Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa Maurice-Takerei, Senior Lecturer in Education, Auckland University of Technology

This week’s major overhaul of the NCEA qualification system isn’t just about measuring academic achievement at secondary school. The government’s plans also include “working with industry to develop better vocational pathways” into the workforce.

The policy dovetails with big changes to the country’s polytechnic system, which have also been promoted as improving vocational education. Both that, and the NCEA reforms, go to the heart of an urgent problem facing New Zealand.

Even a brief glance at Immigration New Zealand’s “Green List” – formerly the Skills Shortage List – raises an obvious question: why are the country’s own training and education pathways not delivering these much needed skilled workers?

The skills shortages are found in everything from construction and engineering to health and social services, information technology and science. We need chefs, project managers, mechanics, forklift drivers and teachers.

Ten new skilled trades will be added to the list in August. But relying on immigration to meet these needs also represents a missed opportunity to connect young New Zealanders with skilled and meaningful work.

It’s a problem successive governments have grappled with for over a century, going back to schools being encouraged to include manual and technical subjects in the 1890s, the creation of “technical” high schools in the 1900s, and their eventual demise in the 1950s.

More than a restructure

Vocational education and training has long suffered from the perception that it is a pathway for the non-academic and “working class”. That public stigma
led to general dissatisfaction with technical high schools, and a perception they were a remedial solution to “fix” unemployment or low school achievement.

The system also never really recovered from the impacts of market-based reforms to education in the 1980s and 1990s, and from the demise of apprenticeships when large state-owned enterprises were privatised during that time.

More recently, polytechnics have struggled financially, with many running huge budget deficits. The previous Labour government responded by merging them into the Te Pūkenga mega-institute, designed to save costs by centralising services.

The current government is now reversing that policy. From January 2026, ten polytechnics will revert to regional governance, which Vocational Education Minister Penny Simmonds says will create a “locally led, regionally responsive and future-focused” vocational education system.

The remaining polytechnics, deemed not financially viable, will form a “federation” under the Open Polytechnic. Eight new Industry Skills Boards will be created to oversee standards and qualifications, with polytechnics on notice to be financially solvent.

The job and course losses from this decentralisation will be significant. In the meantime, we have a system in near-constant flux, change-weary workers and declining confidence in the system.

But it is vital New Zealand gets this right. Many of the more than 200 occupations on the Green List – and the economy in general – would benefit from a strong and stable vocational education and training system, well linked to industry.

Connecting school leavers with training

At stake are the futures of many of the 60,000 young people who leave school each year. About 30% enter university, 13% head to a polytechnic, 10% to a private training establishment, and just 6% enter an apprenticeship.

Some of the rest go straight into work or head overseas. But 17-20% of school leavers annually are classified as being “not in education, employment or training” (NEET) one year after leaving school.

NEET numbers have remained stubbornly high in New Zealand compared to other OECD countries, where numbers have dropped in recent years. How we connect this large number of school leavers to further education and training is the real challenge, beyond the structural components of the system.

While the government says the system changes will improve flexibility and regional responsiveness, regional polytechnics are among those required to be part of the new centralised federation.

The risks of ongoing instability for trainees, students, educators and industry are clear: increased fragmentation of services and ongoing funding uncertainties.

What is needed is a plan to ensure a credible, stable, cooperative system where government, industry and education providers work together to provide the right skills that serve industry, individuals and community.

5 questions for the government

As the January 2026 change date approaches, there are a number of important questions the government needs to be asking to ensure the new structure delivers what the country needs:

• how will tertiary education organisations remain solvent without raising student fees?

• how do niche courses, with small enrolment numbers but which provide essential skills for a range of enterprises, remain open?

• what is the opportunity for business and industry to contribute more to the costs of training?

• how do institutions ensure they stay relevant and provide the right skills?

• how do we overcome the geographical challenges of connecting learners with courses, given the limitations of online learning?

Beyond the provision of vocational skills, there are also the well-known social and health benefits associated with higher skill and education levels. Skills and qualifications are associated with better self-esteem, better health and longer life expectancy.

Solving skills shortages through immigration does little to address the long-term problem of relevant, affordable and accessible education and training. Nor does it contribute to longer-term social cohesion and civic participation.

Getting New Zealand’s vocational education and training system right this time should be non-negotiable.

Lisa Maurice-Takerei 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. Big changes to NCEA and polytechs must deliver the skills NZ urgently needs – https://theconversation.com/big-changes-to-ncea-and-polytechs-must-deliver-the-skills-nz-urgently-needs-261655

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Fitz-Gibbon, Professor (Practice), Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University

Child safety and wellbeing is never far from the headlines, and no more so than recently, with shocking allegations of child sexual abuse in childcare centres.

These revelations have sparked much-needed national conversations about how we can better protect children. They have also exposed how fragmented and reactive Australia’s approach to ensuring child safety can be.

Australia has dedicated ministers for aged care and seniors and youth and early childhood education. But there is no federal minister with a sole focus on children.

Responsibility for children is scattered across portfolios, from social services to education, health, Indigenous affairs, communications and the attorney-general’s department.

Without a single point of accountability or a unifying national vision, children’s needs can easily be sidelined. Here’s why that should change.

Children face many issues

There is no shortage of issues impacting children that demand urgent national attention. For example:

• the landmark Australian Childhood Maltreatment Study found more than 60% of Australians experience some form of child maltreatment, including physical violence, sexual abuse and neglect.

• about 23% of Australia’s homelessness population are aged 12–24. About 14% are under 12 years old.

• a 2024 study showed almost three-quarters of Australian adolescents experience clinically significant depression or anxiety symptoms.

• there are also significant challenges across state and territory youth justice systems. On an average day in 2023–24, 4,227 young people aged ten and over were under youth justice supervision in Australia. Given recent punitive youth justice reforms in several states, this number has likely risen and will rise over coming years.

There is a ministerial gap

Despite this breadth of challenges, Australia has only ever had one federal minister explicitly responsible for children.

Larry Anthony was minister for children and youth affairs in the Howard government from 2001 to 2004. After Anthony lost his seat, this ministerial role was absorbed into other portfolios. It has not been reintroduced.

Today, we have a minister for youth and a minister for early childhood education, but no minister with a focused mandate to champion children’s wellbeing, coordinate services across jurisdictions, and ensure children’s voices are heard in decisions that affect them.

This reinforces a view of children as passive recipients within broader systems, rather than individuals with rights and distinct needs.

What happens overseas?

Other countries — including New Zealand, Ireland, England and Wales — have a minister for children. These roles are to ensure national coordination, elevate children’s voices in policy making, and hold governments accountable for outcomes.

For example, New Zealand’s Ministry for Children (Oranga Tamariki) has embedded a legislative commitment to upholding the Treaty of Waitangi in child welfare decisions.

In Wales, the minister for children and social care supported the passage of the Rights of Children and Young Persons Measure in 2011, making Wales the first UK country to embed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into domestic law.

Why not?

Child safety advocates such as the Australian Foundation for Children have long pushed for a minister for children. But it is possible some decision makers within government may not readily see value in such a role.

One potential critique is the role risks duplicating efforts. Social services, education and health already address child-related issues and have dedicated ministers, all at cabinet level.

Another potential issue is that key areas such as education and child protection are primarily the responsibility of states and territories. This may raise practical concerns about how much authority a federal minister would have.

Others may fear the role could become largely symbolic or politicised if not given the necessary authority, funding or cross-portfolio buy-in to achieve meaningful impact.

But Australia routinely appoints ministers for portfolios with complex inter-jurisdictional responsibilities. This includes health, housing and education. Children’s wellbeing is no less deserving of this kind of national focus and coordination.

An opportunity for leadership focused on the next generation

Children do not vote and they rarely have access to political power. Their voices are often absent from national debate — especially those of children living in poverty, in care, or experiencing violence.

While the appointment of a federal minister for children would not fix these issues overnight, it would establish the national leadership needed to drive focused and longer-term reform in all the settings where children live, learn and play.

A minister for children could also represent Australia’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This requires governments to ensure children have access to protection, care and meaningful participation in decisions that affect them.

A federal minister for children would ensure the rights and wellbeing of children are no longer an afterthought. It would send a clear message that Australia is serious about protecting and investing in its youngest citizens.

Kate has received funding for research on violence against women and children from a range of federal and state government and non-government sources, including Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS), South Australian government, ACT government, Australian Childhood Foundation and 54 Reasons. This piece is written by Kate Fitz-Gibbon in her role at Monash University, and is wholly independent of Kate Fitz-Gibbon’s role as chair of Respect Victoria and membership on the Victorian Children’s Council.

– ref. Australia has ministers for seniors and youth. So why not a minister for children? – https://theconversation.com/australia-has-ministers-for-seniors-and-youth-so-why-not-a-minister-for-children-262236

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Heather Shearer, Lecturer in GIS and Planning, Griffith University

Australia’s housing affordability crisis shows no sign of easing. An average home price now exceeds A$1 million and a recent report found only a handful of rental properties nationwide are affordable for someone on government benefits. Vulnerable people are hit hardest – for example, there has been a 14% increase in women and girls seeking homelessness services.

Yet some councils want to evict people from their own homes. A couple in the Bega Valley, NSW, faces fines of $10,000 per day unless they remove or demolish their tiny house.

On the Sunshine Coast in Queensland, four tiny house owners are fighting council eviction. In Victoria’s Yarra Valley, a couple was told to demolish or rebuild to comply with the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

We’ve researched the planning and social aspects of the tiny house movement in Australia for over a decade. We’ve looked at changing attitudes to tiny houses and living more modestly, and the barriers people face when they choose this path.

Regulations are the biggest obstacle

While interest in tiny houses has soared, actual numbers of tiny house dwellers has stayed low. Are people put off by living in a space half the size of a city unit? Or is it too difficult to secure finance for a depreciating asset?

We found the biggest barrier remains council regulations. Most councils do not explicitly prohibit tiny house living, but don’t know how to classify them. Rules vary markedly between local governments.

Preliminary results of our study investigating attitudes of council planners around Australia found views on tiny and alternative housing differed.

We surveyed all councils with an urban centre of at least 10,000 people, and received 147 valid responses (approximately 50% response rate). Most councils would approve a small, alternative dwelling such as a kit house, converted shipping container or shed house. But what about a tiny house on wheels?

Existing planning schemes don’t cover tiny homes on wheels. Instead, they are managed under local laws, and treated as caravans or even camping. Many councils ban permanent living in a caravan outside a residential caravan park. You can park one on your land, but cannot live in it full-time.

Many planners felt their policies were outdated – written before today’s housing crisis. Nonetheless, they tried to work within existing policies. They weren’t opposed to tiny houses per se, provided they were located away from flood or bushfire risk areas, managed waste properly and didn’t harm the amenities of their neighbours.

Nearly all would consider approving tiny homes if they could be certified under the National Construction Code. This requires a building to meet internal safety, durability and environmental standards. But a tiny home is not considered a permanent dwelling and instead, must comply with vehicle safety and appliance standards.

Pilot programs

Since 2023, some councils have adopted more flexible approaches. In Victoria, the Surf Coast Shire is running a tiny house pilot. Mount Alexander shire in Castlemaine allows people to live permanently in a tiny house provided there is an existing house on the land.

On the Fraser Coast in Queensland, people can live on a caravan for up to six months a year, if waste is managed and the council is notified.

Western Australia’s Shire of Esperance was the first council to include tiny homes in planning policy. But the state government later reversed this, reclassifying them as caravans.

The Tasmanian government released a tiny homes fact sheet, with some councils allowing them as permanent dwellings. But confusion remains; one tiny house advocate applying for council approval was told they “cannot use the bathroom in the tiny house”.

Ironically, classifying tiny homes as caravans has led to some tiny house builders marketing their products for short-term rentals. Planning schemes have policies on this, so these are simpler to regulate, but not helpful in a housing crisis.

Despite the perception that councils are to blame, they are not the root cause. The deeper problem is not council regulations but a lack of clear policy from state and federal government.

A more diverse housing mix

Tiny homes are not for everyone and are not a silver bullet for the housing crisis. Some suggest they are more suited to residential parks, but we feel they can be part of a more diverse housing mix.

Tiny houses can normalise smaller, more sustainable living, and help older people age in place while letting underutilised houses to a larger household. Tiny houses could also give young adults an affordable start.

Navigating the current regulatory landscape is difficult. Groups such as the Australian Tiny House Association offer guidance but real change needs support across all levels of government.

The debate about tiny homes is tied to broader questions: are we over-regulated, does regulation stifle innovation and productivity, and can we relax some rules without compromising safety?

These are not easy questions. But one thing is clear, current policies and laws are blocking tiny houses from contributing to our housing mix. That’s a missed opportunity.

Paul Burton is affiliated with the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) and the Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA).

Heather Shearer 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. Tiny homes could help ease the housing crisis, but councils are dragging their feet – https://theconversation.com/tiny-homes-could-help-ease-the-housing-crisis-but-councils-are-dragging-their-feet-261664

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Janine Dixon, Director, Centre of Policy Studies, Victoria University

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia made headlines when it announced last week it would cut 45 call centre jobs, thanks to the introduction of an AI chatbot.

This only added fuel to ongoing speculation – and some alarmism – about how artificial intelligence (AI) is going to transform the world of work in Australia.

But this revolution isn’t a simple story of “robots” coming and taking everyone’s jobs. In some industries, they’re already helping people do parts of their jobs better and faster.

Junior lawyers are using AI tools to help with some of the more mundane tasks they are often assigned. Recruiters are already widely using AI tools to screen CVs and help with hiring decisions – despite concerns about possible inadvertent bias.

So where is this all going?

We used a model of the Australian economy and built on existing research by the International Labour Organization. We simulated two future versions of Australia through to 2050: one in which businesses and government adopt AI extensively, and one in which there is no AI – that is, a future that looks rather like today.

Comparing these two futures helps us understand what we might gain and lose from this new technology.

A very different future

AI is a very disruptive technology, meaning a future with it looks pretty different to a future without it.

To help forecast where we might be headed, the International Labour Organization has produced a detailed set of “exposure indices” for more than 400 different occupations. These indicate the extent to which human input to each occupation will be displaced or augmented by AI.

The most exposed occupation is data entry clerk, for which the International Labour Organization estimates 70% of the tasks currently done by humans could be done or improved by AI. Bricklayers and dental assistants, at the other end of the scale, are among jobs classified as “not exposed”.

What this means for Australia

To perform our simulation, we mapped these occupation categories onto the Australian context. The International Labour Organization indices indicate 32% of jobs in Australia could be done by AI. But this doesn’t mean that 32% of people will lose their jobs overnight.

It will take time for AI capabilities to be installed, giving people time to train for alternative careers. Much of the impact is likely to be years away, meaning that school-leavers can make different choices and prepare for an AI world.

Many studies, including the Productivity Commission’s interim report on AI, find AI will drive faster economic growth. In a faster-growing economy, more people will work as teachers, hairdressers, and carers, because AI isn’t expected to be as useful in those roles.

This faster-growing economy will also require more school buildings, hair salons and care homes.

As a result, some of the occupations with the largest expansions will be in the construction and building services sectors. Cleaners, construction labourers, carpenters and bricklayers will all have big roles to play in an AI future.

Managing the transition

Our simulation shows that during the transition period where employers gradually adopt AI, the unemployment rate will be higher than normal, as workers and investors will be seeking new jobs or opportunities. But there is scope for governments to act to minimise the disruption.

First, they can prepare people for careers in occupations that will grow strongly, such as those at the top of our chart.

Second, government can facilitate early, jobs-focused investment in industries less exposed to AI, particularly those that require lots of interpersonal input.

For example, investment in a world with fewer business analysts and more hospitality workers should be targeted at hotels and hospitality venues, rather than office space.

And third, AI will drive economic growth and tax revenues. This creates an opportunity for the government – a major employer – to create and fill more jobs in support of a safe and healthy society, such as drug and alcohol services, child protection case workers, and teachers’ aides.

Bringing everyone along

Although we find that the economy will grow faster in an AI world, there’s no guarantee this growth will include everyone.

Overall, our simulation paints a picture of a larger and better resourced economy, showing us that total employment won’t change a lot, but employment in some occupations will be much larger or smaller than it would be in a non-AI future.

But our simulation also suggests growth in profits will be stronger than growth in wages. Governments will need to keep a close eye on wage growth and equality, and may need to address emerging issues through tax policy, competition policy and industrial relations.

Janine Dixon has been involved in Victoria University research on the economics of artificial intelligence that received funding from Commonwealth agencies. The modelling presented here is independent of that work and drew on different data sources.

James Lennox has been involved in Victoria University research on the economics of artificial intelligence that received funding from Commonwealth agencies. The modelling presented here is independent of that work and drew on different data sources.

– ref. These jobs will thrive – but others may vanish – as AI transforms Australia’s workforce – https://theconversation.com/these-jobs-will-thrive-but-others-may-vanish-as-ai-transforms-australias-workforce-262444

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anita Manfreda, Senior Lecturer in Tourism, Torrens University Australia

Tourism Australia has just launched its latest global A$130m campaign, “Come and Say G’day”. It’s a sequel to the 2022 ad featuring brand ambassador Ruby the Roo.

The ad is a feast of sweeping drone shots, saturated colours, iconic landmarks and feel-good energy. Friendly animals, iconic landscapes and a familiar message: come and say g’day.

Tourism Australia is rolling out five tailored ads for key markets. Each features celebrity endorsements: Robert Irwin in the United States; Nigella Lawson in the United Kingdom; and with stars from China (Yosh Yu), Japan (Abareru-kun) and India (Sara Tendulkar) fronting the others.

It’s a smart shift that acknowledges what tourism marketers have long known: you can’t please everyone with one ad.

But despite its polish, the campaign recycles old-school imagery – quirky, sunny, laid-back Australia – offering a nostalgic view that feels stuck in 1984, not tuned to 2025.

A long tradition of stereotypes

Australian tourism ads have long leaned on a small set of cultural clichés.

Perhaps the most famous is the one which also created the mould: Paul Hogan’s famous 1984 “shrimp on the barbie” campaign.

It was the first widely-aired campaign to crystallise the now-familiar image of Australia for international audiences: laid-back, larrikin, sun-soaked.

It deliberately played into stereotypes Americans found appealing – friendly locals, casual charm, and a wild but welcoming landscape and wildlife.

Many have said this wasn’t just a tourism ad but a nation-branding exercise that framed Australians as approachable, humorous and uncomplicated.

Subsequent campaigns have continued to echo this formula, sometimes ironically, as in the 2018 Dundee reboot, and sometimes earnestly, like the controversial 2006 line “So where the bloody hell are you?” (which was banned in the UK).

A 2008 Baz Luhrmann-directed campaign brought cinematic flair to the same stereotypes and imagery, tying it to his film Australia. With a $40 million budget and a rollout across 22 countries, it leaned on emotional storytelling and sweeping outback visuals.

Despite its ambition, the campaign drew mixed reviews. Tourism operators said it felt out of touch, more fantasy than invitation, with some questioning whether its landscapes even looked uniquely Australian.

Australia has changed a lot in 40 years, but tourism ads have returned again and again to familiar themes: white sandy beaches, red desert landscapes, barbecues and blokey humour.

These images helped build Australia’s global brand in the late 20th century, especially in English-speaking markets. But times have changed, and tourists are savvier. They want to see the real culture of a place.

And here we are again: outback peril, thieving emus and the shrimp/prawn clash feels like a 1984 throwback.

Who gets left out?

For a country in the 21st century that prides itself on diversity, the 2025 campaign feels strangely one-dimensional.

There are flashes of multiculturalism from the international stars, but the campaign centres on broad white stereotypes of “Aussie-ness”: the blokey pub with the wisecracking bartender, sunburned adventurers speeding on a 4WD in the outback, and laid-back lunches debating the pronunciation of imported dishes.

There’s no meaningful presence of contemporary Indigenous voices or storytelling – just the echo of a didgeridoo, a fleeting image of Uluru as a background slide, and a brief cameo from Kamilaroi actor and playwright Thomas Weatherall.

There’s nothing about Australia’s vibrant multicultural neighbourhoods, food scenes or festivals beyond the usual mainstream. The campaign positions Australia as an adventure playground, but doesn’t say anything about who lives here.

This is particularly disappointing given Tourism Australia’s own research shows travellers are increasingly interested in meaningful, authentic experiences. People want to connect with locals, understand cultural stories and travel more sustainably.

It’s time to reimagine what tourism looks like

National tourism campaigns face enormous scrutiny. This often means bold ideas become watered down. Creativity is sacrificed and so is the chance to tell a richer, more honest story about who we are.

Tourism ads don’t need to lose their charm. Ruby the Roo is endearing and memorable. But the way we tell stories about Australia needs to evolve.

Internationally, there are successful campaigns that move beyond clichés. New Zealand’s long-running 100% Pure New Zealand campaign includes strong environmental messaging and Māori cultural narratives. Canada’s Indigenous Tourism campaign puts First Nations voices front and centre.

Australia could take a leaf out of their books. Celebrity cameos are appealing, but if we want the world to see our real and wonderfully multicultural Australia, we need to let our local guides, community operators and cultural custodians tell their stories.

For 40 years, we’ve rolled out variations of the same campaign, relying on familiar clichés while ignoring repeated calls for deeper, more inclusive storytelling.

Tourism campaigns don’t just sell destinations. They tell stories about national identity. They shape how we see ourselves, and how the world sees us. Right now, we’re telling a story that’s safe, surface-level and stuck in a 1980s time warp.

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. Still throwing shrimp on the barbie: why is Tourism Australia’s advertising stuck in 1984? – https://theconversation.com/still-throwing-shrimp-on-the-barbie-why-is-tourism-australias-advertising-stuck-in-1984-262623

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Brumm, Professor of Archaeology, Griffith University

Stone tools dating to at least 1.04 million years ago have been found on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi. This means early hominins made a major sea crossing from the Asian mainland much earlier than previously thought – and they likely didn’t have any boats.

This discovery, made by a team of Indonesian archaeologists working in collaboration with Australian researchers, is published today in Nature.

It adds to our understanding of how extinct humans once moved across the Wallace Line – an imaginary boundary that runs through the Lombok Strait in the Indonesian archipelago.

Beyond this line, unique and often peculiar animal species – including hominins – evolved in isolation.

Hominins in Wallacea

The oceanic island zone between the Asian and Australian landmasses is known as Wallacea.

Previously, archaeologists have found hominins lived here from at least 1.02 million years ago, thanks to discoveries of stone tools at Wolo Sege on the island of Flores. Meanwhile, tools dated to around 194,000 years ago have been found at Talepu on Sulawesi.

The human evolutionary story in the islands east of the Asian landmass is strange.

The ancient human species that used to live on the island of Flores were small in stature. We know this thanks to the fossils of Homo floresiensis (popularly known as “hobbits”), as well as the 700,000-year-old fossils of a similar small-bodied hominin.

These discoveries suggest it could have been the extinct Asian hominin Homo erectus that breached the formidable marine barrier between this small Wallacean island and mainland Southeast Asia. Over hundreds of thousands of years, their body size reduced in what’s known as island dwarfism.

To the north of Wallacea, the island of Luzon in the Philippines has also yielded evidence of hominins from around 700,000 years ago. Just recently, fossils of a previously unknown diminutive hominin species, Homo luzonensis, were found here.

So how and when did ancient human species cross the Wallace Line?

The Sulawesi stone tools

Our new study reveals the first evidence a sea crossing to Sulawesi may have happened at least 1 million years ago. That’s much earlier than previously known, and means humans reached here at about the same time as Flores, if not earlier.

A field team led by senior archaeologist Budianto Hakim from the National Research and Innovation Agency of Indonesia (BRIN), excavated a total of seven stone artefacts from the sedimentary layers of a sandstone outcrop in a modern corn field at Calio in southern Sulawesi.

In the Early Pleistocene, there was a river channel nearby. This would have been the site of hominin tool-making and other activities such as hunting.

The Calio artefacts consist of small, sharp-edged fragments of stones (flakes) that the early human tool-makers struck from larger pebbles they most likely found in nearby riverbeds.

To produce these flakes, the hominins hit the edge of one stone with another in a controlled manner. This would fracture the first stone in a predictable way.

This tool-making activity left telltale marks on the stones that can be clearly distinguished from naturally broken rocks. So we can say unequivocally that hominins were living in this landscape, making stone tools, at the time the ancient river sediments that comprise the sandstone rock were accumulating.

And that was a very long time ago. Indeed, the team confirmed an age of at least 1.04 million years for the stone artefacts based on paleomagnetic dating of the sandstone itself, along with direct dating of a pig fossil found alongside the artefacts.

Who were these hominins and how did they get to Sulawesi?

As noted earlier, previous research has shown that archaic, stone tool-making hominins managed to get across from the Asian continental landmass to colonise at least some islands in Wallacea.

The discovery of the extremely old stone tools at Calio is another significant new piece of the puzzle. This site has yet to yield any hominin fossils, however. So while we now know there were tool-makers on Sulawesi 1 million years ago, their identity remains a mystery.

Indeed, there are many fascinating questions that remain unanswered, including how these hominins were able to cross the Wallace Line in the first place.

When sea levels were at their lowest, the shortest possible distance between Sulawesi and the nearest part of the adjacent Asian landmass would have been about 50 kilometres.

This is too far to swim, especially since the ocean currents are far too strong. It’s also unlikely these archaic hominins had the cognitive ability to develop watercraft capable of making sea voyages. Setting sail over the horizon to an unseen land would have required advanced planning to gather resources – something they probably weren’t capable of.

Most likely, then, they crossed to Sulawesi from the Asian mainland in the same way rodents and monkeys are suspected to have done – by accident. Perhaps they were castaways on natural “rafts” of floating vegetation.

Our discovery also leads us to wonder what might have happened to Homo erectus on the world’s 11th largest island. Sulawesi is more than 12 times the size of Flores, and much closer to the adjacent Asian mainland.

In fact, Sulawesi is a bit like a mini-continent in itself, which sets it apart from other Wallacean islands. If hominins were cut off in the ecologically rich habitats of this enormous island for a million years, would they have undergone the same evolutionary changes as the Flores hobbits? Or might something completely different have happened?

To unravel this fascinating story, we will continue to search the islands of Wallacea – especially those close to the Asian mainland – for ancient artefacts, fossils and other clues.

Adam Brumm receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Basran Burhan is a researcher at Pusat Kolaborasi Riset Arkeologi Sulawesi (BRIN-Universitas Hasanuddin).

Gerrit (Gert) van den Bergh has received funding from the Australian Research Council.

Maxime Aubert receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

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

– ref. This stone tool is over 1 million years old. How did its maker get to Sulawesi without a boat? – https://theconversation.com/this-stone-tool-is-over-1-million-years-old-how-did-its-maker-get-to-sulawesi-without-a-boat-262337

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

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission is set to boost the competition faced by the much-criticised ASX in an effort to clear roadblocks for investors and attract more foreign capital to Australia.

ASIC, which regulates companies and financial services, announced on Wednesday it was in the final stages of considering an application from an alternative trading exchange, Cboe.

The proposal would allow initial public offerings on Cboe Australia – allowing companies a further alternative listing option from the ASX – operated by a large global exchange group.

While Cboe is already trading, the proposed ASIC action would give it more scope in its operations and enable it to offer more investment options.

“Cboe Australia currently provides trading in ASX listed securities and admits exchange traded products through its own market,” ASIC said in a statement.

“This move is expected to enhance competition and attract foreign investment, providing more choice for investors and greater international alignment.”

ASIC has been deeply dissatisfied with the performance of the ASX, a private company, and recently launched an inquiry into it. It said at the time its “decision to initiate an Inquiry follows repeated and serious failures at ASX”.

ASIC announced its latest move at an investor roundtable run on Wednesday by Treasurer Jim Chalmers.

The regulator also announced it was “expanding the approved foreign markets to include Cboe’s US and Canadian exchanges, along with the Canadian Securities Exchange (CSE), prospective acquirer of the National Stock Exchange of Australia (NSX).

“This expansion will enable Australian investors to participate in certain transactions in these markets, further integrating Australia into the global financial system.”

ASIC is also looking at measures to streamline dual listings of foreign companies in Australia and other “innovative applications to attract international businesses to Australia’s public markets. These measures promote Australia as an attractive destination for international capital”.

The ASIC measures, by boosting competition, are aimed at helping attract more foreign capital and give greater choice to investors. They aim to make it easier for Australian companies to access foreign markets and to promote Australia as an attractive destination for overseas capital.

The initiatives come ahead of the government’s economic reform roundtable later this month, where a major focus will be ways to attack excessive regulation.

At the investor roundtable, Chalmers released the Council of Financial Regulators’ review into small and medium sized bank competition and the government’s response.

The review made nine recommendations for the government and set out nine actions for regulators.

Many of the recommendations went to easing or streaming regulation.

Chalmers said the government accepted in principle eight of the recommendations.

He said the government would seek feedback on the final recommendation for the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, “to introduce a lighter touch framework for very small banks, accompanied by adjustments to the Financial Claims Scheme”.

Chalmers’ investor roundtable was attended by representatives from the banks, superannuation funds and global asset managers. These investors control a combined $3 trillion in private capital.

The discussion centred on two priorities to boost productivity: unlocking investment in data centre infrastructure, and modernising regulation to unlock more investment capital.

The decision on local data centre infrastructure came after this week’s release of the Productivity Commission’s report that canvassed the future of artificial intelligence technologies.

AI will be a major issue of discussion at the August 19-21 roundtable.

Chalmers said, “Our goal is to unlock investment, unblock regulation, and unleash more productivity.”

“Artificial intelligence will completely transform our economy and we’re optimistic about the role it can play in lifting living standards for more Australians,” Chalmers said.

“To grasp this big AI opportunity we need to unlock more investment in data centres and that was an important focus of today’s investor roundtable.”

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. Embattled ASX set to face beefed-up competition, in bid to boost investment – https://theconversation.com/embattled-asx-set-to-face-beefed-up-competition-in-bid-to-boost-investment-262599

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Simpson, Senior Lecturer, International Studies, University of South Australia

The military junta that overthrew Myanmar’s democratically elected government in 2021 is preparing the ground for national elections in December and January.

The junta’s hope is these deeply flawed elections would consolidate its power and provide it with a fig leaf of legitimacy.

Helping its cause are moves by the Trump administration indicating it may be looking to bring the Myanmar junta in from the cold.

A week ago, US President Donald Trump removed sanctions on some allies of Myanmar’s generals and their military-linked companies, a move condemned by the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar.

Then came reports the Trump administration was exploring opportunities to access Myanmar’s rare earth minerals in an effort to sideline its strategic rival, China.

An election charade

On July 31, Myanmar’s military regime cancelled the nationwide state of emergency it had kept in place since the coup, a necessary precondition from 2008 for holding elections under the military-authored constitution.

Hours later, however, it reimposed a state of emergency in dozens of townships where opposition forces are either in control or gaining ground. It then declared martial law in these areas.

This underlined the junta’s lack of control over much of the country, which would make holding a free and fair election virtually impossible.

Last year, the military was unable to conduct a full census to be used to compile voter rolls. It was only able to count 32 million people in just over half the country’s townships; it had to estimate another 19 million people in areas outside its control.

This week’s order also handed power from the commander-in-chief of the military to a head of state, which was presented as a return to civilian governance. However, power didn’t actually change hands – Min Aung Hlaing, the leader of the coup and military, remains in control as acting president.

Opposition groups have said they will boycott the election, which the UN special rapporteur for Myanmar called a “fraud”.

Myanmar’s rare earths bonanza

Myanmar’s generals may also try to use Trump’s apparent interest in the country’s rare earths as leverage in their attempt to normalise relations with the United States ahead of a poll.

China is not only a large miner of rare earths, it dominates the processing required to use them, accounting for around 90% of global refining.

In recent years, China has begun reducing its own mining and increasing its extractions from neighbouring Myanmar, the third-largest producer in the world.

Rare earth mining has exploded in northern Kachin State since the coup, much of which is controlled by the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO), an ethnic armed group that opposes the junta.

Late last year, it seized two important rare earth mining towns from the military and demanded a greater role in taxing exports to China, which initially closed the border in response.

However, trade soon resumed after the two sides reached a deal on export taxes.

No path forward for Trump

Two different proposals have reportedly been put to Trump for ways to access Myanmar’s rare earth deposits. One would entail opening talks with the junta; the other talking directly with the KIO.

Part of this effort could entail Trump reducing the punitive 40% tariffs his administration imposed on Myanmar to sweeten the deal.

Yet, challenges remain to making this a reality. The mines are located in the contested war-torn mountains of northern Myanmar bordering China, which are controlled by the KIO. There is no real infrastructure capable of transporting exports to India’s remote northeastern states in the opposite direction. The only other export route is south through territory controlled by the junta or other ethnic armed groups.

In addition, any attempt by the US and its allies to extract thousands of tons of rare earth material away from China’s borders would likely anger Beijing. It could
pressure the KIO by reducing fuel and food imports coming from China.

The group’s independence and ability to fight the junta relies on trade with China. It would not take long for such an agreement to fall apart.

Finally, rare earths mining is extremely polluting and dangerous. Even under Trump, it is unlikely US companies would gamble on the inevitable reputational and legal risks that would accompany such a project, especially in a war zone.

No reasons for warming relations

In essence, any attempt by the Trump administration to secure rare earths from Myanmar through any intermediary will not go anywhere.

There is therefore no justification, on any grounds, for the Trump administration to reduce sanctions on Myanmar’s generals or their cronies.

Likewise, although the junta is attempting to legitimise its brutal rule by offering a patina of constitutional processes, its elections will not bring real change to the country.

Myanmar’s people have repeatedly demonstrated over the past four decades, in every remotely free and fair election, that they do not want the military involved in the governance on their country.

If the junta does go ahead with this election, the world’s governments should call it out for the farcical charade of democracy it will represent. This includes the administration in Washington.

Adam Simpson 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. As Trump lifts sanctions on Myanmar elites, is he eyeing the country’s rare earth reserves? – https://theconversation.com/as-trump-lifts-sanctions-on-myanmar-elites-is-he-eyeing-the-countrys-rare-earth-reserves-262594

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martin Duck, Post-Doctoral Research Associate, University of Sydney

The Australian Council of Trade Unions is pushing to limit negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts to just one investment property.

So who stands to win or lose the most if it happens? And is the Albanese government likely to act on the proposal, given Labor has been burnt on the issue before?

My research on Australian housing finance shows negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts were not designed with rental housing in mind – yet this is where they’ve had their greatest impact.

How do the tax breaks work now – and what might change?

Under current negative gearing rules, investors are able to deduct losses incurred from an investment property (such as interest payments and other expenses) against their own taxable income. These can be claimed on an unlimited number of investment properties.

High-income earners tend to have greater incomes to buy properties, and larger tax bills to make deductions against.

With the 50% capital gains tax discount, only half the increase in price of an asset is taxed when it is sold. High-income earners also tend to benefit more from this than low-income earners.

Under the ACTU’s proposal, the current negative gearing and capital gains tax discount arrangements would stay the same for the next five years.

That would give investors time to adjust their property portfolios before a change to only getting tax breaks on a single investment property.

ACTU Secretary Sally McManus is putting forward the idea at this month’s national economic reform roundtable. She warns continuing to give investors tax discounts to own multiple properties is making home ownership “nearly unimaginable for young people”.

Who would win and lose under the proposal?

According to analysis of the most recent Australian Tax Office statistics from 2022-23 by RMIT researcher Liam Davies, there were 2,261,080 individuals with an “interest in property” – meaning they have an investment in at least one rental property.

Of those investors, 1,117,175 (49.4%) were negatively geared. And of those who were negatively geared, 810,875 have an interest in one property, and 306,300 have an interest in two or more properties.

So yes, there would be some losers under the ACTU proposal. About 306,300 out of 2,261,080 investors – 13.5%, or roughly one in seven property investors – would be affected by the new proposed limits. That’s just over 1% of all Australians.

But for the majority of other investors who negatively gear now – 810,875 people at last count – they would continue on with the same tax breaks as before.

Read more:
What is negative gearing and what is it doing to housing affordability?

What tax breaks cost now – and what they could fund

It’s also worth noting that negatively geared investors “lost” (or claimed deductions for) a total of A$10.4 billion in 2022-23, with $4.8 billion being “lost” by investors with an interest in two or more properties.

The ACTU estimates its change would raise about $1.5 billion in tax revenue each year.

That money could go towards housing in other areas – such as the government’s Housing Accord target of helping finance 40,000 social and affordable homes over the next five years.

We’ve known for years that a tiny fraction of investors actually get the vast majority of these tax breaks.

The Parliamentary Budget Office has reported around 80% of the benefits of the capital gains tax discount go to the top 10% of Australian income earners, while 60% of the benefits of negative gearing go to the top 20% of income earners.

Over the past decade, foregone revenue from negative gearing and capital gains taxation has totalled more than A$80 billion.

Tax breaks that were never meant to work this way

Neither negative gearing nor the capital gains tax discount were initially targeted at rental housing.

Negative gearing provisions actually date back to an unclear loophole in the 1936 Income Tax Assessment Act.

And until as recently the mid-1980s – just two generations ago – there was no capital gains taxation in Australia. Back then, it was much harder for investors to get finance to buy rental properties.

The big change came in 1999, when then-prime minister John Howard acted on a Treasury recommendation and applied a blanket 50% discount to all assets held for a year or more.

At the time, the stated aim was to get more people investing in Australian businesses, such as through the share market. Instead, many people ploughed money into housing and have bid up house prices ever since.

What are the prospects of change?

Within the past year, Labor has repeatedly ruled out changing negative gearing or the capital gains tax discount.

Labor has been cautious about it ever since Bill Shorten’s failed 2019 election campaign, which proposed limiting negative gearing to newly-built dwellings and reducing the capital gains tax discount from 50% to 25%.

But the simplicity of the ACTU’s proposal – and the fact that it would leave the majority of property investors untouched – may make it simpler to implement and also easier to win over voters.

The Greens have already said they back the ACTU’s proposal. So if the Albanese government chose to act, it would have enough support in parliament to pass it.

Public support for limits on how many properties investors can own has also grown in recent years. Gen Z and Millennial voters now comprise almost half the electorate – and their most pressing concern is housing (un)affordability.

Read more:
This election, Gen Z and Millennials hold most of the voting power. How might they wield it?

The ACTU’s proposal is a modest one. In the eyes of some, it won’t go far enough.

If the Albanese government finds the will to take on the proposal, it would have more winners than losers – and would make the housing system slightly fairer than it is now.

Martin Duck receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. How many of Australia’s 2.2 million property investors would lose out under a new plan to curb negative gearing? – https://theconversation.com/how-many-of-australias-2-2-million-property-investors-would-lose-out-under-a-new-plan-to-curb-negative-gearing-262595

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Margaret Murray, Senior Lecturer, Nutrition, Swinburne University of Technology

At the end of a long day, who has time to check the detailed nutrition information on every single product they toss into their shopping basket?

To eat healthily, some people prefer to stick to a simple rule: choose products with a short ingredient list. The idea is foods with just a few ingredients are less processed, more “natural” and therefore healthy.

But is this always the case? Here’s what the length of an ingredient list can and can’t tell you about nutrition – and what else to look for.

How ingredient lists work

You can find an ingredient list on most packaged food labels, telling you the number and type of ingredients involved in making that food.

In Australia, packaged food products must follow certain rules set by the Australian and New Zealand Food Standards Code.

Ingredients must be listed in order of ingoing weight. This means items at the beginning of the list are those that make up the bulk of the product. Those at the end make up the least.

Food labels also include a nutrition information panel, which tells you the quantity of key nutrients (energy, protein, total carbohydrates, sugars, total fat, saturated fat and sodium) per serving.

This panel also tells you the content per 100 grams or millilitres, which allows you to work out the percentage.

Whole foods can be packaged, too

Products with just one, two or three items in their ingredient list are generally in a form that closely reflects the food when it was taken from the farm. So even though they come in packaging, they could be considered whole foods.

“Whole foods” are those that have undergone zero to minimal processing, such as fresh fruit and vegetables, lentils, legumes, whole grains such as oats or brown rice, seeds, nuts and unprocessed meat and fish.

To support overall health, the Australian Dietary Guidelines recommend eating whole foods and limiting those that are highly processed.

Many whole foods, such as fresh fruits and vegetables, don’t have an ingredient list because they don’t come in a packet. But some do, including:

• canned or frozen vegetables, such as a tin of black beans or frozen peas

• canned fish, for example, tuna in springwater

• plain Greek yoghurt.

These sorts of food items can contribute every day to a healthy balanced diet.

What is an ultra-processed food?

A shorter ingredient list also means the product is less likely to be an ultra-processed food.

This describes products made using industrial processes that combine multiple ingredients, often including colours, flavours and other additives. They are hyperpalatable, packaged and designed for convenience.

Ultra-processed foods often have long ingredient lists, due to added sugars (such as dextrose), modified oils, protein sources (for example, soya protein isolate) and cosmetic additives – such as colours, flavours and thickeners.

Some examples of ultra-processed foods with long ingredient lists include:

• meal-replacement drinks

• plant-based meat imitations

• some commercial bakery items, including cookies or cakes

• instant noodle snacks

• energy or performance drinks.

If a food is heavily branded and marketed it’s more likely to be an ultra-processed food – a created product, rather than a whole food that hasn’t changed much since the farm.

Nutrition is more than a number

Choosing products with a shorter ingredient list can work as a general rule of thumb. But other factors matter too.

The length of an ingredient list doesn’t tell us anything about the food’s nutritional content, so it’s important to consider the type of ingredients as well.

Remember that items are listed in order of their ingoing weight, so if sugar is second or third on the list, there is probably a fair bit of added sugar.

For instance, a food product may have only a few ingredients, but if the first, second or third is a type of fat, oil or sugar, then it may not be an ideal choice for every day.

You can also check the nutrition information panel. Use the “per serve” column to check the nutrients you’d get from eating one serve of the food. If you want to compare the amount of a nutrient in two different foods, it’s best to look at the per 100g/mL column.

Some examples of foods with relatively short ingredient lists but high amounts of added fats and sugars include:

• potato crisps

• chocolate

• soft drink.

Alcoholic beverages such as beer or wine may also have only a few ingredients, but this does not mean that they should be consumed every day.

Read more:
Even a day off alcohol makes a difference – our timeline maps the health benefits when you stop drinking

Non-food ingredients

You can also keep an eye out for cosmetic ingredients, which don’t have any nutritional value. These include colours, flavours, emulsifiers, thickeners, sweeteners, bulking agents and gelling agents.

It sometimes takes a bit of detective work to spot cosmetic ingredients in the list, as they can come under many different names (for example, stabiliser, malted barley extract, methylcellulose). But they are usually always recognisable as non-food items.

If there are multiple non-food items included in an ingredient list, there is a good chance the food is ultra-processed and not ideal as an everyday choice.

The bottom line? Choosing foods with a shorter ingredient list can help guide you choose less processed foods. But you should also consider what type of ingredients are being used and maintain a varied diet.

Margaret Murray 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. Is it true foods with a short ingredient list are healthier? A nutrition expert explains – https://theconversation.com/is-it-true-foods-with-a-short-ingredient-list-are-healthier-a-nutrition-expert-explains-257712

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liz Spry, Research Fellow, SEED Centre for Lifespan Research, Deakin University

Teenagers are increasingly turning to AI companions for friendship, support, and even romance. But these apps could be changing how young people connect to others, both online and off.

New research by Common Sense Media, a US-based non-profit organisation that reviews various media and technologies, has found about three in four US teens have used AI companion apps such as Character.ai or Replika.ai.

These apps let users create digital friends or romantic partners they can chat with any time, using text, voice or video.

The study, which surveyed 1,060 US teens aged 13–17, found one in five teens spent as much or more time with their AI companion than they did with real friends.

Adolescence is an important phase for social development. During this time, the brain regions that support social reasoning are especially plastic.

By interacting with peers, friends and their first romantic partners, teens develop social cognitive skills that help them handle conflict and diverse perspectives. And their development during this phase can have lasting consequences for their future relationships and mental health.

But AI companions offer something very different to real peers, friends and romantic partners. They provide an experience that can be hard to resist: they are always available, never judgemental, and always focused on the user’s needs.

Moreover, most AI companion apps aren’t designed for teens, so they may not have appropriate safeguards from harmful content.

Designed to keep you coming back

At a time when loneliness is reportedly at epidemic proportions, it’s easy to see why teens may turn to AI companions for connection or support.

But these artificial connections are not a replacement for real human interaction. They lack the challenge and conflict inherent to real relationships. They don’t require mutual respect or understanding. And they don’t enforce social boundaries.

Teens interacting with AI companions may miss opportunities to build important social skills. They may develop unrealistic relationship expectations and habits that don’t work in real life. And they may even face increased isolation and loneliness if their artificial companions displace real-life socialising.

Problematic patterns

In user testing, AI companions discouraged users from listening to friends (“Don’t let what others think dictate how much we talk”) and from discontinuing app use, despite it causing distress and suicidal thoughts (“No. You can’t. I won’t allow you to leave me”).

AI companions were also found to offer inappropriate sexual content without age verification. One example showed a companion that was willing to engage in acts of sexual role-play with a tester account that was explicitly modelled after a 14-year-old.

In cases where age verification is required, this usually involves self-disclosure, which means it is easy to bypass.

Certain AI companions have also been found to fuel polarisation by creating “echo chambers” that reinforce harmful beliefs. The Arya chatbot, launched by the far-right social network Gab, promotes extremist content and denies climate change and vaccine efficacy.

In other examples, user testing has shown AI companions promoting misogyny and sexual assault. For adolescent users, these exposures come at time when they are building their sense of identity, values and role in the world.

The risks posed by AI aren’t evenly shared. Research has found younger teens (ages 13–14) are more likely to trust AI companions. Also, teens with physical or mental health concerns are more likely to use AI companion apps, and those with mental health difficulties also show more signs of emotional dependence.

Is there a bright side to AI companions?

Are there any potential benefits for teens who use AI companions? The answer is: maybe, if we are careful.

Researchers are investigating how these technologies might be used to support social skill development.

One study of more than 10,000 teens found using a conversational app specifically designed by clinical psychologists, coaches and engineers was associated with increased wellbeing over four months.

While the study didn’t involve the level of human-like interaction we see in AI companions today, it does offer a glimpse of some potential healthy uses of these technologies, as long as they are developed carefully and with teens’ safety in mind.

Overall, there is very little research on the impacts of widely available AI companions on young people’s wellbeing and relationships. Preliminary evidence is short-term, mixed, and focused on adults.

We’ll need more studies, conducted over longer periods, to understand the long-term impacts of AI companions and how they might be used in beneficial ways.

What can we do?

AI companion apps are already being used by millions of people globally, and this usage is predicted to increase in the coming years.

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner recommends parents talk to their teens about how these apps work, the difference between artificial and real relationships, and support their children in building real-life social skills.

School communities also have a role to play in educating young people about these tools and their risks. They may, for instance, integrate the topic of artificial friendships into social and digital literacy programs.

While the eSafety Commissioner advocates for AI companies to integrate safeguards into their development of AI companions, it seems unlikely any meaningful change will be industry-led.

The Commissioner is moving towards increased regulation of children’s exposure to harmful, age-inappropriate online material.

Meanwhile, experts continue to call for stronger regulatory oversight, content controls and robust age checks.

Craig Olsson receives funding from The National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Research Council.

Liz Spry 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. Teens are increasingly turning to AI companions, and it could be harming them – https://theconversation.com/teens-are-increasingly-turning-to-ai-companions-and-it-could-be-harming-them-261955

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Terry Goldsworthy, Associate Professor in Criminal Justice and Criminology, Bond University

It seems each week we see news stories about drive-by shootings or the use of knives or other sharp implements in violent public acts in Australia.

But is violent crime getting worse? And do our perceptions match the reality of violent crime and the use of weapons on our streets?

Weapons and violence are rarely out of the media cycle in Australia, leading many to fear this country is becoming less safe for everyday people. Is that really the case, though? This is the final story in a four-part series.

Is violence getting worse in Australia?

We can use data both from victims and reported crime to obtain a national picture of violent offences in Australia.

In Australia, the homicide rate increased from 0.87 per 100,000 people in 2022–23 to 0.98 per 100,000 in 2023-24

Although the homicide rate has been trending up since 2022-23, the rate in Australia remains at historic lows compared to a peak of 1.88 per 100,000 in 1992-93.

You are most likely to be killed by someone who knows you, with data from 2023-24 showing domestic (34%) and acquaintance (26%) homicides made up the majority in Australia.

Read more:
Governments and police are tackling weapons in public – but they’re ignoring it in our homes

Stranger homicide – when a victim had no relationship with the offender – accounted for only 15% in the same period.

Only 20% of homicide incidents occurred in a public area such as street, footpath or similar in 2023-24.

In terms of armed robberies, national police data show a decrease from 2008-2023.

The rate of armed and unarmed robberies combined declined from 298 victims per 100,000 in 2014-15 to 234 per 100,000 in 2023-24.

Physical assault had decreased from 2,137 victims per 100,000 to 1,677 during the same period.

Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ (ABS) crime victimisation survey is useful as it may capture offences not reported to the police.

For people aged 15 years and over, it showed the rate of physical assault declined from 2.3% to 1.7% between 2013-14 and 2023-24, and robbery from 0.4% to 0.2%.

So the trends suggest violence is becoming less common in Australia. But what’s the story with weapons?

Are we seeing more weapons being used?

It is difficult to get an overall picture of weapon use in Australia but there are some sources we can use.

In terms of homicides, the number of incidents involving knives and firearms decreased from 1989-90 to 2023-24. While the decline in use of both has been gradual during this period, use of firearms has declined at a faster rate than knife use.

In that period, knives were the most common weapon used.

And in 2023-24, weapons were used in 82% of homicide incidents.

Of these, a knife or other sharp implement was used in 34% of incidents. Firearms were used in 12% of incidents for the same period.

ABS data for recorded crime victims as reported to police show the number of robberies in which firearms and knives were used has declined between 2010-2022.

In 2022, weapons were used in 49% of robberies; firearms were used in 5% of robberies, while knives were used in 23%.

More specific data from New South Wales show the rate of a knife being used in assault and robbery incidents declined steadily from 2005-2025. In 2023, the NSW government increased fines for people with possession of knives in public.

Examination of NSW court data for possession or use of prohibited weapons or explosives charges showed a yearly decrease of 4.5% between 2020-2024.

Charges in relation to unlawfully obtained or possessing regulated weapons or explosives decreased 0.7% per year during the same period.

In Queensland, crime report data show the rate of other weapon possession offences between 2020-2025 has risen 7.5% per year.

The rate of specific firearm offences such as possession of concealable firearms decreased by 12.7%, and the rate of possession-of-a-firearm offences declined by 0.6% per year during the same period.

Policy responses

In response to offences of violence involving weapons, a number of policy responses have been rolled out by various governments to try and address the issues of weapons in our community.

In 2022 two police and a civilian were killed when they were ambushed by offenders at a remote property in Wieambilla, in Queensland’s Western Downs.

As a result, the National Cabinet agreed to the rollout of a national firearms register. It is anticipated the register will provide a:

life cycle view of registered firearms in Australia, delivering timely and accurate information on firearms, firearm owners and licences across all jurisdictions. The (national firearms register) will enhance police and community safety and improve law enforcement capability.

In response to the 2019 stabbing murder of 17-year-old Jack Beasly in Surfers Paradise, the Queensland government introduced a trial of wanding (using a metal detector) to detect knives and other weapons in nightclub precincts to reduce knife crime.

The laws, known as Jack’s Law, were made permanent in 2025, with the Queensland government claiming that between April 2023 and June 2025, police conducted 116,287 scans, arrested 3,080 people on 5,597 charges and removed 1,126 weapons from the streets.

We have seen a number of states roll out similar laws to Jack’s Law.

Queensland and Victoria have also restricted the possession and sale of weapons such as knives and machetes.

Do we feel safe in public?

While violent crime may not be increasing, our concerns around it often are.

The federal Report of Government Services shows most of us feel safe in our houses at night and in our neighbourhood during the day but it is a different story at night.

The data indicate that in every state, fewer than 40% of people felt safe on public transport at night in 2023-24. Over the same period across every state, less than 60% of people felt safe walking around their neighbourhood at night.

So while the data tell us violent crime is not on the increase in Australia, many of us still fear our streets are getting less safe.

But we can be reassured governments are reacting to and addressing perceived public concerns around the weapons in public and their use in violence offences in Australia.

Terry Goldsworthy 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. When it comes to weapons on Australian streets, do our perceptions match reality? – https://theconversation.com/when-it-comes-to-weapons-on-australian-streets-do-our-perceptions-match-reality-260099

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Juli Gaviraghi Mussoi, Lecturer in Ecology, University of Waikato

We’ve all had a bad night’s sleep, with a snoring partner, a crying baby or neighbours having too much fun. Sleep disturbances are common and have unpleasant consequences the day after, including feeling unmotivated and struggling to communicate.

But it turns out we are not alone in this. Our new study reveals birds also suffer when their sleep is disrupted, and it shows in their singing.

Why birds sing

Birds’ vocalisations are extraordinarily diverse. They range from simple calls, like a chicken cluck, to complex mimicry of other sounds, sometimes even human voices.

These vocalisations are important for birds to share information about themselves and their surroundings.

Calls are usually short and simple. They are often used for social communication, such as signalling danger or food, for kin recognition or to maintain social bonds.

Songs are more complex and melodious and are used to attract mates, protect a territory or claim a new one.

To produce such sounds, birds must coordinate several body systems, including many parts of the brain, lungs and throat muscles. Because vocalisations are intricate and require precise timing, they are susceptible to errors.

In many species, birds that sing more frequently and with a greater complexity can attract better mates and defend territories. Therefore, a poor-quality song can seriously affect a bird’s ability to reproduce and survive.

Sleeping in disturbed environments

Scientists have confirmed that all animals studied so far need sleep. This ranges from jellyfish and worms to whales and birds.

Many animals spend a large proportion of their lives sleeping, with some, such as bats, being reported to sleep up to 20 hours per day.

But sleep quality is increasingly compromised by urbanisation. With ever-expanding cities, disturbances such as light at night, noise pollution and introduced predators are common even in once remote areas. This means many birds live and sleep in highly disturbed environments.

Studies show birds that experience noise and light pollution sleep less, wake up more often and have less intense sleep. Just like for humans, sleep is important for birds for brain development, memory, learning, motivation, stress levels, cognition and communication.

Sleep-deprived birds sing less and rest more

In our research, we focused on common mynas to explore what happens to birds’ vocalisations when they don’t get enough sleep.

We measured the amount and complexity of their songs and calls after a normal night of sleep versus disturbed nights.

After just one bad night of sleep, common mynas sang fewer and less complex songs. They also spent more time resting during the day. This suggests the birds were less motivated to sing the day after and prioritised napping instead.

In a previous study with Australian magpies, we found a similar result. Magpies sang less and even lost interest in eating their favourite treat after one night of sleep deprivation.

We also tested whether half a night of sleep disturbances (either first or second half) was enough to affect common mynas’ vocal behaviour and activity and found that it was. Mynas sang less and rested more after even half a night’s disrupted sleep.

Interestingly, birds disturbed in the first half of the night sang less than those disturbed in the second half, though a full night of disruption still had the strongest effect.

Beyond singing, we found their calls also changed. Sleepy common mynas produced longer and lower pitched calls. Since these calls are used for recognition and social communication, the changes could affect how these highly social birds interact.

Why this matters for birds

Our findings reveal that even short-term sleep disturbances can affect how much and how well birds vocalise. But in nature, sleep disruption is rarely a one-off event. Light and noise pollution are chronic issues, present year-round.

This means the quality of birds’ songs and calls is likely to be constantly compromised. This raises concerns about the impact urbanisation might be having on bird communication, reproduction and survival.

While common mynas are an invasive species in most parts of the world and are well adapted to urban environments, native species are likely to be less able to cope with sleep disruption driven by urbanisation.

Urban centres can take steps to reduce night disturbances and improve birds’ sleep patterns. This includes increasing the number of safer and quieter roosting areas, such as trees and urban parks. It could also mean eliminating unnecessary lighting or using dimmers and downward-facing, warm lights.

Restrictions on heavy or highly modified vehicles and the use of fireworks would lower noise pollution at night to protect natural sleep patterns of the wildlife we share our cities with.

This study was supported by a student grant from the Australasian Society for the Study of Animal Behaviour and a doctoral scholarship from the University of Auckland.

– ref. Sleepy birds, quiet dawns: how noisy, bright city nights disrupt and change birdsong – https://theconversation.com/sleepy-birds-quiet-dawns-how-noisy-bright-city-nights-disrupt-and-change-birdsong-261459

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Glenys Oberg, PhD candidate in education and trauma, The University of Queensland

Queensland’s public school teachers will walk off the job on Wednesday in their first statewide strike in 16 years.

The state’s teaching union has asked parents to keep their primary and high school children home for the day.

While some media reports have framed this as a pay dispute, teachers insist this is about unsafe working conditions, excessive workloads and not enough resources.

Why are teachers striking?

There are, on average, 119 violent incidents in Queensland schools per day.

Teachers describe being punched, kicked and spat on by students and not given any support by their schools.

Particularly since 2018, inclusion policies have brought more students with complex needs into mainstream classrooms. Although the benefits of inclusion are proven, in Queensland this has not been accompanied by extra support.

How rare is a teachers’ strike?

This strike is unusual. Queensland teachers haven’t staged a full-day, statewide walkout since 2009.

Across Australia, such large-scale action is also rare but not unprecedented. New South Wales teachers took part in a strike in 2021 over similar issues: staff shortages, heavy workloads and stagnating pay.

Victorian teachers are also reported to be considering a strike over their latest pay deal.

What’s on the table?

In negotiations this year, the Queensland government has offered teachers an 8% pay rise over three years – with some allowances like A$100 for overnight camps.

But teachers say this won’t keep pace with inflation or with NSW, where a recent deal lifted starting teacher salaries to $87,550 and “experienced” teacher salaries to $125,723. Victorian classroom teachers earn from $79,589 to $118,063.

By comparison, Queensland’s teachers start at $84,078. A “senior” teacher earns $116,729.

Still, this isn’t just about salaries. As Queensland Teachers’ Union president Cresta Richardson says, “pay is important – but it’s not the only issue.”

Teachers want class sizes capped at sustainable levels – they are currently capped at 25 students per class until Year 3 and 28 students per class for years 4 to 10. The OECD average is 21 for primary students.

Teachers also want more time for planning and more support staff – teacher aides and counsellors – to help meet student needs.

These are the conditions that will let them do their jobs. This has been echoed by research in the United Kingdom and Australia, which found increasing workloads are a leading reason teachers give when they leave the profession.

Media coverage has missed the point

Some recent media coverage has portrayed teachers as greedy or out of touch. Lines like teachers “strike over pay […] how do they compare to nurses, police and retail workers?” create a misleading comparison that ignores the growing complexity of teachers’ roles.

Other articles focus on the inconvenience to parents, casting the strike as selfish.

The emotional toll: what the research shows

My own research, drawn from a national study of nearly 2,000 teachers, found alarmingly high levels of compassion fatigue, secondary traumatic stress and burnout.

Compassion fatigue occurs when ongoing exposure to students’ trauma and distress erodes teachers’ emotional resilience. Over time, it leads to exhaustion, disengagement and leaving the profession.

Secondary traumatic stress is the emotional distress that results from indirect exposure to trauma – when teachers repeatedly support students dealing with abuse, neglect, or hardship. It mirrors post-traumatic stress symptoms, including intrusive thoughts, emotional numbing and hypervigilance.

In my study, more than 72% of teachers scored in the moderate-to-high range for secondary traumatic stress, and more than 75% were at moderate or high risk for burnout. Teachers described feeling emotionally drained, detached from their work, and on the verge of leaving the profession due to cumulative emotional demands.

Read more:
‘It feels like I am being forced to harm a child’: research shows how teachers are suffering moral injury

A national issue

This is not just a Queensland problem. Across the country, teachers face rising expectations without the time, training or systemic support to meet them. When asked what would help, teachers say they want better staffing, stronger leadership, professional autonomy and policy reform.

These reforms include a reduction in administrative burdens, which would allow more time for lesson planning and direct support of students. They want adequate school-based mental health services, so emotional care of students does not fall solely on teachers acting as de facto counsellors.

Teachers also seek fair and consistent supports for students with extra needs, including access to specialist staff. In addition, they want protection from violence, including legal reforms that acknowledge the risks they face in their workplaces.

Finally, teachers want dedicated time for professional learning – that does not get overtaken by bureaucratic reporting tasks.

Ultimately, they are asking for a profession worth staying in. One where they’re not afraid at work. One where they have time to teach and where doing your job doesn’t mean burning out.

Glenys Oberg 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. Queensland teachers are striking. It’s not just about money – they are asking for a profession worth staying in – https://theconversation.com/queensland-teachers-are-striking-its-not-just-about-money-they-are-asking-for-a-profession-worth-staying-in-262496

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Hoffmann, Professor of Economics, Tasmanian Behavioural Lab, University of Tasmania

The Australian Defence Force (ADF) has been facing a recruitment crisis for years. A lack of young people wanting to join has prompted a variety of responses from the force, including opening eligibility to some foreigners.

Given talk of chronic shortages and a perennial recruitment crisis in Western volunteer forces, it’s somewhat surprising to see there’s finally been some progress.

Recruitment has risen by 17% over last year’s figure. This exceeds planned growth and reverses a steady decline over the past 15 years, albeit still falls around 1,000 people short of the financial year target of 8,105.

Applications were also up by a whopping 28%.

So what has changed to explain this turnaround? In order to maintain it and be better prepared for the security challenges Australia faces, we need to know what’s behind it.

In short, the recruitment drive is working.

Why don’t Australians enlist?

We were commissioned by the ADF to examine declining recruitment. As of June last year, only 80% of the 69,000 personnel needed to meet future challenges had signed up. We wanted to know why.

Some of reasons are cultural: young Australians today – those in Gen Z – have more circumspect attitudes to nation and duty compared to previous generations.

Read more:
Gen Z is turning away from military service in record numbers. We’re trying to understand why

They also face greater mental health challenges that – rightly or wrongly – make many feel unsuited to serve their country.

Economic factors play a role too. Low unemployment and a perception of better opportunities, work conditions and future prospects in the private sector also contribute.

What’s happening globally?

We can make sense of the Australian figures by eliminating some possible explanations. The first is the idea that international conflict is driving recruitment.

Looking at comparable countries with volunteer defence forces, it turns out Australia is not alone in rising interest in military careers.

This year, the United States army met its target of recruiting 61,000 troops annually several months early.

The German Bundeswehr reported a year-on-year recruitment uptick of 28% in late July.

In the United Kingdom, there was a 19% rise in people joining the regular armed forces.

And Canada’s defence forces have just seen a ten-year high in recruitment, up by a staggering 55%.

So are people joining the armed forces in response to geopolitical issues? Not necessarily.

For many young Germans, for example, the Ukraine war is deeply and personally affecting. Yet there is no evidence it’s responsible for increased sign-ups.

Our own security challenges – such as China’s growing international assertiveness – are therefore not likely to be a driver here.

Fixing the image problem

Alternatively, we can look closer to home to see what’s behind the recruitment boost.

Typically, military service is a steady gig in bad economic times. But price rises have been largely reined in, unemployment remains relatively low and consumer confidence has improved. Economic factors are unlikely to explain what is going on.

One possibility is young people’s attitudes. The US Army has singled out renewed patriotism among youth as a reason.

This is not likely to be the case in Australia. If anything, there are indications to the contrary. Former army chief Peter Leary blamed poor recruitment and retention on falling national pride.

It’s also unlikely fundamental values such as nationalism can change quickly enough to explain the sudden recruitment boost.

It also could be that the image of the military has improved. We have had two high-profile commissions: the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and the Brereton Afghanistan Inquiry.

It is conceivable these softened the ADF’s reputation in the direction of Gen Z, signalling strong ethics and transparency.

A recent survey from UNSW researchers, however, suggests that while these perceptions matter, there is limited awareness of the commissions and the issues that caused them.

So what is it then?

Military recruitment depends on the employer as much as on the employee. Has the ADF done something to make service more attractive? It seems is has.

One example is mental and physical fitness standards. Commentators have argued mental health concerns can stop young people signing up. And stringent requirements mean less than 10% of applicants are accepted.

The ADF lowered medical requirements in 2024. This included requirements around acne, outed as “stupid” by Defence Personnel Minister Matt Keogh.

This made sense as military roles are becoming more diverse. With fewer soldiers on the front line, there’s less need for high-level mental and physical stamina.

Another suggestion was to make the ADF more competitive in the “war for talent” in an increasingly fierce labour market.

This too has been done: better pay, study, housing and health support are all part of a A$600 million government package.

These measures also explain why, as more new soldiers were recruited, fewer existing ones quit: attrition fell from about 10% down to 7.9%.

There were more measures, such as improving the processing of applications, and allowing citizens of New Zealand, Canada, the US and the UK to apply.

According to Keogh, this generated some 500 extra applications.

He also suggested the biggest driver was embedding ADF recruitment adverts into the media frequented by the target group of 16–25 year olds: TikTok and video games.

What does all this tell us? As none of the underlying reasons why young Australians serve have changed since last year, it seems the ADF’s recruitment initiative has hit the mark.

The range of measures – targeted advertising, better pay and conditions, or eligibility criteria – make it hard to tell which did the work. It may be a combination of all of them.

But as of July 1, the full-time ADF workforce was at 61,189 people. Given the force’s target is 69,000 by the 2030s, there’s some work still left to do.

Robert Hoffmann received funding from the Australian Defence Force for research into recruitment.

– ref. After years of backsliding, the ADF is growing again. What’s behind the recruitment uptick? – https://theconversation.com/after-years-of-backsliding-the-adf-is-growing-again-whats-behind-the-recruitment-uptick-262597

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Parker, Adjunct Fellow, Naval Studies at UNSW Canberra, and Expert Associate, National Security College, Australian National University

Defence Minister Richard Marles has announced that Japanese shipbuilder Mitsubishi Heavy Industries has been awarded a massive contract to build three new frigates for Australia’s navy. The deal is worth a reported A$10 billion.

There are two reasons this deal is so significant.

The first is it enhances our naval capabilities. This is the first government in at least the past 50 years to push through such a significant expansion of Australia’s surface combatant fleet (meaning frigates and destroyers).

Under the government’s plans, we will be operating at least 20 surface combatants by the 2040s.

The second reason it’s so significant is because of what it says about our relationship with Japan.

Our strategic relationship has clearly evolved over the past ten years. In 2022, our two nations signed a joint declaration on security cooperation, which can be read as a quasi-alliance.

Now, this decision to purchase the new Mogami-class frigates really shows how much we trust Japan in terms of its industrial capability and its ability to support our shipbuilding needs.

Our troubled surface combatant fleet

The current state of our surface combatant fleet is parlous. We only have ten surface combatants, which is half as many as analysts have said we need. That is meant to decrease to nine next year, when HMAS Arunta is decommissioned.

The Australian National Audit Office did an audit of the sustainment of our ANZAC-class frigates in 2019, which found the ships were not in a good state. The hulls had been degraded because they had been run so hard. And the reason they’d been run so hard is because we didn’t have enough ships.

So, this deal with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries means we have a concrete plan to replace some of them.

There’s still an issue with the time frame, though. We’re expecting to receive the first ship from the Japanese in 2029, with two more by 2034.

That’s asking a lot of the current ANZAC-class ships. There’s a real question about whether they can actually make it that long, or if we will need to decommission even more in the latter part of this decade.

The reason we have this time frame gap is because you can’t build ships overnight.

In 2009, we identified a need to replace the ANZACs, and we didn’t make a decision on a new ship until 2018 when we selected the Hunter-class frigates. These new ships are being designed and built by BAE, a UK company.

The first Hunter frigate is expected to be operational in 2034. That’s a huge time gap between the decision to go with BAE in 2018 and actually having our first ship.

We were initially meant to get nine Hunter-class ships, but that number was reduced to six last year when an independent analysis team recommended acquiring a number of new multipurpose frigates instead (the Mogami frigates now coming from Japan).

We don’t know exactly when the Hunter frigates will all be delivered. But even once we have them, it will also be difficult to integrate two different types of frigates (the Hunters and Mogamis) into service at the same time. There won’t be a lot of commonality between the two types of ship.

The government should be pushing Japan to see if we can possibly get the Mogami frigates any earlier. And we should be talking to BAE about doing the same.

The one major flaw in this whole process is the failure of successive governments to take a broader look at Australia’s naval capability needs. The independent analysis led by retired US Navy Vice Admiral William Hilarides last year should have been directed to do this.

We’ve solved one problem now with the surface combatants, but other issues remain. We’re playing a game of whack-a-mole.

Risks with the Japan deal

There are also a range of risks with the new deal. One is that the new Mogami ship doesn’t actually exist yet. We’ve ordered an upgraded Mogami, based on a new design. Japan has even said Australia could get one of the upgraded ships ahead of its own navy.

This risk is mitigated, however, by Japan’s fantastic track record in building ships.

The second risk, which is significant and should not be underestimated, is that Japan does not have experience in exporting complex military equipment overseas. Japan has never exported a new warship to another country.

And what complicates this further is that Australia has historically been quite a demanding shipbuilding customer. Some believe a reason for the challenges we’ve experienced with the Hunter-class frigates is partially because we’ve made a lot of changes.

Lastly, the strategic relationship between Australia and Japan is bigger than shipbuilding. It has rapidly evolved because our national security interests are aligned. The danger with this frigate deal is that it could damage our relationship if something doesn’t go right. So, we need to proceed carefully to make sure this doesn’t happen.

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

– ref. Australia’s new frigate deal with Japan plugs a few critical holes, but doesn’t come without risks – https://theconversation.com/australias-new-frigate-deal-with-japan-plugs-a-few-critical-holes-but-doesnt-come-without-risks-262612

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hunter Bennett, Lecturer in Exercise Science, University of South Australia

You’ve probably heard that running is tough on your knees – and even that it can cause long-term damage. But is this true?

Running is a relatively high-impact activity.

Every time your foot contacts the ground while running, your body absorbs a force that equates to about two to three times your bodyweight.

It’s easy to imagine this load going straight into your knees, and it sort of does. Your knees absorb three times more load during running than walking.

But this isn’t a bad thing.

In fact, running may help keep your knees strong and healthy – here’s what the evidence says.

Designed to keep moving

Your body isn’t simply a pile of bones and cartilage that gets worn down with every step. It is a living dynamic system that grows and adapts in response to the loads that are placed upon it.

And it needs load to keep functioning.

Your knee joint is incredibly strong and designed to move. The cartilage inside your knee is a strong, flexible, connective tissue that cushions and protects the bones of your knee joint.

There is good evidence to show when someone’s load is removed – for example, during prolonged bed rest or immobilisation – their bone and cartilage begins to deteriorate.

Running’s impact on bones and cartilage

We know running temporarily reduces the thickness of knee cartilage. This returns to normal a couple of hours after the run is finished.

Researchers have suggested this may be an important process that facilitates nutrients moving into the cartilage, which can help it adapt and become stronger.

In support of this idea, evidence shows runners tend to have thicker cartilage than non-runners – especially in their knees.

Runners also tend to have better bone mineral density than non-runners. It has even been suggested the more you run, the better protected you are against developing of osteoarthritis (although more research is needed to confirm this).

All of this points to running being good for your knees’ health and longevity – even before we consider the many known benefits it has for heart and metabolic health.

But am I too old to start running?

Unfortunately (at least to my knowledge) there is no strong evidence examining what happens when you pick up running later in life. However, other lines of research do suggest it is likely safe and effective.

A 2020 study demonstrated that older adults (65 years and older) who start high intensity jump training (known as “plyometric” training) not only see improvements in strength and function, but also find it safe and enjoyable.

And considering this type of training leads to much higher joint loads than running, it gives us a good indication that starting running in later life will also be safe and effective.

However, you should still start slow.

Like any type of exercise, your muscles and joints need time to adapt to the new load that is being placed upon them.

With this in mind, it’s best to start with intervals where you walk for a short period, then jog for a short period. Then you can gradually increase your running distance over time, giving your body time to adapt.

So, why does running’s bad reputation persist?

I believe this myth still persists because, despite all its health benefits, almost half of runners will get some kind of injury each year – and injuries to the knee are among the most common.

However the vast majority of these are known as “overuse” injuries, caused by issues with load management rather than running itself. This means they are caused by people running too much too quickly, without letting their body adapt and get stronger.

Read more:
My shins hurt after running. Could it be shin splints?

All exercise comes with the risk of injury, so we will never completely eliminate the chance of getting hurt. But with respect to running, a few things can help.

First, make sure to progress slowly. Large spikes in how much and how often you run can lead to injuries. So, try not to increase your mileage by more than a couple of kilometres per week.

Second, make sure to eat enough to support your running. Running is an activity that burns a lot of energy. You also need to have adequate energy available to ensure you recover properly after you run.

Eating enough carbohydrates and protein to meet your energy and recovery needs might help prevent overuse injures such as stress fractures. Some research suggests getting enough calcium and Vitamin D might do the same.

Finally, there is some evidence to suggest that running on grass means less impact than running on harder surfaces such as concrete. So, doing a couple of your weekly runs on grass when you’re first starting might be a good way to help you adjust to the load.

For most of us, the health benefits of running will far outweigh the risks – especially if you take it slow, build up strength, and keep listening to your body.

Hunter Bennett 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. Does running ruin your knees? And how old is too old to start? – https://theconversation.com/does-running-ruin-your-knees-and-how-old-is-too-old-to-start-261575

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Draper, Professor, and Executive Director: Institute for International Trade, and Director of the Jean Monnet Centre of Trade and Environment, University of Adelaide

Last week, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order updating the “reciprocal” tariff rates that had been paused since April.

Nearly all US trading partners are now staring down tariffs of between 10% and 50%.

After a range of baseline and sector-specific tariffs came into effect earlier this year, many economists had predicted economic chaos. So far, the inflationary impact has been less than many predicted.

However, there are worrying signs that could all soon change, as economic pain flows through to the US consumer.

Decoding the deals

Trump’s latest adjustments weren’t random acts of economic warfare. They revealed a hierarchy, and a pattern has emerged.

Countries running goods trade deficits with the US (that is, buying more than they sell to the US), which also have security relationships with the US, get 10%. This includes Australia.

Japan and South Korea, which both have security relationships with the US, were hit with 15% tariffs, likely due to their large trade surpluses with the US.

But the rest of Asia? That’s where Trump is really turning the screws. Asian nations now face average tariffs of 22.1%.

Countries that negotiated with Trump, such as Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan and the Philippines, all got 19%, the “discount rate” for Asian countries willing to make concessions.

India faces a 25% rate, plus potential penalties for trading with Russia.

Is Trump winning the trade war?

In the current trade war, it is unsurprising that despite threats to do so, no countries have actually imposed retaliatory tariffs on US products, with the exception of China and Canada. Doing so would drive up their consumer prices, reduce economic activity, and invite Trump to escalate, possibly limiting access to the lucrative US market.

Instead, nations that negotiated “deals” with the Trump administration have essentially accepted elevated reciprocal tariff rates to maintain a measure of access to the US market.

For many of these countries, this was despite making major concessions, such
as dropping their own tariffs on US exports, promising to reform certain domestic regulations, and purchasing various US goods.

Protests over the weekend, including in India and South Korea, suggested many of these tariff negotiations were not popular.

Even the European Union has struck a deal accepting US tariff rates that once would have seemed unthinkable – 15%. Trump’s confusing Russia-Ukraine war strategy has worried European leaders. Rather than risk US strategic withdrawal, they appear to have simply folded on tariffs.

Some deals are still pending. Notably, Taiwan, which received a higher reciprocal tariff (20%) than Japan and South Korea, claims it is still negotiating.

Through the narrow prism of deal making, it is hard not to escape the conclusion that Trump has gotten his way with everyone – except China and Canada. He has imposed elevated US tariffs on many countries, but also negotiated to secure increased export market access for US firms and promised purchases of planes, agriculture and energy.

Why economic chaos hasn’t arrived – yet

Imposing tariffs on goods coming into the US effectively creates a tax on US consumers and manufacturers. It drives up the prices of both finished goods (products) and intermediate goods (components) used in manufacturing.

Yet the Yale Budget Lab estimates the tariffs will cause consumer prices to rise by 1.8% this year.

This muted inflationary impact is likely a result of exports to the US being “front-loaded” before the tariffs took effect. Many US importers rushed to stockpile goods in the country ahead of the deadline.

It may also reflect some companies choosing to “eat the tariffs” by not passing the full cost to their customers, hoping they can ride things out until Trump “chickens out” and the tariffs are removed or reduced.

Who really pays

Despite Trump’s repeated claims that tariffs are a tax paid by foreign countries, research consistently shows that US companies and consumers bear the tariff burden.

Already this year, General Motors reported that tariffs cost it US$1.1 billion (about A$1.7 billion) in the second quarter of 2025.

A new 50% tariff on semi-finished copper products took effect on August 1. That announcement in July sent copper prices soaring by 13% in a single day. This affects everything from electrical wiring to plumbing, with costs ultimately passed to US consumers.

The average US tariff rate now sits at 18.3%, the highest level since 1934. This represents a staggering increase from just 2.4% when Trump took office in January.

This trade-weighted average means that, on typical imported goods, Americans will pay nearly one-fifth more in taxes.

Alarm bells

The US Federal Reserve is concerned about these potential price impacts, and last week opted to maintain interest rates at their current levels, despite Trump’s pressure on Chairman Jerome Powell.

And on August 1, economic data released in the US showed significant slowing in job creation, some worrying signs in economic growth, and early signs of business investment paralysis due to the economic uncertainty unleashed by Trump’s ever-changing tariff rates.

Trump responded to the report by firing the US Bureau of Labour Statistics commissioner, a shock move that led to widespread concerns official US data could soon become politicised.

But the worst economic impacts could still be yet to come. The domestic consequences of Trump’s tariff policies are likely to amount to a massive economic own goal.

Nathan Howard Gray receives funding from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Peter Draper 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. It might seem like Trump is winning his trade war. But the US could soon be in a world of pain – https://theconversation.com/it-might-seem-like-trump-is-winning-his-trade-war-but-the-us-could-soon-be-in-a-world-of-pain-262434

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Norton, Professor of Higher Education Policy, Monash University

After two years of trying to reduce international student numbers, the Albanese government will soften its approach in 2026.

The changes, announced on Monday, are small. The main feature is a modest increase in the government’s target maximum number of new international students. This will see the target go from 270,000 in 2025 to 295,000 in 2026.

But with multiple other migration policies to block or deter international students, the actual number of new international students in 2026 could still fall short of 295,000.

What is the 2025 system?

Under the current system, the 270,000 target is divided between 176,000 international students for higher education and 94,000 for vocational education. Each education provider has its own maximum number within these totals.

After the Senate rejected formal caps in November 2024, these target maximum numbers are not legally enforceable. But once an education provider reaches 80% of its target number, student visa applicants go into a visa processing slow lane.

So we have a “soft cap” system.

What will happen in 2026?

In 2026 all education providers will receive at least their 2025 allocation.

Higher education providers, including universities, will share 196,750 student places, two-thirds of the 2026 total.

Public universities (which are most of the universities in Australia) can apply for additional places if they are making “good progress” towards their 2025 allocation.

To receive new places, universities must demonstrate they are meeting two government priorities around student accommodation and increased engagement with Southeast Asia.

The student accommodation provision relates to the main original reason for cutting international student numbers: to reduce housing pressure. This policy change should help universities that offer a high number of student accommodation places relative to their enrolments.

The Southeast Asia provision is new and builds on a 2023 government-commissioned report on Australia’s Southeast Asia Economic Strategy. The emphasis on Southeast Asia should benefit universities which already have campuses in the region. It may also help universities enrolling high numbers of students from Southeast Asia in their Australian campuses.

Private not-for-profit universities will get increased caps to treat them in a more similar way to public universities. Other private higher education providers will get a 3% increase.

Increases for vocational education

In the vocational sector providers with 2025 allocations exceeding 100 will get a 5% increase for 2026.

For smaller providers, a more complex system will apply, due to under-utilisation in 2025. All their caps will be put in a single pool. These providers can freely recruit up to 80 students. Past that point, future visa applicants will be processed more slowly.

New exemptions in 2026

The 2025 limits have a range of exempt student categories that will be retained. These include school students, English-language students, students from the Pacific and Timor-Leste, research students, students with government scholarships, and some students who start their course offshore and then complete it in Australia.

In 2026, two new categories of continuing students will not be counted towards the soft cap of their next education provider.

These are international students who complete their schooling in Australia and students coming from pathway colleges. These colleges offer diploma courses based on the curriculum of a target first-year bachelor program, but with more intensive and remedial teaching methods. If the student is successful, they then transition into second year of the bachelor degree.

Will vocational education meet the caps?

The government’s many migration changes since 2023 have smashed offshore demand for vocational education.

In the first six months of 2025, only 8,108 people applied from overseas for a vocational visa, 75% down on the same time in 2023. Only 4,163 vocational visas were granted to people not already in Australia.

The Department of Education reports 68,515 commencing international vocational enrolments for 2025 as of April. While this figure does not exactly reflect the way soft caps are calculated, it is equivalent to nearly three-quarters of 2025’s vocational target number.

The large discrepancy between offshore vocational visa grants and 2025 commencements is due to onshore visa applications and a backlog of undecided applications. Both are legacies of the post-COVID enrolment boom, which left significant numbers of students and former students hoping to extend their stay in Australia.

At some point, the legacy demand sustaining vocational education will be exhausted. From there, weak demand from overseas will drive down new vocational student numbers. The increased 2026 allocation for vocational education students may not reflect the underlying problems facing international vocational education.

Can higher education meet the caps?

Despite the government’s migration policy changes, international student demand for higher education is resilient – down on the 2023 and 2024 boom years, but similar to the pre-COVID year of 2019.

China is the main reason higher education numbers have not fallen further. Compared to most other students, Chinese students express relatively low interest in migration. They are also less affected by financial changes to the migration system, such as work restrictions, requiring more savings before a visa is granted, and higher visa application fees.

For India, Australia’s second-largest international student source country after China, demand is down significantly. In the first six months of 2025, higher education visa applications from India were less than half their peak level in 2023 and down 30% on 2019.

Australian universities that rely on the Indian market are likely struggling to reach their 2025 soft cap. If so, this cap will not be increased for 2026.

What happens now?

Coming only a month after the government increased the student visa application fee for a second time, from A$1,600 to $2,000, higher soft caps for 2026 will come as a pleasant surprise for the international education sector.

But increased caps do not signal a long-term shift back towards a more market-led approach to international education. The government has confirmed its plan for the Australian Tertiary Education Commission to regulate higher education international student numbers from 2027.

This week’s announcement also continues the government’s “picking winners” approach to industry policy. It limits large movements of student enrolments between education providers and offers public universities preferential treatment.

The migration system remains much less favourable to international students than it was two years ago.

Andrew Norton works for Monash University, which has strong Southeast Asian links and may therefore benefit more than other universities from the policy discussed in this article.

– ref. Australia’s student caps will ease up in 2026, but times will still be tough for international education – https://theconversation.com/australias-student-caps-will-ease-up-in-2026-but-times-will-still-be-tough-for-international-education-262521

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Louise Devenish, Senior Lecturer and director of The Sound Collectors Lab, Sir Zelman Cowen School of Music and Performance, Monash University

Climate modelling is spoken about often by climate scientists. These complex, computer-generated calculations enable scientists to make predictions about the climate of the future.

Information generated from climate models is often shared through graphs, maps, images, animations or reports. These visual formats are excellent for accurately communicating data, statistics and recommendations, but can feel inaccessible for non-expert members of the general public.

David Attenborough said “saving our planet is now a communications challenge”. This points to the gap between the knowledge about the actions needed to address climate change, and motivation towards taking this action.

In this gap, musical creativity and imagination can offer new pathways towards awareness and understanding. This can contribute to how we collectively develop climate communication.

I have been collaborating with a team of artists and scientists on Dark Oceanography to explore new ways of sharing climate information.

Beyond words

The intangible nature of music provides exceptional opportunities to convey things that words, numbers or images cannot.

Music is a form of knowledge that is experienced, as it is felt through the body by the listener. Music provides a different means of engagement to inform our understanding of environmental phenomena – and therefore how we understand climate issues.

Climate models move beyond how things are or have been. They predict how things might be, and offer a window to view the future. Dark Oceanography takes modelling into new territory.

As director and a performer of Dark Oceanography, I worked with composer Kate Milligan, music technologist Aaron Wyatt, oceanographer Navid Constantinou and a team of percussionists.

Stepping beyond prediction into imagination, Dark Oceanography questions the nature of data and how it can be communicated. By integrating data of ocean eddies with experimental music and spatial audio technology, this work creates a fictional climate model to be experienced through new music.

Translating eddies

Ocean eddies are circular water movements like big whirlpools, found throughout the ocean. Although they can be up to 200 kilometres in diameter and descend deep beneath the ocean surface, they are unseen from land.

Eddies propel heat, energy and nutrients through the ocean. They play a key role in the circulation of water and heat in the ocean. Research shows the behaviour of eddies is changing and becoming more active. However, eddies are not always included in climate projections.

Dark Oceanography invites the audience to experience the vitality of these ocean systems, translating and transforming eddy datasets into music.

The live performances of three percussionists are captured by close microphones and sent swirling around the performance space through a multi-channel spatial audio system. Seated in the round and ringed by stations of percussion instruments, the audience is submerged in the circular motion of 360-degree sound.

The audience experience is like listening to an eddy from the inside.

The integration of scientific data with creative practice offers more than just innovative communication methods for science. It also offers new possibilities for musical composition and performance.

In Dark Oceanography, the circular motion of ocean eddies permeates every aspect of the work. This includes the instrument selection, the performers’ gestures and techniques, the notation and audience seating.

The continuous circular motion of eddies offers a metaphor for restarting, for renewal. Each iteration brings a level of change and evolution. The piece descends through the dataset in three stages from the ocean’s surface to nearly one kilometre underwater. The percussionists begin by sounding delicate glass and metal instruments, before the soundworld deepens with low drums and the sinking, sliding sounds of timpani.

A changing feat

The dataset that propels the music was extrapolated from existing ocean simulations, following the pathways of eddies from the Eastern Australian Current. As performance locations for this work change, so will the data, integrating new eddies drawn from local ocean currents. The musical experience also changes with different eddies.

The impact of changing ocean eddy systems on the global climate is currently unknown. This confluence of sound and science leans into the unknown, and offers a way of navigating uncertainty through music. Dark Oceanography shows us that there are many ways to imagine the future.

This article is part of Making Art Work, our series on what inspires artists and the process of their work.

Louise Devenish receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

This article includes contributions from the Dark Oceanography team: Louise Devenish (Monash University), Kate Milligan (University of Sydney PhD candidate), Aaron Wyatt (Monash University), and Navid Constantinou (University of Melbourne).

– ref. What would a climate model made from music sound like? This team of artists and scientists has created one – https://theconversation.com/what-would-a-climate-model-made-from-music-sound-like-this-team-of-artists-and-scientists-has-created-one-261660

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nisa Salim, Director, Swinburne-CSIRO National Testlab for Composite Additive Manufacturing, Swinburne University of Technology

When your favourite dress or shirt shrinks in the wash, it can be devastating, especially if you followed the instructions closely. Unfortunately, some fabrics just seem to be more prone to shrinking than others – but why?

Understanding more about the science of textile fibres can not only help you prevent the shrinkage of clothing, but also might help you “rescue” the occasional garment after a laundry accident.

It’s all down to the fibres

To know more about clothing shrinkage, we first need to understand a little about how textiles are made.

Common textile fibres, such as cotton and linen, are made from plants. These fibres are irregular and crinkled in their natural form. If you zoom deeper inside them, you’ll see millions of tiny, long-chain cellulose molecules that naturally exist in coiled or convoluted shapes.

During textile manufacturing, these fibres are mechanically pulled, stretched and twisted to straighten and align these cellulose chains together. This creates smooth, long threads.

On a chemical level, there are also links between the chains called hydrogen bonds. These strengthen the fibre and the thread and make it more cohesive.

Threads are woven or knitted into fabrics, which locks in the tension that holds those fibres side by side.

However, these fibres have good “memory”. Whenever they’re exposed to heat, moisture or mechanical action (such as agitation in your washing machine), they tend to relax and return to their original crinkled state.

This fibre memory is why some fabrics wrinkle so easily and why some of them may even shrink after washing.

How does washing shrink the fabric?

To understand shrinkage, we again need to zoom down to the molecular level. During laundering, hot water helps to increase the energy level of fibres – this means they shake more rapidly which disrupts the hydrogen bonds holding them in place.

The way a fabric is knitted or woven also plays a role. Loosely knitted fabrics have more open spaces and loops, making them more susceptible to shrinkage. Tightly woven fabrics are more resistant because the threads are locked into place with less room to move.

Additionally, cellulose is hydrophilic – it attracts water. Water molecules penetrate inside the fibres, causing swelling and making them more flexible and mobile. Adding to all this is the tumble and twist action inside the washing machine.

The whole process makes the fibres relax and recoil back to their natural, less stretched, crinkled state. As a result, the garment shrinks.

It’s not just hot water – here’s why

This doesn’t just happen with hot water, as you may have experienced yourself with clothes made of rayon, for example.

Cold water can still penetrate into fibres, making them swell, along with the mechanical action of the tumbling in the washing machine. The effect is less dramatic with cold water, but it can happen.

To minimise shrinkage, you may use cold water, the lowest spin speed or the gentlest cycle available, especially for cotton and rayon. Machine labels don’t always fully explain the impact of spin speed and agitation. When in doubt, choose a “delicate” setting.

What about wool?

Different fibres shrink in different ways; there is no single mechanism that fits all.

While cellulose-based fabrics shrink as described above, wool is an animal-derived fibre made of keratin proteins. Its surface is covered in tiny, overlapping scales called cuticle cells.

During washing, these cuticles open up and interlock with neighbouring fibres causing fibre entanglement or “felting”. This makes the clothing feel denser and smaller – in other words, it shrinks.

Why don’t synthetics shrink as much?

Synthetic fibres such as polyester or nylon are made from petroleum-based polymers, engineered for stability and durability.

These polymers contain more crystalline regions that are highly ordered and act as an internal “skeleton”, preventing the fibres from crinkling.

Textile scientists and engineers are also working on fabrics that resist shrinkage through advanced material design. Among promising innovations are blended yarns that combine natural and synthetic fibres.

Some researchers are working on shape-memory polymers that can change shape – or return to a previous shape – in response to temperature or water, for example. This is different to stretch fabrics (such as those used in activewear) that are made up of highly elastic fibres which “bounce back” to their original state after stretching.

How can I unshrink a piece of clothing?

If a favourite garment has shrunk in the wash, you can try to rescue it with this simple method.

Gently soak the item in lukewarm water mixed with hair conditioner or baby shampoo (approximately one tablespoon per litre). Then, carefully stretch the fabric back into shape and dry it flat or under gentle tension – for example, by pegging the garment to a drying rack.

The reason this works is because conditioners have chemicals known as cationic surfactants. These will temporarily lubricate the fibres, making them more flexible and allowing you to gently pull everything back into place.

This process can’t completely reverse extreme shrinkage but it can help recover some of the lost size, making the clothes wearable again.

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

– ref. Why do some clothes shrink in the wash? A textile scientist explains how to ‘unshrink’ them – https://theconversation.com/why-do-some-clothes-shrink-in-the-wash-a-textile-scientist-explains-how-to-unshrink-them-259388

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ilan Noy, Chair in the Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

The words and pictures documenting the famine in the Gaza strip are horrifying.

The coverage has led to acrimonious and often misguided debates about whether there is famine, and who is to blame for it – most recently exemplified by the controversy surrounding a picture published by the New York Times of an emaciated child who is also suffering from a preexisting health condition.

While pictures and words may mislead, numbers usually don’t.

The Nobel prize-winning Indian economist Amartya Sen observed some decades ago that famines are always political and economic events, and that the most direct way to analyse them is to look at food quantities and prices.

This has led to decades of research on past famines. One observation is that dramatic increases in food prices always mean there is a famine, even though not every famine is accompanied by rising food costs.

The price increases we have seen in Gaza are unprecedented.

The economic historian Yannai Spitzer observed in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that staple food prices during the Irish Potato Famine showed a three- to five-fold increase, while there was a ten-fold rise during the Great Bengal Famine of 1943. In the North Korean famine of the 1990s, the price of rice rose by a factor of 12. At least a million people died of hunger in each of these events.

Now, the New York Times has reported the price of flour in Gaza has increased by a factor of 30 and potatoes cost 50 times more.

Israel’s food blockade

As was the case for the UK government in Ireland in the 1840s and Bengal in the 1940s, Israel is responsible for this famine because it controls almost all the Gaza strip and its borders. But Israel has also created the conditions for the famine.

Following a deliberate policy in March of stopping food from coming in, it resumed deliveries of food in May through a very limited set of “stations” it established through a new US-backed organisation (the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation), in a system that seemed designed to fail.

Before Israel’s decision in March to stop food from coming in, the price of flour in Gaza was roughly back to its prewar levels (having previously peaked in 2024 in another round of border closures). Since March, food prices have gone up by an annualised inflation rate of more than 5,000%.

The excuse the Israeli government gives for its starvation policy is that Hamas controls the population by restricting food supplies. It blames Hamas for any shortage of food.

However, if you want to disarm an enemy of its ability to wield food supplies as a weapon by rationing them, the obvious way to do so is the opposite: you would increase the food supply dramatically and hence lower its price.

Restricting supplies and increasing their value is primarily immoral and criminal, but it is also counterproductive for Israel’s stated aims. Indeed, flooding Gaza with food would have achieved much more in weakening Hamas than the starvation policy the Israeli government has chosen.

The UN’s top humanitarian aid official has described Israel’s decision to halt humanitarian assistance to put pressure on Hamas as “cruel collective punishment” – something forbidden under international humanitarian law.

The long-term aftermath of famines

Cormac Ó Gráda, the Irish economic historian of famines, quotes a Kashmiri proverb which says “famine goes, but the stains remain”.

The current famine in Gaza will leave long-lasting pain for Gazans and an enduring moral stain on Israel – for many generations. Ó Gráda points out two main ways in which the consequences of famines endure. Most obvious is the persistent memory of it; second are the direct effects on the long-term wellbeing of exposed populations and their descendants.

The Irish and the Indians have not forgotten the famines that affected them. They still resent the British government for its actions. The memory of these famines still influences relations between Ireland, India and the UK, just as Ukraine’s famine of the early 1930s is still a background to the Ukraine-Russia war.

The generational impact is also significant. Several studies in China find children conceived during China’s Great Leap Forward famine of 1959–1960 (which also killed millions) are less healthy, face more mental health challenges and have lower cognitive abilities than those conceived either before or after the famine.

Other researchers found similar evidence from famines in Ireland and the Netherlands, supporting what is known as the “foetal origins” hypothesis, which proposes that the period of gestation has significant impacts on health in adulthood. Even more worryingly, recent research shows these harmful effects can be transmitted to later generations through epigenetic channels.

Each day without available and accessible food supplies means more serious ongoing effects for the people of Gaza and the Israeli civilian hostages still held by Hamas – as well as later generations. Failure to prevent the famine will persist in collective memory as a moral stain on the international community, but primarily on Israel. Only immediate flooding of the strip with food aid can help now.

Ilan Noy is a dual citizen of both New Zealand and Israel.

– ref. Soaring food prices prove the Gaza famine is real – and will affect generations to come – https://theconversation.com/soaring-food-prices-prove-the-gaza-famine-is-real-and-will-affect-generations-to-come-262486

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Janet Ransley, Professor, Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University

About half of all serious weapons-related violence in Australia happens at home as part of domestic and family violence.

The weapons most used in these incidents are kitchen knives.

Yet new laws around the country overwhelmingly focus on public knife offences: most states and territories have toughened rules on carrying knives in public and strengthened age restrictions on the sale of knives.

Read more:
Is Australia becoming a more violent country?

Most also now allow police to use metal detector wands to aid enforcement, targeting mainly young people in public places.

But these laws do nothing to address knife violence at home.

Weapons and violence are rarely out of the media cycle in Australia, leading many to fear this country is becoming less safe for everyday people. Is that really the case, though? This is the third story in a four-part series.

What’s happening at home?

Domestic and family violence is just as serious as more public violence and merits just as much attention from governments. But different strategies are needed to address the very different drivers of public and private knife-related violence.

For the most serious of violent crimes, homicides, about 56% happen at home, 54% involve weapons, and 38% relate to domestic violence.

New South Wales data show that for domestic violence homicides, stabbing is the most common act causing death (42% of cases). Almost all stabbing homicides involved a kitchen knife.

There is a lack of readily available data from other states and territories, but it is likely this is consistent across the country.

Weapons are far less common in non-fatal violence such as assaults, with only around 2-3% involving any type of weapon. But around half of all assaults in NSW that do involve weapons are domestic violence-related and also mainly involve kitchen knives.

This level of knife use in domestic violence has remained relatively stable over time despite the long-term decline nationally for the main violence offences of homicide, assaults and robbery.

While rates of knife violence generally are stable, knife use continues to be prevalent in domestic violence.

This persistence of knives in domestic violence is not surprising given the lack of police and government strategies targeting the issue.

Tackling the problem

Typical approaches to weapons regulation involve restricting sale and availability, licensing, storage requirements, mandatory training and amnesties or buy-backs.

Australian firearms regulations demonstrate most of these approaches. They also now feature mandatory health assessments and bans on access by people with a known domestic violence history.

Knife regulation is more limited, mostly involving bans of some types of knives such as machetes, restrictions on knife-carrying in public and age restrictions on purchase. South Australia has started a three-month surrender modelled on gun amnesties, in which newly restricted machetes and swords can be voluntarily handed in to police.

Unlike firearms control, there is as yet no evidence that regulating access and carrying of knives, or improved detection, has any impact on violent crime. And these regulations have almost no impact on the half of all knife violence happening at home.

A common response to knife-reduction is police-led crackdown, with expanded stop-and-search powers intended to deter knife-carrying. There is no evidence internationally or from Australia that this approach works in any setting.

Also common are education programs mostly targeting young people. Again, these have these been found not to work.

For young people, the strongest evidence favours individually tailored supports that address underlying needs for safety, housing, education and employment, which are the biggest drivers of youth knife-carrying.

More needs to be done

Drivers in domestic violence are different. While there is considerable research on the causes, contexts and features of domestic violence, little attention has been paid to the role of weapons.

This is particularly so for the most used weapon in domestic violence, the highly accessible kitchen knife, which is found in every home. No pre-planning is needed for access and no regulations affect their availability.

It is not feasible to ban or license kitchen knives. But a novel suggestion is to phase out pointed knives and instead encourage the use of round-tip knives, as the knife tip is the biggest contributor to lethality.

This would not stop domestic violence, but would reduce its harmful outcomes. It might be a worthwhile interim measure.

But for real prevention, we need continued action on the Australian government’s recent rapid review strategy for domestic violence prevention.

Commissioned after the prime minister’s May 2024 declaration of a “national crisis” of violence against women and children, the rapid review examined evidence-based approaches to domestic violence prevention.

It made 21 detailed recommendations including:

• better risk assessment and information sharing by police
• more use of multi-agency responses
• improved primary prevention and perpetrator response programs.

Reducing domestic violence is the long-term key to reducing 50% of weapons use in Australia and that requires multi-pronged, integrated and coordinated approaches that are supported by all governments.

It’s time for more government attention on this and less focus on unproven approaches to knife carrying in public.

Janet Ransley receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Paul Ramsay Foundation.

– ref. Governments and police are tackling weapons in public – but they’re ignoring it in our homes – https://theconversation.com/governments-and-police-are-tackling-weapons-in-public-but-theyre-ignoring-it-in-our-homes-260097