards, government and industry investment in infrastructure such as ultra-rapid charging stations and incentives such as subsidies will also help.

Another barrier is uncertainty about performance and costs. Independent trials, field testing and knowledge sharing will reduce this uncertainty and help operators and policymakers with their decisions.

Finally, our findings show fleet decarbonisation on its own is not an entirely effective strategy to cut emissions. It needs to be part of a holistic approach to cut emissions across the transport sector. This includes managing demand through measures such as heavy vehicle pricing and taxation, shifting road freight to rail and optimising how we distribute freight.

Without these measures, Australia’s dependence on fossil fuels will deepen. Reaching our emission targets will become even harder.

Hussein Dia receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the iMOVE Australia Cooperative Research Centre, Transport for New South Wales, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, Victorian Department of Transport and Planning, and Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts.

This research is funded by iMOVE CRC and supported by the Cooperative Research Centres program, an Australian Government initiative.

Dorsa Alipour acknowledges the PhD scholarship and financial support she is receiving from Swinburne University of Technology.

Hadi Ghaderi receives funding from the iMOVE Cooperative Research Centre, Transport for New South Wales, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, Victorian Department of Transport and Planning, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, IVECO Trucks Australia limited, Innovative Manufacturing Cooperative Research Centre, Victoria Department of Education and Training, Australia Post, Bondi Laboratories, Innovative Manufacturing Cooperative Research Centre, Sphere for Good, Australian Meat Processor Corporation,City of Casey, 460degrees and Passel.

– ref. Why electric beats hydrogen in the race to decarbonise freight vehicles in Australia – https://theconversation.com/why-electric-beats-hydrogen-in-the-race-to-decarbonise-freight-vehicles-in-australia-233343

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brooke Nickel, NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellow, University of Sydney

The way women are screened for breast cancer in Australia may change.

There’s international debate on the age women should be invited for screening. But an even larger change being considered worldwide is whether to screen women at high and low risk of breast cancer differently.

But what such a “risk-based” approach to screening might look like in Australia is not yet clear.

Here’s why researchers and public health officials are floating a change to breast cancer screening in Australia, and what any changes might mean.

Why breast cancer screening may need to change

Mass screening (known as population-based screening) for breast cancer was introduced in Australia and many other developed countries in the 1980s and 90s.

This was based on robust research that found early detection and treatment of cancers before there were symptoms prevented some women from dying from breast cancer.

These programs offer regular breast cancer screening to women within a specific age group. For example, in Australia, women aged 40-74 years can have free mammograms (x-rays of the breasts) every two years. The BreastScreen program sends invitations for screening to those aged 50-74.

However, evidence has been mounting that mammography screening could be inadvertently causing harm for some women.

For some, screening causes a false alarm that may cause anxiety, and unnecessary tests and procedures. Even though these tests rule out cancer, these women may remain anxious and perceive something is wrong for many years.

A more insidious harm is overdiagnosis, where screening detects a non-growing or slow-growing lesion that looks like “cancer” under the microscope, but would not have progressed or caused harm if it had been left alone. This means some women are having unnecessary surgery, radiotherapy and hormone therapy that will not benefit them, but may harm.

Although trials have shown screening reduces the risk of dying from breast cancer, questions are being raised about how much it saves lives overall. That is, it’s uncertain how much the reduced risk of dying from breast cancer translates into improvements in a woman’s overall survival.

How about better targeting women?

One idea is to target screening to those most likely to benefit. Under such a “risk-based” approach, a women’s personal risk of breast cancer is estimated. This may be based on her age and many other factors that may include breast density, family history of breast cancer, body-mass index, genetics, age she started and stopped her periods, and the number of children she’s had.

Women who are at higher risk would be recommended to start screening at a younger age and to screen more frequently or to use different, more sensitive, imaging tests. Women at lower risk would be recommended to start later and to screen less often.

The idea of this more “precise” approach to screening is to direct efforts and resources towards the smaller number of women most likely to benefit from screening via the early detection of cancer.

At the same time, this approach would reduce the risk of harm from false positives (detection of an anomaly but no cancer is present) and overdiagnosis (detection of a non-growing or slow-growing cancer) for the larger number of women who are unlikely to benefit.

On face value this sounds like a good idea, and could be a favourable change for breast cancer screening.

But there’s much we don’t know

However, it’s uncertain how this would play out in practice. For one thing, someone’s future risk of a cancer diagnosis includes the risk of detecting both overdiagnosed cancers as well as potentially lethal ones. This is proving to be a problem in risk-based screening for prostate cancer, another cancer prone to overdiagnosis.

Ideally, we’d want to predict someone’s risk of potentially lethal cancers as these are the ones we want to catch early.

It is also still uncertain how many women found to be at low risk will accept a recommendation for less screening.

These uncertainties mean we need robust evidence the benefits outweigh the harms for Australian women before we make changes to the breast cancer screening program.

There are several international randomised controlled trials (the gold standard for research) under way to evaluate the effectiveness of risk-based screening compared to current practice. So it may be prudent to wait for their findings before making changes to policy or practice.

Even if such trials did give us robust evidence, there are still a number of issues to address before implementing a risk-based approach.

One key issue is having enough staff to run the program, including people with the skills and time to discuss with women any concerns they have about their calculated risk.

How about breast density?

Women with dense breasts are at higher risk of breast cancer. So notifying women about their breast density has been proposed as a “first step” on the pathway to risk-based screening. However, this ignores the many other factors that determine a woman’s risk of breast cancer.

Legislation in the United States and changes in some Australian states mean some women are already being notified about their breast density. The idea is to enhance their knowledge about their breast cancer risk so they can make informed decisions about future screening.

But this has happened before we know what the best options are for such women. An ongoing Australian trial is investigating the effects that breast density notification has on individual women and the health system.

What next?

Robust evidence and careful planning are needed before risk-based screening or other changes are made to Australia’s breast cancer screening program.

Where changes are made, there needs to be early evaluation of both the benefits and harms. Programs also need independent, regular re-evaluation in the longer term.

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

Katy Bell receives funding from the National Health and Research Council (NHMRC). She is a Chef Investigator with Wiser Healthcare, an NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence for reducing medical overuse and increasing the sustainability and equity of health care. She has collaborated with researchers who lead the ROSA project: options for risk-based breast cancer screening in Australia on a different research project on mammography screening.

– ref. Breast cancer screening in Australia may change. Here’s what we know so far – https://theconversation.com/breast-cancer-screening-in-australia-may-change-heres-what-we-know-so-far-231917

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Campbell, Lecturer, Performing Arts, UniSA Creative, University of South Australia

It is always wonderful to see a new Australian play, and to see one by a female playwright with a majority female cast and creative team is a thrill. Hits, by multi-talented director/writer/co-producer Rebecca Meston, turns up the volume on home-grown theatre and transforms the black box Space Theatre into a band venue of the ’80s and ’90s.

Seated at cabaret tables, the audience becomes part of a live music concert: loud music blares, mosh-pit actors enter from the audience, and we meet Rhiannon (Ren Williams, with wonderful depth and energy), a young high school kid clutching an LP record and singing to her imagined fans – into her pink hairbrush.

Hits reclaims the rush of first concerts and band culture for young women, following Rhiannon from stultifying suburban teen angst to the highs and homecomings of 1993 and the Big Day Out, accompanied by a soundtrack of bangers and easy-listening radio hits.

Over the course of the play we watch Rhiannon grow from a misfit dorky kid, raised by her “so embarrassing” single mum, to a young adult who discovers her home in music. Williams’ nuanced performance is a highlight and carries this story with joy.

A small ensemble, a large cast of characters

The 13 other characters are played by an impressive ensemble of three.

Emma Beech as Rhiannon’s mum, Linda, deftly deals some of the best comedy one-liners in the show, dressed in vintage taffeta no less. Her mean girl Meels is all-too-familiar as the high school bully who calls the shots and decides what’s cool and who is a loser.

Beech and Williams create a beautifully flawed relationship between the confused teen and her struggling mum.

As Suzie, the cool friend we all wish we had, Annabel Matheson is a delight, a Rhonda to Rhiannon’s Muriel, and the embodiment of women standing up to male power. Her other characters, “mean girl” Bee and silent Sizzler waiter, are glorious.

Eddie Morrison plays all the male characters, from the over-eager schoolkids and band fans, to a range of sleazy men from the ’80s and ’90s. He relishes portraying full-of-himself radio DJ Barry and the predatory band manager, eliciting groans and shudders from the audience.

Dancing in the mosh pit

Students from Flinders Drama Centre provide the show with its chorus in mosh-pitting concert goers: there, the dance floor devotees sometimes morph into a kind of ghostly extension of Rhiannon’s dreams or emotions.

Erin Fowler’s choreography creates beautiful and simple moments where the mosh pit crowd stamp or lean out on angles, or daggy dance floor sequences. Linda is “reeled in” by her date; Rhiannon stage dives and crowd surfs. Dynamic direction and use of space sees actors enter and exit from the audience as well as side stage; a central set of steps becomes a bus, or a transcendent moment on a crowded dance floor.

Lighting design by Mark Oakley creates much with little, giving us rock concert cross beams and intimate isolated parts of the stage, picking out Rhiannon in bright light among shadowy dancers.

Jason Sweeney’s inventive sound design gives us blaring radio hits, stadium mic echo, insistently present songs at low volume under scenes, throbbing beats and crowd noise.

Ali Jones’ set places us on a band stage, the platform doubling as a seat. Two small tables become Linda and Rhiannon’s house, the record shop, backstage and, in a wonderfully sad-but-hilarious scene, a table at Sizzler. Her costumes are a fun mash-up of vintage, awkwardly recognisable ’90s looks and the never-changing unflattering school uniforms.

Finding our way forward

Hits could be a fabulous show for high schools and young adults, perhaps developing the shy male school friend character to stand up to the mean girls to give yet more empowerment.

There are moments where the pace of the production slows too much, which may change with more runs in front of an audience and possibly some further editing of the script. There are also some moments where the quieter, more intimate dialogue is hard to hear from the tables at the back of the audience, in part a result of the massive volume contrast between recorded music at concert levels and listening to the spoken voice.

While ably staged at the Space Theatre, this piece would be amazing to see in an actual live music venue, and will hopefully be developed further for touring.

Meston has an excellent ear for the cadences of teen-speak and bitchy schoolgirl gossip, and a deep understanding of the almost religious experience of concerts. There are plenty of comic moments from a cast mining the exchanges and phrasing for every laugh.

Meston deftly repositions women as the creators and consumers of band culture, as we follow the triumph of Suze and Rhiannon making their own way in a male-dominated world.

Hits is at the Adelaide Festival Centre until July 6.

Catherine Campbell is a performance teacher in the Adelaide Festival Centre’s OnStage program.

– ref. New Aussie play Hits reclaims the rush of first concerts and band culture for young women – https://theconversation.com/new-aussie-play-hits-reclaims-the-rush-of-first-concerts-and-band-culture-for-young-women-233664

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Henry, Associate Professor in Planning, Massey University

Increasingly low-cost environmental sensors coupled with AI-powered analytical tools dangle the promise of faster and more insightful environmental planning.

The need for better decision making about the way we use ecosystems and natural resources is even more urgent now because consenting changes proposed under the Fast-track Approvals Bill require faster assessments.

As part of our research at Kuaha Matahiko, an open-access and collaborative project to compile data about land and water, we found a real thirst to engage with AI among iwi and hapū (tribal) groups.

Overstretched environmental kaitiaki (guardian) organisations saw the possibility of AI helping to integrate fragmented environmental datasets while also quickly and cheaply improving analytical capacity.

Based on this need, the Kuaha Matahiko project developed a working AI, trained on environmental data from Aotearoa New Zealand. This shows a tipping point is emerging where bespoke AI is quickly becoming a realistic option for kaitiaki groups, even small ones.

However, care is needed. Prior experiences show algorithm-powered systems often lock us into pathways that reproduce existing inequalities in data gathering and foreclose imagination about outcomes.

These problems often occur because of two interlinked problems: a legacy of ad hoc data gathering and an often misguided belief that larger data volume equals better accuracy.

The ‘precision trap’

First, useful AI systems require rich data at speed and volume. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has warned successive governments that New Zealand’s environmental data system is ad hoc, opportunistic and under-resourced.

Existing environmental databases largely reflect the priorities of state-led agricultural science and recent efforts to monitor its environmental impacts. Our environmental data also suffer from a systematic ignorance of mātauranga Māori.

Long-running environmental datasets are very valuable. But they are very incomplete in their coverage of places and problems, and we cannot go back in time to redo the data gathering. Recognising the gaps and biases created by a history of uneven, exclusionary data generation is critical because it is those data (and the embedded assumptions) that will be used to train future AIs.

Second, AI promises certainty and precision. But a study investigating precision agriculture describes the emerging risks when we mistake high volume and granularity of big data for high accuracy. An exaggerated belief in the precision of big data can lead to an erosion of checks and balances.

This becomes an ever bigger issue as the murkiness of algorithms increases. Most algorithms are now unintelligible. This stems from technical complexity, user misunderstanding and intentional strategies of developers. It blinds us to the risks of inaccuracy.

By not paying attention to the opacity of algorithms we risk falling into a “precision trap”. This occurs when belief in AI’s precision translates into an unquestioning acceptance of the accuracy of AI outputs. This is a danger because of the political, social and legal value we give to numbers as trusted expressions of objective “hard facts”.

These risks rise quickly when AI systems are used to forecast (and govern) future events based on precise but inaccurate models, unmoored from observations. But what happens when AI outputs are the basic fabric of evaluation and decision making? Do we have the option of not believing them at all?

Avoiding an ‘iron cage’

One possible future lies in what the German sociologist Max Weber called the “iron cage of rationality”. This is where communities become trapped in rational, precise and efficient systems that are simultaneously inhuman and inequitable.

Avoiding this future means proactively creating inclusive, intelligible and diverse AI partnerships. This is not about rejecting rationality, but about tempering its irrational outcomes.

Our evolving data and AI governance framework draws on the principles of being findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable (FAIR). These are very useful. They are also blind to social histories of data gathering.

The failure of the 2018 Census is a stark example of what happens when historical inequalities are ignored. We cannot redo the environmental data we have. But new AI systems need to have an awareness of the effects of past data gaps embedded in their design. It might also mean going beyond awareness to actively enriching data to address holes.

Widening the worldview of AI

Data and AI need to serve human goals. Indigenous data sovereignty movements are claiming the right of Indigenous people to own and govern data about their communities, resources and lands. They have inspired frameworks known as CARE, which stands for collective benefit, authority, responsibility and ethics.

These offer a model of empowering data relations that put flourishing human relationships first. In Aotearoa New Zealand, Te Kāhui Raraunga Māori was established in 2019 as an independent body to enable Māori to access, collect and use their own data. Their data governance model is an example of these CARE principles in action.

An even bigger step forward would be to expand the worldview of AI. Serving human goals means exposing the assumptions and priorities baked into different AIs. This in turn means opening up the development of AI beyond what’s been described as a “WEIRD” – western, educated, industrial, rich, developed – standpoint which currently dominates the field.

Training an AI on environmental data from Aotearoa New Zealand for Māori organisations is one thing. It is a more radical thing to create an AI that embodies mātauranga Māori and the responsibilities for life embedded in the Māori worldview.

We need this radical vision of AI, deliberately built from diverse worldviews, to avoid locking the cage and foreclosing the future.

Matthew Henry received funding from the Our Land and Water National Science Challenge for his work in the Kuaha Matahiko research project.

– ref. AI could revolutionise environmental planning – if we don’t get trapped in the ‘iron cage of rationality’ – https://theconversation.com/ai-could-revolutionise-environmental-planning-if-we-dont-get-trapped-in-the-iron-cage-of-rationality-232583

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sebastian Furness, ARC Future Fellow, School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Queensland

Our brain is an extremely complex and delicate organ. Our body fiercely protects it by holding onto things that help it and keeping harmful things out, such as bugs that can cause infection and toxins.

It does that though a protective layer called the blood-brain barrier. Here’s how it works, and what it means for drug design.

First, let’s look at the circulatory system

Adults have roughly 30 trillion cells in their body. Every cell needs a variety of nutrients and oxygen, and they produce waste, which needs to be taken away.

Our circulatory system provides this service, delivering nutrients and removing waste.

Where the circulatory system meets your cells, it branches down to tiny tubes called capillaries. These tiny tubes, about one-tenth the width of a human hair, are also made of cells.

But in most capillaries, there are some special features (known as fenestrations) that allow relatively free exchange of nutrients and waste between the blood and the cells of your tissues.

It’s kind of like pizza delivery

One way to think about the way the circulation works is like a pizza delivery person in a big city. On the really big roads (vessels) there are walls and you can’t walk up to the door of the house and pass someone the pizza.

But once you get down to the little suburban streets (capillaries), the design of the streets means you can stop, get off your scooter and walk up to the door to deliver the pizza (nutrients).

We often think of the brain as a spongy mass without much blood in it. In reality, the average brain has about 600 kilometres of blood vessels.

The difference between the capillaries in most of the brain and those elsewhere is that these capillaries are made of specialised cells that are very tightly joined together and limit the free exchange of anything dissolved in your blood. These are sometimes called continuous capillaries.

This is the blood brain barrier. It’s not so much a bag around your brain stopping things from getting in and out but more like walls on all the streets, even the very small ones.

The only way pizza can get in is through special slots and these are just the right shape for the pizza box.

The blood brain barrier is set up so there are specialised transporters (like pizza box slots) for all the required nutrients. So mostly, the only things that can get in are things that there are transporters for or things that look very similar (on a molecular scale).

The analogy does fall down a little bit because the pizza box slot applies to nutrients that dissolve in water. Things that are highly soluble in fat can often bypass the slots in the wall.

Why do we have a blood-brain barrier?

The blood brain barrier is thought to exist for a few reasons.

First, it protects the brain from toxins you might eat (think chemicals that plants make) and viruses that often can infect the rest of your body but usually don’t make it to your brain.

It also provides protection by tightly regulating the movement of nutrients and waste in and out, providing a more stable environment than in the rest of the body.

Lastly, it serves to regulate passage of immune cells, preventing unnecessary inflammation which could damage cells in the brain.

What it means for medicines

One consequence of this tight regulation across the blood brain barrier is that if you want a medicine that gets to the brain, you need to consider how it will get in.

There are a few approaches. Highly fat-soluble molecules can often pass into the brain, so you might design your drug so it is a bit greasy.

Another option is to link your medicine to another molecule that is normally taken up into the brain so it can hitch a ride, or a “pro-drug”, which looks like a molecule that is normally transported.

Using it to our advantage

You can also take advantage of the blood brain barrier.

Opioids used for pain relief often cause constipation. They do this because their target (opioid receptors) are also present in the nervous system of the intestines, where they act to slow movement of the intestinal contents.

Imodium (Loperamide), which is used to treat diarrhoea, is actually an opioid, but it has been specifically designed so it can’t cross the blood brain barrier.

This design means it can act on opioid receptors in the gastrointestinal tract, slowing down the movement of contents, but does not act on brain opioid receptors.

In contrast to Imodium, Ozempic and Victoza (originally designed for type 2 diabetes, but now popular for weight-loss) both have a long fat attached, to improve the length of time they stay in the body.

A consequence of having this long fat attached is that they can cross the blood-brain barrier, where they act to suppress appetite. This is part of the reason they are so effective as weight-loss drugs.

So while the blood brain barrier is important for protecting the brain it presents both a challenge and an opportunity for development of new medicines.

Sebastian Furness 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. Our blood-brain barrier stops bugs and toxins getting to our brain. Here’s how it works – https://theconversation.com/our-blood-brain-barrier-stops-bugs-and-toxins-getting-to-our-brain-heres-how-it-works-230965

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rob Stokes, Industry Professor, Environment and Sustainability, Macquarie University

The right of everyone to have a say on development is at the heart of modern urban planning. But as homes become ever more expensive, questions are being asked about whether it is OK to oppose housing developments in cities. Battlelines are being drawn between so-called NIMBYs – people who say “Not In My Backyard” – and YIMBYs, who say “yes” to new housing in their neighbourhood.

The debate has become focused on the right to participate in the public planning process, rather than the merits of development.

However, a healthy planning system celebrates a broad debate, rather than seeking to silence inconvenient voices. Urban democracy is essential to achieve the best outcomes for our cities and all who live in them.

Debate has always been part of the process

Australians have always complained about the neighbours.

Colonists complained about “nuisance” from odour, noise and obstructions emanating from nearby land uses. As cities became bigger in the 20th century, residents started protesting against dense housing that overwhelmed sanitation or transport infrastructure. They also opposed land uses, such as pubs and brothels, they considered conducive to immorality.

Some of the opposition to denser housing came from middle-class suburbanites, who wished to protect their lifestyles and land values. Others opposed housing density because of concerns for the welfare of slum dwellers.

In the early 20th century, urban planners like Raymond Unwin argued there was “nothing gained by overcrowding”. Sprawling “garden suburbs” were designed as the antidote to congestion.

Urbanists like Jane Jacobs, planners like Paul Davidoff and philosophers like Henri Lefebrve and David Harvey all argued that citizens, not just engineers and planners, have a key role in making great cities.

Putting theory into practice, citizen activists in Sydney joined with trade unionists in the world’s first green bans. They banned work on projects that threatened to displace low-income families and destroy built and natural heritage.

The right of citizens to have their say on neighbouring land uses became a feature of emerging planning laws.

Debate is now framed as NIMBYs versus YIMBYs

Industry groups such as the Urban Taskforce, Property Council and Urban Development Institute of Australia have argued that over time, conservative voices intent on excluding new development have used their right to be heard to dominate urban planning outcomes. Framing housing need as a “crisis” has enabled industry groups to characterise public participation in development assessment as unnecessary red tape.

At the same time, developers argue that these NIMBYs have drowned out hard-won rights to include diverse voices in urban planning. They are portrayed as selfish suburban home owners intent on maintaining the status quo.

The influence of NIMBYs has prompted the emergence of YIMBY, BIMBY (Beauty In My Back Yard) and even YIGBY (Yes in God’s Back Yard) groups. They use rights to participate in planning to advocate for, not against, higher-density housing forms such as multi-storey apartments.

Slurs are no substitute for substance

So far, so good. But the debate is turning personal. NIMBY is now a subjective insult, not an objective definition.

Labelling critics of development NIMBYs questions their motivation, avoiding the need to examine the substance of their criticism. A healthy debate about urban futures must acknowledge the differences between unreasonable and reasonable objections to development.

And citizens might oppose a development proposal for many reasons, some baseless, but others reasonable. Sociologist Robert Lake argued that NIMBYs are best defined as locals standing in the way of capital, not social goals.

It is better to ask what a NIMBY is saying “no” to – or a YIMBY is saying “yes” to – and on what grounds, rather than question their right to take part in the debate at all. Opposing development that would cause pollution or destroy biodiversity seems a valid reason to be a NIMBY. Opposing development on the basis of class, race or religion is not.

The purpose of planning is to enable citizens to collectively choose the future for their city. A healthy debate between YIMBYs, NIMBYs and everyone in between strengthens urban democracy and, in doing so, shapes our cities in ways that better serve all who live in them.

Rob Stokes is affiliated with Faith Housing Australia, which is an advocacy organization for faith-based social and affordable housing initiatives. He is also affiliated with the Net Zero Cities Co-operative Research Centre bid; the UNSW Cities Institute; Hillview Foundation Australia; and the Connect Macquarie Park Innovation District. Rob is a former minister across multiple portfolios in the NSW government, and was the Liberal member for Pittwater between 2007 and 2023.

– ref. Why YIMBYs, NIMBYs, BIMBYs and YIGBYs all matter for democracy and our future cities – https://theconversation.com/why-yimbys-nimbys-bimbys-and-yigbys-all-matter-for-democracy-and-our-future-cities-230877

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Young, Research Fellow, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Deakin University, Deakin University

After a great deal of political haggling, pressure and negotiations, Australia’s National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) was established a year ago, with a view to stamping out corruption and discouraging any activities that might be interpreted as such.

So, has it lived up to its promise?

On June 6 this year, the NACC made a long-awaited announcement in relation to the highly controversial and widely panned Robodebt scheme. It issued a brief public statement that it would not pursue the Robodebt royal commission’s referrals to it.

This came as a shock to many. When the royal commission made the referrals, integrity groups and commentators had strong expectations that the NACC would undertake an inquiry into the conduct of senior public officials.

One week after the announcement, the inspector of the NACC, Gail Furness, announced she would inquire into the NACC’s decision after receiving almost 900 complaints. Some of those complaints alleged the decision was in itself an example of corruption or maladministration.

While the conduct of the NACC’s decision-making will be legally tested by the inspector, there are political tests that may be more difficult to pass. This includes whether the body is seen to be fulfilling its purpose, and whether it is publicly accountable for its decisions.

What is the purpose of the NACC?

The NACC’s purpose is similar to that of most anti-corruption commissions that have been established in Australia since the first Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) in NSW in 1988: to detect, deter and prevent corrupt conduct of public officials.

The NACC made the point that the royal commission had already investigated Robodebt. Although controversial, the point is a timely reminder that anti-corruption commissions are like royal commissions with an ongoing tenure. Their mandate is to make findings as to whether corrupt conduct has taken place, not to prosecute or find a person guilty of a criminal offence.

The NACC explained its Robodebt decision by simply referring to its consideration of whether any investigation would be in the public interest. It is not legally obliged to inquire into every referral. This discretion is essential, given the flood of complaints it receives and the investigative choices it must make.

However, concepts such as public interest require complex balancing of legal, social and political considerations that affect the credibility of the NACC.

Is the NACC fulfilling its purpose?

One week before its first year of operation, the NACC reported it had received 3,154 referrals. Of those, 516 were under assessment, it was conducting 26 corruption investigations and monitoring or overseeing 21 investigations by other agencies.

Five matters have gone on to court proceedings. Two of these have resulted in convictions.

The NACC is demonstrating, on raw numbers at least, that it is committed to its purpose and achieving results. This is particularly so given any new anti-corruption commission is finding its feet in its first year while being swamped with new referrals.

The challenge for the NACC is the extent to which it is legally restrained and inclined to withhold details that the public relies on to understand investigative decisions. Sometimes these will never be made public. In most cases, there is a long lag time before a report is made to parliament or a matter is brought to court.

Like all anti-corruption commissions, the NACC will walk a legal, ethical and political tightrope: making enough of its operations public in support of its own legitimacy, while protecting the reputation and welfare of persons under investigation and not jeopardising future legal proceedings.

Is the NACC properly accountable?

The NACC is overseen by an inspector and a parliamentary committee.

Inspectors focus on the legal compliance of the commission and allegations of maladministration or corrupt conduct by commission officers.

The NACC is accountable to the parliament and to the oversight committee as the parliament’s delegate. Oversight committees have the broader purpose of monitoring the commission’s overall performance, assisted by the more forensic inquiries of inspectors.

Experience in Australian states suggests it will be crucial that the committee forms a constructive relationship with the NACC, that it exercises its power to hold some of its meetings with the NACC in public and table regular reports. This will be the public’s best opportunity to determine if the NACC is fulfilling its purpose.

The committee has not been established long enough to indicate how public and active it will be, but the more secretive the committee is, the more the NACC will struggle for public acceptance.

Just as crucial is that the committee should operate with as little political partisanship as possible. It should not only ensure accountability of the NACC, but be a guardian when the commission inevitably faces political and institutional backlash.

It is too early to say if the NACC has lived up to its promise. Its willingness to be accountable for its Robodebt decision, and the ability of the inspector and parliamentary committee to play a constructive role in that accountability, will be critical to ensuring ongoing public support.

Andrew Young is the former Clerk of the Legislative Council of Victoria, responsible for the administration of the Integrity and Oversight Committee.
Andrew Young is Chair of the Victorian chapter of the Australasian Study of Parliament Group (ASPG).

– ref. Australia’s long-awaited national anti-corruption body is a year old. Is it meeting expectations? – https://theconversation.com/australias-long-awaited-national-anti-corruption-body-is-a-year-old-is-it-meeting-expectations-233786

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marta Rychert, Senior Researcher in Drug Policy and Health Law, Massey University

We all make mistakes at work. And many factors can contribute to professional lapses, including fatigue, illness and lack of training or professional support. Usually we pick up the pieces and move on.

But for those who work in high-risk sectors and with vulnerable people – teachers and doctors, among others – the outcome of professional misconduct can be career-ending.

Disciplinary bodies and workplaces can respond to misconduct by removing a professional’s ability to practise. Alternatively, they can impose rehabilitative measures to help someone return to work.

For example, they can oblige someone to undergo more training or to practise under supervision for a set period. But the risk of repeated misconduct or harm to the public is a concern.

So how do we balance public safety with the goal of rehabilitation? And would greater emphasis on rehabilitation avoid wasted investment in expensive education and training?

Balancing safety and second chances

In New Zealand, registered professionals such as teachers, lawyers and health practitioners may be held accountable before a disciplinary tribunal.

Our analysis of 15 years of disciplinary decisions about health practitioners reveals the range of conduct involved, from crossing professional boundaries to practising without registration or misappropriating funds.

Registered professionals may even be disciplined for conduct outside their work, such as being convicted of dangerous driving.

The tribunals’ primary concern is to protect the public and maintain professional standards. This way we can all trust in our education, health and legal workforce, knowing their services are safe and comply with expected standards.

These tribunals also have the power to suspend practitioners or cancel their registration, effectively ending that person’s career. But by law the tribunals should also consider alternative responses and whether the goal of public protection can be achieved in other ways.

They can oblige a practitioner to practise under supervision, complete additional training, attend an ethics course or undergo addiction treatment (if relevant). But there is little consistency in how this is applied. More research on what works best is needed.

The case for rehabilitation

Our analysis found the majority of tribunal decisions included some rehabilitative element. And there has been an increase in tribunals ordering conditions such as training, supervision and mentoring.

But the likelihood of receiving a rehabilitative outcome differs across professions. We found nurses were more likely than doctors to be deregistered as a result of disciplinary proceedings, for instance.

It also appears some professional tribunals are more inclined than others to address the core issues that contributed to the misconduct. In fact, some explicitly craft “compassionate” penalties, taking account of distressing circumstances that led to professional breaches.

Recent decisions by tribunals and the High Court highlight the growing importance of professional rehabilitation. These also illustrate the challenges in deciding who deserves it. In one case, the lawyers’ disciplinary tribunal said failure to consider rehabilitation would leave its “job largely undone”.

In 2022, the High Court overturned a disciplinary tribunal’s decision to deregister a pharmacist, because the tribunal did not sufficiently assess the prospects of her rehabilitation.

The case involved mismanagement of a pharmacy and breach of conditions imposed on the pharmacy licence. In overturning the original decision, the High Court described the penalty as “unduly harsh” and reaffirmed the importance of rehabilitation.

Who deserves rehabilitation?

Our society makes great investments in the training and support of health practitioners, lawyers and teachers. Supporting them to continue practising safely, rather than striking them off, may have societal and economic benefits.

But sometimes misconduct cannot be remedied. For example, when teachers engage in sexual relationships with their students, the outcome is often deregistration. The severity of such misconduct and protecting students from harm are prioritised over rehabilitation efforts.

In one case, where a female teacher developed an intimate relationship with her vulnerable student, the tribunal said deregistration was the only acceptable outcome. This was despite the teacher’s remorse, her insight into her behaviour, and the fact she prioritised the student’s needs after the relationship ended.

In other sectors such as criminal justice and health, theoretical concepts have guided rehabilitation practice. For example, the “risk-needs-responsivity” model is widely adopted in the rehabilitation of criminal offenders, and provides guidance for implementing the programmes.

Towards a better model

Despite rehab being a common response in the justice system, we don’t have similar models specifically developed for professional misconduct. And surprisingly little is known about how New Zealand tribunals craft rehabilitation penalties.

While tribunals often consider practitioners’ levels of “remorse” and “insight”, assessing the prospects of rehabilitation poses challenges (as the recent High Court appeal demonstrated).

We also don’t know what responses work best in restoring practitioners to safe and competent practice after misconduct. For example, how effective are mandated ethics courses, or how well do practitioners engage with supervision conditions?

An interdisciplinary research project is under way to understand this. We are seeking the views of teachers, lawyers and health practitioners who have been ordered to undergo treatment, training, supervision, mentoring, counselling or health assessment by their disciplinary tribunals.

Understanding their experiences of professional rehabilitation will help improve consistency within and across tribunals, and could transform how workplaces in other sectors respond to misconduct.

Health professionals, teachers and lawyers who have received rehabilitative conditions from a disciplinary tribunal and would like to participate in this research are invited to contact the team here.

Marta Rychert receives funding from the Marsden Royal Society for a research project on rehabilitation after professional misconduct.

Kate Diesfeld receives funding from the Marsden Fund.

Lois Surgenor receives funding from the Marsden Fund.

– ref. Professional misconduct can end a career – who should get a second chance? – https://theconversation.com/professional-misconduct-can-end-a-career-who-should-get-a-second-chance-232986

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ehsan Noroozinejad, Senior Researcher, Urban Transformations Research Centre, Western Sydney University

Australia is facing dual crises: increasing climate change risks and soaring housing costs. Financial institutions have a crucial role to play in funding and promoting solutions to these challenges.

A recent United Nations Environment Programme report, Banking on Green Buildings, proposes ways to promote sustainable buildings in line with both economic and environmental goals. Suggested options include green bonds and green mortgages for developing and renovating buildings to be sustainable.

Banks have the power to revolutionise how we fund construction. Directing investment into green buildings means future houses can be affordable, sustainable and resilient to climate change.

Our buildings account for around 19% of total energy use and 18% of direct carbon emissions in Australia.

How does this help with housing costs?

Rising costs and a lack of affordable choices are putting immense pressure on Australia’s communities and housing sector. Soaring energy bills have driven up the cost of living, especially for low-income households.

Modern construction methods and green buildings provide an answer since they are more efficient and use less energy. So smart green building strategies can produce more affordable homes for Australians that are cheaper to run.

By reducing living costs, green homes also reduce mortgage default risk. That’s one reason banks in some parts of the world already promote their benefits.

Various UK lenders offer green mortgages with lower interest rates to buyers of energy-efficient new homes. A European Commission-funded project has also provided green mortgages.

Green homes increase resilience

Australia faces increasing risk from natural hazards including bushfires, floods and extreme heatwaves as a result of climate change. Australian
households paid an average of A$888 a year in direct costs because of extreme weather events over the ten years to 2022. This figure is expected to exceed $2,500 a year (in 2022 dollar value) by 2050.

Energy-efficient and sustainably built buildings are more resilient to climate change impacts such as extreme heat. They lower long-term risk for investors and households by improving comfort and safety during extreme weather.

Banking programs that give priority to energy-efficient designs and materials have a dual effect: they reduce environmental impacts and strengthen resilience to climate change.

Who does this in Australia?

Green building loans enable financial institutions to develop and expand their product offerings.

NAB’s Green Finance for Commercial Real Estate program is an initiative that increases commercial buildings’ climate resilience. It includes financing for developing green buildings and retrofitting buildings to greatly reduce energy use and emissions.

The Sustainable Australia Fund’s offer of $100 million in green loans to business is another program that helps make buildings more sustainable. Eligible upgrades include renewable energy and battery storage, building insulation and electric vehicle charging stations. Owners are advised on the emissions profiles of their properties and possible improvements.

Bank Australia’s Clean Energy Home Loan is an example in the housing sector. The bank offers lower rates for home owners to make their homes more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly.

Global examples of success

Financial institutions worldwide have benefited from including sustainable construction investments in their portfolios.

A 2023 International Finance Corporation report, Building Green, shows green construction could be a US$1.5 trillion investment opportunity in emerging markets over the next decade.

Global demand for investments in climate-resilient infrastructure is already high, as green bond issues show. Banks issue these bonds to borrow money from investors. The banks then use those funds to provide loans for environmentally friendly purposes.

In the past two months, First Abu Dhabi Bank raised US$600 million and Commercial Bank of Dubai raised US$500 million by issuing green bonds.

The success of European property consultancy CFP Green Buildings demonstrates the scalability of such programs. It has grown from greening 3,000 buildings per year to over 3.5 million buildings per year.

CFP has now partnered with CommBank to provide comparable tools in Australia to assess commercial buildings, identify ways to improve their sustainability and estimate costs.

The Japan Bank for International Cooperation’s green bonds issues, totalling more than US$1.5 billion over the past four years, is another example of the robust global demand. Funded projects involve renewable energy, clean transportation and green buildings.

Global bank HSBC also plays a key role in this rapidly growing market. HSBC Green Bonds support activities such as green buildings, clean transportation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, sustainable waste management and climate change adaptation.

These financial solutions are essential to fund actions to reduce environmental hazards and improve climate resilience.

Aligning with national policy goals

Australia has a target of net-zero emissions by 2050. Our financial institutions can play an important role in getting there by promoting green construction methods including prefab and modular timber buildings.

Owners of homes with a Green Star rating benefit financially from the start. A 2023 KPMG report estimates they may save up to A$115,000 in interest by putting their energy bill savings into repaying their loan. The energy and interest savings exceed the initial costs of achieving a Green Star standard.

A panel discussion last October, led by Urban Transformations Research Centre at Western Sydney University, highlighted the need for sustainable building designs to build community resilience. One of the main challenges that panellists identified is finding ways to finance the costs of constructing and retrofitting buildings amid an affordability crisis.

This is where financial institutions come into the picture. They are key to building a sustainable future and overcoming Australia’s climate and housing challenges.

Ehsan Noroozinejad received national and international funding for research on housing technologies and affordability.

Nicky Morrison receives funding from New South Wales state and local governments.

– ref. How investing in green buildings, including cheaper home loans, is a win for banks, people and our planet – https://theconversation.com/how-investing-in-green-buildings-including-cheaper-home-loans-is-a-win-for-banks-people-and-our-planet-232476

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carmel Taddeo, Senior Lecturer at UniSA Education Futures, University of South Australia

Many parents are worried about how much their children use social media and what content they might encounter while using it.

Amid proposals to ban teenagers under 16yrs from social media and calls to better educate them about being safe online, how can you tell if your child’s social media use is already a problem? And what steps can take to help if there is an issue?

It is easy to get hooked

These platforms are designed in a way that releases dopamine (the “feel-good” hormone) for users. This can make it especially difficult for adolescents to resist.

As psychologists explain, from the onset of puberty until the mid-20’s, our brains are hypersensitive to social feedback and stimuli.

This means young people are more likely to engage in behaviours that can lead to praise or attention from peers and others. So it can be harder for a young person to resist responding to notifications or “likes”. Young people also are developing their impulse control, which can have implications for their scrolling habits and make it harder for them to stop.

There are benefits and risks

There are certainly many benefits to social media use, such as social connection, information and support. But there are also risks.

Although it is not necessarily causal, there are links between social media use and depression, anxiety, stress, sleep disorders, many aspects of cyberbullying and body image issues.

So it is understandable if parents have concerns about their children’s use of platforms such as TikTok, Instagram or Snapchat.

Are we talking about a ‘problem’ or an ‘addiction’?

Often terms such as “problematic” and “addiction” are used interchangeably when talking about social media use.

But there is no consensus among experts about how to differentiate between them or even if they should be differentiated.

Although some researchers argue social media addiction presents in similar ways to other behavioural addictions such as gambling, it is not recognised as a clinical disorder.

We need to be careful about referring to social media use as a clinical disorder or addiction.
It can be more helpful to use terms such as “problematic” or “unhealthy” until we know more.

Is there any advice on how much time is OK?

Australian guidelines suggest children and young people between five and 17 should spend no more than two hours of sedentary recreational screen time per day (not including school work).

But as the eSafety Commissioner notes, there is no “magic figure”. It depends on a range of factors such as a child’s maturity and age, the type and quality of content they are consuming and if it involves watching alone or with a carer.

There are no specific guidelines around social media use.

How can you tell if there’s a problem?

Keeping track of what teenagers are doing online can be very difficult, especially if they have their own devices.

So it means parents and carers will have to carefully consider their own child’s situation and behaviour to work out if there is a issue. Things that can suggest a young person’s use of social media has become a problem include:

• withdrawing from, or missing out on usual activities to spend time on social media

• finding it hard to stop or reduce the time spent on social media

• lying about or trying to cover up their social media use

• continuing to use social media even if it is causing problems with their real life relationships or other areas of life (such as school, work or sport).

What about problematic content?

On top of time spent on social media, problematic use can also relate to the kinds of content a young person is being exposed to.
This can include content which shows or promotes risky behaviours or violence, extremist views, pornography, gambling opportunities, graphic videos, fake news or mis/disinformation.

This can be very easy to access. As a US Surgeon General’s advisory notes, inappropriate content is even directed towards young people through algorithms.

If your child has come across inappropriate or concerning content, they may not want to talk about it or tell anyone because they may be embarrassed, confused or scared.

What can you do if you think there’s a problem?

Try to approach a conversation with your child in a sensitive way. Assure them you are here to help and not “get them in trouble”.

Thinking about your own social media use can be a useful starting point. Research suggests adolescents are more likely to have problematic internet use in general when their parents also have problematic use. Are your own habits consistent with what you want for your child? Do you have time-out from social media?

You and your child/young person could have a discussion about how you could both commit to changing your behaviour as a family. Perhaps this means no social media after a certain time of day or only at certain times of the day.

Involve your kids in change, do things offline

Even if your own habits are OK, it is important for young people to be involved and consulted about what will work for them, rather than an outright “ban” or imposed change. This gives them a sense of ownership of the solution (and makes them more likely to participate).

Research also suggests having regular, positive family time together can help foster time away from devices and problematic use. So organise things that fit with your child’s interests and can be done offline. For example, board game nights, hikes, bike rides or meals.

Young people also often seek help and information about problems through other trusted adults and peers. So if you can, encourage them to talk to their friends or a teacher at school about what they do to manage social media use.

Other resources

Problematic social media use is a complex issue. And it needs involvement from the broader community, not just families and carers. Any solutions will also need to actively involve young people and social media platforms themselves.

If your child/young person is demonstrating problematic use, and you would like more specific support, contact a counsellor or mental health professional.

There are also other resources that may help, including:

• general advice to parents on what social media is and why young people use it, from youth mental health organisation ReachOut

• advice to young people if they feel pressured by social media from the eSafety Commissioner

• advice to parents about social media use from the federal government’s Student Wellbeing Hub

• advice about the law and social media and what to do if you get into trouble from Youth Law Australia

• advice to young people about how to protect their mental health on social media from Kids Helpline.

I was a postdoctoral research fellow between 2013 and 2016 on the Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre. I work for the University of South Australia in a part-time capacity and have received various funding to support research in my field. I also am director of CMT Accessible Research Pty Ltd

Professor (Adjunct) Barbara Spears AM,
has received funding in the past from various sources including Australian Research Council and Cooperative Research Centre competitive grants.
She led the Safe and Well Online project of the Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre; the review of the National Safe Schools Framework; and various bullying and cyberbullying projects.

She is affiliated with the University of South Australia, is a recently retired Deputy Chair of the Child Development Council of SA and current member of the Programs Committee of the Sammy D Foundation (SA).

– ref. What can you do if you think your teen already has unhealthy social media habits? – https://theconversation.com/what-can-you-do-if-you-think-your-teen-already-has-unhealthy-social-media-habits-233556

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Magnus Söderberg, Professor & Director, Centre for Applied Energy Economics and Policy Research, Griffith University

Much of the debate about nuclear power in the month since the Coalition announced its plan to install reactors in seven states has been about cost.

But some things matter more to electricity users than the average price they pay for electricity.

For big industrial users who either buy their power wholesale, or renegotiate their fixed-term price contracts frequently, it is important that the wholesale price is fairly steady.

Nuclear power plants produce power at a fairly steady pace, which leads to a more steady market price. Power systems built around wind and solar produce cheaper power, but with more uncertain output and much greater variability in price.

This greater variability can be smoothed to some extent by adding storage such as pumped hydro and large-scale batteries, but to the extent that it remains, uncertain prices make investments in power-hungry projects harder to justify.

The greater the uncertainty, the more investment moves to other firms, other less energy-intensive industries and other countries.

This has been confirmed in a study of the behaviour of thousands of Chinese firms between 2008 and 2018.

Variable prices cut the value of firms

I presented preliminary results from a project using data from Queensland during Australian Energy Week last month.

Those results suggest that higher volatility in wholesale electricity prices lowers the share price of listed firms in the metals and mining industries.

Intraday price volatility has doubled over the past five to ten years. I find this has cost the firms that suffered it 5% of their share market value.

The metals and mining industries are valued at about A$40 billion, meaning a 5% reduction corresponds to $74 per Australian, each year.

Without nuclear, prices vary more

Now back to nuclear. Since nuclear power can generate electricity regardless of the weather, an advantage it has is lower price volatility.

We can see this by investigating what has happened in other countries when a sizeable proportion of the nuclear capacity has been taken offline.

Two recent examples from Europe illustrate this.

The first is from Germany which shut down three nuclear reactors on December 31, 2021, halving Germany’s nuclear power capacity overnight.

The second example is taken from France. There, stress corrosion cracking was discovered in several reactors and in April 2022, it had taken out 28 of France’s 56 reactors.

In Germany, shutting down the reactors pushed up price volatility by 5% to 15%. France experienced a few extreme price spikes, which also drove up the volatility.

In nearby southern Sweden and Poland, price volatility fell 10% to 25% during the same period.

As we keep expanding wind and solar, it is highly likely that electricity wholesale price volatility will climb further.

If Australia continues to rule out nuclear power, it is necessary to ask what else it can do to keep price volatility in check.

Magnus Söderberg 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. Nuclear power has an advantage not reflected in the average price. It’s price stability, and for some users that matters – https://theconversation.com/nuclear-power-has-an-advantage-not-reflected-in-the-average-price-its-price-stability-and-for-some-users-that-matters-233865