Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hal Pawson, Professor of Housing Research and Policy, and Associate Director, City Futures Research Centre, UNSW Sydney

Rising homelessness across Australia is overwhelming the capacity of services to offer emergency help. New evidence in the Australian Homelessness Monitor 2024, released today, confirms homelessness has soared well above pre-pandemic levels in most parts of the country.

Complementing the report’s findings from a survey of local governments, a majority of homelessness services agencies also report “significantly increased” numbers of people seeking assistance over the past 12 months alone.

Much of this escalation likely reflects the sheer lack of rental homes available and the extraordinary rent inflation experienced across Australia since 2020. National median advertised rents have jumped 51% since March 2020. Even when adjusted for inflation, the increase is 29%.

A welcome increase in government investment in social housing offers the prospect of some limited relief in the next few years. However, as none of the recent spending commitments extends far into the future, and because they generally lack any evidence-based logic, there is a high risk this recovery will prove short-lived.

Agencies are feeling the strain

Recent market conditions have created a perfect storm for homelessness services agencies. In parallel with the rising need for crisis assistance, there is less scope to help clients into secure housing. Some 76% of services were finding it “much harder” to find suitable housing for clients in mid-2024 than a year earlier.

Agency monthly caseloads are up 12% since 2019–20. There’s also a big increase in the average time clients receive support: up by 44% in the five years to 2022–23. This has forced agencies to reduce intakes of new clients seeking help.

The sector has a backlog, causing agencies to struggle to meet demand. They have been triaging applications for help. This means giving priority to people who are already homeless rather than at risk of homelessness.

While justifiable in the circumstances, this damages agencies’ ability to prevent – as opposed to relieve – homelessness.

The rental market pressures fuelling this crisis have continued to intensify, well over two years after Australia’s post-COVID reopening.

These problems would have been even worse without “extraordinary” boosts to Commonwealth Rent Assistance sanctioned by Treasurer Jim Chalmers in 2023 and 2024. In combination with routine indexation, these have raised maximum payments by 45% since early 2022.

Rising homelessness has longer-term causes too

The housing market impacts of COVID-19 disruption have aggravated homelessness in the early 2020s. But it’s only the latest phase in a much longer-term trend. This is because the housing market drivers of the problem are not (only) cyclical but structural; that is, built into how the system operates.

Housing demand and market supply have been out of sync for decades. As a result, house prices have continued to increase faster than incomes. This puts home ownership increasingly out of reach for moderate income earners.

With the path from private renting to first home ownership increasingly obstructed, even for moderate to high income earners, overall demand for tenancies has grown. This inflates sector-wide rent prices, further reducing availability of rentals affordable for people on lower incomes.

These housing market dynamics have been an underlying driver of rising rental housing stress and homelessness since the 1990s.

All the while, these tendencies have been underpinned by key tax and other policy settings that inflate housing demand and restrict supply. The federal government’s promised National Housing and Homelessness Plan must acknowledge, analyse and reconsider these policy settings.

Governments have begun to respond

As the 2022 and 2020 editions of the Homelessness Monitor identified, signs of stepped-up engagement with homelessness as a policy priority began to emerge among governments as early as 2016 in states such as New South Wales and Victoria.

Then, in 2020, several states launched large-scale, widely welcomed pandemic emergency accommodation programs for people sleeping rough and others who were homeless.

More recently, in a notable policy reversal highlighted by our new research, both federal and state governments have pledged appreciable investment in long-term social housing.

Initially led by Victoria and Queensland, followed by the Commonwealth and NSW, this new investment should deliver around 60,000 new social homes by 2030, by far the sector’s largest influx of new stock this century.

At least for a few years in the late 2020s, the promised programs might halt – at least temporarily – the trend of social housing dwindling from over 6% of all homes in the 1990s to barely 4% today. Yet any gains will remain modest relative to the scale of unmet need. Referencing this, housing and homelessness advocates have called for social rental homes to form 10% of all housing.

Even so, we should see, at least for a few years, a marked uptick in scope to help people who are homeless into secure and affordable homes. This will be the result of a surge of newly-built social units supplementing existing homes being re-let. And for more of those helped in this way, these will be homes designed and built to modern standards.

Australia can still do much better

Problematically, though, these developments have come about through incremental and disconnected policymaking. Other than in Queensland, there has been a lack of any stated rationale, strategic framing or evidence-based scaling of social housing programs.

In most cases, there has been no explicit recognition or acknowledgement of the need to keep investing much more in social housing than in the recent past. This investment must be enough, at the very least, to prevent a resumption of sector decline. Ideally, it should cover an expansion of social housing in line with known long-term needs.

It would surely be logical to include a statement of aspiration along these lines in the government’s promised National Housing and Homelessness Plan.

We cannot measurably reduce and then prevent homelessness without reducing poverty and expanding access to secure and affordable homes. Just as the current situation has come about thanks to mistaken policy choices of the past, these are challenges that could be squarely addressed by course corrections today.

Hal Pawson receives research funding from the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation (City of Melbourne), the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, the Australian Research Council and Crisis UK. He is a part-time unpaid advisor to Senator David Pocock and a non-exec director of Community Housing Canberra.

– ref. Homelessness much worse than before COVID leaves agencies battling a perfect storm – https://theconversation.com/homelessness-much-worse-than-before-covid-leaves-agencies-battling-a-perfect-storm-243148

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nichola Tyler, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Psychology, Swinburne University of Technology

A recent bushfire in Kadnook, western Victoria, which destroyed at least one property and burned more than 1,000 hectares of land, is being investigated due to suspicion it was deliberately lit.

This is not an isolated example. About 28% of bushfires in south-east Australia are deliberately lit. The figure rises to 40% if we’re only talking about fires with a known cause.

These figures are consistent with international trends and tell us preventing arson and unsafe fire behaviour alone could significantly reduce the number of bushfires.

Despite this, prevention of deliberately lit bushfires is mostly absent from emergency, public health and climate action plans.

These fires are devastating

Deliberately lit bushfires can spread rapidly and have devastating consequences. They often occur on the edge of urban areas close to populated places, where there are both dense vegetation and flammable structures.

We see a peak in bushfires during summer when hot temperatures, low rainfall, and dry conditions make fire a more potent threat.

Climate change, land management practices, and increased interaction between people and rural areas increase our vulnerability to fire and the risks associated with deliberate fires.

The royal commission into Victoria’s devastating Black Saturday fires in 2009 reported 173 people died and an additional 414 were injured. The commission concluded at least three of the 15 fires that caused (or had the potential to cause) the greatest harm were deliberately lit.

The commission concluded we need to better understand arson. It recommended research to improve how best to prevent arson and how to detect who’s at risk of offending.

Nearly 15 years on from Black Saturday, these recommendations have not been implemented. There is also very limited evidence globally about how to prevent both bushfire arson and deliberately lit fires more broadly (for instance, fires set to structures or vehicles).

Who lights these fires?

We know little about the characteristics and psychology of people who light bushfires or how to intervene to prevent these fires.

The little research we have suggests there is no one “profile” or “mindset” associated with deliberately lighting bushfires.

But there are some risk factors or vulnerabilities we see more commonly in people who light them. These include:

• an interest or fascination with fire or fire paraphernalia. This could include an interest in watching fire, or a fascination with matches or the fire service

• experiences of social isolation, including a lack of friends or intimate relationships

• increased impulsivity

• general antisocial behaviour, such as contact with the police, truanting or property damage

• difficulties managing and expressing emotions

• problems with being assertive.

However, most people with these vulnerabilities will never light a fire.

Research shows rates of mental illness are higher in people who set fires (including schizophrenia, mood and anxiety disorders, personality dysfunction, and substance use disorders). However, mental health symptoms are rarely a direct cause of firesetting. Instead, they appear to worsen existing vulnerabilities.

Why do people light these fires?

There are many, complex reasons why people light fires. Commonly reported drivers include: relieving boredom or creating excitement, gaining positive recognition for putting out a fire (they want to be seen as a hero), as a cry for help, or because they’re angry.

However, not everyone who lights a fire intends to cause serious damage or harm. In some cases, people may not be aware of the possible consequences of lighting a fire or that the fire may spread into a bushfire.

Knowing these kinds of facts about people who light bushfires is important. However, they don’t help us prevent people from lighting fires in the first place. This is because authorities don’t always know who sets the fires.

So how can we prevent this?

First, we can learn more about why people set fires more generally, particularly those who do not attract attention from authorities.

Research in the United States, United Kingdom and New Zealand has started to investigate those who set fires but don’t attract police attention. The aim is to identify ways to prevent people lighting fires in the first place, and support them so they don’t light more.

There is almost no research in Australia or internationally into the effects of community awareness, and prevention campaigns or targeted strategies to prevent firesetting, including bushfire arson, in higher risk groups.

We know slightly more about interventions to reduce repeat firesetting. Fire safety education programs delivered by fire and rescue services show some promise as an early intervention for children and adolescents who have already set a fire, particularly those motivated by curiosity, experimentation, or who are not aware of the consequences.

There is also some evidence suggesting specialist psychological interventions can be effective in reducing vulnerabilities associated with adult firesetting. Forensic or clinical psychologists typically deliver a combination of cognitive behavioural therapy (a type of talking therapy), skills building (such as building coping skills, emotion and impulse control, and reducing their interest in fire), and fire safety education.

However, availability of firesetting interventions is patchy both in Australia and internationally. Interventions that are available are also not always tailored to people with complex needs, such as those with significant emotional or behavioural problems or mental health needs. We also don’t know if these interventions lead to a long-term change in behaviour.

Climate change is making this urgent

The continued and escalating effects of climate change makes it more urgent than ever to address the problem of deliberate firesetting, including bushfire arson.

Failing to address deliberate firesetting will have significant long-term consequences for public health, human life and the environment.

But until funding is available for Australian arson research, identifying and helping people who are more likely to set fires will continue to be based on guesswork rather than evidence.

As we enter another summer of high fire danger, our failure to fund arson research should be at the forefront of everyone’s minds.

Nichola Tyler has received funding from the University of Kent, The Royal Society of New Zealand, and Fire and Emergency New Zealand for research on understanding and preventing deliberate firesetting.

Troy McEwan has previously received funding from the RACV to conduct research into understanding and preventing deliberate firesetting.

– ref. Up to 40% of bushfires in parts of Australia are deliberately lit. But we’re not doing enough to prevent them – https://theconversation.com/up-to-40-of-bushfires-in-parts-of-australia-are-deliberately-lit-but-were-not-doing-enough-to-prevent-them-243584

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elise Waghorn, Lecturer, School of Education, RMIT University

It’s almost the end of the school year. And that means it’s “awards season” for school students.

Before the holidays, students, teachers and families will gather for speech days where awards will be handed out for academic performance, citizenship, leadership and extracurricular achievements in sport, art and music.

Schools bill these awards as a way to recognise and celebrate students’ achievements. But are they a good idea?

Why give awards?

The philosophy behind giving students awards is to reward them for success.

This stems from the behaviourism approach to education.

This highlights how external rewards can influence behaviour. But while these rewards might motivate kids in the short term, once the desire for that reward fades, the behaviour often doesn’t stick.

Read more:
Should you reward kids for success? Or is there a better way to talk about achievement?

Different kinds of motivation

Research has also shown giving awards or rewards to children can be more harmful than helpful.

When kids are offered awards, they can shift their focus from enjoying the activity to trying to earn the award. This means they might participate only for the sake of the award, rather than for the joy of learning or personal growth. This means they are motivated by extrinsic (outside) factors rather than intrinsic (internal) ones.

A 2014 US study of children in years 3 to 5 showed students who were intrinsically motivated performed better academically than their peers who were extrinsically motivated. The study used a scale to assess children’s motivation. An example of intrinsic motivation was, “I ask questions in class because I want to learn new”, while extrinsic motivation included, “I like school subjects where it’s pretty easy to just learn the answers”.

Awards can also lead children to depend on external validation. When kids get used to seeking approval through awards, they may struggle to find self-worth and motivation in their own efforts.

What about the kids who miss out?

For the kids who don’t receive awards, this can lead to feelings of inadequacy or discouragement, especially if the same few children are always being celebrated.

This situation can also create a “fixed mindset”, where kids think their abilities can’t change or improve (“I never get an award, I’m not good at school”).

This is opposed to a “growth mindset”, in which students believe their abilities can improve through hard work, good strategies and help from others.

Read more:
Parents say ‘good girl’ and ‘good boy’ all the time. Here’s why you should try to say something else

What can we do instead?

This is not to say schools should never give students awards. But it’s important to think carefully about why we are doing this and what the impact might be.

For parents – whether your child receives an award or not – there are other ways to talk about their achievement at the end of the school year.

It can help to focus no the process, rather than the product.

You can encourage your child by praising their effort and progress. This means focusing on the hard work and improvements they made, rather than just the final results.

For example, you could say something like, “I noticed how hard you worked on your reading this year”. Or, “I could see how much you cared about your final history project”. This helps kids feel valued for their efforts. This is something within their control and does not invite comparison with others.

Another effective strategy is to encourage self-reflection. Asking questions such as, “I know you found long division tricky this year. How did you overcome that challenge?”

This helps kids think about and recognise how they can grow and improve, even when things don’t go to plan.

This in turn, helps develop resilience, which is so important for their learning at school and life beyond it.

Elise Waghorn 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. Should we give students awards at school? – https://theconversation.com/should-we-give-students-awards-at-school-245358

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Danks, Associate professor in Cinema and Media Studies, RMIT University

Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, released on December 9 1974, is a fascinating composite of both 1970s New Hollywood and the legacy of the women-centred melodrama of the 1930s and ‘40s.

It is now mostly remembered as an early film directed by Martin Scorsese. But it was actually a project initiated by its lead actor, Ellen Burstyn, fresh off a series of acclaimed films including The Last Picture Show (1971), The King of Marvin Gardens (1972) and The Exorcist (1973).

The film would go on to be a significant commercial success, earn Burstyn the Academy Award for Best Actress, and inspire a much less gritty and profane sitcom that would last for nine seasons and featured only one (male) member of the original cast.

A step toward Hollywood

The subsequent critical reputation of Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore is somewhat skewed by its status as an atypical Scorsese film.

The director had only made three features: Who’s That Knocking at My Door (1967), Boxcar Bertha (1972) and Mean Streets (1973). Largely working outside the mainstream, he already had a significant critical reputation as a chronicler of flawed urban ethnic masculinity.

It is also fascinating to hear, this early in his career, Scorsese reminisce about how conscious he was of his growing reputation and of not wanting to be pigeonholed into a particular mode of cinema. He actively embraced the opportunity to make his first true Hollywood film.

He also felt the need to reorientate his focus away from men – though they still appear prominently – and embrace a female-centred narrative. There was also an insistence on working with women in key creative roles, and Scorsese followed Burstyn’s lead in terms of adjusting the script, encouraging improvisation and the nuance of performance.

Although women do feature prominently in subsequent Scorsese films such as New York, New York (1977), The Age of Innocence (1993) and Killers of the Flower Moon (2023), it can be argued Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore is Scorsese’s only narrative feature that centres on female experience.

It has been criticised for its overly mild feminism. But Burstyn was keen to make a movie that focused on the everyday pressures and desires of its carefully grounded female characters.

In the relatively inhospitable masculine terrain of New Hollywood, Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore is an outlier.

Scorsese is most commonly talked about as an iconoclast. But a key element of his career has also seen him operate within the system and maintain a capacity to work on large budgets and projects.

His desire to work with technologies such as 3D, large streaming companies, and actors like Leonardo DiCaprio (one of the few truly bankable actors in 21st-century cinema) have their roots in Scorsese’s employment by Warner Bros on this project.

He even expressed excitement about using the old Columbia Pictures sound stages. Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore would allow him to fuse contemporary – arguably feminist – sensibilities with the kind of star “package” designed in earlier times for actors such as Bette Davis and Joan Crawford.

Scorsese constantly toggles between cinema’s present and past, seeing them as inextricably entwined.

The path not taken

The film follows Alice (Burstyn) and her son Tommy as they travel from New Mexico to Arizona in pursuit of her dream of becoming a singer. It is one of many road movies made during this era and provides a fascinating time-capsule portrait of the desert and often ugly urban landscapes it travels through.

Although her pursuit of a career bubbles beneath the surface, the story is more concerned with the men Alice encounters and the camaraderie she forges with her fellow waitresses in a restaurant (the inevitable focus of the subsequent sitcom).

There is nothing particularly new or groundbreaking about this, but the film is most memorable for the small, often idiosyncratic scenes between Alice and her son. For the surprising moments of kindness, hard-won connection and violence Alice encounters. For the genuinely offbeat performance by Jodie Foster as Tommy’s worldly young friend. The needle drop of particular songs on the soundtrack.

Kris Kristofferson also provides an uncommonly soulful, weathered and comparatively gentle representation of masculinity.

Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore represents an important watershed in Scorsese’s career, and also a path not taken.

Although he has continued to work within and to the side of the mainstream, he has rarely produced a subsequent film with such warmth and sympathy for its central characters.

As a portrait of flawed humanity, it is miles away from his next feature, Taxi Driver (1976). After that, there was perhaps no turning back. Both for better and for worse.

Adrian Danks 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. Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore at 50: the film that marks a path not taken in Scorsese’s career – https://theconversation.com/alice-doesnt-live-here-anymore-at-50-the-film-that-marks-a-path-not-taken-in-scorseses-career-243460

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

The swift and unexpected fall of the Syrian capital, Damascus, to Sunni opposition forces marks a pivotal moment in the modern history of the Middle East.

Bashar al-Assad’s regime had withstood more than a decade of uprisings, civil war and international sanctions since the onset of widespread protests in 2011. Yet, it collapsed in a remarkably short period of time.

This sudden turn of events, with the opposition advancing without significant battles or resistance, has left regional powers scrambling to assess the fallout and its broader implications.

This dramatic development signals a reshuffling of power dynamics in the region. It also raises questions about Syria’s future and the role of its neighbours and global stakeholders in managing the post-Assad landscape.

What does the future hold for Syria?

With the collapse of the Assad regime, Syria now finds itself fragmented and divided among three dominant factions, each with external backers and distinct goals:

1. Syrian opposition forces, led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham: These groups, supported by Turkey, now control central Syria, extending from the northern border with Turkey to the southern border with Jordan.

Although they share a common religious identity, the Sunni factions have a history of internal conflicts, which could hinder their ability to form a cohesive government or maintain long-term stability.

The opposition forces range from former jihadists coming from Islamic State and al-Qaeda to secular groups such as the Syrian National Army, which split from Assad’s army after the 2011 uprising.

2. Kurdish forces: The Kurdish groups control territory in northeastern Syria, bordering Turkey in the north and Iraq in the east. They continue to receive support from the United States, which has established military bases in the area. This support risks escalating tensions with Turkey, which views Kurdish empowerment as a threat to its territorial integrity.

3. Alawite forces: Pro-Assad Alawite factions, primarily situated in the coastal regions of western Syria, maintain strong ties with Iran, Iraq and Lebanon’s Hezbollah militant group. These areas could serve as a stronghold for remnants of Assad-aligned groups after the opposition’s takeover, perpetuating sectarian divides.

The stark divisions among these groups, combined with the absence of a mutually acceptable mediator, suggest that Syria may now face prolonged instability and conflict.

How will this impact the region?

The swift fall of the Assad regime has profound implications for the major players in the Middle East.

The Sunni rebel forces, with strong Turkish backing, capitalised on a moment of vulnerability in Syria. The Assad regime’s allies were preoccupied — Russia with its ongoing war in Ukraine, and Iran and its proxies with their ongoing conflict with Israel. This provided a strategic opportunity for the rebels to advance swiftly across Syria to the capital, Damascus.

Turkey already effectively controls a strip of territory in northern Syria, where its military has been fighting Syrian Kurdish forces. Now, with the victory of its Syrian opposition allies, Turkey is expected to expand its political and military influence in Syria, causing more challenges for the Kurdish minority fighting for its autonomy.

Israel is also in a strategically better position. The fall of Assad disrupts the so-called “axis of resistance”, comprised of Iran, Syria and Tehran’s proxy groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Iran’s critical military supply lines to Hezbollah will likely be severed, isolating the militant group and likely weakening it even further.

Additionally, the fragmentation of Syria into ethnic and religious factions could diminish the regional focus on Israel, providing space for it to pursue its broader strategic goals. After Israel agreed to a ceasefire with Hezbollah last month, for example, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphasised a shift in focus to countering the “Iranian threat”.

Iran, meanwhile, has the most to lose. Assad was a crucial ally in Iran’s regional proxy network. And the collapse of his government follows the significant damage that Israel has already inflicted on its other partners, Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran’s regional influence has now been severely diminished, leaving it more vulnerable to direct conflict with Israel.

The fragmentation of Syria also poses significant security risks to its neighbouring countries – Turkey, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon. Refugee flows, cross-border violence and sectarian tensions are likely to escalate. Turkey is already hosting more than 3 million Syrian refugees – many of whom it hopes will return home now that Assad’s government is gone.

For Iraq and Lebanon, this instability could exacerbate their fragile political and economic situations. The Balkanisation of Syria along ethnic and religious lines could encourage other groups in the region to rebel against governments in the pursuit of their own autonomy. This risks entrenching divisions and prolonging conflict across the region.

While many Syrians have celebrated Assad’s fall, it remains to be seen whether their lives will improve much. With the absence of a unified and internationally recognised government in Syria, sanctions are unlikely to be lifted. This will further strain an already devastated Syrian economy, deepening the humanitarian crisis and potentially fuelling extremism.

Ali Mamouri 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. Bashar al-Assad’s regime has fallen in Syria. How will this impact an already fractured region? – https://theconversation.com/bashar-al-assads-regime-has-fallen-in-syria-how-will-this-impact-an-already-fractured-region-245539

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

In the reactions to incidents of antisemitism, many people observe a contrast between New South Wales Premier Chris Minns and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

Over the past year, Minns has seemed quicker off the mark and more on point than Albanese, even when the PM is saying the right words and doing the right things.

Each projects a different vibe. It may seem a small thing in troubled times, but local Jews pick up on it. One (non-Jewish) observer captures it this way: “Minns gives a sense of himself in his condemnation. With Albanese it’s clearly the prime minister talking, not Anthony Albanese.”

The Middle East conflict – one in which Australia has no role or influence – has now finally fractured Israel-Australian relations. It has also led to increasing criticism of the federal government from the local Jewish community.

Last week brought the perfect storm. Australia voted at the United Nations for a motion calling for Israel to end its “unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible”. This sparked a sharp reaction from the office of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu.

Then in the early hours of Friday, the firebomb attack on the Adass Israel synagogue in Melbourne left many Jews terrified and angry. It came after months of ugly antisemitism to which some Jewish leaders argue the federal government has not responded adequately.

The Melbourne attack has not just reverberated domestically but has driven a further wedge into Israeli-Australian relations.

Netanyahu quickly took to social media to claim, “Unfortunately, it is impossible to separate this reprehensible act from the extreme anti-Israeli position of the Labor government in Australia”.

This included “the scandalous decision” on the UN vote and stopping a former Israeli minister visiting Australia. The latter was a reference to Immigration Minister Tony Burke blocking Ayelet Shaked, who was due to speak at a conference. Burke pointed to her inflammatory anti-Palestinian statements and said she could undermine social cohesion.

Immediately after the Hamas atrocities of October 7 last year, Australia had a more-or-less bipartisan position on Israel, although the opposition criticised Labor Foreign Minister Penny Wong urging restraint as Israel moved to defend itself.

Ever since, however, the two sides of Australian politics have increasingly diverged. Albanese did not visit Israel, Wong did not visit the massacre sites; Peter Dutton did. Labor has been more even-handed in its attitude to the conflict, showing greater concern about the huge number of casualties in Gaza. As Labor has moved away from Israel, the Coalition has dug in ever more strongly behind Israel.

Partly this has been driven by differences of view. Labor itself has long been internally divided over Israel-Palestine issues. Many years ago, Albanese co-chaired the parliamentary friends of Palestine.

Partly the widening partisan gulf has been driven by immediate political concerns and interests. Labor has a very pro-Palestine constituency in some of its western Sydney seats.

Albanese has now called the Melbourne attack a terrorism incident, while pointing out that label is one assigned by the experts.

“If you want my personal view, quite clearly terrorism is something that is aimed at creating fear in the community, and the atrocities that occurred in the synagogue in Melbourne clearly were designed to create fear in the community, and therefore, from my personal perspective, certainly fulfil that definition or terrorism,” he said on Sunday.

Victorian and federal police will discuss the catagorisation on Monday (although they’ve been somewhat pre-empted).

Albanese announced $32.5 million for the Executive Council of Australian Jewry to further strengthen security at Jewish Community sites including synogogues and schools.

At his news conference in Perth he also defended the government against those who say it hasn’t done enough, listing measures it has taken against antisemitism, including banning the Nazi salute and symbols, criminalising doxing, and appointing an antisemitism envoy.

Former treasurer Josh Frydenberg has called for a national security taskforce of federal and state police on antisemitism. But Albanese said the police should be left to go about their work and noted there was a joint counter-terrorism taskforce already.

At a state level, Minns, in the wake of a protest outside Sydney’s Great Synogogue last week that had people effectively trapped inside, is examining action to protect people from harassment at places of worship.

Jewish Labor MP Josh Burns, who holds the Victorian seat of Macnamara, with a substantial Jewish population, says that as well as measures to improve safety, antisemitism needs to be better combatted at universities, some of which have seen Jewish students experience vilification, intimidation and racism. Burns is chair of a inquiry into antisemitism on campuses, conducted by the parliamentary joint committee on human rights, which will report in February.

Pressed on Netanyahu’s attack on Australia over the UN vote, Albanese again pointed out 157 countries had supported the resolution including New Zealand, Canada and New Zealand, which are Five Eyes partners.

The split between Australia and Israel won’t be repaired in the foreseeable future without a change of government in one or both countries.

Bipartisanship over foreign policy on the Middle East is gone. But, despite the temptations posed by an approaching election, the parties need to unite behind combatting local antisemitism, before social cohesion is further undermined.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: Albanese announces more funding for Jewish security, labels synagogue firebomb ‘terrorism’ – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-albanese-announces-more-funding-for-jewish-security-labels-synagogue-firebomb-terrorism-245537

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Olli Hellmann, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Waikato

The controversial Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill is being presented by its architect, ACT Party leader David Seymour, primarily as a matter of lawmaking – a clarification through legislation.

The bill seeks to redefine the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi – established by decades of case law and jurisprudence – and instead enshrine new principles in law.

But the bill goes deeper than that, and touches on delicate but fundamental questions of what it means to be a New Zealander.

In the heated debate since the bill’s introduction, two ideas of national identity come head to head. And the implications for social cohesion and the quality of democratic debate are serious.

Equal and democratic vs bicultural nation

For the first few decades of colonial settlement, New Zealand’s identity was contained within an imperial one. The colony aspired to be a “Britain of the South”. It was only from the 1950s that European New Zealanders began to develop a distinct identity.

Pākehā national identity was constructed around ideas of political and economic egalitarianism. These emphasised hard work and social mobility, and portrayed New Zealand as a “land of opportunity” or a “classless society”.

But these notions of the “equal and democratic” nation excluded Māori and perpetuated a monocultural vision of New Zealand. In fact, for Māori, the process of colonisation was anything but an egalitarian experience.

Not only did the loss of ancestral land – through forceful confiscations and the introduction of private property laws – fuel poverty and economic inequality, but Māori were also denied the political rights promised to them in the Māori text of te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Grievances over cultural assimilation, historical injustices and political self-determination galvanised a growing Māori protest movement. In the 1970s and 1980s, governments responded by creating the Waitangi Tribunal and by fostering a bicultural understanding of New Zealand national identity.

Since then, this shift towards greater biculturalism has happened on several levels: weaving Māori culture and language into the fabric of the nation, educating the public about the Waitangi Tribunal’s role in addressing historical wrongs, and promoting the Treaty as the main symbol of Aotearoa-New Zealandness.

Recently published survey data show the bicultural understanding of national identity has taken root among younger generations: 85.4% of those aged 18 to 34 agree that “Māori culture helps to define New Zealand in positive ways”, compared to 63.1% of people aged 65 and over.

Similarly, the younger generation is more likely (59.4%) to accept that “we as a nation have a responsibility to see that due settlement is offered to Māori in compensation for past injustices” than the older generation (37.8%).

The threat of culture wars

The Treaty Principles Bill magnifies the differences between these two different ideas of New Zealand national identity.

Seymour says “the Treaty must be consistent with a liberal democracy and give equal rights to each person that has to live in this country”. As such, the bill aligns with the “equal and democratic” image of New Zealandness.

What is more, by implicitly framing the Treaty as a governance agreement, rather than a partnership between Māori and the Crown, the bill challenges the very interpretation of the Treaty underpinning the bicultural vision of the nation.

New Zealand has previously experienced the kind of divisions so-called culture wars thrive on, for example in public debates about the use of te reo Māori in public life or officially renaming the country Aotearoa.

But the Treaty Principles Bill threatens to inflame a battle over national identity, deepening those divisions and reinforcing them through overlapping generational differences.

As the sociologist James Davison has argued, American-style culture wars, which have spread to other countries, have the potential to “break democracy”.

Not only do they exacerbate a sense of “us versus them,” but they also narrow political discourse. The focus shifts towards emotionally laden, symbolic disagreements, away from real social and economic issues.

Bicultural egalitarianism

At one level, avoiding a culture war escalation requires holding accountable those politicians who engage in divisive rhetoric. But it might also involve reducing tensions by emphasising shared values across the two interpretations of New Zealand identity.

One possible way to do this is to stretch the idea of egalitarianism – which is central to the image of the “equal and democratic” nation – beyond its usual meaning of equality of opportunity.

If we expand its definition to include equality of outcome, the bicultural commitment to provide financial reparations as a means to improve the economic situation of Māori – which continues to be marked by colonial legacies – fits the “equal and democratic” vision.

We could also broaden egalitarianism to mean “epistemic” equality, which stresses the importance of extending equal value to diverse ways of seeing and knowing about the world.

This could help develop a more inclusive narrative of national identity that combines notions of egalitarianism with biculturalism – manifested, for example, in bicultural governance arrangements informed by mātauranga Māori, a Māori worldview.

Olli Hellmann 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. Land of opportunity or bicultural nation? Twin visions of national identity face off over the Treaty principles – https://theconversation.com/land-of-opportunity-or-bicultural-nation-twin-visions-of-national-identity-face-off-over-the-treaty-principles-245033

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

Soccer’s global allure is unmatched, yet its history is shadowed by tragedies.

At a recent soccer match in Nzérékoré, Guinea, a controversial refereeing decision led to unrest, resulting in crowd violence that claimed more than 50 lives.

In 2022, violence at Indonesia’s Kanjuruhan stadium during a match led to the deaths of 135 people, as security forces responded to pitch invasions with tear gas, triggering chaos and ultimately a crowd crush.

These incidents are stark reminders of the risks tied to violence in sports crowds. They stem from structural failures, poor crowd management, and often complex group dynamics that lead to violent behaviour.

Soccer crowds are especially prone to violence, which raises a pressing question: what is it about soccer and its fan culture that makes such incidents more likely to occur?

Read more:
Dedicated Roman gladiator superfans were the football hooligans of their day

Soccer fan violence: a recurring pattern

Catastrophic incidents rooted in fan violence have been intertwined with the history of this sport.

Perhaps the most extreme case is the Soccer War (more commonly known as the Football War) of 1969, when World Cup qualifiers between El Salvador and Honduras inflamed existing political tensions. Clashes between fans added to the animosity, and within days, the two nations were at war. More than 2,000 people died in the brief conflict.

There are other cases throughout the history of the game:

Estadio Nacional Disaster (1964, Peru) – Riots broke out after a disallowed goal during a Peru-Argentina match in Lima. Police used tear gas, causing chaos as fans tried to escape through locked exits. More than 300 people died.

The Heysel Stadium Disaster (1985, Belgium) – Clashes between Liverpool and Juventus fans before the European Cup final caused a wall to collapse. Thirty-nine people were killed and more than 600 were injured.

Port Said Stadium Riot (2012, Egypt) – After a match between Al-Masry and Al-Ahly, fans attacked each other with weapons while exits were blocked. Seventy-four people died and hundreds were injured.

The most notable case in Australia was the chaotic Melbourne Derby in 2022, when fans stormed the pitch at AAMI Park after a flare was thrown back into the stands. Melbourne City’s goalkeeper, Tom Glover, was struck with a metal bucket, leaving him concussed and bleeding.

Further back, in 1985, a National Soccer League match between Sydney Olympic and Sydney Hakoah erupted into chaos following a controversial referee decision. The chaos remains one of the most notorious examples of soccer crowd violence in Australia’s history.

Soccer fan violence can take many forms

Soccer’s immense popularity means larger, more diverse fanbases with deeply ingrained rivalries.

Fans often see their team as a core part of their identity, with this strong group affiliation sometimes heightening “in-group versus out-group” dynamics. At times, this can lead to hostility.

And it’s not just fan-on-fan violence: soccer fan violence takes many forms. Violent and antisocial acts range from verbal abuse and offensive chants to property damage, vandalism, pitch invasion and physical assaults.

In some countries, soccer fan violence has worsened since the pandemic.

In the United Kingdom, recent police statistics reveal a 59% increase in arrests compared to pre-pandemic levels, with incidents of disorder reaching an eight-year high. Notably, 70% of offences were committed by people aged 18–30.

Players can be affected, too. A 2023 workplace safety report from the International Federation of Professional Footballers highlighted the escalating issue of violence against professional players, emphasising its detrimental impact on their physical and mental wellbeing.

The report reveals a significant number of players have experienced abuse, including threats and physical assaults, both on and off the field. Data shows fan violence against players is most common in Europe (particularly the UK, Italy and Germany) followed by Africa.

What’s behind the trend?

1. Social identity

Soccer fan violence is often deeply tied to social identity dynamics.

Studies from Germany and Brazil emphasise the role of identity fusion, where fans experience an intense bond with their teams and fellow supporters.

This fusion creates a “warrior psychology”, making threats to the group feel personal, to the point that it can drive fans to defend their identity aggressively.

High-stakes rivalry games exacerbate this: violence surges up to 70% during derby matches in Germany. These studies show that match-day violence is driven more by rivalry and group dynamics than game outcomes.

In Brazil, the same identity fusion has been shown to drive hostility, especially toward rival fan groups, as fans perceive out-group threats as existential.

2. Sociodemographic characteristics

Studies have highlighted how “fanatic” supporters – often young, unemployed, and with lower levels of education – are more likely to engage in violence, which is shaped by group norms and accepted aggression levels.

Studies in the UK have revealed historical shifts. While hooliganism once thrived in working-class and hyper-masculine cultures, better crowd management and gentrification have reduced in-stadium violence, though confrontations still occur away from arenas.

3. Drug and alcohol use

Substance use can magnify aggression.

In the UK, cocaine use among fans is higher than the national average.

The combination of the growing fan drug culture in soccer with identity fusion can develop into aggressive behaviour, particularly during intergroup conflicts.

Alcohol, while not universally causal, can also fuel confrontations by lowering inhibitions and amplifying territoriality.

What can be done?

Despite these patterns, some regions have seen significant improvements.

In the UK, decades of reforms, such as CCTV, all-seater stadiums, and higher ticket prices have fostered a more “sanitised and gentrified” fan culture, with fans themselves often regulating violent behaviour.

However, such measures can also displace violence to less-visible spaces, where rival groups arrange confrontations to avoid police detection.

Reducing soccer-related violence requires a multifaceted approach addressing both structural and psychological drivers. Evidence suggests creating positive group dynamics, rather than simply suppressing fan identity, is key.

Further strategies could also include:

• initiatives to reframe rivalries as positive and reciprocal
• better policing tactics using dialogue and de-escalation rather than force
• improvements in managing crowd flows and reducing friction points, such as minimising counterflows of rival fans during departures
• substance use interventions, particularly targeting drug use.

The challenge, however, lies in implementing these solutions while preserving the unique passion and energy that make soccer the world’s most beloved sport.

Milad Haghani 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 is soccer fandom so linked to violence? – https://theconversation.com/why-is-soccer-fandom-so-linked-to-violence-245143

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Lenton, Director CarbonLock, Environment, CSIRO

Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels continue to rise and 2024 is likely to be the world’s hottest year on record.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that limiting global warming to 1.5°C will require much more than existing efforts to reduce emissions and decarbonise industry. We also need to remove enormous amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, 7-9 billion tonnes a year.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says carbon dioxide removal technology will be required to achieve global and national net zero targets. In other words, there is no net zero without CO₂-removal, because emissions of greenhouse gases are not declining anywhere near fast enough.

There will be trade-offs, as CO₂-removal can be costly and often uses up energy, water and land. But Earth is hurtling towards a climate catastrophe, with more than 3°C of warming under current global policies. We must do everything we can to avert disaster, which means slashing emissions as much as we possibly can, and removing what’s left.

Within the international scientific community the debate about carbon dioxide removal has moved on from “could we, should we?” to “we must” – recognising the urgency of the situation. So it’s worth coming up to speed on the basics of carbon dioxide removal technology, both old and new, and the role we can expect it to play in Australia’s net-zero future.

Why do we need carbon dioxide removal?

Carbon dioxide removal accelerates natural processes such as storing carbon in trees, rocks, soil and the ocean. It differs from carbon capture and storage, which seeks to remove carbon before it enters the atmosphere.

As Australia’s Climate Change Authority states, reaching the national goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 does not mean all emissions are eliminated across the economy. Some emissions are likely to remain – about 25% of Australia’s 2005 emissions under the current plan – and they need to be dealt with.

So how much carbon dioxide are we talking about? Some 133 million tonnes a year by mid-century, according to the authority. This equates to billions of tonnes of additional carbon dioxide removal over the next 25 years.

Ways to remove and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are among the federal government’s national science and research priorities. So let’s take a look at the technologies we are using now and what we might need.

What technologies do we need?

The international scientific community divides carbon dioxide removal technologies into “conventional” (nature-based) and “novel” (new) approaches.

The conventional technologies rely on biological processes, such as planting trees, boosting soil carbon levels and increasing carbon stores in coastal ecosystems such as mangroves. The carbon is typically stored over shorter timescales, from a decade to a century.

Unfortunately, many of these natural carbon stores or “sinks” are already becoming saturated. They will also become increasingly vulnerable in a changing climate. For example, forest fires are releasing billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere annually.

To reach net zero emissions, the world will need to find more durable ways to remove CO₂ at scale from the atmosphere. This is where the new technologies come in.

Examples include adding crushed carbonate or silicate rock to the ocean or farmland. Research suggests waste rock from mining could be used for this purpose.

Concerningly, novel approaches currently comprise less than 0.1% of total global carbon dioxide removal.

Avoiding potential pitfalls

Like all technologies, carbon dioxide removal comes with potential risks and tradeoffs.

In a market worth as much as US$1.1 trillion dollars (A$1.7 trillion) by 2050, there’s always a risk of overstating the benefits.

To counter this, the IPCC is developing evidence-based methods to ensure the amounts of carbon removed can be verified and included in national accounts. This should promote transparency and reduce the risk of greenwashing or making misleading claims.

Carbon dioxide removal can also affect the environment. For instance, some approaches such as tree planting may compete with agriculture or biodiversity conservation for water and land. This challenge is compounded by climate change.

Other approaches, such as direct air capture and storage, currently face technical challenges in extracting CO₂ from air without consuming high amounts of energy.

The interests and rights of Australia’s First Nations communities must also be considered. A global survey of Indigenous people in 30 countries around the world, including Australia, found positive attitudes to climate intervention technologies. However, this is only a starting point. Greater engagement is needed nationally concerning specific carbon dioxide removal approaches.

More work is needed to understand these challenges, including how to manage them and their impacts on Australian communities.

A new industry for Australia?

Australia’s large land mass and vast oceans mean we have far greater physical capacity than other nations to store carbon.

Australia also has access to renewable energy used to power the technologies, and a skilled workforce to develop and run them.

Much like solar and wind energy, tackling carbon dioxide removal in Australia at the scale required will require a new industry with its own infrastructure, institutions and processes.

CSIRO and other organisations are advancing the technology, but more is needed. Australia requires a national dialogue and clear vision around how to deliver carbon dioxide removal responsibly and sustainably.

Of course, prevention is better than cure. It’s always better to cut emissions and stop carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere in the first place, than trying to remove it afterwards. But time is running out, carbon dioxide levels are already too high and we need to reach net zero by 2050.

Carbon dioxide removal is now essential, along with deep and urgent emissions reduction. We must get moving on permanent carbon dioxide removal if we are to preserve the planet for future generations.

Andrew Lenton receives funding from the federal Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water to represent Australia in ‘Mission Innovation – Carbon Dioxide Removal’. This involves working together to accelerate innovation in carbon dioxide removal technologies to achieve a net reduction of 100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year globally by 2030.
His work has also been funded by the Climate Change Authority to explore Australia’s carbon sequestration potential in a series of reports.

Kerryn Brent receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Green Adelaide.
She is an adjunct lecturer in the Law School at the University of Tasmania, and affiliated with the Australian Forum for Climate Intervention Governance based in the law school.
She is also an adjunct senior lecturer at the University of Adelaide Law School.

– ref. Plans to stabilise Earth’s climate rely on emerging carbon removal technology – we need to get moving – https://theconversation.com/plans-to-stabilise-earths-climate-rely-on-emerging-carbon-removal-technology-we-need-to-get-moving-237318

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carla Eisemberg, Senior Lecturer in STEM Pathways, Charles Darwin University

“Miss, miss, can I play with your robot?”

The question comes from a young local school girl standing in front of our stall at Barunga Festival, 80 kilometres southeast of Katherine in the Northern Territory. She points at our broken robot. We are hot, tired and getting ready to pack up, and explain to her that it is no longer working.

She insists she would like to play with it anyway. So we concede. In five minutes, she has fixed it and returns a fully functional robot.

Not for the first time, we wonder about the new discoveries and innovations humanity is missing out on because remote and rural children are not given genuine opportunities to engage and follow careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).

For the past four years, we have been on the road with STEM outreach in remote communities. We have recently returned home from this year’s trip. Our work shows these children don’t have to miss out.

Fewer opportunities

STEM skills are becoming core competencies for most job types and are identified as a key tool for long-term economic growth and global competitiveness.

Australia will need 312,000 additional technology workers by 2030 to meet industry demand.

Filling this gap is made harder by the fact that in Australia, 15-year-old students from remote areas lag behind in science by an average of 1.5 years, compared to those from metropolitan areas. They also perform significantly below the international average in mathematics.

A major factor responsible for this is that remote students have fewer career and education opportunities, poorer access to resources and a fragmented network of contacts for career advice.

It is also harder for rural and remote schools to obtain staff who are adequately qualified to teach STEM subjects. Remote children don’t have access to the same STEM experiences as city kids, who can visit their local – and large – science museums. For remote children, even basic activities such as the classic volcano experiment (using baking soda and vinegar) can be a novelty.

But this does not indicate a lack of talent for STEM.

A full day STEM extravaganza

We have worked on STEM engagement and outreach in remote areas of the Amazon, Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste and northern Australia.

For the past four years, our Radicle Centre team from Charles Darwin University has been delivering STEM engagement and outreach to remote and rural communities and schools in the Northern Territory. During our roadshow, undergraduate and postgraduate students from STEM fields join our crew, sharing their passion for science and technology.

Our roadshow has visited the same schools since 2020. Each year, we offer STEM workshops that are contextualised to students’ experiences and environment. For example, the workshops usually portray fauna, flora and stories from the Northern Territory.

It is a full school day STEM extravaganza! In 2024, we engaged with over 400 children from nine remote and rural schools and communities in the Northern Territory.

These kinds of outreach programs can play an important role in rural and remote areas by building, supporting, and maintaining STEM capability – provided they recognise, respect, and tailor their content to the local context.

Teachers welcome our visits, as in most cases there are very few opportunities for STEM activities at their schools.

Despite this lack of opportunity, many children who live in these parts of the world seem to have a knack for science and technology. From a wind-powered Christmas tree complete with lights created by school students in the Kikori Region of Papua New Guinea, to a super-fast miniature solar car designed by two school students from the Northern Territory – we are consistently wowed by the talent in remote regions.

A holistic approach is needed

Many children we have met every year confidently tell us they would like to become scientists, engineers or IT professionals. Which leads to a complex question: what is next for them?

Fewer rural and remote students attend university than those living in cities. And those who leave home to attend university face financial, personal and social challenges.

To truly support remote students who are undertaking university STEM courses, there is a need for a more holistic approach.

In Brazil, for example, university students from remote locations are offered a full assistance package that includes free accommodation and meals at university, as well as a stipend, and social and psychological support. Such approaches are few and far between in Australia.

Building an inclusive STEM workforce requires a long-term commitment from individuals, industry and the government.

Diversity drives innovation. The lack of support for rural and remote students to follow careers in STEM has wide implications.

It can be personally devastating for those that have potential but were never given the chance to develop it. But it also comes at a high cost to our society, which is deprived of a diverse STEM workforce and consequently will never benefit from the discoveries and innovations that our remote youth could make, if given the opportunity.

Carla Eisemberg receives funding from the Northern Territory Government and Commowealth.

Sarah Ruth Sutcliffe receives funding from the Northern Territory Government and Commonwealth.

– ref. An annual roadshow is helping kids from remote Australia realise their dreams of becoming a scientist – https://theconversation.com/an-annual-roadshow-is-helping-kids-from-remote-australia-realise-their-dreams-of-becoming-a-scientist-244659

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anam Bilgrami, Senior Research Fellow, Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie University

Last week, Parliament passed sweeping reforms to Australia’s aged care system. These “once-in-a-generation” changes, set to begin next year on July 1, aim to improve how care is provided to older Australians at home, in their communities and in nursing homes.

The new Aged Care Act focuses on improving quality and safety, protecting the rights of older people and ensuring the financial sustainability of aged care providers.

A key change is the introduction of a new payment system, requiring wealthier people to contribute more for non-clinical services.

If you – or a loved one – are planning for aged care, here’s what the changes could mean for you.

What to expect from the home care overhaul

Over the past decade, there’s been a noticeable shift towards “ageing at home”. The number of Australians using home care has more than quadrupled, surpassing those in nursing homes.

To meet growing demand, the government is adding 107,000 home care places over the next two years, with a goal to reduce wait times to just three months.

Starting July 1 2025, Support at Home will replace the Home Care Packages program. The table below shows some of the key differences between these two programs.

Home Care Packages are currently delivered under four annual government subsidy levels, covering care and provider management costs. Under Support at Home, the number of home care budget levels will double to eight, with the highest level increasing to A$78,000.

This aims to provide more tailored support and accommodate those needing higher levels of care.

Under the new system, recipients will receive quarterly budgets aligned to their funding level and work with their chosen provider to allocate funds across three broad service categories:

• clinical care, such as nursing or physiotherapy

• independence support, including personal care, transport and social support

• everyday living assistance, such as cleaning, gardening and meal delivery.

Clinical care services will be fully government-funded, as these are crucial to supporting health and keeping people out of hospitals.

But recipients will contribute to the costs of independence and everyday living services under a new payment model, reflecting the government’s stance that these are services people have traditionally funded themselves over their lifetimes.

This will replace the basic daily fee and income-tested care fee that some people currently pay. Contributions will vary by income and assets (based on the age pension means test) and by service type.

Support at Home also includes additional funding for specific needs:

• older Australians with less than three months to live will receive priority access to $25,000 in funding over 12 weeks

• up to $15,000 will be available for assistive technologies and home modifications, eliminating the need to reserve home care budgets for these.

What if I or my loved one is already receiving a Home Care Package?

If you were receiving a package, on the waiting list, or assessed as eligible for one on September 12 2024, the government’s “no worse off” principle guarantees you won’t pay more under the new system.

Current recipients will have their Support at Home budget aligned with their existing package, and any unspent funds will roll over.

How nursing home fees will change

Australia’s nursing home sector is struggling financially, with 67% of providers operating at a loss. To ensure sustainability and support upgrades to facilities, the government is introducing major funding changes.

What stays the same?

The Basic Daily Fee, that everyone in nursing homes pays, set at 85% of the basic age pension (currently $63.57 a day or $23,200 annually), will not change.

What’s changing?

The government currently pays a Hotelling Supplement of $12.55 per day per resident to cover everyday living services like cleaning, catering and laundry ($4,581 annually).

From July 1 2025, this supplement will become means-tested. Residents with annual incomes above $95,400 or assets exceeding $238,000 (or some combination of these) will contribute partially or fully to this cost.

Currently, residents with sufficient means also pay a means-tested care fee between $0–$403.24 per day. This will be replaced by a “non-clinical care contribution”, capped at $101.16 daily and payable for the first four years of care. Only those with assets above $502,981 or incomes above $131,279 (or some combination of these) will pay this contribution.

Importantly, no one will pay more than $130,000 in combined contributions for Support at Home and non-clinical care in nursing homes over their lifetime.

Changes to accommodation payments

The way nursing home accommodation costs are paid is also changing from July 1 2025:

• residents who pay their room price via a refundable lump sum will have 2% of their payment retained annually by the provider, up to a maximum of 10% over five years. For example, a $400,000 lump sum payment would result in $360,000 being refunded if a person stays five years or more, with the provider keeping $40,000

• daily accommodation payments (a rent-style interest charge) will no longer remain fixed for the duration of a person’s nursing home stay. Instead, these payments will be indexed twice annually to the Consumer Price Index

• providers will be able to set room prices up to $750,000 without government approval, an increase from the current $550,000 limit.

People with lower means (those who are fully subsidised by the government for their accommodation costs) will not be affected by these changes.

What if I own my home?

The treatment of the family home in means testing for nursing home costs will remain unchanged.

Its value is only assessed if no “protected person” (such as a spouse) lives in it, and even then, it’s capped at $206,039 (as at September 20 2024).

What happens to current nursing home residents?

The new rules for contributions and accommodation will apply only to those entering nursing homes from July 1 2025.

Existing residents will maintain their current arrangements and be no worse off.

Feeling overwhelmed?

These reforms aim to improve care delivery, fairness and sustainability, with the government emphasising that many older Australians – particularly those with lower incomes and assets – will not pay more.

The government has provided case studies to illustrate how home care and nursing home costs will differ under the new system for people at various income and asset levels.

Still, planning for aged care can be daunting. For more tailored advice and support, consider reaching out to financial advisors, services, or online tools to help you navigate the changes and make informed decisions.

Anam Bilgrami 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. Planning for old age? Here’s what the aged care changes mean for you – https://theconversation.com/planning-for-old-age-heres-what-the-aged-care-changes-mean-for-you-244816

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

As she reads the economic commentators, Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock might, in moments of doubt, wonder whether she’s making a similar mistake to her predecessor Philip Lowe.

Lowe ended up discredited because of some poor calls. He had signalled the bank would hold rates down for longer than turned out to be the case.

Presently, a big debate is underway about whether Bullock and the bank have got it wrong in their stand that rates shouldn’t be cut “in the near term”.

But that’s a debate Treasurer Jim Chalmers, for all his talk this week about Australia’s weak economy in the wake of Wednesday’s national accounts, won’t be drawn into.

It’s no secret the government is impatient for a rate cut, and frustrated we’re not seeing one. But it can’t say so, because that would invite attacks it was pressuring the independent bank.

A few months ago, Chalmers declared high interest rates were “smashing” the economy. Despite the fact he’d previously made the point, it turned into a big headline, feeding a feral news cycle. Chalmers learned a sharp lesson: even saying the obvious can be politically dangerous.

Others are forthright. Pradeep Philip, head of Deloitte Access Economics, says: “The private economy has been clobbered and we’d be in a recession if it wasn’t for government spending. Australia has been in an income per capita recession for some time now. The imperative for fiscal sustainability is stronger than ever and the case for a rate cut is palpable.”

ACTU secretary Sally McManus was blunt this week. “Central banks in almost all advanced economies have already started cutting their official cash rates – and it is time for Australia’s Reserve Bank to do the same.”

There’s no expectation the bank will be sympathetic to calls for a cut when it meets next week. It still argues inflation must fall further before a reduction can safely and sustainably be made. But the bank’s language will be carefully monitored for any sign of softening.

Its critics assert, variously, that the bank’s thinking is flawed – in particular, the belief unemployment needs to climb further to bring inflation to the acceptable level needed for a rate cut – or that it has backed itself into a corner because Bullock earlier flagged there’d be no cut this year.

Weeks ago, expectations about a rate cut were being pushed well into 2025. A government with its back to the wall hopes (but doesn’t necessarily expect) Wednesday’s figures might bring that forward to early next year.

Labor hardheads accept one cut wouldn’t significantly shift the government’s low popularity. But they do think it would show voters there’s light at the end of the tunnel.

Meanwhile, Chalmers was this week forced back onto the argument that, yes, people are hurting, but “Australians would be much worse off and growth in our economy would be even weaker without our responsible and balanced approach to the budget and without our cost-of-living support”.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is talking up his second-term agenda but, as it crafts campaign lines, Labor will need to rely heavily on the alleged dangers posed by a Dutton government. Its focus groups are said to show people do think they’d be worse off under Dutton. Voters are disillusioned with the government but don’t assume change is risk-free.

Expect to hear a lot about how Dutton as health minister (way back when) went after Medicare. How he never backs wage rises. How he didn’t support cost-of-living help.

With a sour electorate, the best thing going for Labor may be its negative campaign, however unedifying that might be.

Dutton has so far been successful in his attack lines against Labor, delivered sharply and cleanly, while he’s kept the opposition a relatively small target with just a few popular policy offerings (such as on social media, and gambling reform).

But as he produces more policies, his vulnerability will increase. And as Labor unveils election giveaways, Dutton will be forced into awkward choices.

He’s promised the costing of his nuclear policy before Christmas and this will open him to more criticism over what many experts see as an unrealistic option. Nuclear power, however, is likely to be only a second-order issue, because it’s blue-sky stuff when it comes to Australia’s immediate energy needs. Voters think about their power bills in the next year or two, not decades hence.

Albanese has flagged he has a couple of big policy announcements to make over the summer, starting this month. One is expected to be an expanded child-care policy, with the final shape still being settled. The other remains firmly under wraps.

The Australian Financial Review reported this week the government was “mulling” another round of power bill discounts to take to the election. It would seem an obvious promise, and the Coalition would have to decide how to respond.

The Coalition’s soft underbelly will be its alternative economic policy, given there’s no easy way out of Australia’s malaise.

It argues government spending is too high, and is crowding out the private sector. But when it finally says (and it can’t get away with not saying) what it would cut, that will bring a backlash. Just declaring it would slash the public service won’t wash.

The Coalition says we must boost productivity. But how’s that to be done? If it involves winding back industrial relations changes, that’s risky territory in an election campaign.

On Thursday the Productivity Commission called on “everyday Australians” to come up with ideas on how to boost productivity. “We are looking for practical policy ideas from people in all walks of life on how Australia can work smarter, more efficiently, and more productively,” commission chair Danielle Wood said.

Perhaps people can copy Dutton in on their emails to the commission.

In the bowels of the bureaucracy and the offices of the treasurer and finance minister, they’re already at work on a March 25 budget that, depending on Albanese’s election timing, may never be delivered.

Within Labor, people differ on the pros and cons of launching the campaign off the back of a budget. It enables the government to frame its forward pitch and dominate the start of the campaign. But the debate can bog down in detail, and put the grim numbers up in lights.

Back at the Reserve Bank, Chalmers saw his legislation to set up a new monetary board pass last week, in a deal with the Greens. He intends to transfer all the current board onto the monetary board, except those who opt to be on the bank’s governance board. That will mean he’ll have a couple of vacancies to fill on the monetary board.

The first meeting of the monetary board is scheduled for March 31-April 1. If there’s no rate fall ahead of that, is it possible the new board could, on April Fool’s Day, make its first big decision a rate cut?

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: frustrated government can only bite its tongue as it waits on Michele Bullock – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-frustrated-government-can-only-bite-its-tongue-as-it-waits-on-michele-bullock-245284

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Zunica, Lecturer in Mathematics Education, University of Sydney

A major international test has revealed a concerning gender gap in maths among Australian school students.

In the 2023 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Australia’s boys did much better than girls.

Year 4 boys outperformed girls by the equal highest margin out of 58 countries that did the test. The story is not much better for Year 8 students – Australia had the 12th-largest gender gap of the 42 countries.

This is out of character with other subjects, such as literacy, where the gender gap is either much smaller, or girls outperform boys.

Why is there a gap?

International researchers have been aware of a gender gap in maths for decades and have been trying to understand why and how to fix it and how to fix it.

It has previously been suggested boys are just better at mathematics than girls. However, this has been thoroughly debunked, with many studies finding no statistically significant biological difference between boys and girls in maths ability.

Yet figures consistently show girls are under-represented in the most advanced maths courses at school. For example, for the two most advanced Year 11 and 12 courses in New South Wales, girls are outnumbered by a ratio of roughly two to one.

A ‘boys’ subject?‘

Studies suggest social factors and individual motivation are playing a part in the maths gender gap.

Research has found stereotyping is a problem, with maths been seen as a “boys’ subject”. These ideas start developing from an early age, even as young as five.

These stereotypes can negatively impact girls’ motivation in maths and their self-efficacy (their perception of how well they can do), which then impacts performance.

Girls are also more likely to develop maths anxiety, which may be due to lacking confidence in their ability.

Another possible reason for this gap is it is not as important for girls themselves to be seen as skilled at maths as it is for boys. This has been linked to differences in subject engagement and subsequent performance.

Given how important mathematical skills are for workplaces today and in the future, we need to change these attitudes.

Read more:
‘Maths anxiety’ is a real thing. Here are 3 ways to help your child cope

What can we do?

Unfortunately, there are no simple answers. However, we recommend three strategies to help narrow the gap.

1. Treat boys and girls equally when it comes to maths: there is a noted tendency to expect boys to engage in more challenging maths than girls. If parents and teachers expect less from girls, we are feeding the stereotype that maths is “more suited to boys”. Simply holding beliefs that boys are better at maths can result in spending more time with or giving more attention to boys in maths. It can also be seen in behaviours where we think we are being supportive, such as reassuring a struggling girl, “it’s ok if you’re not great at maths”!

2. Talk to girls about maths: girls historically report lower confidence in maths when correlated with their actual achievement. This means girls potentially have inaccurate beliefs about their ability. So we need to understand how they feel they are progressing and make sure they understand their genuine progress.

3. Make use of female maths role models: when girls see themselves represented in maths-intensive careers – such as engineers, actuaries, chemists, economists, data scientists, architects and software developers – they are more likely to see the importance and value of maths. We know this can inspire young people.

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. Why are boys outperforming girls in maths? – https://theconversation.com/why-are-boys-outperforming-girls-in-maths-245357

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Di Johnson, Senior Lecturer, Griffith University

This week, the government announced details of planned reforms to allow more Australians to access free or low-cost financial advice through their super funds or advice firms.

The reforms will create a new class of financial adviser, who will only need a diploma. They’ll be allowed to provide personalised advice on a targeted range of financial decisions, particularly regarding retirement planning and life insurance.

Some groups have already raised concerns in the wake of the announcement. These include that lowering the required qualification level to a diploma could lead to lower quality advice, and that some funds could find ways to charge new fees for no service.

For the reforms to succeed, the government will need to ensure quality regulation – and importantly, that the underserved customers it is targeting end up getting true value for money.

Read more:
New ‘best practice’ principles for superannuation products are coming. We asked a panel of experts what should be included

A new class of adviser

Currently, superannuation funds can offer free advice to their own members. But this is very limited in scope and restricted to the offerings within a fund.

They can also refer members to receive more comprehensive paid advice, either from within the fund or an external provider.

Traditional financial advisers need at least a bachelor’s degree. The new class of advisers will be a kind of “para-professional” in the advice space, expected to have diploma-level qualifications.

They’ll only be allowed to provide advice on products issued by “prudentially regulated entities”. These include superannuation, life insurance and retirement income products.

For example, a young person could get personalised advice on whether opting into selected life insurances would be a better choice than having no life insurance. That decision could be especially significant for someone early in their career or with a super balance under $6,000.

Superannuation investment choices made at age 21 can also make a huge difference to retirement income at 71.

Funds will be able to charge for this advice individually, or else by collectively spreading costs across all members.

The ability to charge individual, one-off fees (not ongoing and no commissions allowed) could open up a path for this new class of adviser to work within traditional advice firms – within limits.

That may be a useful strategy to boost the numbers of graduates choosing financial advice roles more broadly as a career.

The problem to solve

Navigating Australia’s financial system is complex – not least when it comes to planning for retirement. Personal financial advice is important at all stages of life to increase inclusion and fairness, and improve financial outcomes.

Superannuation funds have an obligation under the Retirement Income Covenant to help members choose retirement income products, but have been without affordable advice options.

At an average annual fee of $5,500, comprehensive financial advice is simply out of reach for many.

Even if this cost was somehow brought down, affordability isn’t the only issue.

Many Australians are reluctant to approach traditional financial advice firms. Some find themselves turned away at first contact, with firms giving preference to higher-income, higher-net-worth clients.

The practice of denying service to some clients can be especially frustrating for those who are willing and able to pay the asking price.

But it makes sense when you consider the incentives many financial advice firms face. These include making competitive profits in a relatively highly regulated emerging profession, faced with a tight labour market.

Without an alternative trustworthy advice option, many Australians will end up financially excluded.

So what are we willing to pay for advice?

One report commissioned by the Financial Services Council found most Australians don’t want to pay more than $500 a year for financial advice, but that willingness to pay depends on the scope.

However, some recent trials offering more detailed retirement advice below the level of comprehensive advice, suggest there may be willingness to pay at around the $900 mark.

But both of these figures fall well short of the current estimated average cost of financial advice of $5,500.

The other option, using superannuation balances to pay advice fees up to a cap, has been problematic, with some advisers charging up to $20,000 from members’ super funds.

What are the risks?

One criticism is that having a lower qualification requirement risks leaving Australians with lower quality advice.

It’s true the diploma-level qualification is lower than the bachelor-level or higher required for professional financial advisers. But it is proportionate to the new targeted scope of advice offered.

It will be up to the government to carefully regulate the industry to ensure the new class of adviser only provides advice within their expertise and authorisation, complies with the best interests duty and meets other obligations.

Another criticism is that charging advice fees collectively across a super fund could mean some members subsidise others and effectively pay “fees for no service”.

But it’s important to note that collective charging is already in place for a number of services that only selected members utilise at any point in time. This includes switching asset allocations, providing advice within a fund and operating call centre services.

It also has some established guardrails to protect members.

The details of charging arrangements would fall into the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s remit as regulatory guidance.

Value for money

If they proceed, the true test of these reforms will lie in whether Australians feel they are getting trustworthy service at the right price point.

What will that value for money look like? My analysis suggests advice for $300 to $500 a year that gets the basics right – superannuation asset allocations, life insurances, beneficiary forms and basic retirement planning.

If costs can be kept under $1,000 for more detailed retirement planning, it will put pressure on traditional advice firms to justify charging more for a similarly restricted scope of advice.

If well priced and well implemented, the new class of adviser could serve many more Australians, helping to normalise accessible, affordable advice.

Dr Di Johnson is a Senior Lecturer at Griffith University, including in the Financial Planning discipline; a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy, an academic member of the Financial Advice Association of Australia (FAAA), a member of the Academy of Financial Services (AFS), and the Economic Society of Australia (ESA) including the Women in Economics Network (WEN). Dr Johnson has received research funding in the past from the Financial Planning Education Council (FPEC), and contributed to projects partly funded or supported by financial planning industry partners.

– ref. The government wants to create a new class of financial adviser for super fund members. Here’s why – and how it might work – https://theconversation.com/the-government-wants-to-create-a-new-class-of-financial-adviser-for-super-fund-members-heres-why-and-how-it-might-work-245289

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vassili Kitsios, Senior Research Scientist, Climate Forecasting, CSIRO

A new machine-learning weather prediction model called GenCast can outperform the best traditional forecasting systems in at least some situations, according to a paper by Google DeepMind researchers published today in Nature.

Using a diffusion model approach similar to artificial intelligence (AI) image generators, the system generates multiple forecasts to capture the complex behaviour of the atmosphere. It does so with a fraction of the time and computing resources required for traditional approaches.

How weather forecasts work

The weather predictions we use in practice are produced by running multiple numerical simulations of the atmosphere.

Each simulation starts from a slightly different estimate of the current weather. This is because we don’t know exactly what the weather is at this instant everywhere in the world. To know that, we would need sensor measurements everywhere.

These numerical simulations use a model of the world’s atmosphere divided into a grid of three-dimensional blocks. By solving equations describing the fundamental physical laws of nature, the simulations predict what will happen in the atmosphere.

Known as general circulation models, these simulations need a lot of computing power. They are usually run at high-performance supercomputing facilities.

Machine-learning the weather

The past few years have seen an explosion in efforts to produce weather prediction models using machine learning. Typically, these approaches don’t incorporate our knowledge of the laws of nature the way general circulation models do.

Most of these models use some form of neural network to learn patterns in historical data and produce a single future forecast. However, this approach produces predictions that lose detail as they progress into the future, gradually becoming “smoother”. This smoothness is not what we see in real weather systems.

Researchers at Google’s DeepMind AI research lab have just published a paper in Nature describing their latest machine-learning model, GenCast.

GenCast mitigates this smoothing effect by generating an ensemble of multiple forecasts. Each individual forecast is less smooth, and better resembles the complexity observed in nature.

The best estimate of the actual future then comes from averaging the different forecasts. The size of the differences between the individual forecasts indicates how much uncertainty there is.

According to the GenCast paper, this probabilistic approach creates more accurate forecasts than the best numerical weather prediction system in the world – the one at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts.

Generative AI – for weather

GenCast is trained on what is called reanalysis data from the years 1979 to 2018. This data is produced by the kind of general circulation models we talked about earlier, which are additionally corrected to resemble actual historical weather observations to produce a more consistent picture of the world’s weather.

The GenCast model makes predictions of several variables such as temperature, pressure, humidity and wind speed at the surface and at 13 different heights, on a grid that divides the world up into 0.25-degree regions of latitude and longitude.

GenCast is what is called a “diffusion model”, similar to AI image generators. However, instead of taking text and producing an image, it takes the current state of the atmosphere and produces an estimate of what it will be like in 12 hours.

This works by first setting the values of the atmospheric variables 12 hours into the future as random noise. GenCast then uses a neural network to find structures in the noise that are compatible with the current and previous weather variables. An ensemble of multiple forecasts can be generated by starting with different random noise.

Forecasts are run out to 15 days, taking 8 minutes on a single processor called a tensor processor unit (TPU). This is significantly faster than a general circulation model. The training of the model took five days using 32 TPUs.

Machine-learning forecasts could become more widespread in the coming years as they become more efficient and reliable.

However, classical numerical weather prediction and reanalysed data will still be required. Not only are they needed to provide the initial conditions for the machine learning weather forecasts, they also produce the input data to continually fine-tune the machine learning models.

What about the climate?

Current machine learning weather forecasting systems are not appropriate for climate projections, for three reasons.

Firstly, to make weather predictions weeks into the future, you can assume that the ocean, land and sea ice won’t change. This is not the case for climate predictions over multiple decades.

Secondly, weather prediction is highly dependent on the details of the current weather. However, climate projections are concerned with the statistics of the climate decades into the future, for which today’s weather is irrelevant. Future carbon emissions are the greater determinant of the future state of the climate.

Thirdly, weather prediction is a “big data” problem. There are vast amounts of relevant observational data, which is what you need to train a complex machine learning model.

Climate projection is a “small data” problem, with relatively little available data. This is because the relevant physical phenomena (such as sea levels or climate drivers such as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation) evolve much more slowly than the weather.

There are ways to address these problems. One approach is to use our knowledge of physics to simplify our models, meaning they require less data for machine learning.

Another approach is to use physics-informed neural networks to try to fit the data and also satisfy the laws of nature. A third is to use physics to set “ground rules” for a system, then use machine learning to determine the specific model parameters.

Machine learning has a role to play in the future of both weather forecasting and climate projections. However, fundamental physics – fluid mechanics and thermodynamics – will continue to play a crucial role.

Vassili Kitsios is a senior research scientist at CSIRO, a co-chair of the Machine Learning for Climate and Weather Working Group of the Australian Climate Community Earth System Simulator National Research Infrastructure consortium, an associate editor for the Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics journal, a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the National Computational Merit Allocation Scheme, an elected committee member of the Australasian Fluid Mechanics Society, and an affiliate research fellow of the Monash University mechanical and aerospace engineering department.

– ref. AI weather models can now beat the best traditional forecasts – https://theconversation.com/ai-weather-models-can-now-beat-the-best-traditional-forecasts-245168

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah McLean, Lecturer in Environmental Health, Swinburne University of Technology

It’s a common myth that only food of animal origin, such as meat, seafood, eggs and dairy, can give you food poisoning.

But many plant-based foods, such as burgers, salads or desserts, can also contain disease-causing microbes (pathogens), yet appear perfectly fine.

As we head into the warmer months, here’s what you need to think about to keep you and your party guests safe from food-borne illness if you’re serving plant-based food.

With a little preparation, you can make your next summer barbecue or picnic memorable for all the right reasons.

It’s a risky time of year

Summer means get-togethers with families and friends, at the beach, in the park and at home – in the heat, sometimes without access to refrigeration, or with food left out on the table.

And plant-based foods will likely be on the menu, such as burgers, salads and fruit.

There’s often no easy way to tell if food is safe to eat. It doesn’t have to look spoiled, with telltale signs it’s gone bad, such as unpleasant changes in smell or texture. So even if a food doesn’t look or smell “off” it can still make you or your guests sick.

Depending on the food’s available nutrients, acidity, water content and how it has been processed and stored, plant-based food can still provide the right conditions for pathogens to grow, yet look perfectly fine.

So let’s take a look a look at an Australian barbecue, with a spread including plant-based burgers, salads and fruit.

1. Burgers

Vegan barbecue items such as lentil burgers and processed plant-based patties contain high levels of protein and moisture. This may promote the growth of bacteria if they’re are not properly cooked or stored.

For example, a study in Finland tested vacuum sealed vegetarian sausages and found a high proportion contained Clostridium botulinum spores. This is the organism that causes botulism, a rare illness affecting the nervous system that can be fatal if untreated.

2. Salads

Starchy salads, such as ones containing potato, pasta or rice, are prone to contamination by Bacillus cereus, a species of bacteria widespread in the environment. It produces heat-stable spores that survive cooking. The bacteria then multiply when the food is stored in warm temperatures.

Leafy greens and raw sprouts, such as alfalfa, are also often implicated in outbreaks of illnesses caused by Escherichia coli (or E. coli for short) and Salmonella because these items are usually eaten raw.

Salads and other dishes that require lots of handling during preparation can also be contaminated with pathogens in the kitchen.

For example, many people naturally carry Staphylococcus aureus in their nose. These bacteria can end up in food and produce toxins if the cook doesn’t wash their hands properly before handling food.

People who handle food are also often linked to foodborne outbreaks of norovirus due to poor hand hygiene.

These pathogens generally cause gut symptoms such as vomiting and/or diarrhoea that will get better in about a few days to a week. However, some people will have severe or life-threatening complications. For example, shiga toxin produced by E. coli is a frequent cause of haemolytic uraemic syndrome, a serious condition that can lead to permanent kidney damage or death.

3. Fruit

While many people are familiar with the food safety risks of desserts containing custard or cream, fewer may be aware of the risks associated with the humble fruit platter.

Fruit platters can be risky as cutting the fruit can transfer bacteria naturally present on the peel or rind to the internal surfaces.

In 2018, 22 cases of listeriosis were linked to eating cantaloupes (rockmelons) supplied by an Australian grower. Last year in the United States, a deadly outbreak of salmonellosis was also traced to eating contaminated cantaloupes.

Frozen berries have also been implicated in multiple outbreaks of hepatitis A in Australia and overseas in recent years.

What can I do?

If you’re preparing plant-based food for a barbecue or picnic this summer, here’s how to minimise the risk of making you or your guests sick:

• before handling food wash your hands well, separate raw and cooked food, and work with clean utensils and surfaces. This is to avoid contaminating food yourself, and to avoid contamination between foods

• cook items such as plant-based burgers and vegetarian sausages until piping hot

• after cooking starchy foods such as rice, pasta and potatoes, transfer them to a shallow container to cool on the counter. Then place the container in the fridge. Don’t put these starchy items in the fridge hot because this raises the temperature inside the fridge, which could allow faster growth of microbes

• avoid buying damaged or bruised fruit and vegetables, and store cut fruit in the fridge

• transport food to an event in an insulated bag or ice box containing ice bricks and take it out only when it is time to serve

• once food has been served, leftovers should be covered and returned to the fridge or an insulated container. If the food has been out of the fridge for four hours or longer (including storage, preparation, transport and serving), throw it out.

It is also worth considering how much food you really need. It’s easy to over-cater, creating leftovers that can make you sick if not stored correctly.

Sarah McLean 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. 3 surprising vegan foods that can make you sick this summer – https://theconversation.com/3-surprising-vegan-foods-that-can-make-you-sick-this-summer-242582

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yi Yang, Research Fellow, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne

When Finlay Browne died at just 16 years old, “Down syndrome” was listed on his death certificate as a cause of death.

But Finlay did not die of Down syndrome. A coroner found earlier this year that the teenager died due to complications from a bowel obstruction, and noted “issues concerning the adequacy of care and treatment” provided at his local hospital.

Since Finlay died his family have spoken out many times about the need to improve health care for people with an intellectual disability.

But sadly Finlay is not alone. Our new study published in The Lancet Public Health shows Australians with disability are around four times more likely to die early than people without disability.

Our research

We looked at census data from more than 15 million Australians aged 0–74 between 2011–20, and analysed death certificate information of those who died during this period (around 463,000 people).

We found people with disability are dying of conditions such as cancer, heart disease, chronic lung conditions and diabetes at a much higher rate than the rest of the population.

Men with disability are dying at almost four times the rate of men without disability. Meanwhile, women with disability are dying at almost five times the rate of their non-disabled peers.

While our study drew on large data sets and used complex statistical techniques, we are conscious that the dots on our graphs represent many premature and preventable deaths of people like Finlay.

Why the disparity?

The diseases causing the early deaths of many Australians with disability are generally more common among people living in disadvantaged circumstances. We know poverty, poor-quality housing and exclusion from the health system contribute to early death. These circumstances are more common among Australians with disability compared to the overall population.

People with disability face the same issues as many other Australians when trying to access good health care, such as lack of availability, rising costs and long wait times. But they also face additional challenges. For example:

• buildings where health services are located are not always accessible to people with disability

• people with disability sometimes experience discrimination by health-care staff including GPs, nurses and hospital staff

• people with disability often see multiple health professionals for the same health conditions and report a lack of communication between health professionals treating them.

Unfortunately the results of our study are not surprising. People with disability, families and advocacy organisations have spoken for many years about poor health outcomes for people with disability, as well as early deaths that, with the right action, could have been prevented.

The recent Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability heard directly from people with disability about the impacts of poverty, poor housing and discrimination in the health system on health and wellbeing.

What can we do?

Our study is the first of its type and size in Australia, which is telling.

Historically, understanding patterns in causes of death has informed our public health priorities. But up until now, patterns in causes of death for people with disability have largely not been prioritised, gathered or analysed. With inadequate data, public health efforts have systematically neglected people with disability.

Yet poorer health outcomes for people with disability are not inevitable.

We need to see concerted, coordinated action across metropolitan, regional and rural Australia to prevent more unnecessary deaths. As a nation, we need to tackle the conditions in which many people with disability live – starting with poverty and the lack of affordable, accessible housing.

We also need to make health care more accessible and affordable for people with disability.

But, none of this will be enough if we don’t confront discrimination in health care head on. This will involve making changes in policies, processes and systems at all levels of health care that adjust for the needs of people with disability.

We also need to think about whether our general disease prevention strategies, some of which have been hugely successful, are reaching people with disability. For example, are people with disability able to access routine screening in the same way as others? Or are they missing out?

Ultimately, we need to debunk the myth that poor health is part and parcel of having a disability. What is inevitable is that Australians with disability will keep dying before their time unless we take action, and make the health and wellbeing of people with disability a national priority.

George Disney receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Kirsten Deane is one of the University of Melbourne representatives on the National Centre of Excellence in Intellectual Disability Health. She is also a former board member and long standing member of a number of disability representative organisations including Down Syndrome Australia and Down Syndrome Victoria.

Yi Yang 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. Australians with disability are 4 times more likely to die early – often not due to their disability – https://theconversation.com/australians-with-disability-are-4-times-more-likely-to-die-early-often-not-due-to-their-disability-245262

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wesley Morgan, Research Associate, Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney

Australia has long tried to be two things at once – a trusted friend to Pacific nations in a bid to reduce China’s influence, and a giant exporter of fossil fuels. This diplomatic tightrope has become increasingly hard to walk, as Pacific nations see climate change as an existential threat.

This week, Australia’s government was forced to make a choice in a very public forum. It chose fossil fuels.

Disappointed by the slow pace of United Nations climate talks, Vanuatu and other Pacific nations launched a case at the International Court of Justice in the Netherlands to clarify the obligations countries have to prevent harm to the Earth’s climate system for current and future generations.

While international climate negotiations are often conducted behind closed doors, this case is being broadcast in public. We can clearly see the arguments Australia has laid out and the countries it has aligned itself with.

In the courtroom on Monday, Australia sided with major emitters and fossil fuel exporters such as Saudi Arabia, the United States and China to try and minimise their legal liability in contributing to climate change.

What’s at stake in this case?

This week marks a milestone in a five-year legal campaign, travelling from a university tutorial in Vanuatu’s capital, Port Vila, through the halls of the United Nations in New York and now to the world’s court in the Hague. The International Court of Justice is the only international court able to settle disputes between United Nations member states.

In 2019, 27 law students at the University of the South Pacific were given a challenge: find the most ambitious legal pathways towards climate justice. They decided filing a case with the world court fitted the bill.

In 2023, Vanuatu and other nations succeeded in passing a resolution at the UN General Assembly requiring the world court to give an advisory opinion on two questions – what obligations do states have under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions, and what are the legal consequences for states causing “significant harm” to the earth’s climate?

Ahead of the hearing, the world court has received a record number of written submissions. Justices will hear two weeks of oral submissions. They will then produce an advisory opinion, expected to set a new benchmark in international law, by clarifying the legal obligations countries have to tackle emissions.

While an advisory opinion is not binding, the court’s findings will feed into national court cases and UN climate talks.

For Australia, this case presents a direct challenge. It has no plans to phase down fossil fuel exports. In fact, it plans to expand them.

If the court’s opinion draws clear lines between fossil fuel exporters and climate damage, it could have severe implications for Australia. It could, for instance, pave the way to compensation lawsuits for climate damage.

Since 2000, Australia has approved more than 700 oil, gas and coal projects. Dozens more are in the approvals pipeline. Just this week the federal government cleared the way for three new coal mines.

Australia is now one of the world’s largest exporters of coal and gas. This is relatively new. While coal has been exported since 1801, large-scale exports of liquefied natural gas only began a decade ago.

When burned overseas, emissions from Australia’s fossil fuel exports are now more than double those of its entire domestic economy. These emissions damage our global climate, increasing risk of harm to people in Australia and worldwide.

What did Australia argue at the Hague?

In bringing the case, Vanuatu has argued actions causing climate change are unlawful under a range of international obligations including the law of the sea, human rights law and environmental law.

Australian delegates commended Vanuatu’s leadership in bringing this case and reiterated Australia’s commitment to working with the Pacific on climate.

But after the diplomatic niceties, Australian Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue got down to business. He told the court only the Paris Agreement – which requires countries to set targets to cut domestic emissions – should apply when it comes to mitigating climate change.

Donaghue also argued greenhouse gas emissions are different to, say, one country’s toxic waste damaging the environment of another. This, he argued, was because emissions have many sources.

Donaghue and the Australian delegation argued the court should take a narrow view of obligations to cut emissions and suggested responsibility for harms caused by climate change could not be pinned on individual states.

Australia has also argued protecting human rights does not extend to obligations to tackle climate change.

In 2022, Torres Strait islanders told a UN Human Rights Committee that a failure to address climate change violated their human rights. In response, the Australian government used very similar arguments, claiming climate change was best addressed through UN climate negotiations.

What does this mean?

The court’s opinion will be handed down next year.

Despite Australia’s arguments, recent rulings by other courts and tribunals suggest the court may not decide in our favour.

For example in May, the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea found greenhouse gas emissions were a form of marine pollution (because they acidify and heat the ocean), which countries have obligations to prevent. The tribunal rejected arguments that state obligations were limited to implementing the Paris Agreement.

A ruling on a similar case from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is expected before the end of the year.

Relationships with Pacific states are likely to come under strain as the proceedings in the Hague roll on.

Matters could come to a head next year, when the court will release its advisory opinion.

A decision is still pending on whether Australia will host COP31, the 2026 UN climate talks, alongside Pacific island countries.

If our COP bid succeeds, it could give Canberra a chance to signal a shift away from fossil fuel exports in favour of green exports such as critical minerals and green iron. Doing so would align Australia’s interests with the Pacific – and present it much more clearly as a partner of choice.

Wesley Morgan is a fellow with the Climate Council

Liam Moore 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. Trusted partner to the Pacific, or giant fossil fuel exporter? This week, Australia picked a side – https://theconversation.com/trusted-partner-to-the-pacific-or-giant-fossil-fuel-exporter-this-week-australia-picked-a-side-245268

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dominic Redfern, Associate Professor, School of Art, RMIT University

When I was asked to write about Arts Project Australia’s survey show at TarraWarra Museum of Art, Intimate Imaginaries, the term “outsider art” popped unbidden into my mind. As a term it is truly unwanted here, and indeed anywhere in contemporary art discourse.

Despite its origins, in the book of the same name by Roger Cardinal, for use in describing art that emerges outside of the official culture of the art school and gallery system, there is something exclusive about this designation. But let us name it to tame it.

The idea of the “outsider” is instructive in the sense that it draws our attention to the margin and by extension, the centre. The insider is, by definition, at the centre of things. The outsider is on the margins, in some way less representative of the whole. This simply doesn’t hold water when applied to Intimate Imaginaries.

For this is art of immediacy, this is art at the heart of where we live.

Reflecting Australia

Arts Project Australia has been supporting artists with intellectual disabilities for more than 50 years.

Their work in championing these artists cannot be underestimated in terms of its social impact, nor the quality of art. While their artists are characterised by their diversity, they punch above their weight in painting, drawing, ceramic and soft sculpture.

Much of Intimate Imaginaries put me in mind of the small revolution wrought by artists of the post second world war period who brought the industrialised, urbanised, capitalist society into focus through their choice of material and subject matter. Think of nouveau realisme (Daniel Spoerri, Arman), neo dada (power couple Robert Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns) and pop art in Britain and America (Claes Oldenberg, Marjorie Strider, Rosalyn Drexler).

Intimate Imaginaries cleaves very close to that democratic vision. This is art reflecting back at us what it is to live in contemporary Australia. We see people, places, things and experiences close to our everyday suffused with a vitality often left wanting in more overtly political or theory burdened contemporary art.

While the idea of the everyday is very present in the show, there are also examples of other forms of contemporary practice.

Seriality, in the form of diaphanous circular forms, are a daily practice for Fulli Andrinopoulos, in their untitled works across many years. The practice of repeating key motifs or icons can be found throughout Modernism in the work of Josef Albers, who painted squares almost exclusively for the later part of his career, or in the work of our own John Nixon.

Andrinopoulos’ practice recalls Om Kawara’s Today series of date paintings as well as the Japanese art of Shodo, specifically the ensō , the circular form which symbolises the universe (Dharmadhatu), the zen mind and mu (emptiness).

In video performance from multi-disciplinary artist Chris O’Brien, O’Brien inhabits the police procedural, scaffolding his characters with catch phrases and poignant improvisations. His work calls to mind the deft mix of surrealist banality found in the work of Heath Franco and his sometime collaborator Matthew Griffin.

The televisual for O’Brien is an extension of his wider engagement with suburbia as evidenced in his ceramic and soft sculptural work.

Soft sculpture, and the ceramic renderings of soft forms, is also a highlight of the show in the work of Terry Williams, reminiscent for me of the work of aeroplane obsessive, Hans-Jörg Georgi.

Achieving authenticity

There are too many great artists to single out in the space available but if this exhibition has a uniting thread or theme, it is that of authenticity.

These are artists seemingly untroubled by what they “should” make. These works positively thrum with affect; these are artists deeply connected to their subject matter.

While there is humour, there is little in the way of cynicism or ironic posturing. There is no shopping for the topical, no virtue signalling.

This is work that puts me in mind of Claude Levi Strauss’s notion of the bricoleur. French for “handyman” and the name of a chain of hardware stores in France, the bricoleur transforms the “at hand” into a model of their own vision, their sense of what it is that makes up and animates the world.

This is work that finds the sacred close at hand.

Not a transcendent, other worldly significance, but the sacred present in the stuff of the everyday. To take one of many examples, look at Lisa Reid’s ceramic work, Mum’s 1971 Elna Supermatic Sewing Machine (2024). I am transported to my mother’s side as she helped me make a tunic to be Richard the Lion Heart.

This work captures the talismanic quality that such objects can impress upon us. More than nostalgia, Reid confers upon this household object an alchemical power.

A related practice takes on another level of poignancy in the work of Alan Constable, a legally blind artist whose practice consists of meticulously transposing cameras into clay: equal parts a fascination with technology and artifice, and a redemptive curiosity.

Talking to curator Anthony Fitzpatrick, he addressed the title of the show, Intimate Imaginaries and spoke of the imaginary as constantly mediating our encounter with the material world; an overlay of meaning we interpose, so it reflects meaning rather than chaos back at us.

Magical realism seems another apt reference here. In this exhibition the world is seen with great clarity and yet not reduced to mindless matter ticking into entropy.

Rather, it is suffused, stuffed with liveliness and intra-personal significance.

It is no surprise Fitzpatrick chose to bring this important show to TarraWarra. He has form through his work with the DAX Centre which collects and exhibits the work of artists with mental illness. He clearly has a feeling for art as a matter of urgency, a sense-making necessity for us as humans. Here is a curator with a passion for art’s deep connection to the fundamentals of our humanity.

Intimate Imaginaries is at the TarraWarra Museum of Art, Victoria, until March 10 2025.

Dominic Redfern 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. Arts Project Australia gives us a small revolution: art reflecting back at us what it is to live in contemporary Australia – https://theconversation.com/arts-project-australia-gives-us-a-small-revolution-art-reflecting-back-at-us-what-it-is-to-live-in-contemporary-australia-243703