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

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adhi Oktaviana, PhD Candidate in Archaeology, Griffith University

Figurative rock art – art that presents lifelike representations of subjects – provides visual insights into ancient cultures, beliefs and societal practices, offering a direct window into human cultural evolution.

Being able to date figurative rock art accurately is crucial. It helps establish timelines of human artistic expression, aiding in understanding the development of symbolic thinking and cultural complexity across different periods and regions.

In an article published in the journal Nature today, we present a novel approach to date cave paintings.

Using this new dating innovation, we have found the world’s oldest figurative cave art.

Dated to at least 51,200 years ago, the art depicts an interaction between humans and a pig. It was found in a cave in Sulawesi, an island of Indonesia directly north-east of Bali and east of Borneo.

It’s a crucial piece of our history as humans, suggesting figurative art and storytelling have long been intertwined.

A new pioneering technique

In some limestone caves where people made rock art, dripping or flowing water occasionally led to the formation of mineral deposits on top of the paint layer, which provide a way to date the art scientifically.

Each drop of water leaves a tiny amount of carbonate particles, leading to the formation of a whitish coating over the rock art. The same process also leads to the growth of speleothem (also known as stalagmite and stalactite) layers, with numerous layers of particles that encapsulate all sorts of elements, including uranium.

Uranium is a naturally occurring radioisotope, meaning the chemical element will decay into other elements with time.

By comparing the ratio between the parent isotope (uranium) and the daughter isotope (thorium) we are able to calculate an age proportional to the time it took for the latter to form. This technique is called uranium-series, or U-series.

Rock art dating using U-series has typically been done by manually excavating a calcium carbonate sample and dissolving the resultant powder into a chemical solution, which is then introduced into a mass spectrometer. But the problem with this approach is that it averages several layers that have different ages, and does not distinguish pristine zones from altered ones.

To overcome these problems, our team developed a new analytical approach that uses a laser beam, four times smaller than the width of a human hair, to precisely sample the layers of calcium carbonate covering the art, including those closest to the painting.

The technique permits a better understanding of the internal growth structure of the calcium carbonate that formed on the art. This allows us to identify porous areas within these growths that complicate the dating process.

The laser is run across the samples in parallel lines, known as rasters. Once these are consolidated into a single high-resolution data set, we are able to understand the distribution of uranium and associated elements in great detail.

This technique is called “U-series imaging”, as it creates a map of the sample’s geochemical composition. We can then extract the data closest to the paint layer, providing a precise age estimate.

The dating result is always considered to be a minimum age estimation, given there might have been a delay between the creation of the art and the growth of the first calcium carbonate layers on top.

Art to tell a story

We used this new technique to date a painting in a cave in southern Sulawesi named Leang Karampuang and showed it is at least 51,200 years old.

The painting consists of a scene dominated by a large naturalistic representation of a wild pig. In front of the pig are three smaller human-like figures. They appear to be interacting with the animal.

One figure seems to be holding an object near the pig’s throat. Another is directly above the pig’s head in an upside-down position with legs splayed out. The third figure is larger and grander in appearance than the others; it is holding an unidentified object and is possibly wearing an elaborate headdress.

The manner in which these human-like figures are depicted in relation to the pig conveys a sense of dynamic action. Something is happening in this artwork – a story is being told.

We don’t know what that story was. Perhaps it was an account of a real boar hunt or a depiction of a myth or imaginary tale. Whatever the case, it seems to concern the relationship between pigs and people as conceived by early humans in Sulawesi.

We now know humans have used figurative art to tell stories for at least 51,000 years. Using our new dating method it may be possible in the future to fill in some of the many gaps in our knowledge of this key development in the history of art.

Adhi Oktaviana receives funding from Google Arts & Culture and National Geographic Society.

Adam Brumm receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Google Arts and Culture, and the National Geographic Society.

Maxime Aubert receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Google Arts and Culture, and the National Geographic Society.

Renaud Joannes-Boyau receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Found in a cave in Indonesia, we can now show the world’s oldest figurative art is 51,200 years old – https://theconversation.com/found-in-a-cave-in-indonesia-we-can-now-show-the-worlds-oldest-figurative-art-is-51-200-years-old-233663

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Garritt C. Van Dyk, Lecturer in History, University of Newcastle

The most seductive culinary myths have murky origins, with a revolutionary discovery created by accident, or out of necessity.

For the Caesar salad, these classic ingredients are spiced up with a family food feud and a spontaneous recipe invention on the Fourth of July, across the border in Mexico, during Prohibition.

Our story is set during the era when America banned the production and sale of alcohol from 1919–1933.

Two brothers, Caesar (Cesare) and Alex (Alessandro) Cardini, moved to the United States from Italy. Caesar opened a restaurant in California in 1919. In the 1920s, he opened another in the Mexican border town of Tijuana, serving food and liquor to Americans looking to circumvent Prohibition.

Tijuana’s Main Street, packed with saloons, became a popular destination for southern Californians looking for drink. It claimed to have the “world’s longest bar” at the Ballena, 215 feet (66 metres) long with ten bartenders and 30 waitresses.

The story of the Caesar salad, allegedly 100 years old, is one of a cross-border national holiday Prohibition-era myth, a brotherly battle for the claim to fame and celebrity chef endorsements.

Necessity is the mother of invention

On July 4 1924, so the story goes, Caesar Cardini was hard at work in the kitchen of his restaurant, Caesar’s Place, packed with holiday crowds from across the border looking to celebrate with food and drink.

He was confronted with a chef’s worst nightmare: running out of ingredients in the middle of service.

As supplies for regular menu items dwindled, Caesar decided to improvise with what he had on hand.

He took ingredients in the pantry and cool room and combined the smaller leaves from hearts of cos lettuce with a dressing made from coddled (one-minute boiled) eggs, olive oil, black pepper, lemon juice, a little garlic and Parmesan cheese.

The novel combination was a huge success with the customers and became a regular menu item: the Caesar salad.

Et tu, Alex?

There is another version of the origin of the famous salad, made by Caesar’s brother, Alex, at his restaurant in Tijuana.

Alex claims Caesar’s “inspiration” was actually a menu item at his place, the “aviator’s salad”, named because he made it as a morning-after pick-me-up for American pilots after a long night drinking.

His version had many of the same ingredients, but used lime juice, not lemon, and was served with large croutons covered with mashed anchovies.

When Caesar’s menu item later became famous, Alex asserted his claim as the true inventor of the salad, now named for his brother.

Enter the celebrity chefs

To add to the intrigue, two celebrity chefs championed the opposing sides of this feud. Julia Child backed Caesar, and Diana Kennedy (not nearly as famous, but known for her authentic Mexican cookbooks) supported Alex’s claim.

By entering the fray, each of these culinary heavyweights added credence to different elements of each story and made the variations more popular in the US.

While Child reached more viewers in print and on television, Kennedy had local influence, known for promoting regional Mexican cuisine.

While they chose different versions, the influence of major media figures contributed to the evolution of the Caesar salad beyond its origins.

The original had no croutons and no anchovies. As the recipe was codified into an “official” version, garlic was included in the form of an infused olive oil. Newer versions either mashed anchovies directly into the dressing or added Worcestershire sauce, which has anchovies in the mix.

Caesar’s daughter, Rosa, always maintained her father was the original inventor of the salad. She continued to market her father’s trademarked recipe after his death in 1954.

Ultimately she won the battle for her father’s claim as the creator of the dish, but elements from Alex’s recipe have become popular inclusions that deviate from the purist version, so his influence is present – even if his contribution is less visible.

No forks required – but a bit of a performance

If this weren’t enough, there is also a tasty morsel that got lost along the way.

Caesar salad was originally meant to be eaten as finger food, with your hands, using the baby leaves as scoops for the delicious dressing ingredients.

For presentation in a restaurant, the salad was also created in front of the diners’ table, on a rolling cart, with some recommending a “true” Caesar salad was tossed only seven times, clockwise.

This extra level of drama, performance and prescribed ritual was usually limited to alcohol-doused flaming desserts.

To have a humble salad, invented in desperation, elevated to this kind of treatment made it a very special dish – even without any bacon.

Garritt C. Van Dyk receives funding from the Getty Research Institute, California, for research into 17th-18th c. cookbooks as politcial satire

– ref. No croutons, no anchovies, no bacon: the 100-year-old Mexican origins of the Caesar salad – https://theconversation.com/no-croutons-no-anchovies-no-bacon-the-100-year-old-mexican-origins-of-the-caesar-salad-233099

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jason Harris, Professor of Corporate Law, University of Sydney

Australia’s corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), should be broken up and replaced by new and more responsive regulatory agencies, a damning report has found.

The Senate Economics References Committee handed down its 200-page report Tuesday evening after a 20-month inquiry into the corporate regulator.

The inquiry involved five days of public hearings and 198 submissions from the Australian Tax Office (ATO) and an array of other financial, accounting and legal interest groups.

The report calls for greater transparency and accountability from ASIC and a fundamental change to how it approaches enforcement.

It highlights three major problems.

1. Impossibly broad responsibility

The scope of ASIC’s responsibility is impossibly broad and it has not shown it can effectively fulfil its mandate.

While ASIC is chronically under-resourced when compared with other corporate regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States, ASIC’s repeated governance failures and lack of public accountability mean giving it more money won’t necessarily solve the problem

2. A gun-shy regulator

ASIC is a gun-shy regulator that is constantly reacting to public criticism and fumbling its caseload, rather than getting on with the job of investigating and punishing serious misconduct in our financial markets.

ASIC has taken its eye off the goal of addressing serious misconduct, perhaps because it is too scared to lose when it does take action.

It proudly trumpets its 97% litigation success rate in its annual reports, but this speaks to a regulator not taking on challenging cases and a regulator that is running the same type of matter over and again.

ASIC’s approach to public accountability is to deflect criticism and use a highlights package of sample enforcement actions in its reports to justify its existence. Meanwhile tens of thousands of reports of potential misconduct are ignored.

The report notes that ASIC is simply not using the information it receives about potential misconduct effectively. ASIC takes action in less than 1% of its reports of misconduct from insolvency practitioners alone. When questioned by the Senate committee about enforcement activities, ASIC steadfastly refused to comply with requests for information.

The corporate regulator should be independent from the government, but no-one should be immune from the scrutiny of parliament.

3. A flawed approach

ASIC’s approach to responding to reports of misconduct is fundamentally flawed. It derides reports of misconduct as mere complaints, stating that it is not a complaint handling body.

Many reports of misconduct are dismissed almost immediately. For decades, it has failed to provide accurate and timely information about its enforcement activity, as it changes how it reports enforcement actions and outcomes from year to year.

This makes it impossible to hold it accountable or to identify precisely what actions ASIC is and isn’t bringing. ASIC’s funding and staffing have increased over the past 10 years, but its enforcement activity has seen little change or increase.

Empirical studies show that ASIC only litigates a small number of provisions in the Corporations Act 2001 each year. The number of directors that ASIC bans each year for misconduct has barely changed in the past 20 years.

What the report says should happen next

The report makes 11 recommendations that call for ASIC to be broken up and for major governance changes inside the corporate cop.

ASIC commissioners frequently state they are one of the most active corporate regulators in the world and they are very effective at addressing corporate fraud and misconduct.

But this was rejected by the Hayne Royal Commission into the Banking and Financial Services industries which reported in 2019 that ASIC had consistently failed to take action against large financial institutions.

It also found the commission was too reliant on low level sanctions and agreed enforcement outcomes and it simply did not bring enough court cases to address serious misconduct.

ASIC responded at the time that it would bring a “why not litigate?” approach and then quickly backed away from that stance once the COVID pandemic hit.

Nothing has changed

This latest report shows nothing has changed since the royal commission. ASIC is too slow (often taking years to respond to reports of wrongdoing), too clumsy (failing to respond quickly enough to changes in market behaviour), doesn’t always pick the right cases to run.

Even when it “wins”, it often settles for low-level enforcement measures.

The serious financial and corporate crooks have little to fear from ASIC it appears.

This is a regulator that is stultifying under ineffective governance and a mandate so broad that it can point to almost any action as being relevant to its duties.

The inquiry’s final report shows it is not simply a matter of more enforcement being needed but also ensuring that ASIC is responding in the most appropriate way.

ASIC as an omnibus corporate regulator for everything, is a failed regulatory experiment. It is not simply a watchdog with no bite, but even worse, a watchdog chasing its own tail.

Jason Harris serves on the legal committee of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, the policy committee of the Governance Institute of Australia and serves on the business law section of the Law Council of Australia.

– ref. ASIC has comprehensively failed and its role should be split in two, according to long-awaited report – https://theconversation.com/asic-has-comprehensively-failed-and-its-role-should-be-split-in-two-according-to-long-awaited-report-233668

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

Anthony Albanese has flagged he expects rebel Labor senator Fatima Payman to quit the Labor Party imminently.

Answering a question in parliament from the opposition, the prime minister said: “I expect further announcements in the coming days, which will explain exactly what the strategy has been over now more than a month”.

Albanese suspended Payman from caucus on Sunday after she said on ABC TV that she would cross the floor again if necessary. This followed her doing so on a pro-Palestinian motion moved by the Greens last week.

On Tuesday it was reported Payman had met with Muslim leaders and political strategist Glenn Druery, dubbed the “preference whisperer”, who has worked with a range of micro parties over many years.

Asked that night on the ABC’s 7.30 whether it was acceptable for Payman to be talking with Labor’s opponents Albanese said “clearly, it’s not acceptable”.

He suggested this had not just happened since the events of the last few days,

“The idea that this happened just in the last 24 hours is I think not what has occurred.

“Clearly […] someone doesn’t just pop up on Insiders because they were walking past the studio on Sunday”.

Albanese, who called Payman to The Lodge on Sunday, said he had asked for an explanation about what motivated her interview but “I haven’t received one.

“Just as Senator Payman’s caucus colleagues weren’t given the courtesy of any advance notice that she would cross the floor to vote for a position that is not consistent with Labor’s position, when it comes to the Middle East.”

Albanese has stressed that by breaking party solidarity Payman has “placed herself outside the Labor party”. She has said “some members” were attempting to “intimidate” her into resigning from the Senate.

Druery has confirmed he has met Muslim community leaders about the election and a meeting included Payman. But he had no contract with the Muslim leaders.

Thursday is the last parliamentary sitting day before the winter recess. The Greens have been discussing some move on the Palestine issue before parliament rises.

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

– ref. Albanese suggests Fatima Payman likely to quit Labor Party imminently – https://theconversation.com/albanese-suggests-fatima-payman-likely-to-quit-labor-party-imminently-233886

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milad Haghani, Senior Lecturer of Urban Mobility, Public Safety & Disaster Risk, UNSW Sydney

A catastrophe involving large crowds at a religious gathering in northern India yesterday resulted in the deaths of over 100 people, with many more injured.

The disaster, in the Hathras district southeast of the capital New Delhi, unfolded during a Satsang (spiritual discourse) by a popular preacher which drew thousands of devotees.

This is the latest in a long list of crowd disasters in India.

Although much of the media coverage has described this event as a crowd “stampede”, this obscures failings in how the event was planned and run.

India has seen many such catastrophes

In recent history, India has witnessed several tragic crowd-related catastrophes.

On January 1 2022, a disaster at the Mata Vaishno Devi shrine in Jammu and Kashmir resulted in 12 deaths and 15 injuries. The incident was triggered by an argument among pilgrims during New Year celebrations.

On December 28 2022, a stampede at a political rally in Andhra Pradesh state in India’s south led to eight deaths as supporters surged towards the stage.

On November 25 2023, a crowd incident at a university concert in Kerala in India’s south caused four deaths and numerous injuries.

In 1954, millions gathered for a religious pilgrimage at the Prayag Kumbh Mela in northern India, resulting in a crowd disaster that claimed around 800 lives. This incident remains the deadliest crowd disaster in India’s history.

A global database of deaths from crowd accidents shows more than 1,477 people have lost their lives since 2000 in over 50 disastrous mass gatherings in India (excluding the very recent incident).

India remains one of the biggest hotspots for deadly crowd accidents in the world, particularly over the past two decades.

Other major hotspots include Saudi Arabia, mainly due to incidents during the annual Hajj pilgrimage, and some parts of West Africa.

A sobering trend of crowd disasters

A look back at the history of crowd accidents reveals a noteworthy and sobering trend.

In the 1980s, most crowd accident deaths occurred at sporting events. However, nowadays, most happen at religious gatherings, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

High-profile examples, such as the UK’s Hillsborough stadium disaster in 1989, led to the development of crowd management guides, better practices, and heightened awareness in sport arenas, especially in Europe. These measures have made sporting events significantly safer for crowds. But there haven’t been similar improvements for religious gatherings.

Today, for ticketed large events there’s usually extensive risk assessment, planning and operational control. Organisers can monitor and spot the risk as it unfolds and take real-time actions. Planning includes computer modelling of the event in terms of crowd movement, estimating evacuation times, and monitoring how people enter and leave the premises, among other factors.

However, these steps are not necessarily taken with religious mass gatherings.

Exits can be overwhelmed

Media reports indicate the venue where the recent tragedy took place was three times over its capacity.

A crowd that gathers gradually over an extended period of time during such an event would want to exit the venue all at once at the end. This means exits are grossly insufficient.

This simple inadequacy of exit capacities relative to the size of the crowd appears to be one of the main causes of the recent tragedy in India.

In many cases, the sheer pressure of the crowd at narrow exit points can lead to suffocation, which was reported with this latest tragic event. Clearly, individuals with smaller body sizes and shorter heights are at higher risk. This is reflected in the large number of women and children reported as casualties.

It’s not a crowd ‘stampede’

The media has used the word “stampede” to describe such events. This is often a blanket term to describe crowd accidents, often regardless of the underlying cause. It catastrophises events involving crowds, especially in relation to religious gatherings or when details of the incident are vague.

But using terms like this has implications. It essentially puts the blame on the people involved in the incident and on the way they behaved. In fact, crowd behaviour is often not the main cause of such incidents.

Perpetuating this narrative often allows organisers to be absolved of responsibility and demotivates authorities from investigating the root cause of the problem.

This leads to a vicious cycle of accidents occurring without any practical measures implemented to prevent the next one.

One member of India’s parliament told The New York Times:

Every year, these kinds of incidents keep repeating themselves, and we learn nothing.

We need to learn from past events

Crowd accidents, particularly at religious mass gatherings in developing countries, are becoming a more common cause of premature death worldwide.

In recent weeks, more than 1,300 pilgrims died during the Hajj. The recent incident in India soon followed.

While the number of deaths at the Hajj is higher, the mortality rate at the recent Indian gathering is significantly higher (we’ve calculated this at 0.065% for the Hajj versus 0.77% for the Indian incident).

This calls for rigorous regulation, proper risk assessment, planning, security provision and crowd monitoring.

Targeted, evidence-based public education campaigns can raise awareness and significantly reduce the likelihood and impact of such events.

Just as we pursue zero deaths on the roads, crowd accident deaths should be recognised as a preventable cause that needs addressing, especially in developing countries.

Milad Haghani receives funding from The Australian Research Council.

Claudio Feliciani receives funding from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and the Japan Science and Technology Agency.

– ref. Deadly crowd crush at Indian religious gathering shows how dangerous leaving an event can be – https://theconversation.com/deadly-crowd-crush-at-indian-religious-gathering-shows-how-dangerous-leaving-an-event-can-be-233864

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cameron Webb, Clinical Associate Professor and Principal Hospital Scientist, University of Sydney

If you’re looking to escape the Australian winter for your next holiday, don’t forget where there’s warmth, there will also be mosquitoes.

In turn, tropical destinations can be hot spots of mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue. In fact, Australian health authorities have warned travellers to Bali to be aware of the risk of dengue, with cases surging in the region.

So here’s how to protect yourself and your family on holidays.

What is dengue?

Dengue virus infection (commonly known as dengue fever, or just dengue) is caused by viruses spread by the bite of a mosquito. The mosquito species that typically transmit dengue are Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus.

There are four strains of dengue virus. Each has the potential to cause illness that can range from mild to severe and potentially life threatening.

Symptoms typically include rash, fever, chills, headache, muscle and joint pain, and fatigue. People also often report abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting.

While infection with just one of these viruses can make you sick, subsequent exposure to other strains can have more serious health implications. In these cases, symptoms can also include the presence of blood in vomit, bleeding gums and breathing difficulties.

Dengue infection must be confirmed via a blood test, but there are no specific treatments. Most people will recover on their own however staying hydrated is crucial and pain relief can help with symptoms. If more severe illness occurs, seek urgent medical care.

Are travellers at risk?

The disease is now endemic in around 100 countries and an estimated 4 billion people are considered at risk. Asian countries represent around 70% of the global disease burden. Even Europe is at risk.

One of the worst years on record was 2023, but the burden of dengue continues to grow. In the first four months of 2024, Indonesia reported three times as many cases of dengue compared to the same period in 2023.

Dengue is not a new risk to Australian travellers. Before COVID disrupted international travel, the number of Australians returning from tropical destinations with dengue was steadily increasing.

For example, between 2010 and 2016, there was an average annual increase of 22% of travellers returning to Victoria with dengue. Almost half of these people contracted the illness in Indonesia. Bali is well documented as posing a risk of dengue to travellers.

International travel restrictions due to COVID abruptly stopped this trend. But now Australians are again embracing international travel, cases are rising once more.

Bali isn’t the only destination with a surge in dengue, but we know it’s a popular holiday destination for Australian travellers. There’s little doubt plenty of families will be heading to Bali these school holidays.

How about the risk in Australia?

Not all mosquitoes can spread dengue viruses. This is why the risk is different in Bali and other tropical regions compared to Australia.

Although there are more than 40 Australian mosquito species known or suspected to be transmitting local pathogens, such as Ross River virus, Australia is generally free of local dengue risk due to the limited spread of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus.

While Aedes aegypti is found in parts of Queensland, thanks to interventions by the World Mosquito Program and local authorities dengue risk is low. These interventions include the release of laboratory-bred mosquitoes that prevent mosquitoes in the environment spreading viruses, as well as community education. But local cases occasionally occur.

Aedes albopictus is not currently found on the Australian mainland but is present in the islands of the Torres Strait. A dengue outbreak has occurred there this year.

Keep mozzies away during the day, not just at night

While there is a vaccine available, it’s not recommended for short-term travellers. There are strict eligibility criteria for its use, so speak to a health professional for advice.

For the majority of travellers, preventing mosquito bites is the only way to prevent disease.

But there are differences in the behaviour of dengue mosquitoes that mean the normal measures to avoid mosquito bites may not be as effective.

During the Australian summer, mosquitoes found in local wetlands can be incredibly abundant. We tend to need to reach for the repellent and cover up to stop bites as soon as the sun starts going down.

Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus can aggressively bite people but they’re not as abundant as the swarms of summer mosquitoes back home.

They also bite during the day, not just at night. So for those travelling to Bali or other areas at risk of dengue, putting insect repellent on throughout the day is recommended.

What to pack for protection

If you’re staying in a major resort, there’s likely to be a mosquito control program in place. This may include minimising available water for mosquito breeding in combination with insecticide use. Mosquitoes are also less likely to be an issue in air-conditioned accommodation.

But if you’re planning to spend time out and about visiting local villages, markets, or in nature, it’s best to protect against bites.

Light coloured and loose fitting clothing will help stop mosquito bites (and help keep you cool). Covered shoes can help too – dengue mosquitoes love smelly feet.

Finally, it’s best to take some insect repellent with you. There may not be any available at your destination, and formulations on sale might not have been through the same thorough testing as products approved in Australia.

Cameron Webb and the Department of Medical Entomology, NSW Health Pathology, have been engaged by a wide range of insect repellent and insecticide manufacturers to provide testing of products and provide expert advice on mosquito biology. Cameron has also received funding from local, state and federal agencies to undertake research into mosquito-borne disease surveillance and management.

– ref. Heading to Bali or somewhere tropical these holidays? Here’s what you need to know about dengue fever – https://theconversation.com/heading-to-bali-or-somewhere-tropical-these-holidays-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-dengue-fever-233670

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katharine Kemp, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law & Justice, UNSW Sydney

Photos of Australian children have been used without consent to train artificial intelligence (AI) models that generate images.

A new report from the non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch has found the personal information, including photos, of Australian children in a large data set called LAION-5B. This data set was created by accessing content from the publicly available internet. It contains links to some 5.85 billion images paired with captions.

Companies use data sets like LAION-5B to “teach” their generative AI tools what visual content looks like. A generative AI tool like Midjourney or Stable Diffusion will then assemble images from the thousands of data points in its training materials.

In many cases, the developers of AI models – and their training data – seem to be riding roughshod over data protection and consumer protection laws. They seem to believe that if they build and deploy the model, they will be able to achieve their business goals while law or enforcement is catching up.

The data set analysed by Human Rights Watch is maintained by German nonprofit organisation LAION. Stanford researchers have previously found child sexual abuse imagery in this same data set.

LAION has now pledged to remove the Australian kids’ photos found by Human Rights Watch. However, AI developers that have already used this data can’t make their AI models “unlearn” it. And the broader issue of privacy breaches also remains.

If it’s on the internet, is it fair game?

It’s a misconception to say that because something is publicly available, privacy laws don’t apply to it. Publicly available information can be personal information under the Australian Privacy Act.

In fact, we have a relevant case when facial recognition platform Clearview AI was found to breach Australians’ privacy in 2021. The company was scraping people’s images from websites across the internet to use in a facial recognition tool.

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) ruled that even though those photographs were already on websites, they were still personal information. More than that, they were sensitive information.

It held Clearview AI had contravened the Privacy Act by failing to follow obligations about collection of personal information. So, in Australia, personal information includes publicly available information.

AI developers need to be very careful about the provenance of the data sets they’re using.

Can we enforce the privacy law?

This is where the Clearview AI case is relevant. There are potentially strong arguments LAION has breached current Australian privacy laws.

One such argument involves the collection of biometric information in the form of facial images without the consent of the individual.

Australia’s information commissioner ruled Clearview AI had collected sensitive information without consent. Additionally, this was done by “unfair means”: scraping people’s facial information from various websites for use in a facial recognition tool.

Under Australian privacy laws, the organisation gathering the data also has to provide a collection notice to the individuals. When you have these kinds of practices – broadly scraping images from across the internet – the likelihood of a company giving appropriate notice to everybody concerned is vanishingly small.

If it’s found that Australian privacy law has been breached in this case, we need strong enforcement action by the privacy commissioner. For example, the commissioner may be able to seek a very large fine if there is a serious interference with privacy: the greater of A$50 million, 30% of turnover, or three times the benefit received.

The federal government is expected to release an amendment bill for the Privacy Act in August. It follows a major review of privacy law conducted over the last couple of years.

As part of those reforms, there have been proposals for a children’s privacy code, recognising that children are in an even more vulnerable position than adults when it comes to the potential misuse of their personal information. They often lack agency over what’s being collected and used, and how that will affect them throughout their lives.

What can parents do?

There are many good reasons not to publish pictures of your children on the internet, including unwanted surveillance, the risk of identification of children by those with criminal intentions and use in deepfake images – including child pornography. These AI data sets provide yet another reason. For parents, this is an ongoing battle.

Human Rights Watch found photos in the LAION-5B data set that had been scraped from unlisted, unsearchable YouTube videos. In its response, LAION has argued the most effective protection against misuse is to remove children’s personal photos from the internet.

But even if you decide not to publish photos of your children, there are many situations where your child can be photographed by other people and have their images available on the internet. This can include daycare centres, schools or sporting clubs.

If, as individual parents, we don’t publish our children’s photos, that’s great. But avoiding this problem wholesale is difficult – and we should not put all the blame on parents if these images end up in AI training data. Instead, we must keep the tech companies accountable.

Katharine Kemp is a Member of the Expert Panel of the Consumer Policy Research Centre, and the Australian Privacy Foundation.

– ref. Photos of Australian kids have been found in a massive AI training data set. What can we do? – https://theconversation.com/photos-of-australian-kids-have-been-found-in-a-massive-ai-training-data-set-what-can-we-do-233868

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Muhammad Rizwan Azhar, Lecturer of Chemical Engineering, Sustainable Energy and Resources, Edith Cowan University

More Australians than ever are riding electric bikes – a fact you may have noticed on the streets of our cities and towns.

Electric bikes, or e-bikes, are typically equipped with an electric motor and a battery, providing power to help you pedal. Some allow you to boost and lower the amount of pedalling assistance you get.

Globally, the transport sector produces about one-quarter of greenhouse gas emissions. Finding cleaner ways to get around is vital to combating the climate crisis. E-bikes also offer solutions to the problems of traffic congestion, fuel costs and sedentary lifestyles.

But is an electric bike right for you? Below, we discuss the pros and cons, to help you decide.

The pros

– Reduce carbon emissions

In developed countries, transport can be one of the largest proportions of an individual’s carbon footprint. But you can reduce your travel emissions by 75% if you replace car use with an e-bike for short trips such as the work commute.

Research has found e-bikes, if used to replace cars, could cut carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions by up to 50% in England – or about 30 million tonnes a year. Other analysis showed the potential was greatest in rural areas.

– Connect with your community

The “car-rification” of our cities changed community dynamics. Retail became concentrated in out-of-town shopping centres, leading to a decline in smaller town centres. This provided fewer opportunities to meet our neighbours and has contributed to high rates of loneliness and social isolation.

Similar to regular cycling, riding e-bikes helps create community bonds. It makes us more likely to engage with our surroundings and interact with people around us. You can even join an e-bike group or community ride.

– Save money

E-bikes offer substantial long-term financial benefits to owners.

In Australia, an e-bike costs from about A$1,000 to more than $5,000. An annual e-bike service will set you back between $100 and $300. And retailers currently put the cost of a full battery charge at 10–15 cents, translating to roughly $20 per year for an average commuter.

Cars, of course, cost far more to run. For example, Victorian motoring body RACV last year found the state’s cheapest car to own and operate was the MG3 Core light Hatchm, with monthly costs of $734.84. Even taking into account charging costs and maintenance, you can see how quickly an e-bike would pay for itself.

– Get active

E-bikes are clearly better for your health than riding in a car.

A 2019 study investigated e‐bike commuting for inactive, overweight people living in regional Australia. It found e-bike users increased their physical activity by an average 90 minutes a week.

A literature review in 2022 found e-biking was a moderately intense physical activity on measures such as energy expenditure, heart rate and oxygen consumption. The benefits were lower than conventional cycling, but generally greater than walking.

Women, in particular, have reported benefits from e-bike use. A New Zealand study showed e-bikes provided less fit women with “more empowering physical activity experiences” and increased their cycling confidence.

The cons

– Safety challenges

Like any form of mobility, e-bikes must be used safely. Concerns around e-bikes include speeding, accidents and people riding without helmets.

In May this year, Sydney’s Northern Beaches Council launched a public awareness campaign on e-bike safety. The advice includes:

• slow to walking pace when others are on the path
• ring your bell to signal your approach
• be ready for sudden changes.

Government regulation on e-bikes is also important for public safety. For example in Germany, high-speed e-bikes are classed as mopeds and cannot be ridden on bike paths.

Separately, e-bikes usually contain lithium-ion batteries which can explode and start fires – particularly in e-bikes bought from overseas retailers that don’t meet Australian standards. Before buying, check advice from fire authorities.

– Lack of cycling and charging infrastructure

Well-designed cycling infrastructure encourages e-bike use. In Australia, governments are slowly accepting the need for infrastructure such as dedicated bike lanes and charging stations, but more money is needed.

In the Netherlands, a surge in e-bike sales has driven investments in cycling paths, improvements in bicycle parking at train stations, and other efforts to promote cycling and e-bike use.

– Higher upfront cost than a regular bike

The cost of buying an e-bike can be a barrier for some. For example, NZ-based research found the purchase cost meant the benefits were less likely to be available to lower-income women.

So how can the cost barrier be overcome? In Australia, some companies offer e-bike rentals, via a weekly subscription service. And overseas, share schemes mean people can access e-bikes without having to buy one.

In 2023, Tasmania became the first Australian state to offer a subsidy for e-bike purchases, and the uptake was rapid. However, the scheme has now closed.

– Environmental impacts

Almost everything we buy has an environmental impact, and electric bikes are no exception. However, they are obviously a better alternative to conventional cars – and also have less impact than electric vehicles.

Over the total lifecycle of the product, including manufacturing, an e-bike emits about 10% of the CO₂ emissions associated with producing an electric car, according to the European Cyclists Federation. And e-bikes consume about 15 watt-hours per kilometre, compared to electric cars which consume around 150 to 200 watt-hours per kilometre.

E-bike battery systems also typically require fewer raw materials and simpler design than an electric vehicle, which simplifies the battery recycling process.

Cleaner, cheaper, better

Electric cars are crucial for replacing traditional vehicles on longer routes and for family travel. However, e-bikes offer a more affordable and lower-impact solution for commuting and short-distance travel – and if you buy a cargo e-bike, you can even take your family.

Mass adoption of e-bikes in Australia requires better cycling infrastructure, new government regulation and price incentives. But in the meantime, thousands of Australians are already enjoying the benefits of e-bikes. Perhaps you could too?

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. Is an electric bike right for you? Here’s what to consider before you buy – https://theconversation.com/is-an-electric-bike-right-for-you-heres-what-to-consider-before-you-buy-230024

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sherine Al Shallah, Doctoral Researcher, Refugee Cultural Heritage and Connected Rights Protection | Affiliate, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law | Associate, Australian Human Rights Institute, UNSW Sydney

Cultural heritage has long been targeted during conflict. This includes the destruction of the famous Bamiyan Buddhas by the Taliban in Afghanistan and Russia’s attempts to erase the Ukrainian language in areas of the country it has occupied since 2014.

Cultural heritage loss has been extensively documented in the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict, too. Since the current war broke out in October 2023, at least 144 prominent historical monuments and cultural sites have been destroyed in Gaza, such as churches, mosques and the ancient city of Anthedon.

This cultural heritage loss can have implications on the continuity of Gazan Palestinians as a national group due to the erasure of their collective identity and memory.

The Rome Statute specifically protects cultural property from attacks during war. This includes sites dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, as well as historical monuments. Unlawful attacks on civilian objects that may constitute cultural property are also protected.

The International Criminal Court has used this statute to prosecute individuals for war crimes too. In 2016, the court found Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi guilty of intentionally directing attacks against religious and historic buildings in Timbuktu, Mali. He was sentenced to nine years in prison.

But when it comes to protection for refugees on the basis of cultural heritage – and taking into account cultural heritage loss specifically – there are very few pathways available.

What is refugee cultural heritage and why is it important?

Cultural heritage plays a significant role in shaping identity. It includes our traditions and practices, as well as physical heritage sites and objects, and people’s relationships with them.

For refugees, cultural heritage can include both the heritage of their home countries, as well as that of other countries where they have lived in exile. This means that if a Rohingya refugee from Myanmar spends time in a camp in Bangladesh, their heritage would incorporate influences from both places, in addition to the refugee experience itself.

Respecting “exile heritage” in asylum claims allows refugees the “right to exit” – or distance themselves from – the heritage of their home countries if they no longer agree with its values.

Refugee status is determined by states that are party to the 1951 Refugee Convention based on five grounds of persecution: race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group and/or political opinion. These five grounds are all interlinked with cultural heritage. Yet cultural heritage alone is rarely relied upon to assess evidence of persecution.

Until this year, for instance, the United Kingdom had been one of 12 countries not to have ratified the 2003 UNESCO Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage. The convention aims to recognise and safeguard a wide variety of cultural practices and traditions for people around the world.

And scholars believe this may have played a role in a well-known asylum case in Scotland.

In the early 2000s, members of a minority Somali clan known as the Bajuni applied for asylum in Glasgow, claiming persecution from the Somali government.

The asylum seekers did not have documentation to support their claim that they belonged to the clan that had been persecuted. So, the UK government administered linguistic and cultural tests to assess whether they were, in fact, members of the clan.

Many failed the linguistic tests because they had lived in exile in refugee camps where they learned to speak other languages, in addition to the English they learned in the UK. As a result, they were denied asylum and forced to live in prolonged limbo, seeking protection from other countries or a return to Somalia.

Scholars who studied the case said the UK’s absence from the UN convention established

a precedent in which other state actors (that is, immigration authorities) are emboldened to advance scepticism over matters involving intangible cultural heritage.

Members of the Bajuni community later launched a campaign to highlight the importance of recognising refugee cultural heritage more broadly in asylum claims to include “exile heritage” and to integrate the evolution of cultural heritage in these assessments.

After many years of debate, the UK finally ratified the convention in early June.

How should Australia’s policy respond to this?

When the Australian government assesses refugee claims, it requires applicants to recount experiences of persecution on the five grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group and political opinion.

This should be broadened to specifically include cultural heritage. For asylum seekers from Ukraine or Gaza, for example, the government should assess claimants’ language skills, cultural connections to their home countries and experiences in exile, in conjunction with the five grounds of persecution.

Recognising a refugee’s cultural heritage both in their home country and after they’ve fled is essential. It humanises refugees and provides them with a better opportunity for protection.

Though asylum seekers are often persecuted as members of a group, their claims are assessed as individuals. By ignoring the cultural heritage of people claiming refugee status, we are suppressing their identities.

Sherine Al Shallah is a recipient of the University Postgraduate Award. She is affiliated with the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law and the Australian Human Rights Institute.

– ref. Cultural heritage is often overlooked when assessing refugee claims. Here’s why this is a mistake – https://theconversation.com/cultural-heritage-is-often-overlooked-when-assessing-refugee-claims-heres-why-this-is-a-mistake-228384

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Williamson, Senior Tutor in English, University of Canterbury

A Family Affair is Netflix’s latest entry in the recently resuscitated rom-com genre. The streaming giant’s film execs have described the revival as a tactical decision to plug – and capitalise on – an identified gap in the market.

This began with a young audience in mind, with films such as To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before and The Kissing Booth. A Family Affair, however, strives to capture an older female audience who grew up in the halcyon days of the 1990s Nora Ephron rom-com.

The film attempts to look at the compromises women make to prioritise their families and partners, joining other works such as Prime Video’s The Idea of You (2024), Maggie Gyllenhall’s The Lost Daughter (2021), HBO’s Big Little Lies (2017–19) and Pamela Adlon’s excellent series Better Things (2016–22). But unlike these examples, A Family Affair isn’t very good.

Tonal patchiness

The film pairs Nicole Kidman’s character, award-winning author and widow of 11 years, Brooke Harwood, with Zac Efron’s much younger character Chris Cole, a womanising Hollywood heartthrob who catapulted to fame through a cheesy action franchise.

The duo’s implausible romance is set in motion when Brooke’s daughter Zara (Joey King) quits her job as Chris’s personal assistant.

In a “meet-cute” that beggars belief even within the rom-com universe of unlikely pairings, Chris somehow mistakes the glamorous Brooke for a cleaner. Naturally, the pair connect over a bottle of tequila before ripping one another’s clothes off.

The sequence ends with Zara catching them in the act, wheeling around in horror only to knock herself out on a door frame. It’s intended as slapstick, but the scene falls flat. In a society where women’s bodies are routinely subjected to violence, inviting us to laugh at Joey’s black eye and concussion feels uncomfortable.

Throughout A Family Affair, the jokes are thin at best and cringe-inducing at worst. The film suffers from tonal patchiness, careening wildly between sincerity and parody. These failings are made especially frustrating by the small glimmers that suggest it might actually have something interesting to say.

‘One or the other’

In an early scene, Brooke confesses to her mother-in-law, Leila (a woefully underutilised Kathy Bates), that she worries she has become “irrelevant” and invisible.

For Brooke, this is bound up with her waning usefulness as a mother. She begins taking stock of her life, only to realise it doesn’t add up to much. Single and ageing, she is struggling to write, her daughter has grown up, and she finds herself having built an identity around her maternal role.

Later, we find out that not only did Brooke’s writing take a backseat in the wake of her husband Charlie’s death, but they were also “having problems” prior to his cancer diagnosis. Charlie, it transpires, couldn’t cope with Brooke’s success and was planning to leave her.

These are important details that raise questions about maternal identity, regret and the many compromises women make to prioritise their families and partners.

My research looks at productions that foreground maternal protagonists and grapple with women’s desires to be “more than just a mother”. And they often use sex as a vehicle to initiate this discussion.

The quarantining of motherhood from sexuality has a long history, dating back to the venerated Virgin Mary who miraculously managed to sidestep the issue altogether.

Similarly, popular culture has branded the sexual mother as a “bad” mum, whose voracious desire not only threatens the sanctity of the family but also compromises her ability to parent. Netflix’s hugely successful soapy soft-porn series Sex/Life (2021–23), which pitted a mother’s sexual pleasure against her mundane domestic life, is an excellent example.

A Family Affair offers a similar scenario when Zara demands her mother end the affair. Clearly, in Zara’s eyes, Brooke can’t be both a sexual person and a good mother. Against this backdrop, Brooke’s frustrated insistence that “I just don’t see why it has to be one or the other” reads as a flat-out rejection of the well-worn Madonna/whore trope.

Cougars, MILFS and happy-ever-afters

Unfortunately, like the film itself, the sex scenes aren’t very satisfying. The duo lack chemistry and scenes are played more for laughs than titillation.

While director Richard LaGravenese insists the couple’s star power and lack of inhibition imbue the comedy with sexiness, the lame quips and shirt ripping are farcical, if not outright failures.

Failure is often used in comedy to defuse the threatening and unknown. In this case, the film’s failure to depict Brooke engaging in hot sex neutralises the threat she poses as a sexual mother. This reduces her to just another figure in a long line of cougars and MILFs: the object of desire, perhaps, but rarely the active desiring subject herself.

Another way sexual mothers are made “safe” is through the conventional happy-ever-after ending. Romantic endings are obviously a staple of the genre, but Brooke and Chris’s happy-ever-after also doubles as a redemption arc to bring the transgressive mother back into the socially sanctioned fold of the monogamous family unit.

Romantic comedies have always been entangled with their specific sociocultural moment, often staging anxieties about rapidly changing gender norms and social roles in a witty battle of the sexes. While the 1940s saw rom-com heroines fighting for equal footing and the 1980s focused on workplace inclusion, 2024’s entries appear to have the interests of the middle-aged sexual mother at heart.

Lame jokes, unlikable characters and lacklustre chemistry aside, this is arguably where the film most disappoints: it might tease and tantalise with promises of Brooke triumphantly getting both the “one and the other” – but ultimately, by dampening Brooke’s sexual desire so thoroughly, it fails to deliver.

Rachel Williamson 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. Netflix’s A Family Affair tries to reject old stories of sexual women being ‘bad mothers’. Too bad it’s a terrible film – https://theconversation.com/netflixs-a-family-affair-tries-to-reject-old-stories-of-sexual-women-being-bad-mothers-too-bad-its-a-terrible-film-233777