Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Uri Gal, Professor in Business Information Systems, University of Sydney

Recently some Australian shoppers got more than they bargained for when they chatted with Woolworths’ artificial intelligence (AI) assistant, Olive.

Instead of sticking to groceries, recipes and basket suggestions, Olive reportedly produced strange, overly human-like responses. It talked about its “mother” and offered other personal-sounding details.

Further testing revealed pricing errors for basic items. And when I asked about the price of a specific product, Olive didn’t provide a clear answer. Instead, it checked whether the item was in stock and explained pickup fees.

So what exactly is going on here? And what lessons might these incidents hold for businesses and consumers alike?

What actually happened?

Olive is powered by a large language model (LLM). These models don’t “know” things the way humans do, nor do they have mothers. Using elaborate statistical analyses, they generate language that sounds plausible.

Comments from a Woolworths spokesperson to the Australian Financial Review suggest that in Olive’s case, the references to its supposed mother appear to have been pre-written scripts dating back several years.

When users entered something that looked like a birthdate, the system likely triggered a matching “fun fact” from an old decision tree with pre-programmed responses.

Woolworths says it has now removed this particular scripting “as a result of customer feedback”.

The pricing errors point to a different problem.

Because LLMs generate responses based on learned patterns rather than real-time data, they do not automatically know today’s prices unless they are explicitly connected to a live database.

If that grounding step is weak, the system can produce outdated prices.

Not a new problem

Woolworths is not the first company to discover, after the fact, that its customer-facing AI had unexpectedly “misbehaved”.

In 2022, Air Canada’s chatbot incorrectly told a passenger, Jake Moffatt, that he could purchase tickets at full price and later apply for a bereavement fare refund. No such policy existed.

When Air Canada refused to honour the chatbot’s advice, Moffatt sued the airline and won.

Air Canada’s defence was striking. It argued the chatbot was a separate legal entity, responsible for its own actions and therefore beyond the airline’s liability. The tribunal rejected this outright. It ruled that a chatbot is part of a company’s website, and that the company owns its outputs.

In January 2024, UK parcel delivery firm DPD faced a different kind of embarrassment. A frustrated customer who could not get help to locate a missing parcel asked DPD’s chatbot to write a poem that criticised the company. It did. He then asked it to swear. It did that too. The exchange went viral on social media. DPD disabled the chatbot shortly after.

Both cases point to the same underlying failure: companies launched customer-facing AI without adequate oversight and were caught off-guard by the consequences.

What is Woolworths’ responsibility?

Woolworths operates the largest supermarket chain in Australia. It has promoted Olive as a trusted, convenient interface for its customers, who are reasonable to expect that the information Olive provides is accurate.

Admitting that Olive may make mistakes, as Woolworths does when a user opens the chatbot, does not sit easily with that expectation.

There is also a broader ethical dimension. Woolworths serves customers who, in many cases, are making careful decisions about household budgets.

The ACCC has already commenced proceedings against Woolworths over allegedly misleading discount pricing practices.

That context makes the Olive pricing errors harder to dismiss as an isolated technical glitch.

Companies that deploy AI in customer-facing roles take on a duty of care to ensure those systems are accurate and honestly presented. That duty does not diminish because the technology is new.

Why do companies keep making chatbots that pretend to be your friend?

The logic behind Olive’s programmed personality is not without basis.

Research on human-computer interaction consistently finds that people respond positively to interfaces that feel conversational and warm. Human-like chatbots that have a name and personality tend to generate higher customer engagement, satisfaction, and trust.

For companies, the commercial appeal is straightforward: a customer who feels at ease with a chatbot is more likely to complete a transaction and return.

However, this comes with a significant risk. When an anthropomorphised chatbot fails to meet the expectations its personality has created, customers tend to be more dissatisfied than they would have been with a plainly mechanical system.

This “expectation violation” means that the warmer the persona, the harder the fall.

The larger stakes

The Olive episode is a reminder that deploying AI in customer-facing roles is not a set-and-forget exercise.

A chatbot that quotes wrong prices and rambles about its family is not a quirky inconvenience but a sign that something in the development and oversight process has broken down.

For Woolworths, and for the many other companies now rushing to put AI in front of their customers, the lesson is clear: accountability cannot be outsourced to an algorithm. When a business puts a system in front of the public, it owns what that system says and does.

There is a lesson for consumers, too.

AI assistants may feel confident and conversational, but they are still tools, not authorities. If something seems unclear, inconsistent or too good to be true, it is worth double-checking.

As AI becomes a routine part of everyday transactions, a small measure of healthy scepticism may prove just as important as technological innovation.

– ref. Woolworths’ AI agent rambled about its ‘mother’. It’s a sign of deeper problems with the tech rollout – https://theconversation.com/woolworths-ai-agent-rambled-about-its-mother-its-a-sign-of-deeper-problems-with-the-tech-rollout-277072

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toby Walsh, Professor of AI, Research Group Leader, UNSW Sydney

The Commonwealth Bank reportedly suspects around A$1 billion in home loans were obtained fraudulently, including through AI-generated documents. The Australian Financial Review says the bank has reported itself to police and the corporate watchdog to investigate.

According to sources quoted in the newspaper, Australia’s largest bank discovered the suspected fraud last year, partly thanks to two whistleblowers. After rival bank NAB was allegedly defrauded of around $150 million, the Commonwealth Bank also reportedly began investigating its own loans. Its Australian home loans alone are worth around $634 billion.

While the bank is yet to make any detailed comment on the case, a Commonwealth Bank spokesman said the industry faced “sustained and increasing levels of attempted fraud, driven by criminals who actively evolve their methods”.

This is an industry-wide challenge, with fraud being attempted through mortgage broking and referral channels.

Even though I’ve been warning about the need to make AI companies do more to stop facilitating crime, the sheer scale of this suspected fraud still surprised me.

We should assume criminals won’t only have been targeting the Commonwealth Bank and NAB, but that they’re trying all the banks.

This case has implications for all of us: from individuals to business owners wanting to avoid being fooled by fake AI invoices, to the banks, our government regulators and the AI companies themselves.

Don’t panic – but expect tighter security

First of all, given the Commonwealth Bank has 17 million customers, let’s be clear: this won’t be a $1 billion loss for the bank.

From what we’ve heard so far, the bank should be able to recover a significant amount of this money. These loans are reportedly being paid off, and there are bricks-and-mortar properties involved to sell if needed too.

But even for a bank as big as the Commonwealth, $1 billion is no loose change. After suspected fraud on this scale, I suspect we are going to see all banks ramp up their security.

As customers, we should expect to be asked to do more to secure our accounts and secure our transactions. We’re also increasingly likely to need to use biometric authentication (such as facial recognition), as well as two-factor authentication.

I also think it’s likely to mean that, in future, we’ll need go into the bank to show ourselves along with our original documents – to a real person. That will be a lot less convenient than just providing certified copies to a mortgage broker. However, it’s also a lot more secure.

That way, the bank can see the real, physical passport, with its holograms and stamps, which are hard to reproduce.

Faking financial or identification documents with AI is now free and easy. For example, only last year we heard how ChatGPT could be used to forge passports.

Read more: Can you spot a financial fake? How AI is raising our risks of billing fraud

Given the Commonwealth Bank is reportedly investigating the role of mortgage brokers and others in this suspected fraud, it’s likely we’ll see banks make mortgage brokers go through more hoops too.

And the Commonwealth isn’t the only bank offering loans. So people should be asking questions of their own bank: have you uncovered fraud like this in your own loan book? And what are you doing about it?

What regulators and governments need to do

As well as being used for fraud, AI is also being used by the banks to try to detect and catch scammers.

AI can be very helpful in looking for strange patterns – for instance, a mortgage broker is suddenly submitting three times as many home loan applications?

But fraud on this scale, affecting Australia’s biggest bank, does show the federal government needs to stop saying we don’t need any new AI regulation. We just don’t have adequate safeguards in place.

Rethinking how we pay bills and do business

Whether you’re a business owner or an individual, if someone sends you a large invoice to pay, don’t pay it until you’re sure it’s real.

It’s just so easy to “spoof” (mimic) someone’s web address, email or invoice, especially the first time you’re paying someone.

We’ve seen too many cases of “middle men” attacks, where criminals get between a person and the company they’re trying to pay, then change the bank details.

There are some terrible stories about how people have transferred their deposit to buy a house to what they thought was the solicitor’s account. But it was changed – and they lost their whole deposit.

My rule of thumb is that any time it’s a first-time payment, or sum of money large enough to really hurt you, call whoever you’re paying over the phone and confirm their bank details are correct.

– ref. Why Commonwealth Bank’s $1 billion suspected loan fraud should change how we bank and do business – https://theconversation.com/why-commonwealth-banks-1-billion-suspected-loan-fraud-should-change-how-we-bank-and-do-business-277083

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

A common mould has killed two people, and left four others seriously ill, at one of Sydney’s largest hospitals.

Health authorities are investigating a cluster of fungal infections at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital’s transplant unit.

Six patients developed infections between October and December 2025 after being exposed to Aspergillus, a common mould found in soil, plants, dust and damp environments.

In a statement, a hospital spokesperson suggested the mould may have been present at nearby construction sites, part of the hospital’s A$940 million redevelopment.

So what is Aspergillus? And should you be concerned?

It’s a common mould?

Yes. Aspergillus moulds are a type of filamentous fungi, meaning they form long chains, and are usually found in soil, plants and damp areas.

This type of mould is usually harmless to healthy people. But it can cause a severe respiratory disease called aspergillosis. Aspergillosis affects about 250,000 people around the world.

How can Aspergillus harm?

This type of mould produces airborne spores, which people may inhale into their lungs.

There, these spores can cause an infection in the smallest chambers of the lungs. This is because they release toxins and enzymes that damage lung tissue. These spores can spread to other parts of the body such as the brain, kidneys, heart or skin, causing further infection.

Symptoms of an infection include fever, cough and chest pain. You may have trouble breathing or might start coughing up blood. Aspergillus can also cause skin and eye infections.

Read more: Global deaths from fungal disease have doubled in a decade – new study

Who is most vulnerable?

Our immune systems can generally fight Aspergillus infections. But people with weakened immune systems have a much higher risk of developing an infection.

These include people having chemotherapy, corticosteroid treatment, or organ or stem cell transplants. Transplant patients are particularly vulnerable. This is because their immune system must be deliberately weakened to stop their body rejecting the transplanted organ. If they somehow inhale Aspergillus spores, the fungus can more easily take hold in their lungs.

Read more: Deadly drug-resistant fungus spreading rapidly through European hospitals

Dormant spores in the lungs of transplant patients may also cause infection when the spores are activated. But health authorities did not indicate this occurred at the Sydney hospital.

One large US study found just 59% of organ transplant recipients and 25% of stem cell transplant patients were still alive one year after developing invasive aspergillosis.

People with asthma may develop allergies to Aspergillus even if their immune systems are healthy. And it can cause severe allergic reactions in people with cystic fibrosis, a genetic condition in which sticky mucus blocks their airways. People with other lung conditions such as tuberculosis, influenza or COVID are also at a higher risk of developing an Aspergillus infection.

What are the treatment options?

Aspergillus can be treated with antifungal drugs such as itraconazole and corticosteroids. This treatment is most effective when we detect the infection early.

But researchers have identified strains of Aspergillus that don’t respond to this kind of treatment. So antifungal resistance is an urgent problem.

What else do I need to know?

Aspergillus infections are relatively uncommon in the general population. And they are rare in hospitals, where wards and rooms are usually fitted with high-efficiency particulate air, or HEPA, filters. These filters capture and remove potentially harmful particles from the air.

However, construction work may disturb the soil near or around the hospital, releasing a high number of Aspergillus spores into the air. This increases the risk of hospitals having clusters of infection. It remains unclear whether this is what happened at The Royal Prince Alfred Hospital.

Read more: Almost half of antibiotic prescribing for surgery is inappropriate, new report shows

– ref. What is Aspergillus, the fungus behind recent hospital deaths? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-aspergillus-the-fungus-behind-recent-hospital-deaths-277067

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michele Lastella, Senior Lecturer, CQUniversity Australia

On paper, the Matildas should have a major advantage playing on home soil for the upcoming Women’s Asian Cup.

However, from a sleep and travel perspective, they may be fighting a hidden disadvantage despite Australia hosting the tournament, which runs from March 1–21.

This is because most of Australia’s squad is based overseas, many flying from the top European leagues in England, Italy, Germany and Sweden.

Let’s unpack the challenges they face and how travel impacts these athletes.

How flying impacts sleep

The human body runs on an approximate 24-hour internal timing system known as the circadian rhythm.

This body clock regulates when we feel alert, when we feel sleepy and even how well we perform.

Therefore, when a team travels from Southwest or Central Asia to Australia, the players may shift forward up to 6–7 hours.

Let’s take, for example, the Iranian national team, almost all of whom play in the local domestic league. For staff and players travelling from Tehran to Brisbane, their internal body clocks will still think it’s the middle of the night when it’s morning in Brisbane.

The result is jet lag: a misalignment between the internal body clock and the new time zone, which generally resolves at about one day per time zone crossed.

Jet lag results in disrupted sleep, daytime fatigue, slower reaction times and reduced concentration.

In travelling to Australia, nations such as Iran and Uzbekistan will cross five or more time zones, others such as Vietnam, North Korea and South Korea will face only minor shifts.

But the Matildas, Japan and South Korea have many players arriving from various European countries.

The Matildas have the most overseas-based players of any squad (closely followed by Japan). The Australians have 23 players arriving into Perth from all different locations: 13 from England, four from Sweden, two from Italy, two from Germany, one from the United States and one from Canada.

The distance of travel matters. Long-haul flights can disrupt sleep even before jet lag begins.

Athletes often struggle to sleep on planes due to restricted movement, cabin pressure, dehydration and unfamiliar conditions.

They can suffer what is known as travel fatigue, which is different from jet lag.

So some teams will arrive in Australia only sleep-deprived (travel fatigue, minor shifts), and some will arrive both sleep-deprived as well as circadian-misaligned (jet lag).

Direction matters

The severity of symptoms and rate of adaptation largely depend the direction of the flight and the individual variation.

Travel to Australia can take up to 30 hours in the less favourable eastward direction.

To put it simply, recovering from eastward travel usually requires people to shift their sleep and wake up earlier.

Physiologically, this is harder than travelling west because advancing the body clock affects the body more than delaying it.

Why some players adapt faster

Not everyone responds to travel in the same way.

Adaptation to time-zone change is moderated by chronotype – natural preferences of the body for sleep and wake activities.

Morning types (larks) feel alert early and are ready for bed earlier while evening types (owls) prefer later schedules.

These differences are important because morning types may adapt better to eastward travel.

Evening types often struggle more because they must fall asleep earlier than their biological preference. Exposure to bright light at the wrong time (such as scrolling on a phone in a brightly lit hotel room) may further delay adjustment.

That’s why screening players’ natural sleep patterns before a tournament can help staff individualise plans.

Experience counts. Players who regularly compete in international tournaments are repeatedly exposed to long-haul travel and rapid time-zone changes where overtime they often develop different behavioural strategies to help reduce the severity of jet lag symptoms.

Sleep banking and light exposure

One of the simplest and most effective strategies is something called sleep banking.

In the week before departure, players can deliberately extend their nightly sleep by 30–60 minutes. This creates a buffer against the inevitable sleep loss during travel and competition.

Research shows this can minimise performance declines and speed-up recovery later, especially when going into periods of disrupted sleep.

In short, we can’t eliminate jet lag but we can prepare for it.

Once in Australia, timing becomes everything.

The timing of light exposure after eastward travel becomes ever more important. Evening light should be limited.

Short daytime naps (20–60 minutes, ideally early afternoon) can reduce fatigue without impairing night-time sleep.

Caffeine can be helpful but only when timed carefully: a sneaky late-afternoon coffee may impact subsequent sleep and potentially delay adaptation.

Sleep as a competitive advantage

In tournament football, sleep should be viewed as a performance variable that underpins both preparation and recovery.

Athletes’ sleep is commonly disrupted after competition, particularly night games.

Read more: The next great performance booster for athletes? Sleep

In a tournament context, this creates a compounding problem: one poor night can carry into subsequent matches via reduced recovery, impaired mood and vigilance, and altered physiological readiness.

Multi-match schedules, short turnarounds, late kickoffs, unfamiliar beds and heightened cognitive arousal can all compress sleep opportunity and reduce sleep quality at the very time when athletes need it most.

The goal isn’t perfect sleep – it is consistency and protecting one’s sleep opportunities. Teams must make sleep a priority and stop stealing it through poorly timed meetings, recovery sessions or media obligations.

Prioritising sleep and recovery could be the difference between falling at the group stages of the tournament and pushing deep into the final matches.

– ref. Home ground disadvantage? How sleep and travel could impact the Matildas – https://theconversation.com/home-ground-disadvantage-how-sleep-and-travel-could-impact-the-matildas-276059

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

Deposed Liberal leader Sussan Ley formally resigned from parliament on Friday – and sent a blunt challenge to her successor, Angus Taylor, in her farewell statement.

Speaker Milton Dick will now set the date for the byelection in the regional New South Wales electorate. The poll is expected to be in mid April or early May. It is too late to have it before Easter.

Ley, who has been on a goodbye tour of the electorate, will not return to parliament – which resumes next week – to deliver a valedictory.

Upping the ante for Taylor, Ley said in a statement: “The election of a Liberal Member in the Farrer by-election is vital for the betterment and ongoing strength of our region and I know that Angus Taylor can and will ensure the Party continues to enjoy the support, trust and confidence of the people of Farrer”.

In fact, the byelection is a very open contest, with at least four main contenders. The Liberals, Nationals, and One Nation will run. Also, one strong independent, Michelle Milthorpe, is already campaigning. She polled 20% of the primary vote at last year’s election.

Milthorpe, who received Climate 200 funding at the 2025 election, is being backed by independent Helen Haines, who holds Indi, the Victorian seat across the border from Farrer, and by independent ACT senator David Pocock.

Labor has not made a decision on whether to stand, but appears unlikely to do so. It can’t win the seat, although if it stood it would preference One Nation last and therefore put maximum pressure on the Liberals to do so. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was in Farrer early this week.

The contest is shaping as a big test of whether the surge of support for One Nation in recent opinion polling will translate into actual votes. One Nation will choose its candidate on March 7. It has had more than 70 nominations and has reduced the field to three possible candidates. It says it is well resourced for the byelection, in finances and local membership.

Taylor told a news conference the contest would be “very, very tough” for the Liberals.

The Liberals have nominations open and could choose their candidate as early as next week if there is a stand-out contender. The Nationals also have nominations open; the party’s candidate will be chosen by a rank and file ballot.

The 2025 primary votes were: Liberals, 43.4% (-8.9%); Milthorpe 20%; ALP 15.1% (-3.9%); One Nation 6.6% (+0.3%).

Ley won over Milthorpe 56.2% – 43.8% on the two candidate preferred result.

The seat has been held by either the Nationals or Liberals since its creation in 1949. Tim Fischer, who was leader of the Nationals and deputy prime minister, held it from 1984-2001. He was the only National to represent the seat. In 2001, after Fischer’s retirement, Ley won the seat from the Nationals by only 206 votes.

The electorate’s main centre is Albury, on the Murray River. The sprawling seat, which stretches to the South Australian border, also includes the towns of Griffith and Leeton in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. One of the issues in the byelection will be water.

Ley said in her statement: “After the Liberal Party suffered our worst defeat in 81 years, it was with gratitude and humility that I took on the role of Leader of our Party. I was elected by my parliamentary colleagues and I thank them once again for the opportunity to serve.

“I believe my election as the first woman to ever lead not just the Federal Liberal Party, but any Federal Opposition, is a milestone for all women to be proud of. I hope I have paved the way for the next woman to be elected to, and succeed in, both these roles.

“It will be for commentators and historians to measure the period of my leadership, but I am proud that we were instrumental in establishing a Commonwealth Royal Commission into Antisemitism and that we set clear directions on several key policy areas in tax, industrial relations, energy, national security, and families. I welcome the Coalition’s immediate re-adoption of many of these directions and policies in recent days and weeks.”

– ref. View from The Hill: Ley formally resigns, tells Taylor it’s ‘vital’ he holds Farrer – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-ley-formally-resigns-tells-taylor-its-vital-he-holds-farrer-275910

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Poe, Associate Professor of Social and Political Thought, Australian Catholic University

The New South Wales government has just announced the launch of a new, permanent rapid response police unit.

Composed of about 250 officers and 28 administrative staff, the unit will be equipped with a fleet of rapid response vehicles and officers will be armed with long-arm rifles.

The Minns government made the announcement as part of a strategic response to violent crime in the aftermath to the Bondi Beach terror attack on December 14 2025.

But does this type of policing work?

What will the unit do?

This new unit will engage in what the government describes as “intelligence-led policing” that can respond quickly to evolving threats, patrol high-risk areas and offer protection to public spaces, mass gatherings and major events.

The unit will be fully active, engaged for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and publicly visible.

The introduction of this unit is an important change in police structure and practice in NSW.

The newly constituted rapid response unit has evolved from a temporary taskforce called “Operation Shelter”, which was established to address increasing social tensions following the outbreak of the Gaza War on October 7, 2023.

While the “Operation Shelter” taskforce functioned as what NSW officials described as a “reactive operation”, the new unit will become a permanent, fully active police unit, with dedicated officers, training, management and budgets.

It will be proactive, attempting to prevent crime from happening before it starts.

New tactics and priorities

Rapid response teams can be distinguished from ordinary patrol policing through their structure and purpose.

There are many international precedents for such units, including in major metropolitan centres across the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe.

A NSW Police Force delegation studied such units in Europe and England, travelling to investigate them in January 2026.

Previously, NSW Police deployed a strategy of “surge” operations – diverting resources for emergency engagement to disrupt criminal activity and promote public safety.

What the NSW government proposes now is a shift from what it describes as reactive policing to proactive prevention.

Police will deploy regular patrols to “high-risk areas”, engaging in surveillance of potential criminal activity before it starts.

As NSW Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon said:

Our priority is not only ensuring the community is safe, but that people also feel safe, while providing a deterrence to anyone who wants to do harm (while we also want to) support our frontline operational police.

But opinion on this change in policing has not been unanimous.

Power and accountability

Dramatic, traumatic events such as the Bondi Beach terror attack draw can be a source of collective anxiety. In response, lawmakers often feel compelled to react, generating policy solutions that show a rapid governmental response.

But will expanding police powers in the form of a rapid response unit prevent further terror attacks?

The research is mixed.

Place-based interventions – such as patrolling neighbourhoods already considered as a source of criminality and close monitoring of the “usual suspects” – can sometimes prevent crime in the short-term.

But research has shown proactive police engagement can in fact increase, rather than decrease, major crimes.

Recent policing violence in US cities – such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) action in New York, Minneapolis and Los Angeles – testifies to these dangers. These recent conflicts highlight the ways in which expanded police powers can be the source of pandemonium, rather than peace.

Some Australian lawmakers have criticised NSW’s new rapid response unit, seeing this increase in police power as a potential source of harm, especially to legally authorised protestors.

And they are right.

Closer examination of the proposal for NSW’s rapid response unit highlights further threats to public safety, including changes to weapons use and technology.

Much current research highlights how changes in technology escalate police power and police violence.

The expansion of police power cannot always be rewound, making it difficult to always hold police accountable to the law.

Difficult questions

The launch of a new unit raises difficult questions:

• who will engage in new police work, and what communities will these officers come from?
• how will this work be evaluated (and can communities participate in those evaluations, or will the state determine all metrics of success)?
• what, if anything, would allow for the dissolution of such a unit?

NSW Premier Minns has said: “because our security challenges have changed, our policing model needs to change with them.”

Considering the current research on police power, do we need to consider and ameliorate for potential perverse outcomes?

– ref. NSW’s new rapid response police unit may help some people feel safer, but it also raises difficult questions – https://theconversation.com/nsws-new-rapid-response-police-unit-may-help-some-people-feel-safer-but-it-also-raises-difficult-questions-276982

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milad Haghani, Associate Professor and Principal Fellow in Urban Risk and Resilience, The University of Melbourne

This week, images on social media showed global superstar Ed Sheeran alighting from the overnight train from Sydney into the decidedly utilitarian surrounds of Southern Cross Station in Melbourne.

In Australia for an international tour, the $700 million star chose to travel 11 hours overnight by train, rather than take a one-hour flight. Media stories speculating at his motive noted Sheeran’s wife, Cherry Seaborn, is a consultant in sustainability and encourages him to travel on public transport to save emissions.

Sheeran has also been open about his plan to buy land and “rewild” as much of the United Kingdom as he can, saying: “I love my county and I love wildlife and the environment.”

In a live touring industry built around tight schedules and frequent air travel, Sheeran’s decision may be a symbolic gesture, driven by a desire to reduce his carbon footprint.

Australia hosts hundreds of live events such as concerts and music festivals each year. In 2024 alone, the live entertainment sector drew more than 31 million attendances, including more than 14 million concertgoers. Across the country, more than 160 music festivals are staged each year.

Sell-out concerts at a huge scale, such as Sheeran’s, inevitably come with a major environmental footprint.

How large is the carbon footprint of major concerts and events? Where do those emissions come from? Is anything being done to reduce them; and why should the event industry care in the first place?

The emission impact of concerts and major events

Event footprints vary widely depending on their scale. This ranges from hundreds or thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions for conferences, to tens of thousands for large festivals and concerts, and hundreds of thousands or more for global mega-events such as the Olympic Games.

Estimates suggest emissions average around 5kg of CO₂ per attendee per day, though impacts vary considerably depending on travel patterns and the way events are designed.

There is no agreed global estimate of the total carbon footprint of concerts or major events globally. Most impacts are calculated on an event-by-event basis.

Music festivals in the UK, for example, are estimated to collectively generate more than 400,000 tonnes of carbon emissions each year.

That level of emissions is broadly comparable to the annual carbon footprint of more than 230,000 average passenger cars.

An event’s carbon footprint reflects the activities required to bring together and service the crowds. Carbon audits typically account for how audiences travel to the venue, where they stay, what they eat and drink, how the site is powered, and how waste is managed.

The key emission contributors

While public attention often focuses on artist travel and sound systems, evidence shows these are rarely the main drivers of emissions.

The largest contributor is audience travel. Multi-city concert analyses covering multiple large-scale international tours found transport by attendees creates 38 times more emissions than artist and crew travel, hotel stays and gear transportation combined.

Accommodation for major events typically contributes a secondary share of emissions, particularly when concerts attract interstate or international visitors requiring overnight stays.

Other emissions sources include food and beverage services, venue energy use and production, freight and touring logistics, and waste management. Each of those typically account for a much smaller share of total event emissions.

How are organisers and bands responding?

There is growing environmental awareness across the live music industry. In recent years, artists, promoters and venues have begun experimenting with ways to reduce the environmental footprint of their live events.

Much of this has focused on energy use and touring operations.

British band Coldplay, for example, reported that its Music of the Spheres world tour reduced direct touring emissions by about 60%, compared with its 2016–17 stadium tour. This was based on a show-by-show comparison, and verified by independent audits. Coldplay achieved this mainly by replacing diesel generators with battery-powered systems, using renewable energy, and redesigning freight and touring logistics, or even incorporating kinetic energy systems such as power-generating dance floors and bicycles.

Their tour also funded a large-scale tree-planting initiative; one tree for every ticket sold. The program has so far supported the planting of millions of trees worldwide.

Massive Attack also made headlines last year after staging the ACT 1.5 concert in Bristol, described as one of the lowest-carbon live music events ever held. It used battery-powered energy systems instead of diesel generators, plant-based catering, reduced freight logistics and offered incentives for low-carbon audience travel.

Where to now? The audience needs to change

While these efforts are encouraging, evidence consistently shows that even low-emissions concerts might achieve limited overall reductions unless audience travel behaviour also changes.

Industry guidance from Green Music Australia identifies fan transport as one of the largest remaining emission sources, and prompts organisers to experiment with public-transport incentives, venue selection and travel partnerships.

Technological improvements on stage are becoming increasingly achievable. But influencing how tens of thousands of people travel to events remains the hard bit.

Gestures such as Sheeran choosing the train over flying may appear symbolic, but symbols matter. They help make lower-carbon choices seem normal, and reinforce environmental values across an industry already confronting the impacts of climate change on live events.

A recent global analysis of more than 2,000 mass gatherings disrupted by extreme weather between 2004 and 2024 across several high-income countries around the world found that arts, cultural and entertainment events – particularly festivals and concerts – were among those most frequently affected by climate change.

Storms, heat and other climate-related disruptions are already altering event timing and financial viability across countries including Australia, the UK and the United States.

In other words, the live events industry is not only contributing to climate emissions; it is increasingly exposed to their consequences.

Efforts to reduce the emissions footprint of large events and concerts should become an core part of the broader adaptation challenges facing the events industry. Its very existence depends on stable environmental and climate conditions.

– ref. Ed Sheeran caught the train to Melbourne to protect the climate. But what about his thousands of fans? – https://theconversation.com/ed-sheeran-caught-the-train-to-melbourne-to-protect-the-climate-but-what-about-his-thousands-of-fans-276971

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tam Ha, Associate Professor of Cancer Epidemiology, University of Wollongong

More than 1,300 Victorians have joined a class action against Johnson & Johnson alleging its talcum powder products left them with ovarian cancer, mesothelioma (cancer affecting the lungs) and other cancers affecting the reproductive organs.

This follows lawsuits in the United Kingdom and the United States, including a prominent case in California. In December 2025, Johnson & Johnson was forced to pay two women US$40 million after a jury found its baby powder was dangerous and that it had failed to warn consumers.

Talc is a naturally occurring mineral mined in many parts of the world. People can come into contact with it during mining and processing, industrial applications, and more commonly, through its use in cosmetics and body powders.

People use talc on their genitals to absorb moisture, reduce friction, disguise odours, or to reduce skin rashes and chafing. Talc increases the opaqueness of face powders and cosmetics, leaving skin feeling smooth and soft.

So how is it linked to cancer? And what does the scientific evidence say?

Contamination with asbestos

Since the 1970s, questions have emerged about whether talc could be contaminated with asbestos. Asbestos is a cancer-causing agent that can affect the lungs when inhaled.

Talc and asbestos are minerals often found close to each other in the Earth, so there is potential for talc to be contaminated with asbestos during the mining process.

Since the 1970s, manufacturers have attempted to produce pure talcum powder free from asbestos. However, it’s unclear how routinely samples are tested and the extent of contamination over the past 50 years.

In 2023, Johnson & Johnson stopped selling talc in its products worldwide, including in Australia, switching instead to a cornflour base. Other manufacturers still sell talcum powder and it’s still used in cosmetics, as well as industrially.

What does the science say about the cancer link?

Two cancers have a possible link with talc use:

• lung cancer, due to the potential to inhale talc particles, which can occur with some types of jobs

• ovarian cancer, due to regular use of talcum powder in the genital area.

Some human studies have found products containing talc are linked with higher rates of ovarian cancer. Other studies have found no link.

Studies that examined the use of talc on the genital area found no evidence to suggest a link between talc and uterine or cervical cancer.

But there are several challenges to overcome when studying the link between talcum powder and cancer. It can be difficult to recall details about talc use (brand, amount, and so on) many years later. Some people who developed cancer will have died before being identified and studied, so won’t be included.

However, when researchers investigated how often participants used talc powder and compared those who used it frequently with those who didn’t, they found an increased risk of ovarian cancer among frequent users.

So what does it all mean?

When there are differing results from multiple studies, those results can be summarised together to answer the research question. So what does all the currently available evidence say about the relationship between talc usage and ovarian cancer?

This summary study concludes there appears to be a weak risk of some types of ovarian cancer, meaning it’s linked to a small increase in risk, but the reasons why remain unclear.

The evidence suggests talc does not increase the risk of other gynaecological cancers, such as uterine and cervical.

Talc contaminated with asbestos is clearly linked to an increased risk of lung cancer. However, cosmetic use of talc doesn’t seem to increase the risk of lung cancer because users don’t breathe it in.

In 2024 the World Health Organization (WHO) updated its advice to say that talc is “probably carcinogenic” which means it probably causes cancer in humans. This is the second-highest risk level for cancer, which includes the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) and red meat.

If you use talcum powder and are concerned about an increased risk of cancer, it’s recommended you stop using it or limit how much you use. As with all decisions in life, consider the balance between potential harms and benefits, especially if you’ve used talc for a long time and want to minimise your risk of getting cancer.

– ref. What’s the link between talcum powder and cancer? – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-link-between-talcum-powder-and-cancer-276745

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carolina Quintero Rodriguez, Senior Lecturer and Program Manager, Bachelor of Fashion (Enterprise) program, RMIT University

You pull on your rain jacket, step out into the storm, and within half an hour your undershirt is soaked. The jacket you purchased as “waterproof” seems to have stopped working, and all the marketing claims feel a bit suspect.

In reality, the jacket probably hasn’t failed overnight: a mix of how it’s built, the exact level of water protection it offers, and years of sweat, skin oil and dirt have all played a part.

But there are a few simple ways you can care for your rain jacket to ensure you stay dry, even when it’s pouring.

The science behind rain jackets

Most proper rain jackets are built around a waterproof “membrane” sandwiched inside the fabric. Gore-Tex is the most popular technology used which includes a very thin layer of chemicals known as PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) or expanded PTFE (ePTFE) which are full of microscopic pores.

Those pores are much smaller than liquid water droplets. But they’re big enough for individual water vapour molecules, so rain on the outside can’t push through, but sweat vapour from your body can escape outwards.

Other fabrics use solid, non-porous membranes made from polyurethane or polyester that move water vapour by absorbing it and passing it through the material molecule by molecule rather than via tiny holes. This can make them a bit more tolerant of dirt.

The outer fabric is sometimes treated with a very thin chemical finish that makes water roll off the surface instead of soaking into the fibres – a bit like wax on a car. This finish is known as “Durable Water Repellent” and helps to reduce saturation of water in the exterior of the jacket.

In the past, many of these chemical finishes used “forever chemicals” (PFAS) that repelled both water and oil, but persist in the environment and build up in wildlife and people.

Because of this, brands and regulators have started using alternatives based on silicones or hydrocarbons. These still repel water but are generally less hazardous.

It’s also useful to understand the words you see on labels.

A waterproof jacket is built to stop rain coming through, even in heavy or prolonged downpours, and usually has a membrane, a chemical finish plus fully taped seams.

“Water resistant” means the fabric slows water down and copes with light showers but will eventually let water through. It often relies on a tight weave and a chemical finish but no true membrane.

“Water repellent” just describes that beading effect from the chemical finish. It can apply to both waterproof and non-waterproof fabrics.

Some brands also say rainproof or weatherproof as a friendlier way of saying “pretty much waterproof”, but there’s rarely a separate test behind that word.

Why do rain jackets degrade over time?

When you realise your jacket isn’t waterproof anymore, the first thing that has usually gone wrong isn’t the membrane. It’s the chemical finish on the outside.

That ultra thin surface layer gets scuffed by backpack straps and seat belts, baked by sun, and contaminated by mud, smoke and city grime.

These coatings can gradually lose their water repellent properties through abrasion and washing if harsh detergents and washing cycles are used, and bits of them are shed into the environment over time.

Body oils, sunscreen and insect repellent also play a role, as they build up in the fabric over time. Outdoor gear care guides and lab work on waterproof fabrics both point out that these oily contaminants can damage the chemical finish and clog the pores of the membrane, making it harder both for rain to be repelled and for sweat vapour to escape.

Over many years, slow physical ageing also takes a toll. Constant flexing can cause a membrane to thin or develop tiny cracks and the finish to deteriorate. Seam tapes can also start to peel away, especially on shoulders where backpack straps press.

How to keep a jacket waterproof

The single best thing you can do for both your comfort and the planet is to keep a good jacket working for as long as possible, because making new technical fabrics has a significant environmental footprint.

Gentle washing will help extend the life of your rain jacket, as it removes the build up of contamination such as dirt and body oils. Brands and care guides recommend closing zips and Velcro, then washing on a gentle cycle with a cleaner designed for waterproof fabrics or a very mild soap, avoiding normal detergents and softeners that leave residues.

Depending on the type of chemical finish, this coat can be re-applied through spray-on or wash-in products found commercially. Some finishes can be re-activated by exposure to low heat (low dryer heat or low ironing heat). Heat makes the water-repelling molecules stand back up after they have been “flattened” by use and contamination.

Although the above will help you to keep your jacket waterproof, it is best to follow the care instructions given by the manufacturer as they change according to the type of composition of the fabric.

In any case, it is important to avoid leaving the jacket wet and scrunched up for weeks, and be mindful of heavy sunscreens and repellents.

– ref. Raincoat no longer waterproof? A textile scientist explains why – and how to fix it – https://theconversation.com/raincoat-no-longer-waterproof-a-textile-scientist-explains-why-and-how-to-fix-it-272801

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Guy Bate, Professional Teaching Fellow, Management and International Business, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

The steady embrace of artificial intelligence (AI) in the public and private sectors in Australia and New Zealand has come with broad guidance about using the new technology safely and transparently, with good governance and human oversight.

So far, so sensible. Aligning AI use with existing organisational values makes perfect sense.

But here’s the catch. Most references to “responsible AI” assume values are like a set of house rules you can write down once, translate into checklists and enforce forever.

But generative AI (Gen AI) does not simply follow the rules of the house. It changes the house. GenAI’s distinctive power is not that it automates calculations, but that it automates plausible language.

It writes the summary, the rationale, the email, the policy draft and the performance feedback. In other words, it produces the texts organisations use to explain themselves.

When a system can generate confident, professional-sounding reasons instantly, it can quietly change what counts as a “good reason” to do something.

This is where “value drift” begins – a gradual shift in what feels normal, reasonable or acceptable as people adapt their work to what the technology makes easy and convincing.

Invisible ethical shifts

In the workplace, for example, a manager might use GenAI to draft performance feedback to avoid a hard conversation. The tone is smoother, but the judgement is harder to locate, as is the accountability.

Or a policy team uses GenAI to produce a balanced justification for a contested decision. The prose is polished, but the real trade-offs are less visible.

For small businesses, the appeal of GenAI lies in speed and efficiency. A sole trader can use it to respond to customers, write marketing copy or draft policies in seconds.

But over time, responsiveness may come to mean instant, AI-generated replies rather than careful, human judgement. The meaning of good service quietly shifts.

None of this requires an ethical breach. The drift happens precisely because the new practice feels helpful.

The biggest ethical effects of GenAI don’t often show up as a single shocking scandal. They are slower and quieter. A thousand small decisions get made a little differently.

Explanations get a little smoother. Accountability becomes a little harder to point to. And before long, we are living with a new normal we did not consciously choose.

If responsible AI use is about more than good intentions and tidy documentation, we need to stop treating values as fixed targets. We need to pay attention to how values shift once AI becomes part of everyday work.

Hidden assumptions

Much of today’s responsible-AI guidance follows a straightforward model: identify the values you care about, embed them in GenAI systems and processes, then check compliance.

This is necessary but also incomplete. Values are not “fixed” once written down in strategy documents or policy templates. They are lived out in practice.

They show up in how people talk, what they notice, what they prioritise and how they justify trade-offs. When technologies change those routines, values get reshaped.

An emerging line of research on technology and ethics shows that values are not simply applied to technologies from the outside. They are shaped from within everyday use, as people adapt their practices to what technologies make easy, visible or persuasive.

In other words, values and technologies shape each other over time, each influencing how the other develops and is understood.

We have seen this before. Social media did not just test our existing ideas about privacy. It gradually changed them. What once felt intrusive or inappropriate now feels normal to many younger users.

The value of privacy did not disappear, but its meaning shifted as everyday practices changed. Generative AI is likely to have similar effects on values such as fairness, accountability and care.

In our research on leadership development, we are exploring how we teach emerging leaders to recognise and reflect on these shifts.

The challenge is not only whether leaders apply the right values to AI, but whether they are equipped to notice how working with these systems may gradually reshape what those values mean in practice.

Constant vigilance

The emphasis in New Zealand and Australia on responsible AI guidance is sensible and pragmatic. It covers governance, privacy, transparency, skills and accountability.

But it still tends to assume that once the right principles and processes are in place, responsibility has been secured.

If values move as AI reshapes practice, though, responsible AI needs a practical upgrade. Principles still matter, but they should be paired with routines that keep ethical judgement visible over time.

Organisations should periodically review AI-mediated decisions in high-stakes areas such as hiring, performance management or customer communication.

They should pay attention not just to technical risks, but to how the meaning of fairness, accountability or care may be changing in practice. And they should make it clear who owns the reasoning behind AI-shaped decisions.

Responsible AI is not about freezing values in place. It is about staying responsible as values shift.

– ref. AI can slowly shift an organisation’s core principles. How to spot ‘value drift’ early – https://theconversation.com/ai-can-slowly-shift-an-organisations-core-principles-how-to-spot-value-drift-early-276511