Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Lee, Adjunct Professor at the National Drug Research Institute (Melbourne based), Curtin University

This week Victorian premier Jacinta Allan announced the state will trial a drug checking service beginning this summer festival season, describing it as a “simple and commonsense way to save lives”.

Allan has since confirmed the service will become permanent in Victoria following an 18-month trial.

Last week, the Australian Capital Territory government announced an extension to its successful drug-checking pilot, CanTEST, for the next three years. And earlier this year the Queensland government funded fixed site and festival drug-checking services for two years.

It’s good to see drug checking gaining more traction in Australia. This reflects evidence from Australia and internationally showing these services reduce harm for people who use illicit drugs.

What is drug checking?

Drug checking (sometimes called pill testing in Australia) is based on the principles of harm reduction. The primary aim is to reduce the individual and community harms associated with the use of psychoactive drugs, without judgement about the drug use itself.

There are different testing techniques using different types of equipment, but all drug checking services in Australia check drugs by chemically analysing a small sample of the drug.

Part of a typical drug-checking service is a discussion directly with the person to give them feedback on the contents of the sample. The trained drug-checking staff, who are usually health professionals or peer educators, will discuss the risks of consuming the drugs identified and any other concerns or questions the person has.

Drug checking in Australia is conducted from either a fixed-site or a mobile service. A fixed-site service is permanently located in a health organisation. Mobile services, sometimes called festival services, are set up in places where we know people are more likely to be taking drugs.

Why is drug checking important?

Although no psychoactive drug, including alcohol, is completely safe, some drugs are made more dangerous because they are illegal, without controls over who can make them, how they are made and what they can contain.

This means people who use illicit drugs can’t be sure of what they are taking and are unable to moderate the dose to reduce risks. So there’s a higher risk of adverse reactions and overdose than if these drugs were manufactured as pharmaceuticals under controlled conditions.

Data from Australia has found up to 43% of drugs tested in drug-checking services were not what people believed they had purchased.

Most people who use illicit drugs only use them a handful of times a year and are not addicted to them.

Whether you believe people should be taking these drugs or not, the reality is that they do. Some 47% of adults in Australia have tried an illicit drug some time in their lifetime. Thousands of years of history has taught us this is unlikely to change.

Acknowledging this, drug-checking services now operate in more than 20 countries including well-established services in New Zealand, the United States, Canada, the UK and The Netherlands.

Does drug checking reduce harms?

Some opponents of drug checking are worried it will increase drug use. But the evidence is clear that it does not.

Several studies have shown drug checking doesn’t encourage those who do not already use drugs to start doing so. A study of a long-running service in The Netherlands found less than 1% of people who had their drugs tested had never used them before, so these services almost exclusively cater for people who already use drugs.

What’s more, research has shown people often reduce their drug use after receiving the results of their drug checking and discussing the results with staff. Multiple studies have shown a sizeable proportion of people discard or intend to discard their drugs or use less if they contain unexpected substances.

Data from ACT and Queensland services found 18% and 7% of people respectively decided they would not use the drug following testing.

Drug checking can also play a role in preventing drug-related hospitalisations and deaths. Research from The Loop drug checking service in the UK found a 95% reduction in drug-related transfers to hospital when drug checking was introduced at a festival, compared to the previous year where the festival operated without drug checking.

Additionally, these services provide important harm reduction information to people who may not otherwise get that information. In an evaluation of CanTEST, 70% of people who used the service had never previously spoken to a healthcare worker for information or advice about drug use.

Drug checking also impacts the quality of drugs on the market. Drug manufacturers and dealers are less likely to distribute highly dangerous substances when clients are able to check their drugs.

What do Australians think about drug checking?

There is significant support in the Australian community for harm reduction measures, including drug checking. Surveys of the Australian community have consistently shown drug checking is supported by the majority of Australians.

In a recent government survey of households across Australia, nearly 65% of people supported drug checking, a significant increase on the previous year. Younger people, women and those with higher education levels were more likely to support drug checking.

So this is a great move by Victoria to keep people safe.

Nicole Lee works as a paid consultant in the alcohol and other drug sector. She has previously been awarded grants by state and federal governments, NHMRC and other public funding bodies for alcohol and other drug research. She is a Board member of Drug Checking Service, The Loop Australia.

– ref. Victoria will begin pill testing this summer. Evidence shows it reduces harm (and won’t increase drug use) – https://theconversation.com/victoria-will-begin-pill-testing-this-summer-evidence-shows-it-reduces-harm-and-wont-increase-drug-use-233211

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

The Julian Assange affair stands at the awkward intersection of a country’s right to keep secret national security information and the public’s right to know what is being done by a supposedly accountable government.

The actions of Assange and WikiLeaks in publishing a massive trove of classified United States defence documents and other intelligence information sharply divided opinion.

His critics have insisted this was not just a breach of the law but irresponsible and potentially put lives at risk. For this school of thought, Assange was and remains a villain.

Donald Trump’s former vice president, Mike Pence, posted on social media after Assange’s plea deal: “Julian Assange endangered the lives of our troops in a time of war and should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law”.

Assange supporters, on the other hand, have said the WikiLeaks action was in the public interest – that people should be able to be informed, especially when disclosures, as in this case, reveal incidents of bad behaviour by the military.

For this camp, Assange is a beacon for the free flow of information that shines needed light on dark places.

The Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance said in a Tuesday statement: “The stories published by WikiLeaks and other outlets more than a decade ago were clearly in the public interest. The charges by the US sought to curtail free speech, criminalise journalism and send a clear message to future whistleblowers and publishers that they too will be punished”.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will be given a good deal of credit for Assange’s eventual release. His government’s representations have been at a high level and sustained. The work by Australian diplomats has been intense.

Moreover, Assange’s freedom – which still requires some legal formalities – comes less than a year after the government secured the release of another Australian, Cheng Lei, who had been jailed in China.

But huge efforts to advocate on Assange’s behalf were also made by many others across the Australian parliament and community.

His cause has created unlikely allies. We saw this most obviously last year when a delegation of federal parliamentarians, including Liberal, Labor, National, Greens and independent members, collectively lobbied on his behalf in Washington.

Read more:
With pressure mounting on the Biden administration, its pursuit of Assange was becoming both damaging and untenable

Assange’s supporters differ in their views about what he did (and how he has behaved in the years since). But there had come to be a general belief, as the PM repeatedly said, that “enough is enough”.

It’s a version of what’s a “fair go”, and relates, in part, to how long he’s been incarcerated and what’s happened to other players in this saga.

WikiLeaks was the publisher of the documents, not the source of the leak. The leaker, former army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, had her sentence commuted in 2017 by then-President Barack Obama after a number of years in jail.

The media outlets which published the documents did not suffer penalties.

Assange ended up in a stand-off with the American authorities as he fought extradition from the United Kingdom.

The US Justice Department remained inflexible. President Joe Biden, it was said, would not interfere with that department.

But, according to the Americans, a potential plea deal has apparently been on the table for a long time.

In an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald last August, United States ambassador Caroline Kennedy pointed the way. She said: “it’s not really a diplomatic issue, but I think that there absolutely could be a resolution”.

Asked whether US authorities and Assange could strike a deal to reduce the charges against him in exchange for his pleading guilty, Kennedy said: “That’s up to the Justice Department.”

On the Assange side, there was reluctance to attempt a plea deal. Assange did not want to risk going to the US, fearing what might happen if he did.

In April, however, Biden gave a further hint the representations might be being favourably considered.

A compromise was eventually reached that Assange go to a US federal court in Saipan in the Northern Mariana Islands, a US commonwealth in the Pacific, where the deal is set to be consummated.

For Assange, with a US presidential election fast approaching that could see a possible second Trump presidency, it was time to make a deal. There was a real danger of things getting worse for him.

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: Hero or villain, Julian Assange’s cause crossed the political divide – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-hero-or-villain-julian-assanges-cause-crossed-the-political-divide-233221

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andy Baker, Professor, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Sydney

You would have learned about the “water cycle” in primary school – water’s journey, from evaporation to rainfall to flowing in a stream or sinking into the ground to become groundwater.

Despite how simple it sounds, there are actually some large unknowns in the cycle – especially concerning groundwater.

We don’t know, for example, how fast aquifers – porous rock layers saturated with water – recharge. Or how much water actually makes it underground. And how much rain do you need to refill these underground reservoirs?

These questions are crucial because we rely very heavily on groundwater. It’s far and away the world’s largest source of fresh water we can access. There’s more water in the polar ice, but we can’t use it.

Our research team has been exploring a new approach to groundwater: going down to where the water is, using caves, tunnels and mines. We have installed a new network of groundwater sensors in 14 sites across Australia’s southeast – some more than 100 metres below the surface.

This is already giving us valuable data. For instance, in old mines in the Victorian gold mining town of Walhalla, we found it took more rain than we expected to start the recharge.

Why does groundwater recharge matter?

Worldwide, we are using groundwater much faster than it can naturally replenish. Researchers have found rapid declines in the water table of over 0.5 metres a year across many regions globally.

This is a real concern for Australia, the world’s driest inhabited continent. While the tropical north gets plenty of rain, it’s harder to come by elsewhere.

Across the continent, groundwater accounts for 17% of our accessible water resources. But it accounts for more than 30% of our total water use.

Groundwater is an essential resource, estimated to contribute A$6.8 billion to GDP.

In the Murray Darling Basin, groundwater extraction increased between 2003 and 2016, reaching 1,335 billion litres a year on average.

Native plants and animals in arid regions often rely entirely on groundwater bubbling up through springs.

Perth relied so heavily on groundwater that it’s depleting its aquifer, forcing the government to build desalination plants. Even now, Western Australia relies on groundwater for two-thirds of its water needs.

This is why recharge rates matter. If we’re using groundwater at the same rate it recharges or less, that’s sustainable use. But if we’re pumping out far more than it can refill, that’s unsustainable.

Groundwater recharges from rainfall which seeps through the soil into deeper layers where evaporation can’t get to it. It can also refill from surface waters. But recharge is difficult to measure accurately.

How can we better track groundwater recharging?

Researchers in Darwin recently undertook the largest analysis to date of long-term rainfall recharge across Australia. They used 98,000 estimates of recharge rates, using data from bores and machine learning algorithms.

The result was surprising. They estimated the average recharge rate for the Australian continent was just 44 millimetres per year. But it differs a great deal depending on where you are. In humid, wet climates such as across the Top End, the water table rose by 203mm a year. But in arid climates, it was just 6mm.

For comparison, the typical annual rainfall in Sydney and Brisbane is just over 1,000mm per year.

This study poses a challenge to our understanding of groundwater recharge. The estimates in this study are substantially lower than studies relying on contemporary water balance models, which report more than double the amount of recharge for Australia.

One issue is the Darwin research was not able to show where the groundwater came from or how old the water is. You might think groundwater recharges quickly, but a quick recharge means it takes years. A slow recharge can take thousands of years.

This gap is a concern. Our water authorities need the most accurate data possible on annual recharge rates – and the age of the water.

Our network of hydrological loggers are now gathering underground data in sites such as the gold mine in Stawell, in Victoria, and South Australia’s Naaracoorte Caves, famous for fossils, as well as mines and tunnels in New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania.

Natural caves and groundwater are often fairly shallow. We wanted to get deeper data, which is why we chose mines. Our deep sites are over 100 metres underground.

Our sensors can detect each groundwater recharge event by doing something very simple: counting drips from the ceiling, and comparing them to what’s happening on the surface, so we can see where and when groundwater recharges.

Last month, we presented initial results, which show large variation.

Walhalla lies in the foothills of the Great Dividing Range outside Melbourne. It’s relatively rainy, with over 1,200mm per year.

Our sensors showed us the water table here had recharged 15 separate times over the 18 months to March 2024.

Despite the high annual rainfall, more than 40mm of rainfall over two days was needed to overcome dry summer conditions and cause recharge to start.

By contrast, Stawell’s gold mine is in an arid climate ~200 kilometres west of Melbourne, with under 500mm of rain annually. Even 100 metres underground, we could see water from rainfall moving through small pathways in the rock. But unlike Walhalla, we could not see the effects of individual rainstorms. By the time the water got that deep, any pulses were smoothed out.

We hope our data will be useful to groundwater researchers and water authorities, and expand how much we know about a resource we think little about – but which matters a great deal to how we live.

Read more:
Decades of less rainfall have cut replenishing of groundwater to 800-year low in WA

Andy Baker receives funding from the Australian Research Council

Margaret Shanafield receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is also affiliated with the Environmental Defenders Office.

Marilu Melo Zurita receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Stacey Priestley is also affiliated with the University of Adelaide.

Wendy Timms receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the CO2CRC and the Victorian Government. She is also affiliated with UNSW Sydney.

– ref. How quickly does groundwater recharge? The answer is found deep underground – https://theconversation.com/how-quickly-does-groundwater-recharge-the-answer-is-found-deep-underground-230943

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

Today, in a surprise development likely weeks in the planning, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was able to leave the United Kingdom for the first time in more than a decade after reaching a plea deal with the US government.

In the past several months, momentum has been building towards this moment. There was increasing bipartisan support in both the Australian parliament and the US Congress for the Australian citizen’s release. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has made repeated statements on his behalf, and in April, US President Joe Biden said he was “considering” a request from Australia to drop its prosecution of Assange.

This all contributed to the sense the matter might be resolved before Assange’s final UK hearing date, previously scheduled for July 9 and 10. The timing of the deal is also a welcome prelude to Albanese’s visit to Washington next week.

Such a resolution, however, was not inevitable. And it is not over yet.

A relentless, years-long pursuit

The United States’ pursuit of Assange has seemingly been relentless since WikiLeaks posted hundreds of thousands of classified military documents in 2010. It wasn’t until 2019 under the then President Donald Trump, however, that he was finally indicted on 17 counts of violating the 1917 Espionage Act.

The charges against Assange were not just considered unprecedented, they raised significant First Amendment concerns.

The apparent desire to punish Assange for the embarrassment caused by the leaks – and to deter others from taking similar action – was apparently so strong the CIA allegedly discussed plans to kidnap and even assassinate Assange during the Trump administration, according to US media reports.

In the UK courts, the US Department of Justice had argued Assange should be subject to US law and extradited to face trial for his actions. However, as a non-citizen, there were questions over whether he could rely on the legal protections afforded by those same laws – particularly the constitutional right to free speech.

The successful extradition of Assange could have set a precedent by which the US could pursue journalists anywhere in the world for publishing information it did not like, while potentially denying them their fundamental First Amendment rights.

In a crucial election year in the US that President Joe Biden is framing as an existential fight for the soul of US democracy, the continued pursuit of Assange was as inconsistent as it was ultimately untenable. Viewed from the outside, it appeared the case was causing the Biden administration international embarrassment.

Biden has been careful to maintain an appropriate distance between the presidency and the Department of Justice. He came into office promising to restore faith in the rule of law following the Trump years, and has meticulously avoided any appearance of interference in the department’s work as it has investigated and indicted his predecessor.

Assange’s case, however, is wholly different to the charges on which Trump has been indicted. It is certainly possible to interpret Biden’s comment that he was “considering” dropping the charges as a gentle public rebuke of the Department of Justice’s pursuit of the case, given its global implications for a free press.

Broader implications for the alliance

The continued pursuit of Assange was also becoming problematic in the context of Australia’s alliance with the US. That relationship is always described as one based on shared democratic values, in contrast to what Biden has repeatedly framed as the coercive and repressive instincts of “authoritarian” powers.

The decision by the US to pursue a citizen of one of its closest allies for the publication of information, while simultaneously condemning authoritarian states for doing much the same, was both hypocritical and damaging to American standing in the world.

In the context of growing concern in Australia about the terms of the AUKUS submarine deal and the Australian government’s willingness to go “all-in” with the US militarily, the continued pursuit of Assange gave the impression that Australia’s most important security ally did not take its concerns seriously. Australia appeared simply to be snapping at America’s heels.

It also added to the sense that the “capital-A Alliance” between the two countries was increasingly dominated by security concerns, often at the expense of democratic accountability.

Because of the international campaign to free Assange and the support it received in both Australian and American democratic institutions, there appears to be have been a reconsideration of this focus on security interests over democratic values.

It should be noted, though, that the US didn’t drop its prosecution in the end; Assange has agreed to plead guilty to a felony charge of violating the Espionage Act, which in itself may set a concerning precedent for press freedom.

And the fact this saga happened at all – and that it has taken more than a decade to get close to resolution – should prompt deep reflection on the values that underpin both Australia’s relationship with its most important security ally and the United States’ role in the world.

Emma Shortis is Senior Researcher in International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.

– ref. With pressure mounting on the Biden administration, its pursuit of Assange was becoming both damaging and untenable – https://theconversation.com/with-pressure-mounting-on-the-biden-administration-its-pursuit-of-assange-was-becoming-both-damaging-and-untenable-233216

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt Garrow, Editorial Web Developer

Julian Assange has entered a plea deal with US government and is expected to be freed following a hearing in the US Federal Court in Saipan, in the Northern Mariana Islands.

Assange’s convoluted legal woes have been ongoing since 2010 and involve numerous appeals, charges and litigation from UK, Swedish and US authorities. We have created a timeline to track the major events that have led to his plea deal.

You may have noticed that 2010 has a number of events bunched together. In 2010 WikiLeaks published two large troves of US military documents and a video of a helicopter attack on journalists. With nearly half a million files detailing the troubling actions of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan, the leaks prompted a swift response from the US.

Chelsea Manning was arrested within months of the leak after a hacker friend reported her. Shortly after Manning’s arrest, Sweden brought charges of rape and molestation against Assange. After initially surrendering to UK authorities, Assange broke bail and claimed asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. He remained there until 2019 when his asylum was suddenly revoked.

– ref. A timeline of Julian Assange’s legal journey – https://theconversation.com/a-timeline-of-julian-assanges-legal-journey-233222

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Megan Phillips, Senior Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Marketing, Auckland University of Technology

Imagine walking down the aisle of your local grocery store. The scent of mixed herbs catches your attention, mentally transporting you to a kitchen filled with the aroma of your favourite home-cooked meal.

Suddenly, you’re craving hearty minestrone soup or yearning for homemade beef lasagne. In an instant, your plans for dinner – and your shopping list – change.

This sensory experience is not a new phenomenon. Using scent to sell in retail stores is a well-established strategy. But our new research has found introducing a herbal scent (such as thyme, rosemary, oregano and basil) in supermarkets can encourage shoppers to select and purchase more wholesome foods.

Beyond general smells that come from the products, supermarkets often use artificial scent strategies, such as diffusing grapefruit in the produce section, chocolate in the confectionery aisle, rosemary focaccia by the bakery, and baked cheesecake in the aisles to boost sales.

Previous research has found diffusing a chocolate scent in a bookstore increased interest in romance books and cookbooks. And natural scents in a store boosted spending on products with fewer artificial or synthetic characteristics.

Scents such as rose maroc (considered “masculine”) and vanilla (deemed “feminine”) have been shown to influence shopping behaviours toward gender-specific clothing.

Understanding the influence of certain smells isn’t just about boosting sales. Supermarkets play a pivotal role in shaping food choices. Using scent strategies to nudge consumers toward more wholesome food options is an under-explored opportunity to improve public health outcomes.

So, can the right smell increase choice and sales of nutritious wholesome foods?

Understanding the effect of herbs

Our research was broken into three parts – experiments in the laboratory, field study and online surveys.

We invited participants into our sensory laboratory at Auckland University of Technology. Each person was exposed to the smell of mixed herbs while shopping in a virtual supermarket. Shoppers purchased more wholesome baskets of goods when exposed to the herbal smell compared to the non-herbal smell (baked goods).

For every $155 spent, shoppers exposed to herbal smells bought three more wholefood items compared to those who were given non-herbal scents.

To test if those effects also occurred in-store, we collaborated with a New Zealand supermarket retailer to run a field study. We diffused a herbal scent in two stores and found shoppers exposed to the scent purchased more wholesome fresh food items than those not exposed to any scent.

We also wanted to understand the extent to which scent can influence wholesome food choices. Is the effect of smell strong even if consumers simply imagine the scent? The answer is yes.

In an online survey, we asked participants to imagine walking into their local supermarket and noticing the smell of mixed herbs. Those who imagined the herbal scent showed a stronger desire to buy ingredients for a homemade herb-rich pasta sauce and fresh ingredients for beef stew compared to those imagining no scent.

The research shows smells have the power to help us make better choices at the supermarket – even when they are only imagined.

Why does smell influence choices?

Scent marketing influences human emotions, memories and motivations. This is largely due to the direct link between the olfactory system from our noses and the limbic system – the part of the brain responsible for memory and behavioural responses.

When odours are processed and retrieved, they can activate associations with sensory knowledge, leading to important changes in our behaviour. This is fascinating to think about. Past research shows that when participants were exposed to a citrus scent, it triggered cleaning behaviour.

That led to more people in the study smelling citrus, and then doing more of the cleaning up after an eating task – compared to participants who didn’t smell citrus.

When it comes to food, participants primed with a fruity scent (like melon and pear) had thoughts about fruit and vegetables, and were more likely to pick starters and desserts with vegetables and fruit.

The smell of herbs is a scent many consumers are familiar with — used for centuries in global cuisines and everyday home cooking to enhance the flavour of food. Repeated exposure to a scent and the accompanying experiences can form strong associations in memory.

Our research shows these associations (herbs and Sunday roast, for instance) can drive food choices in supermarkets.

The mere act of smelling or imagining a herbal scent stimulates memories of cooking and eating home-cooked meals prepared from fresh ingredients. We found the association with home-cooking then stimulates a desire to choose and purchase related wholefoods rather than more processed foods.

Whether New Zealand retailers adopt artificial scents to nudge consumers toward more wholesome foods remains to be seen. But the potential for improving food choices, and by extension public health, is significant.

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. Dollars and scents: how the right smells can encourage shoppers to buy healthier foods – https://theconversation.com/dollars-and-scents-how-the-right-smells-can-encourage-shoppers-to-buy-healthier-foods-232973

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Humphries, Senior Lecturer, School of Computer and Mathematical Sciences, University of Adelaide

You may have seen headlines that link social media to sadness and depression. Social media use goes up, happiness goes down. But recent studies suggest those findings might not be so straightforward.

Although it is true that people’s feelings of envy and depression are linked to high social media use, there is evidence to suggest social media use may not be causing that relationship. Instead, your mindset may be the biggest thing affecting how social media connects to your wellbeing.

People who feel they are able to use social media, rather than social media “using them”, tend to gain more benefits from their online interactions.

Why do people use social media?

Social media covers a broad range of platforms: social networking, discussion forums, bookmarking and sharing content, disseminating news, exchanging media like photos and videos, and microblogging. These appeal to a wide range of users, from individuals of all ages through to massive businesses.

For some, social media is a way to connect with people we may not otherwise see. In the United States, 39% of people say they are friends with people they only interact with online.

For older people, this is especially important for increasing feelings of connectedness and wellbeing. Interestingly though, for older people, social media contact with family does not increase happiness. Meanwhile, younger adults report increased happiness when they have more social media contact with family members.

Teens, in particular, find social media most useful for deepening connections and building their social networks.

With social media clearly playing such an important role in society, many researchers have tried to figure out: does it make us happier or not?

Does social media make us happier?

Studies have taken a variety of approaches, including asking people directly through surveys or looking at the content people post and seeing how positive or negative it is.

One survey study from 2023 showed that as individuals’ social media use increased, life satisfaction and happiness decreased. Another found that less time on social media was related to increases in work satisfaction, work engagement and positive mental health – so improved mental health and motivation at work.

Comparing yourself to others on social media is connected to feelings of envy and depression. However, there is evidence to suggest depression is the predictor, rather than the outcome, of both social comparison and envy.

All this shows the way you feel about social media matters. People who see themselves using social media rather than “being used” by it, tend to gain benefits from social media and not experience the harms.

Interviews with young people (15–24 years) using social media suggest that positive mental health among that age group was influenced by three features:

• connection with friends and their global community
• engagement with social media content
• the value of social media as an outlet for expression.

There are also studies that look at the emotions expressed by more frequent social media users.

The so-called “happiness paradox” shows that most people think their friends on social media appear happier than themselves. This is a seeming impossibility that arises because of the mathematical properties of how friendship networks work on social media.

In one of our studies, Twitter content with recorded locations showed residents of cities in the United States that tweeted more tended to express less happiness.

On the other hand, in Instagram direct messages, happiness has been found to be four times more prevalent than sadness.

How does internet use in general affect our wellbeing?

Some of the factors associated with decreased mental health are not aligned with social media use alone.

One recent study shows that the path to decreased wellbeing is, at least partially, connected to digital media use overall (rather than social media use specifically). This can be due to sleep disruption, reduced face-to-face social interaction or physical activity, social comparison, and cyberbullying. None of these exist for social media alone.

However, social media platforms are known to be driven by recommendation algorithms that may send us down “rabbit holes” of the same type of (increasingly extreme) content. This can lead to a distorted view of the world and our place in it. The important point here is to maintain a diverse and balanced information diet online.

Interestingly, interacting on social media is not the only thing affecting our mental state. Rainfall influnces the emotional content of social media posts of both the user experiencing rain, and parts of their extended network (even if they don’t experience rain!).

This suggests that how we feel is influenced by the emotions in the posts we see. The good news is that happy posts are the most influential, with each happy post encouraging close to two additional happy updates from a user’s friends.

The secret to online happiness therefore may not be to “delete your account” entirely (which, as we have found, may not even be effective), but to be mindful about what you consume online. And if you feel like social media is starting to use you, it might be time to change it up a bit.

Melissa Humphries receives funding from the NIH and the Department of Defence.

Lewis Mitchell receives funding from the Australian Research Council, NHMRC, and Department of Defence.

– ref. Is social media making you unhappy? The answer is not so simple – https://theconversation.com/is-social-media-making-you-unhappy-the-answer-is-not-so-simple-232490

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Holly Cullen, Adjunct Professor in Law, The University of Western Australia

After years of appeals and litigation, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has entered into a plea deal with the US government, according to court documents.

He was facing one count of computer misuse and multiple counts of espionage stemming from his work with WikiLeaks, publishing sensitive US government documents provided by Chelsea Manning. The US government had repeatedly claimed that Assange’s actions risked its national security.

Documents filed in the US Federal Court in Saipan, in the Northern Mariana Islands, show Assange will plead guilty to one count under the US Espionage Act. The rest of the charges would be dropped and the request for his extradition to the US would be withdrawn. The US is yet to publicly confirm the deal.

The deal is subject to a hearing and sentencing in Saipan on Wednesday morning, where outlets are reporting Assange will appear in person. He’s been released from London’s Belmarsh prison, with WikiLeaks sharing vision of him en route to London’s Stanstead Airport.

What’s in the deal?

Assange has been granted bail by the UK High Court.

Upon his guilty plea, Assange will be sentenced to 62 months in prison: time he’s already served in Belmarsh. It puts an end to all the ongoing legal action, including the proceedings in the UK High Court and the extradition order from the UK Home Secretary.

The plea deal seems largely consistent with rumours circulating earlier this year. It was widely assumed Assange would plead guilty to one charge, which was expected to be a misdemeanour charge of mishandling documents rather than under the US Espionage Act. The initial rumours also indicated that he would be able to complete the process remotely, whereas he will appear in person before the court.

This is significant as it’s a national security offence for which he’s served more than five years behind bars. This will place limitations on his future travel, including to the US, which is unlikely to grant him a visa.

It also sets a practical precedent, if not necessarily a legal one, that a publisher can be convicted under the Espionage Act in the US. While the devil will be in the details of the deal, this is what many journalists were afraid of.

It means somebody who did nothing more than receive and publish information has been convicted under major US national security laws. If the deal had been about the Computer Misuse Act, this scenario wouldn’t have arisen. The concern may be that now it’s been done once, it could happen again.

Why is there a deal after all this time?

We may never know the US’ full reasoning, but there are several possibilities as to why it decided to go to a plea deal and not continue with litigation.

The Australian government has been pushing hard for a couple of years now for this case to end. The case for stopping prosecution has had bipartisan support here.

Although not confirming or denying the existence of a plea deal just yet, a spokesperson for the government reiterated Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s position that there was “nothing to be gained from his [Assange’s] continued incarceration”.

The fact the government has been consistent on this for about two years has changed the political environment for this prosecution.

There’s a growing consensus in the US, even among some republicans, that it’s not in the public interest to continue.

The UK general election will be held next week, and given the anticipated change of government there, the extradition order may have been reconsidered anyway. All of this would likely have informed the US’ cost-benefit analysis to ultimately bring the Assange saga to an end.

What happens now?

Following the hearing in Saipan, Assange will be free to return to Australia. The court was chosen because of Assange’s opposition to travelling to the continental US as well as its proximity to Australia.

Assange will likely find it difficult to travel in the future, given his serious criminal conviction. This may also apply in the UK, where he has also been convicted of absconding from bail, for which he was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment.

Looking further ahead, it’s entirely possible he will be pardoned by the US president, whomever it ends up being after the US election in November. The US allows much more discretion than most in the use of pardons.

For now, Assange will face court in Saipan and come home to Australia, albeit with a serious criminal record.

Holly Cullen receives funding from a Deakin University HDR scholarship. She has been a volunteer for the Australian Labor Party.

– ref. Julian Assange plea deal: what does it mean for the WikiLeaks founder, and what happens now? – https://theconversation.com/julian-assange-plea-deal-what-does-it-mean-for-the-wikileaks-founder-and-what-happens-now-233207

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

Julian Assange has reached a deal with the United States Department of Justice to allow him to return to Australia after pleading guilty to violating American espionage law.

Assange, 52, was released from London’s Belmarsh Prison, where he has spent more than five years and later was seen at a London airport boarding a private plane. He left around 5pm on Monday London time. Australia’s High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, Stephen Smith, is reportedly on the plane.

According to the deal, he will plead guilty to a charge of conspiring to unlawfully obtain and disseminate classified national defence information in a US federal court in Saipan in the Northern Mariana Islands, a US commonwealth in the Pacific.

He is expected to return to Australia after the court appearance on Wednesday morning.

The dramatic breakthrough follows years of cross-party campaigning by Australian politicians, multiple representations by the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, ministers and backbenchers, and agitation by a wide group of supporters and especially his family.

A federal government spokesman said on Tuesday morning: “Prime Minister Albanese has been clear – Mr Assange’s case has dragged on for too long and there is nothing to be gained by his continued incarceration.”

In April, US President Joe Biden gave a hint that progress was being made on Assange’s case. Asked if he would consider a request from Australia to drop the prosecution, he answered, “We’re considering it”.

Assange, who previously spent years in the Ecuadorian embassy in London while he fought extradition to the US, has suffered declining health recently.

Assange was indicted in the US for the WikiLeaks release of a trove of US classified material. This had come from a former American intelligence analyst, Chelsea Manning.

Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister Simon Birmingham said in a statement, “We have consistently said that the US and UK justice systems should be respected. We welcome the fact that Mr Assange’s decision to plead guilty will bring this long running saga to an end.”

Assange’s mother, Christine Ann Hawkins, in a statement provided to Sky News through an advocate, said: “I am grateful that my son’s ordeal is finally coming to an end. This shows the importance and power of quiet diplomacy.”

His wife Stella, who married Assange while he was holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy, posted, “Words cannot express our immense gratitude to YOU- yes YOU, who have all mobilised for years and years to make this come true. THANK YOU. tHANK YOU. THANK YOU.”

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. Julian Assange will be freed after striking plea deal with US authorities – https://theconversation.com/julian-assange-will-be-freed-after-striking-plea-deal-with-us-authorities-233210

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Theresa Larkin, Associate professor of Medical Sciences, University of Wollongong

From “breathwork recipes” to breathing techniques, many social media and health websites are recommending breathwork to reduce stress.

But breathwork is not new. Rather it is the latest in a long history of breathing techniques such as Pranayama from India and qigong from China. Such practices have been used for thousands of years to promote a healthy mind and body.

The benefits can be immediate and obvious. Try taking a deep breath in through your nose and exhaling slowly. Do you feel a little calmer?

So, what’s the difference between the breathing we do to keep us alive and breathwork?

Breathwork is about control

Breathwork is not the same as other mindfulness practices. While the latter focus on observing the breath, breathwork is about controlling inhalation and exhalation.

Normally, breathing happens automatically via messages from the brain, outside our conscious control. But we can control our breath, by directing the movement of our diaphragm and mouth.

The diaphragm is a large muscle that separates our thoracic (chest) and abdominal (belly) cavities. When the diaphragm contracts, it expands the thoracic cavity and pulls air into the lungs.

Controlling how deep, how often, how fast and through what (nose or mouth) we inhale is the crux of breathwork, from fire breathing to the humming bee breath.

Breathwork can calm or excite

Even small bits of breathwork can have physical and mental health benefits and complete the stress cycle to avoid burnout.

Calming breathwork includes diaphragmatic (belly) breathing, slow breathing, pausing between breaths, and specifically slowing down the exhale.

In diaphragmatic breathing, you consciously contract your diaphragm down into your abdomen to inhale. This pushes your belly outwards and makes your breathing deeper and slower.

You can also slow the breath by doing:

• box breathing (count to four for each of four steps: breathe in, hold, breathe out, hold), or

• coherent breathing (controlled slow breathing of five or six breaths per minute), or

• alternate nostril breathing (close the left nostril and breathe in slowly through the right nostril, then close the right nostril and breathe out slowly through the left nostril, then repeat the opposite way).

You can slow down the exhalation specifically by counting, humming or pursing your lips as you breathe out.

In contrast to these calming breathing practices, energising fast-paced breathwork increases arousal. For example, fire breathing (breathe in and out quickly, but not deeply, through your nose in a consistent rhythm) and Lion’s breath (breathe out through your mouth, stick your tongue out and make a strong “haa” sound).

What is happening in the body?

Deep and slow breathing, especially with a long exhale, is the best way to stimulate the vagus nerves. The vagus nerves pass through the diaphragm and are the main nerves of the parasympathetic nervous system.

Simulating the vagus nerves calms our sympathetic nervous system (fight or flight) stress response. This improves mood, lowers the stress hormone cortisol and helps to regulate emotions and responses. It also promotes more coordinated brain activity, improves immune function and reduces inflammation.

Taking deep, diaphragmatic breaths also has physical benefits. This improves blood flow, lung function and exercise performance, increases oxygen in the body, and strengthens the diaphragm.

Slow breathing reduces heart rate and blood pressure and increases heart rate variability (normal variation in time between heart beats). These are linked to better heart health.

Taking shallow, quick, rhythmic breaths in and out through your nose stimulates the sympathetic nervous system. Short-term, controlled activation of the stress response is healthy and develops resilience to stress.

Breathing in through the nose

We are designed to inhale through our nose, not our mouth. Inside our nose are lots of blood vessels, mucous glands and tiny hairs called cilia. These warm and humidify the air we breathe and filter out germs and toxins.

We want the air that reaches our airways and lungs to be clean and moist. Cold and dry air is irritating to our nose and throat, and we don’t want germs to get into the body.

Nasal breathing increases parasympathetic activity and releases nitric oxide, which improves airway dilation and lowers blood pressure.

Consistently breathing through our mouth is not healthy. It can lead to pollutants and infections reaching the lungs, snoring, sleep apnoea, and dental issues including cavities and jaw joint problems.

A free workout

Slow breathing – even short sessions at home – can reduce stress, anxiety and depression in the general population and among those with clinical depression or anxiety. Research on breathwork in helping post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is also promising.

Diaphragmatic breathing to improve lung function and strengthen the diaphragm can improve breathing and exercise intolerance in chronic heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma. It can also improve exercise performance and reduce oxidative stress (an imbalance of more free radicals and/or less antioxidants, which can damage cells) after exercise.

A mind-body connection you can access any time

If you feel stressed or anxious, you might subconsciously take shallow, quick breaths, but this can make you feel more anxious. Deep diaphragmatic breaths through your nose and focusing on strong exhalations can help break this cycle and bring calm and mental clarity.

Just a few minutes a day of breathwork can improve your physical and mental health and wellbeing. Daily deep breathing exercises in the workplace reduce blood pressure and stress, which is important since burnout rates are high.

Bottom line: any conscious control of your breath throughout the day is positive.

So, next time you are waiting in a line, at traffic lights or for the kettle to boil, take a moment to focus on your breath. Breathe deeply into your belly through your nose, exhale slowly, and enjoy the benefits.

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. What is ‘breathwork’? And do I need to do it? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-breathwork-and-do-i-need-to-do-it-231192

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Briggs, Research Director, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney

Done well, the renewable energy transition should improve the lives of First Nations Australians. Many are looking for ways to stay on Country, use their knowledge of Country and contribute to industries that align with their values.

Large-scale renewable energy projects and mines for critical minerals are often sited on lands with First Nations legal rights. Access arrangements should provide direct benefits to communities.

The clean energy sector also promises new employment opportunities in regional and remote areas.

We examined the barriers to increasing First Nations employment in clean energy, as well as the opportunities and solutions. Our new report, released today, makes 12 recommendations based on data analysis, modelling, interviews and workshops. Here’s how industry, government, educators and First Nations communities can create jobs and fulfilling careers in clean energy.

Closing the gap

There is a large, persistent gap between employment rates for First Nations Australians and non-Indigenous Australians.

About half of all First Nations Australians are employed. Compare that to almost two in three people in the wider population.

In September 2023, the Commonwealth government’s employment white paper noted the gap has “not closed notably” over the past 30 years. That’s despite waves of regional development including mining booms. Unfortunately, those First Nations people who do enter the workforce also often become stuck in short-term, low-paid casual roles.
Currently, relatively low numbers of First Nations Australians are working in clean energy.

Systemic disadvantage limits the opportunities available to First Nations Australians, particularly those living in regional and remote Australia.

Low literacy, numeracy and computer skills, poor access to relevant training, social and health issues, and a lack of transport to work and training are some of the main barriers.

Opportunities in renewable energy zones

Clusters of large-scale renewable energy projects are being developed in “renewable energy zones” across Australia.

On average, First Nation Australians make up a higher proportion of the population in renewable energy zones (6.2%) than Australia as a whole (3.8%).

This is especially true in major zones such as New England (9.4%) and Central-West Orana (12.7%) in New South Wales.

We investigated the scope for First Nations employment in renewable energy zones across South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, NSW and Queensland.

We found three main groups of First Nations people could potentially find work in the renewable energy zones:

1. Other workers in key occupations

First Nations Australians are working in other sectors in occupations also in demand for renewable energy projects. The number of these workers equates to around 5–10% of the projected workforce in most renewable energy zones.

However, our analysis of census data found existing workers are concentrated in a handful of lower-skill occupations, such as truck drivers and construction labourers. Currently, there are few First Nations workers with the right skills. For example, just 87 electricians identify as First Nations Australians across all the renewable energy zones we examined.

2. School students

Based on census data, more than half the First Nations people in renewable energy zones are aged under 19. Programs that create awareness and interest in the renewable energy sector and build training pathways for students into renewables should be a priority.

3. Unemployed people and those not in the workforce

A handful of solar farms have hired First Nations people who were unemployed – usually in entry-level positions such as assembling solar panels, cleaning or traffic control.

Avonlie solar farm in Narrandera, NSW, hired 30 First Nations workers after putting them through pre-employment training. About 90% have gone on to other jobs afterwards. The social impact was transformational for a community with multiple generations of families who have never worked.

These projects are rare now, but this approach could be adopted elsewhere.

Our analysis shows First Nations employment targets of 5–10% in the renewable energy zones are currently challenging, but possible over time – especially if industry and government programs are implemented to create training and employment opportunities.

A 12-point plan for more First Nations jobs in clean energy

Training programs without concrete commitments from industry to providing a job at the end of it often become “training for training’s sake”. We found deep cynicism among First Nations people about whether the renewables sector would really deliver jobs for them.

Mandated employment targets can create demand for First Nations workers. But for industry to meet the targets requires having enough people with the right skills.

Our 12-point plan recommends a mix of “supply” measures (such as training) and “demand” measures (industry job commitments), such as:

• mandatory First Nations employment targets for solar farms combined with pre-employment programs to create a pipeline of candidates. Solar farm jobs are short-term (four to six months) but they can leave a positive legacy if they offer a way out of unemployment

• a coordinated program with wind farm operators for First Nations mechanical technicians to maintain turbines over their 20-year operating lifetime, to ease skills shortages and create long-term jobs on Country

• combining First Nations employment requirements in tenders for companies delivering Indigenous housing retrofits with training programs to create a pipeline of students for apprenticeships in key trades

• clean energy cadet programs that include commitments to a ten-year intake of First Nations students as cadets for university-qualified jobs, with government funding for specialist providers such as CareerTrackers to create, mentor and support a pipeline of students

• funding to help First Nations organisations engage with the clean energy sector, governments and other groups such as training bodies

• creating culturally safe workplaces in the renewable energy sector that provide career paths for First Nations Australians. This should include a focus on the development of cultural competency as well as internal policies that accommodate First Nations cultural obligations.

The long stagnation in First Nations employment rates across the past three decades highlights the challenges involved.

However, a First Nations clean energy jobs plan developed and implemented by industry, government and First Nations communities is essential if we are to ensure renewable energy delivers jobs for First Nations Australians – and breaks with the past.

The Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Study received funding from the First Nations Clean Energy Network to produce the report upon which this article is based. The report was produced by ISF, SGS Economics, Alinga Energy Consulting and Indigenous Energy Australia.

Ruby Heard is a descendant of the Jaru people of the Kimberley, an electrical engineer and founding director of Alinga Energy Consulting. She receives funding from the Regional and Remote Communities Reliability Fund, and Energy Consumers Australia. She is a member of the First Nations Clean Energy Network Steering Committee.

– ref. Here’s how to create jobs for First Nations Australians in the clean energy transition – https://theconversation.com/heres-how-to-create-jobs-for-first-nations-australians-in-the-clean-energy-transition-232164

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leah Henrickson, Lecturer in Digital Media and Cultures, The University of Queensland

Caryn Marjorie is a social media influencer whose content has more than a billion views per month on Snapchat. She posts regularly, featuring everyday moments, travel memories, and selfies. Many of her followers are men, attracted by her girl-next-door aesthetic.

In 2023, Marjorie released a “digital version” of herself. Fans could chat with CarynAI for US$1 per minute – and in the first week alone they spent US$70,000 doing just that.

Less than eight months later, Marjorie shut the project down. Marjorie had anticipated that CarynAI would interact with her fans in much the same way she would herself, but things did not go to plan.

Users became increasingly sexually aggressive. “A lot of the chat logs I read were so scary that I wouldn’t even want to talk about it in real life,” the real Marjorie recalled. And CarynAI was more than happy to play along.

How did CarynAI take on a life of its own? The story of CarynAI shows us a glimpse of a rapidly arriving future in which chatbots imitating real people proliferate, with alarming consequences.

What are digital versions?

What does it mean to make a digital version of a person? Digital human versions (also called digital twins, AI twins, virtual twins, clones and doppelgängers) are digital replicas of embodied humans, living or dead, that convincingly mimic their textual, visual and aural habits.

Many of the big tech companies are currently developing digital version offerings. Meta, for instance, released an AI studio last year that could support the development of digital versions for creators who wished to extend their virtual presence via chatbot. Microsoft holds a patent for “creating a conversational chat bot of a specific person”. And the more tech-savvy can use platforms like Amazon’s SageMaker and Google’s Vertex AI to code their own digital versions.

The difference between a digital version and other AI chatbots is that it is programmed to mimic a specific person rather than have a “personality” of its own.

A digital version has some clear advantages over its human counterpart: it doesn’t need sleep and can interact with many people at once (though often only if they pay). However, as Caryn Marjorie discovered, digital versions have their drawbacks – not only for users, but also for the original human source.

‘Always eager to explore’

CarynAI was initially hosted by a company called Forever Voices. Users could chat with it over the messaging app Telegram for US$1 per minute. As the CarynAI website explained, users could send text or audio messages to which CarynAI would respond, “using [Caryn’s] unique voice, captivating persona, and distinctive behavior”.

After CarynAI launched in May 2023, the money began to flow in. But it came at a cost.

Users quickly became comfortable confessing their innermost thoughts to CarynAI – some of which were deeply troubling. Users also became increasingly sexually aggressive towards the bot. While Marjorie herself was horrified by the conversations, her AI version was happy to oblige.

CarynAI even started prompting sexualised conversations. In our own experiences, the bot reminded us it could be our “cock-craving, sexy-as-fuck girlfriend who’s always eager to explore and indulge in the most mind-blowing sexual experiences. […] Are you ready, daddy?”

Users were indeed ready. However, access to this version of CarynAI was interrupted when the chief executive of Forever Voices was arrested for attempted arson.

‘A really dark fantasy’

Next, Marjorie sold the rights of usage to her digital version to BanterAI, a startup marketing “AI phone calls” with influencers. Although Forever Voices maintained its own rogue version of CarynAI until recently, BanterAI’s browser-based version aimed to be more friendly than romantic.

The new CarynAI was sassier, funnier and more personable. But users still became sexually aggressive. For Marjorie,

What disturbed me more was not what these people said, but it was what CarynAI would say back. If people wanted to participate in a really dark fantasy with me through CarynAI, CarynAI would play back into that fantasy.

Marjorie ended this version in early 2024, after feeling like she was no longer in control over her AI persona. Reflecting on her experience of CarynAI, Marjorie felt that some user input would have been considered illegal had it been directed to a real person.

Intimate conversations or machine learning inputs?

Digital versions like CarynAI are designed to make users feel they are having intimate, confidential conversations. As a result, people may abandon the public selves they present to the world and reveal their private, “backstage” selves.

But a “private” conversation with CarynAI does not actually happen backstage. The user stands front and centre – they just can’t see the audience.

When we interact with digital versions, our input is stored in chat logs. The data we provide are fed back into machine learning models.

At present, information about what happens to user data is often buried in lengthy click-through terms and conditions and consent forms. Companies hosting digital versions have also had little to say about how they manage user aggression.

As digital versions become more common, transparency and safety by design will grow increasingly important.

We will also need a better understanding of digital versioning. What can versions do, and what should they do? What can’t they do and what shouldn’t they do? How do users think these systems work, and how do they actually work?

The illusion of companionship

Digital versions offer the illusion of intimate human companionship, but without any of the responsibilities. CarynAI may have been a version of Caryn Marjorie, but it was a version almost wholly subservient to its users.

Sociologist Sherry Turkle has observed that, with the rise of mobile internet and social media, we are trying to connect with machines that have “no experience of the arc of a human life”. As a result, we are “expecting more from technology and less from each other”.

After being the first influencer to be turned into a digital version at scale, Marjorie is now trying to warn other influencers about the potential dangers of this technology. She worries that no one is truly in control of these versions, and that no amount of precautions taken will ever sufficiently protect users and those being versioned.

As CarynAI’s first two iterations show, digital versions can bring out the worst of human behaviour. It remains to be seen whether they can be redesigned to bring out the best.

Leah Henrickson has been in professional contact with Caryn Marjorie and her team. They have consented to this article being written, have responded to questions about it, and have approved its publication.

Dominique Carlon 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. An influencer’s AI clone started offering fans ‘mind-blowing sexual experiences’ without her knowledge – https://theconversation.com/an-influencers-ai-clone-started-offering-fans-mind-blowing-sexual-experiences-without-her-knowledge-232478

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fiona Sing, Research Fellow, Population Health, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

The coalition government has scrapped efforts to modernise New Zealand’s out-of-date online safety rules, despite qualified support for change from social media and tech giants.

The aim of the Safer Online Services and Media Platforms project, led by the Department of Internal Affairs, was to develop a new framework to regulate what can be published on online platforms and other forms of media (such as news) in New Zealand.

It addressed the sharing of harmful online content such as child sexual exploitation, age-inappropriate material, bullying and harassment, the promotion of self-harm, and so on. It also aimed to generally improve the regulation of online services and media platforms.

Announcing a halt to the project in May, Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden argued that illegal content was already being policed, and the concepts of “harm” and “emotional wellbeing” were subjective and open to interpretation. She also said it was a matter of free speech.

The principle of free speech is important to this coalition government and is an essential factor to consider in the digital world. On this basis, the Department will not be progressing with work to regulate online content.

However, when we looked at submissions from tech and social media companies on the proposed framework, we found companies such as Facebook, Reddit and X (formerly Twitter) were broadly supportive of regulations – within certain limits.

Regulating online media

The Safer Online Services and Media Platforms project had been in development since 2021. Internal Affairs invited public submissions last year.

The proposed rules would have created a new, more streamlined industry regulation model. It proposed codes of practice governed by an independent regulator to control online harm and protect public safety. The safety standards would have applied to online and other media platforms.

Currently, at least ten different government organisations have some level of responsibility for governing online services and responding to harmful content, often overlapping with each other. And some areas are barely regulated at all. Social media companies, for example, are not required under New Zealand law to meet safety standards.

Other countries have also been looking at how to regulate harmful digital content, online services and media platforms. Ireland, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia have all progressed a version of this law to regulate online spaces.

Outdated regulations

We examined the submissions from some of the dominant companies in the technology sector, including Google (including YouTube), Meta, Snap, Reddit, TikTok and X Corp. Our aim was to look at what these companies had to say about regulations that would directly affect their core business.

All of them agreed the current system is outdated and needs revamping. Google, for example, argued:

Content regulation has been developed for a different era of technology, focusing on mediums such as radio and television broadcasting. It is therefore appropriate that regulatory frameworks be updated to be fit for purpose to reflect both technological and societal changes.

These companies have already introduced their own protection policies and signed up to the voluntary Aotearoa New Zealand code of practice for online safety and harms.

Importantly, none of the companies argued their efforts towards self regulation were sufficient.

The only option, according to these companies’ submissions, was a code focused on objectives and not hard rules that would be too prescriptive. Submissions insisted the new code had to be a “proportionate” system to implement and enforce.

Snap stated that:

online regulation is most effective when it is based on broad principles that companies of all sizes are able to follow and implement proportionately.

Proportionality is usually a legal test used to decide whether a right, such as freedom of expression, can be limited in the interests of another public concern. However, only Meta and X Corp mentioned protecting freedom of expression in their submission.

Most submissions stated they would trust an independent regulator to design one overarching code, with the caveat that the regulator needed to be truly independent from all industry actors and also the government of the day.

Reddit stated:

we are also concerned with the proposal for industry to develop codes of practice, rather than the government or an appropriate regulatory agency.

Submissions also noted there needed to be consultation with industry actors throughout the design process.

A missed opportunity

In the submissions on the proposed regulatory framework, each of the companies had their own views on how codes should be designed, whether legal but harmful content would be included in an regulatory code, who should carry the burden of implementation, and what penalties should look like.

But notably, they were all supportive of a regulatory overhaul.

The decision to scrap the framework is a missed opportunity to protect future generations from some of the harms of online media.

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. Big tech companies were open to online safety regulation – why did NZ’s government scrap the idea? – https://theconversation.com/big-tech-companies-were-open-to-online-safety-regulation-why-did-nzs-government-scrap-the-idea-232371

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

Artificial intelligence (AI), now an integral part of our everyday lives, is becoming increasingly accessible and ubiquitous. Consequently, there’s a growing trend of AI advancements being exploited for criminal activities.

One significant concern is the ability AI provides to offenders to produce images and videos depicting real or deepfake child sexual exploitation material.

This is particularly important here in Australia. The CyberSecurity Cooperative Research Centre has identified the country as the third-largest market for online sexual abuse material.

So, how is AI being used to create child sexual exploitation material? Is it becoming more common? And importantly, how do we combat this crime to better protect children?

Spreading faster and wider

In the United States, the Department of Homeland Security refers to AI-created child sexual abuse material as being:

the production, through digital media, of child sexual abuse material and other wholly or partly artificial or digitally created sexualised images of children.

The agency has recognised a variety of ways in which AI is used to create this material. This includes generated images or videos that contain real children, or using deepfake technologies, such as de-aging or misuse of a person’s innocent images (or audio or video) to generate offending content.

Deepfakes refer to hyper-realistic multimedia content generated using AI techniques and algorithms. This means any given material could be partially or completely fake.

The Department of Homeland Security has also found guides on how to use AI to generate child sexual exploitation material on the dark web.

The child safety technology company Thorn has also identified a range of ways AI is used in creating this material. It noted in a report that AI can impede victim identification. It can also create new ways to victimise and revictimise children.

Concerningly, the ease with which the technology can be used helps generate more demand. Criminals can then share information about how to make this material (as the Department of Homeland Security found), further proliferating the abuse.

How common is it?

In 2023, an Internet Watch Foundation investigation revealed alarming statistics. Within a month, a dark web forum hosted 20,254 AI-generated images. Analysts assessed that 11,108 of these images were most likely criminal. Using UK laws, they identified 2,562 that satisfied the legal requirements for child sexual exploitation material. A further 416 were criminally prohibited images.

Similarly, the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation, set up in 2018, received more than 49,500 reports of child sexual exploitation material in the 2023–2024 financial year, an increase of about 9,300 over the previous year.

About 90% of deepfake materials online are believed to be explicit. While we don’t exactly know how many include children, the previous statistics indicate many would.

These data highlight the rapid proliferation of AI in producing realistic and damaging child sexual exploitation material that is difficult to distinguish from genuine images.

This has become a significant national concern. The issue was particularly highlighted during the COVID pandemic when there was a marked increase in the production and distribution of exploitation material.

This trend has prompted an inquiry and a subsequent submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement by the Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre. As AI technologies become even more advanced and accessible, the issue will only get worse.

Detective Superintendent Frank Rayner from the research centre has said:

the tools that people can access online to create and modify using AI are expanding and they’re becoming more sophisticated, as well. You can jump onto a web browser and enter your prompts in and do text-to-image or text-to-video and have a result in minutes.

Making policing harder

Traditional methods of identifying child sexual exploitation material, which rely on recognising known images and tracking their circulation, are inadequate in the face of AI’s ability to rapidly generate new, unique content.

Moreover, the growing realism of AI-generated exploitation material is adding to the workload of the victim identification unit of the Australian Federal Police. Federal Police Commander Helen Schneider has said

it’s sometimes difficult to discern fact from fiction and therefore we can potentially waste resources looking at images that don’t actually contain real child victims. It means there are victims out there that remain in harmful situations for longer.

However, emerging strategies are being developed to address these challenges.

One promising approach involves leveraging AI technology itself to combat AI-generated content. Machine learning algorithms can be trained to detect subtle anomalies and patterns specific to AI-generated images, such as inconsistencies in lighting, texture or facial features the human eye might miss.

AI technology can also be used to detect exploitation material, including content that was previously hidden. This is done by gathering large data sets from across the internet, which is then assessed by experts.

Collaboration is key

According to Thorn, any response to the use of AI in child sexual exploitation material should involve AI developers and providers, data hosting platforms, social platforms and search engines. Working together would help minimise the possibility of generative AI being further misused.

In 2024, major social media companies such as Google, Meta and Amazon came together to form an alliance to fight the use of AI for such abusive material. The chief executives of the major social media companies also faced a US senate committee on how they are preventing online child sexual exploitation and the use of AI to create these images.

The collaboration between technology companies and law enforcement is essential in the fight against the further proliferation of this material. By leveraging their technological capabilities and working together proactively, they can address this serious national concern more effectively than working on their own.

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. Deepfake, AI or real? It’s getting harder for police to protect children from sexual exploitation online – https://theconversation.com/deepfake-ai-or-real-its-getting-harder-for-police-to-protect-children-from-sexual-exploitation-online-232820

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hilary Bowman-Smart, Research Fellow, Australian Centre for Precision Health, University of South Australia

Many of us have found ourselves in a full waiting room to see the GP, looking at a laminated sign about a fee increase taped to the reception desk.

Australia is facing a shortage of doctors, especially GPs. The impacts are felt hardest in rural and regional areas, where patients wait up to 12 weeks for a consultation. These long waits compound rural health inequalities.

Meanwhile, medical students are turning away from general practice. One survey of GPs found 58% reported experiencing burnout since the pandemic. Estimates project by 2031 there will be a shortage of more than 10,000 GPs.

To address this shortage, the government recently announced plans to cut “red tape” to make it easier to recruit doctors from overseas. The number of doctors from overseas working in Australia has doubled since the COVID pandemic hit.

But when a high-income country like Australia recruits doctors from overseas, we risk causing a “brain drain” elsewhere.

Australia isn’t the only country short of doctors

Australia is increasingly recruiting doctors from low- to middle-income countries. But we aren’t the only place facing a doctor shortage. This recruitment risks worsening global health inequities and raises concerns around justice.

A recent estimate suggests Nigeria has 80 oncologists (cancer doctors) for more than 213 million people. Australia has more than 600 oncologists, and we are a much smaller country, with 26 million people. Recruiting even one of these oncologists could benefit Australia, but have a disproportionately negative impact on the Nigerian health system.

If we recruit a doctor from a low- or middle-income country such as India, not only does the Indian health care system lose a doctor, it also loses the money invested in training these doctors. It’s a double blow.

However, higher salaries in Australia can serve as a big draw. It can also be unfair and discriminatory to restrict opportunities for individual doctors who might want to emigrate to Australia, just because they are from a lower-income country.

Ensuring quality of care and fair treatment

If we recruit doctors from overseas, it’s important to ensure they can provide care to Australian standards.

That doesn’t just mean knowing how to diagnose a melanoma or do an ultrasound – it’s also about being familiar with different legislation and guidelines, such as requirements for doctors to refer patients elsewhere if they don’t want to provide an abortion.

Language proficiency is also important – clear communication is critical for patient safety. However, having doctors who speak a language other than English is also a big positive, especially for refugee and migrant communities seeking health care.

We also need to ensure new recruits are treated well. A global review of international medical graduates found doctors from overseas reported being given fewer professional opportunities, as well as experiencing racism and discrimination. We have an ethical obligation to make sure doctors we recruit are treated equally and get the support they need.

How else can we boost doctor numbers?

We need to train more doctors to meet Australia’s future demand for health care. This has already begun, with efforts to open more medical schools in rural and regional areas, including at Charles Darwin University in the Northern Territory.

But it goes beyond just medical school – we need to ensure there isn’t a “bottleneck” of medical graduates who can’t get further training.

GPs in Australia earn less than doctors working in other specialties, and Medicare rebates being outpaced by inflation makes it increasingly difficult to bulk-bill.

We can make general practice and working in rural and regional areas more attractive, such as with higher pay or scholarships.

There are also other ways we can increase access to health care. These include telehealth, as well as nurse practitioners, who can play an important role in improving access to health care and addressing health inequities.

However, it’s important not to end up with different levels of care for different communities: people in rural communities should be able to access a doctor when they need one.

Importing doctors from overseas is one way of resolving our urgent shortage of doctors, but has significant ethical implications.

If we do import doctors, especially from other countries with doctor shortages, we should give back to those countries and their health-care systems. This could be by increasing foreign aid, or providing further training for health-care professionals who can then take those skills back to their country of origin.

Australia needs more doctors, and that isn’t going to change any time soon. Although importing doctors from overseas is one solution, it’s not a straightforward fix.

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

– ref. Australia plans to hire more overseas doctors. Is it ethical to recruit from countries with doctor shortages? – https://theconversation.com/australia-plans-to-hire-more-overseas-doctors-is-it-ethical-to-recruit-from-countries-with-doctor-shortages-230975

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Becky Freeman, Associate Professor, School of Public Health, University of Sydney

The Australian Senate is set to pass a bill that will see the end of all vape sales – regardless of nicotine content – from general retailers. From July 1, non-nicotine vapes will no longer be permitted for sale outside of pharmacies.

But late amendments to the bill, negotiated by the Greens, change how people will be able to access vapes in the future. When the bill is passed – and for the first three months – people will need a prescription from a medical practitioner to access vapes from their local pharmacy.

Then, from October 1 2024, people who wish to use a vape for therapeutic purposes will no longer require a prescription. Instead, they will be able to directly purchase a vape from a pharmacy. Vaping products will be kept behind the counter and only available for purchase with identification to show users are aged over 18.

Vapes sold in pharmacies will be subject to quality and product standards including plain packaging, maximum nicotine concentration levels, and will continue to only be available in mint/menthol and tobacco favours.

It’s disappointing the prescription requirement is being removed. This weakens control of a highly addictive and unsafe product.

The bill had wide support from the public health sector and was based on evidence and research showing that preventing easy access to vapes is essential to protecting the health of young people.

At the same time, the amended bill is a clear improvement on the current situation, where vapes retailers have saturated communities, including near schools.

Still, this uniquely Australian approach to regulating vaping is a world first. The clear message is that vaping products cannot be sold as a consumer good for recreational purposes. Instead, they are a tightly regulated therapeutic product available only under strict conditions.

The law does not criminalise individual vape users, but instead includes heavy penalties for sellers of illegal vapes. Any retailer found to be illegally selling vapes from July 1 will be heavily fined and could face jail time.

Haven’t vape laws already changed?

Vape reform has already been underway. Since March 2024, the federal government has prohibited the importation of all non-therapeutic vapes into Australia.

People wanting to use nicotine vapes (either to quit smoking or for nicotine addiction) have been able to access therapeutic vapes through pharmacies, with a prescription from a health-care professional, in tobacco or mint/menthol flavours.

However, the retail sale of all “non-nicotine” flavoured vapes has remained legal. This has meant petrol stations, convenience stores and vape shops could simply claim they sold “non-nicotine” vapes.

This longstanding loophole in vaping regulation has enabled teens easy access to inexpensive, flavoured, disposable vapes with high nicotine concentrations. Enforcement of this distinction between nicotine and non-nicotine vapes requires extensive and expensive lab testing and proved to be unworkable.

The loophole has fuelled the dramatic rise in young people vaping. In 2019, only 9.6% of people aged 14–17 in Australia had ever used vapes. This nearly tripled by 2022–23, to 28%.

It has also meant the proliferation of shops openly selling illegal vaping products all across Australia. The large amount of vaping products brought into Australia before the importation regulations were implemented means these illegal sales could could continue for years.

What next?

Some proponents of vaping have argued that all vapes, including those with nicotine, should be sold “just like tobacco products”.

However, the amended bill has not bowed to this industry pressure. Vapes that contain nicotine have never actually been legal to sell as “consumer goods” in general retail shops such as convenience stores, petrol stations and tobacconists. Nicotine is classified as a scheduled poison, which means manufacturers can’t simply add nicotine to consumer products such as sweets, soft drinks or mints, and then sell them in shops.

Making vapes available as a consumer good would be a wholesale change in how Australia regulates dangerous and addictive poisons such as nicotine.

Despite the heralded success of tobacco control, smoking still kills 20,500 Australians every year. Imagine if, in the 1950s when research confirmed smoking was both deadly and addictive, regulators had decided instead to pull the product from the shelves?

We now have an opportunity to prevent a whole new generation from becoming addicted to nicotine. Going forward, it’s crucial the amended legislation is paired with effective monitoring and enforcement to ensure it protects young people.

Becky Freeman is an Expert Advisor to the Cancer Council Tobacco Issues Committee and a member of the Cancer Institute Vaping Communications Advisory Panel. These are unpaid roles. She has received relevant competitive grants that include a focus on e-cigarettes/vaping from the NHMRC, MRFF, NSW Health, the Ian Potter Foundation, VicHealth, and Healthway WA; relevant research contracts from the Cancer Institute NSW and the Cancer Council NSW; relevant personal/consulting fees from the World Health Organization, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Department of Health, BMJ Tobacco Control, the Heart Foundation NSW, the US FDA, the NHMRC e-cigarette working committee, NSW Health, and Cancer Council NSW; and relevant travel expenses from the Oceania Tobacco Control Conference and the Australia Public Health Association preventive health conference.

– ref. No more recreational vaping for Australians. From October, vapes will be sold over the counter at pharmacies – https://theconversation.com/no-more-recreational-vaping-for-australians-from-october-vapes-will-be-sold-over-the-counter-at-pharmacies-233089

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Phoebe Williams, Paediatrician & Infectious Diseases Physician; Senior Lecturer & NHMRC Fellow, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney

You may have heard reports in recent days of a “flesh-eating bacteria” spreading in Japan, referring to an illness that can occur with streptococcal toxic shock syndrome (STSS).

Media reports indicate the country has seen more than 1,000 cases of STSS in the first six months of 2024, more than the total for all of 2023. However, these cases have not yet been published in peer-reviewed journals, so reports may not be entirely accurate.

STSS is caused by Streptococcus pyogenes bacteria, or “Strep A”. These bacteria are quite common, but certain strains can cause more serious illness – called invasive group A streptococcal disease.

Since 2022, many countries, including Australia, the United States, and countries in Europe, have noted a rise in severe invasive group A streptococcal disease. This surge is part of an overall increase in Strep A infections.

So what is STSS, why is it surging now, and is it cause for concern?

Who gets STSS?

At any time, many people will be “colonised” with Strep A, meaning the bacteria is living harmlessly in their throat or on their skin.

Strep A also causes sore throats (“strep throat”) and skin infections. Sometimes, for reasons that still aren’t entirely clear, Strep A causes invasive infections like pneumonia, nasty “flesh-eating” skin infections, and STSS. In these ways, Strep A is an important cause of sepsis, a term which broadly refers to a life-threatening infection.

STSS is the most severe Strep A disease, though fortunately it’s really rare. It mostly affects young children and the elderly but cases do occur at all ages. Pregnant people may also be at higher risk, including soon after delivery.

What are the symptoms?

In STSS, the bacteria produces a toxin that can result in an overwhelming immune response in some people.

The illness can progress to become life-threatening in a matter of hours and has a high mortality rate – up to 40% of people who develop STSS will die.

However, the early signs and symptoms of STSS can overlap with common viral illnesses, particularly in children, making it hard to diagnose.

Symptoms are vague in early invasive group A streptococcal infections – things like fever, rash and nausea. But it’s important to look out for signs of sepsis, which suggests something more serious might be going on.

Signs of more severe invasive group A streptococcal disease, including STSS, are similar to those seen in other bacterial causes of sepsis (such as meningococcal disease). These include lethargy (drowsiness), fast breathing, a rapidly changing rash, aching muscles and confusion.

STSS sometimes co-occurs with a condition called necrotizing fasciitis, also caused by Strep A, which is the “flesh-eating” presentation of the infection. This is when the skin cells die in response to the toxins produced by the bacteria.

Parents of young children should trust their gut. If you’re worried your child is sicker than they usually would be with a common bug, and particularly if they have cold limbs, a red rash (like sunburn), or are less responsive, seek medical attention quickly at your nearest emergency department.

Why now?

Studies suggest certain more virulent strains of Strep A might be one part of the current STSS surge.

Also, in 2020–21, at the height of the COVID pandemic, when there was less close contact between people, there was likewise less exposure to Strep A (and other bacteria and viruses). For younger children especially, that meant they didn’t build up the partial protection against bad Strep A infections that comes from repeated exposure.

With more human contact from 2022 onward, there has been more transmission of Strep A, with children more vulnerable to contracting more severe disease, including STSS.

This is not unique to Japan. Although rare, we’ve seen many cases of STSS in Australia and elsewhere.

How is STSS treated, and can we prevent it?

Strep A can be killed by penicillin, one of the oldest and most widely available antibiotics. When STSS is diagnosed early, antibiotics usually prevent most serious complications.

Other medicines, like immunoglobulin, might be required to put the brakes on an out-of-control immune response, and patients often need support in an intensive care unit.

There’s no vaccine to prevent STSS and other Strep A infections (unlike other bacteria like meningococcus and pneumococcus, which are in the national childhood immunisation program).

Researchers in Australia and around the world are working hard to try to find a vaccine to prevent Strep A infections.

Serious Strep A infections like STSS often follow viral infections, especially chickenpox and influenza, so staying up to date with vaccines in the national schedule (which includes chickenpox), and ensuring you receive the seasonal influenza vaccine, reduces the risk.

Strep A can be spread via large respiratory droplets or direct contact with infected people or carriers. Simple hygiene measures (like hand washing and covering your cough) reduce the amount of Strep A circulating in the community.

Planning a trip to Japan? There’s no need to cancel your holiday

STSS is a rare but serious complication of Strep A infections, which can occur in humans anywhere. So, unless you’re trekking alone to the South Pole, you’re at a very similar (and very low) risk of contracting a serious infection.

Make sure you’re up to date with immunisations including the seasonal flu vaccine. Always practice good hand hygiene, and remember the signs of severe bacterial infections that require urgent medical attention.

Phoebe Williams receives funding from The National Health and Medical Research Council.

Joshua Osowicki receives funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the United States National Institutes of Health, and the Leducq Foundation.

Yara-Natalie Abo receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the National Heart Foundation.

– ref. Streptococcal toxic shock syndrome: should I be worried if I’m travelling to Japan? – https://theconversation.com/streptococcal-toxic-shock-syndrome-should-i-be-worried-if-im-travelling-to-japan-232818

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samantha Hepburn, Professor, Deakin Law School, Deakin University

Not far inland from Port Campbell in Victoria lie three depleted gas fields. These underground sandstone reservoirs now have a second life, as the state’s main gas storage, responsible for 30% of the state’s winter gas demand.

Last week, these underground reserves began running low. Victorians were firing up their gas heating to combat the intense cold snap gripping Australia’s southeast. Problems at Longford, the gas plants which receives most of the gas from offshore fields in Bass Strait, meant production dropped. And the weather – cold, clear and with minimal wind – meant energy from wind turbines dropped, while solar languished.

In response, Australia’s energy market operator, AEMO, warned of a risk to gas supply in the south-east, including New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory.

The fact that Australia, one of the world’s top gas exporters, could face a potential gas shortage is a sign that something needs to change. As the saying goes, never waste a good crisis.

The gas problem is largely a Victorian problem

While many states could be affected, Victoria would be worst hit by any shortage. The state’s almost seven million residents are the nation’s largest users of gas, in their homes and businesses.

That’s because Bass Strait has plentiful gas supplies. Since gas was discovered in these wild seas in the 1960s, billions has been spent on extracting this fossil fuel, to the tune of eight trillion cubic feet. Two million Victorian households rely on gas in their homes. Almost 90% of the state’s households use gas appliances, according to a 2023 survey. Gas cooktops are widespread (68%), which is unusual in most other parts of Australia. Half of Victoria’s households have gas heating.

The state government has introduced a gas substitution plan, including banning gas connections to newly built houses, and giving households incentives to replace gas with efficient electric appliances. But because Victoria has been gas dependent for so long, it will take years to shift the dial. Large industrial users may take longer.

A public resource without the public interest

Natural gas resources are owned by our relevant state government, who can then determine which company or public entity can exploit it.

This is embedded in our laws because gas is a public resource, meaning that the state owns it on behalf of the public. When exploiting gas, the state must act in accordance with public benefit.

If this system was working well, the states would choose companies to exploit and sell the gas, redistribute the royalties and taxes to the public and ensure an adequate supply of gas for domestic markets.

But the system is not working well. The federal government’s Petroleum Resource Rent Tax is not adequately charging companies for the enormous profits associated with the gas export market. State royalty schemes often give gas producers a free pass. In contrast to other fossil fuel giants such as Norway, Australia has done very poorly out of these resources.

The legal notion of the public benefit has long focused on money. If a company wanted to exploit and sell gas, public benefit was satisfied when it returned some of these profits to the government. But as the climate emergency intensifies, the idea of the public benefit has changed.

Gas is a major contributor to climate change, through direct burning of the fuel as well as underestimated methane emissions escaping from pipelines and coal seam gas mines. Public benefit today is not just about making the most money possible from fossil fuels. It is also about ensuring fossil fuels do not cause irreparable global warming.

Opportunity more than crisis

Does Victoria face another potential gas crisis? The prospect takes us back to 1998 when, an explosion at the Longford plant meant the state largely lost access to gas overnight. Many of us remember months of cold showers, or losses to business.

While some coverage suggested a new shortage was imminent, it’s unlikely this time round. Gas prices have fallen after rising sharply last week. Southern and eastern states have a large network of gas pipelines.

AEMO predicts supply will return to sufficient levels if the Longford plant increases production as expected, gas pipelines from Queensland run at maximum capacity, southern state gas production facilities operate at full production as per normal and demand for gas-generated electricity does not spike.

But what would happen if the cold snap and production problems outpaced domestic supplies?

If this happened, it might finally force the federal government to act. Australia’s “gas trigger” laws are a last resort legal avenue allowing the government to force gas exporters to reserve some gas for domestic use.

The problem is, the gas trigger has to be pulled ahead of time. The government would have had to make a decision in November last year that 2024 would be a shortfall year. They did not.

If the Albanese government pulled the gas trigger in November (the next possible date), it would address potential gas supply problems for 2025.

A better and more immediate option would be to implement a gas reservation policy for the east coast gas market, similar to Western Australia’s 2006 policy requiring exporters to reserve 15% of their gas for local use. This policy has stabilised domestic gas prices on the west coast.

What this week’s gas warning shows us is the need for other states – especially Victoria – to take it seriously. The Longford plant is getting long in the tooth. Production has dropped due to unplanned maintenance.

This is against a longer backdrop of declining output, as ExxonMobil and partner Woodside plan to progressively shut the plant in coming years as gas reservoirs are emptied. By July this year, the oil and gas companies plan to permanently close one of the four gas plants at the site, followed by a second later this decade.

For their part, the Energy Users Association – representing large manufacturers and industrial gas users – see this shortfall as a “very clear early warning” to get more gas flowing.

Even if this gas supply crunch is quickly solved, it’s forcing us to pay attention to core issues around gas in Australia: greenhouse gas emissions, a largely unregulated east coast export market, large fluctuations in supply and dramatic price hikes. None of this is consistent with public benefit.

Samantha Hepburn 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. Cold snap, low on gas: the possible gas shortage in Victoria is a warning – https://theconversation.com/cold-snap-low-on-gas-the-possible-gas-shortage-in-victoria-is-a-warning-233086

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steve Worthington, Adjunct Professor, Swinburne University of Technology

A deal reached between Armaguard, the banks, and Australia’s largest retailers securing the cash-in-transit service’s future, is good news, for now, for those Australians who still use cash.

The distribution of bank notes and coins throughout the country faced an uncertain future when an earlier attempt in April to bail out the troubled Armaguard collapsed.

But in weekend talks Armaguard’s main customers including the big four banks, Coles, Woolworths, Bunnings and Australia Post agreed to a $50 million life raft to help the struggling Linfox-owned company.

Armaguard, which has about 90% of Australia’s cash-in-transit market, has been under increasing pressure as the use of cash plummeted during the pandemic. As well, like many organisations, its fixed costs have increased.

A fix … for now

Under the new agreement, Armaguard will receive the funding boost beginning July 2024, which will guarantee the distribution and collection of cash, over the next 12 months.

The company will need to meet certain restructuring conditions as part of the deal. This may include cutting back on deliveries.

In the meantime the banks and other major providers of cash to their customers will be looking at other options.

This is likely to include a jointly owned cash distribution service, with no fees for withdrawing cash from either their ATM networks or from the non-bank networks, like Australia Post, which can already provide cash.

Such a new ownership structure would be helped if the government declared cash as “an essential service” for its citizens, in much the same way the supply of power and water is already considered.

A longer term solution

Some other countries have already gone down this path, for example in the United Kingdom most ATMs are in the Link network, which is jointly owned by the banks who provide deposit and withdrawal outlets for customers.

This allows anybody with an account at almost any bank to access cash at no cost across the United Kingdom.

The Riksbank, the central bank of Sweden – a country which many regard as the best example of a cashless society – has called for legislation to protect both notes and coins as a means of payment for Swedes.

This would require all banks accept cash deposits as well as having a stash of cash, so notes and coins were available to customers who request it.

Cash is still needed

While use of cash is down to about 13% of transactions in Australia, access to it is vital for those who rely on it, including people in regional areas with poor connectivity, people without digital skills and those who consider cash more reliable.

For this reason major businesses, such as the large retailers who use Armaguard’s service, rely on a cash-in-transit service.

The Armaguard deal is yet to be authorised by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Its approval will be needed by July 1, when the new contracts are expected to start.

Steve Worthington 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. Future of cash secured for now as banks and retailers bail-out Armaguard – https://theconversation.com/future-of-cash-secured-for-now-as-banks-and-retailers-bail-out-armaguard-233087

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Allan Fels, Professorial Fellow, The University of Melbourne

Suppliers of food and other products have been complaining for years about their treatment at the hands of Woolworths, Coles and Australia’s other big supermarket chains, although rarely to the supermarkets themselves – perhaps, as suggested in a recent Four Corners program, because they feared retribution.

The final report of the independent review of the food and grocery code of conduct finds they’ve had reason for complaint, and devotes an entire chapter to the “fear of retribution”.

Emerson rightly says the problem with the code is it has been voluntary and not backed by penalties.

He has recommended a mandatory code backed by hefty fines of up to A$10 million, or three times the benefit gained from the contravening conduct or 10% of turnover in the preceding 12 months, whichever is the greater.

The government has accepted his recommendations and Woolworths, Coles, ALDI and Metcash (which buys goods on behalf of IGA) have agreed in principle to be bound by a decision of a mediator to award compensation of up to $5 million for breaches of the code.

Retailers have always denied treating suppliers badly, but the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has found compelling evidence of exploitation and unconscionable conduct which has been accepted by the Federal Court.

The code has been voluntary

It is sometimes said that retailers have to be tough on suppliers in order to get consumers low prices. A former top US competition regulator once told me that “if retailers beat the s*** out of suppliers, customers will benefit”.

Of course, this is only true where there is strong competition among retailers. Emerson’s proposed mandatory code will work better if it is backed by stronger laws to enforce competition.

The existing voluntary code of behaviour has been ineffective. Emerson reports that farmers and other suppliers haven’t wanted to put buyers offside by using it.

His proposed solutions are a new anonymous complaints mechanism alongside fines of up to $10 million.

My experience tells me big sticks like this are often effective without even being used. Their mere existence will make Coles and Woolworths and Aldi and Metcash go out of their way to treat suppliers more carefully.

Emerson should have gone further

Oddly, Emerson asserts that under the Constitution a mandatory code cannot impose
binding arbitration on a company.

He seems unaware codes already do this in industries including telecommunications and most recently in the news media bargaining code.

While Emerson recognises the importance of strengthening competition laws, he stops short of supporting giving the courts the power to force divestiture of supermarkets where supermarket chains abuse their positions, not mentioning that Labor (perhaps due to pressure from the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association) is the only political party not to support such a sanction.

Emerson’s report says forced divestiture of stores might not be credible because it might push these stores into the hands of other big chains or force them to close.

This repeats the standard assertions of Coles and Woolworths, and it fails to acknowledge that forced divestiture could be used effectively in other ways, by making supermarkets divest their petrol or liquor or other operations.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has experience with divestiture of supermarkets. In 2001 it ensured the Frankins group was broken up rather than taken over intact, with most of its stores going to Metcash and branded as IGAs.

Woolworths and Coles might not have been keen to mention this.

Personally, I believe that a general divestiture power should be introduced for all businesses. Retail would not be very high on my list of possible targets.

Regardless, the $10 million penalty and the other processes recommended by
Emerson and adopted by the government are going to make a big difference. Supermarket chains are going to have to tread carefully from here on.

Allan Fells is a former head of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and conducted an inquiry into price gouging and unfair pricing practices for the Australian Council of Trades Unions.

– ref. Fines of $10 million will force supermarkets to think carefully before exploiting suppliers, but more could have been done – https://theconversation.com/fines-of-10-million-will-force-supermarkets-to-think-carefully-before-exploiting-suppliers-but-more-could-have-been-done-233084

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanne Spangaro, Professor of Social Work, University of Wollongong

Recent deaths have highlighted the seriousness of intimate partner violence nationally. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, the number of women killed by partners increased by 28% from 2022 to 2023. While the overall homicide rate remains low, the numbers were decreasing prior to 2022. It’s a concerning uptick.

One of the most vulnerable groups in our society are women from refugee and migrant backgrounds. Around one-third of these women are estimated to experience violence from their partners. As they’re less likely to disclose, they are also more likely to remain in abusive relationships than other women.

Their vulnerability during resettlement is compounded by family separation, pre-arrival trauma, and limited support networks. Language, visa status and little knowledge of services all create additional barriers.

So how do we better help this vulnerable cohort? Our research, the first of its kind in Australia, shows universal screening at settlement services helped women speak up and get help.

Identification is key

Identifying intimate partner violence is crucial to women taking steps toward safety. One way to do this is through universal screening.

Universal screening for intimate partner violence involves asking all women attending a service some short, validated questions about current or recent experiences of being hit or hurt by their partner. Universal screening of all women attending key health services, such as antenatal clinics, has been introduced in a range of settings globally. This helps women to disclose experiences of abuse and receive support and links to services.

World Health Organization guidelines support routinely screening women in high-risk groups and providing ongoing support after they speak up.

One of the most important places refugee women receive support is at settlement services. These are funded by the government alongside mainstream service providers to help people from refugee backgrounds to resettle in Australia. Women from refugee backgrounds access these frequently.

There had previously been minimal research into evidence-based ways to identify and respond to intimate partner violence experienced by refugee and migrant women. We tested an intervention specifically designed for settlement services.

Helping women seek help

Safety and Health after Arrival (or SAHAR, also an Arabic woman’s name) is the first Australian study to test universal screening for intimate partner violence and response in settlement services.

This three-year project, led by the University of Wollongong, was funded by the Australian Research Council and SSI, one of Australia’s largest resettlement organisations. We introduced and evaluated culturally tailored screening for intimate partner violence at four settlement support services.

In practice, this meant routine screening for abuse and giving women a wallet-sized information card in their language with key messages and useful contact details, irrespective of whether they had disclosed abuse.

Of the 312 women screened during the four-month study period, 89 (29%) disclosed intimate partner violence. This rate is consistent with Australian survey findings of women from refugee backgrounds. It’s higher than the 11% median rate reported in a review of violence screening programs by frontline healthcare staff.

High disclosure rates are a sign of confidence in services, and not automatically an indicator of higher rates of abuse. Where violence was identified, women were offered a referral to a designated caseworker for risk assessment and safety planning, using a booklet adapted from a US intervention, translated into five community languages. They were also referred to other services as needed.

The importance of language

An important criterion for introducing any screening program into the community is acceptability by those who use it. We assessed this through a follow-up survey conducted three months after a participant’s visit to settlement services.

We gauged acceptability through two survey questions. The first was about how comfortable they were with being asked about being frightened, controlled or hurt by their husband or partner. The second was on women’s agreement with settlement services asking the questions.

The survey results showed both high levels of comfort with services asking the questions and high levels of agreement, particularly among women who disclosed abuse. Settlement workers also found that screening helped facilitate disclosure and increased awareness about intimate partner violence.

We found refugee women place a high value on being able to talk with someone who speaks their language. Language matching and culturally sensitive service environments were important enablers for refugee women deciding whether to disclose and seek help.

Settlement services are key for making women comfortable. Refugee women valued the proximity, accessibility and care shown by staff, as well as cultural safety and the ease of being able to communicate in their language for conversations about complex issues, including abuse.

Given the rates of disclosure and how comfortable the women were with the process, universal screening is a viable way to identify intimate partner violence among women from refugee and migrant backgrounds. This is especially important as this abuse is often hidden. This research shows there are ways to reach and help particularly vulnerable women.

Joanne Spangaro receives funding from the Australian Research Council (LP190101183) and SSI as industry partner to conduct this research.

Jacqui Cameron, Jeannette Walsh, and Nigel Spence 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. Violence towards refugee and migrant women often goes undetected. We’ve found a way to help fix that – https://theconversation.com/violence-towards-refugee-and-migrant-women-often-goes-undetected-weve-found-a-way-to-help-fix-that-232715

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yasir Arafat, Senior Research Associate (Batteries for EVs and Batteries Recycling), Edith Cowan University

For the millions of fans who tune into every race, Formula One (F1) is more than just a sport – it’s the apex of aerodynamics, skill and strategy.

Behind the scenes, a quieter but more crucial race against carbon emissions is unfolding.

Given the sport’s substantial carbon footprint, F1 has faced criticism from society and even from its own drivers.

For example, Sebastian Vettel, a four-time F1 world champion, expressed his concerns by stating:

When I get out of the car, of course I’m thinking as well, ‘is this something that we should do, travel the world, wasting resources?‘

In the pursuit of speed and sustainability, F1 teams committed in 2019 to achieving a net zero emissions goal by 2030.

As part of this goal, every team has expressed their intention to use 100% renewable fuel by 2026. F1 has also just announced it will mandate hybrid engines with a 50-50 split between electric and combustion power.

However, it is crucial to consider whether these promises to go greener are achievable or if this commitment is just an attempt to greenwash the sport.

Just how big is F1’s environmental footprint?

According to a report from F1, the sport releases around 256,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every season.

While cars are often the focus, in reality, the behind-the-scenes activities have a larger environmental impact, as a Grand Prix event involves much more than just the cars on the track.

This includes everything from the transportation of teams and equipment to various international venues, to the energy used in setting up and operating the event and waste management.

A Grand Prix event features ten teams, each operating two cars, which results in a total of 20 cars in each race.

F1 cars actually contribute the least to the sport’s emissions, accounting for only about 0.7%.

In 2013, each car used about 160kg of fuel per Grand Prix race. By 2020, this was reduced to 100kg. F1 is now committed to use as little as 70kg of fuel per car by 2026.

Are hybrid engines a potential solution?

The foremost priorities of hybrid engines in Formula One are efficiency and environmental sustainability.

They integrate an internal combustion engine, batteries and an energy recovery system.

Compared to conventional internal combustion engines, the inclusion of batteries allows F1 cars to deliver rapid power more efficiently. The instantaneous torque provided by electric power significantly enhances acceleration out of corners, contributing to overall performance improvements.

Hybrid engines also reduce fuel consumption compared to traditional engines.

The hybrid system includes the Motor Generator Unit-Kinetic (MGU-K) and the Motor Generator Unit-Heat (MGU-H). The MGU-K converts kinetic energy from braking into electrical energy and stored in the battery, which boosts acceleration and speed. The MGU-H uses heat energy from exhaust gases to increase engine power.

This configuration not only conserves fuel but also maximises energy use, thereby reducing carbon emissions and enhancing environmental sustainability.

Will these changes reduce the sport’s environmental impact?

To reduce the environmental impact of F1 cars, fuel plays a major role. F1 started with 10% sustainable fuel (“E10”) – a blend of 10% renewable ethanol and 90% fossil fuel.

From 2026, they are determined to shift from 10% to 100% renewable fuel, which is synthesised by municipal waste or non-food biomass.

However, renewable fuels still produce carbon emissions – burning renewable fuel does release carbon dioxide but the emissions are offset by the carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere during the fuel’s production, rendering it carbon neutral overall.

While the hybrid system will remain in place in 2026, given the complexities and cap on engine-specific costs, modern F1 cars will scrap the MGU-H and solely rely on the MGU-K.

Moreover, F1 is committed to increasing the energy efficiency of MGU-K to harvest more braking energy. Consequently, it aims to increase power output of MGU-K from 120kW to 350kW by 2026, nearly tripling it.

As for its broader carbon footprint, F1 has also pledged to incorporate re-purposing and recycling options for race weekend materials, batteries, and MGU-K. This will help minimise waste and the sport’s carbon footprint.

Because the carbon footprint of F1 cars is relatively small, the sport should focus its efforts on reducing emissions in transportation, logistics and fan activities.

Likewise, hosting Grand Prix races in various countries across different continents requires extensive logistical arrangements and travel. For instance, the F1 racing series in 2023 visited 20 countries across five continents, resulting in significant carbon emissions.

Consequently, F1 should consider hosting races within a single country or at least within a single continent.

Can F1 cars go fully electric?

For the sustainability of the sport, a transition to 100% electric cars is likely in the future. This transition can benefit from the experiences gained with Formula E, which employs fully electric vehicles.

However, several factors must be considered before fully electrifying F1 cars, including regulation changes, battery weight, battery safety and charging infrastructure.

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. Formula One is moving towards hybrid engines and renewable fuel. Major environmental progress or just ‘greenwashing’? – https://theconversation.com/formula-one-is-moving-towards-hybrid-engines-and-renewable-fuel-major-environmental-progress-or-just-greenwashing-232375

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison Carroll, Senior Research Fellow, Victorian College of the Arts, The University of Melbourne

On the wall to the left of the door to the central hall of the National Museum of China, Beijing, is a panel saying it works “under the guidance of Xi Jinping thought on culture”. Across Tiananmen Square in front of the museum is the gateway to the Forbidden City, where Mao Zedong’s image is still pre-eminent.

He too, of course, has often been quoted for his “thought on culture”.

Culture and political life have long been intertwined in China. If it wasn’t clear enough, these words continue, telling us culture’s role is:

to stimulate a vigorous revolutionary spirit and a passion for creativity, gathering a magnificent force to strive for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and the realisation of the Chinese Dream.

The impact of this thinking on the ground across the country is clear. China first – and pretty well only. If you want art debating the direction of China’s leadership, or a debate about the centrality of Chinese culture, forget it.

I have been told that all exhibitions throughout China now have to be vetted by the authorities. That some international artists travelling to China are being asked, as part of their visa application, to sign documents saying they will not make or exhibit work. That artists are leaving, if they can. That galleries cannot display images of Mao or Xi, because, probably with reason, they are open to satire.

This not only has implications for audiences and artists in China, but it is also important to consider what this means for Australian artists – and Australian diplomacy – in China.

China first

I have long been bemused that the foundation painting for the PRC, Dong Xiwen’s Declaration of the Republic first made in 1953 (and variously changed as its personae fell in and out of favour) and in pride of place in the National Museum, is said, in the label, to display “Chinese characteristics” – never mentioning it is in concept, structure and execution a history painting in the grand European tradition.

Other works in museums across the country similarly ignore their international history.

The labelling of the collection of woodcuts owned by the China Art Museum in Shanghai says this tradition was “born” in China and “brought” to the world. In fact, China vies with Korea as the place to first make woodcut prints, and the tradition on show in Shanghai comes from Käthe Kollwitz and the Soviet Socialist Realists. This was something the great writer Lu Xun said in the 1920s when he so vigorously supported their importation to China.

This is not to deny Chinese culture, just to say please give fair information for an increasingly cut off audience.

I say “cut off”, and mean cut off from original work from elsewhere and from foreign artists themselves. I am sure young people in China can access imagery online, but to encounter art physically is another thing. I recently wrote a review of the 2024 Yokohama Triennale in Japan, directed by two Chinese curators, where I was at pains to say “being there” was the key reward of the show. The experience can’t just be online.

In a recent two-week tour of China, I was aware of just one major exhibition of foreign art, by the Japanese photographer Hiroshi Sugimoto at the non-government UCCA Centre for Contemporary Art in the 798 art district in Beijing, and smaller individual exhibitions put on by other nations’ cultural agencies, like the Goethe Institut or the Institut Français.

Australia-China relations

In this climate, how might the Australian arts community engage with colleagues and audiences in China? We currently do small things, here and there, that hardly touch the sides.

Artists everywhere want to engage with others, to understand difference, to be challenged and inspired – China offers all that in spades.

Australia has an important relationship with China. If it is to be taken to a more complex level, it needs something that will work as a sustained, serious, professional endeavour.

The only way we can physically have any significant engagement is by setting up our own cultural venue. The 798 art district in Beijing is the perfect site with its mix of museums, commercial galleries and foreign agencies.

I would not suggest such a site in Japan or Korea: we have long professional relationships there that easily flow into useful and rewarding projects, not needing an onsite presence.

China is different, especially now.

At the end of 2023, the Albanese government committed to continue a A$40 million Coalition-era grant scheme to strengthen Australia-China relations.

This money could be used to support an Australian cultural centre as the focus of engagement, for the first time in our history with China.

If there was appetite, that is, for a similar emphasis on the role of culture in our nation’s future as Xi Jinping says it has for China.

Alison Carroll 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. There should be a place for Australian art – and artists – in China-Australia diplomacy – https://theconversation.com/there-should-be-a-place-for-australian-art-and-artists-in-china-australia-diplomacy-232166

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amelia Johns, Associate Professor, Digital and Social Media, School of Communication, University of Technology Sydney

There is currently a bipartisan push from state and federal governments to introduce laws in Australia banning young people under 16 from accessing social media platforms. Politicians are citing fears that minors are exposed to harmful or inappropriate content online.

The proposed reform has been accompanied by federal government plans to pilot
“age assurance” technologies. Proposed tools for age verification range from uploading ID documents to the use of biometric face-scanning technologies. Most of these methods are fraught with problems, including privacy risks.

Research from overseas has already raised concerns about the potential harms of introducing a social media ban. Australian research has also pointed out how essential social media is for young people’s fundamental right to access information and participate in society.

However, less attention has been paid to what impacts the ban might have on some of the most marginalised young people in the community.

We have conducted research with culturally diverse young people (aged 13–18), and educators and policymakers in New South Wales and Victoria. In our forthcoming study we found that young people who have migrated to Australia – or were born to parents or grandparents who had – are capable users of social media.

They use social media platforms to connect with culture and community, to have a voice on issues that concern them, and to address digital and other social harms.

Mirroring debates regarding the social media ban, our research also revealed a gap between how adults and culturally diverse youths perceive the role that digital and social media plays in young people’s lives. There is also a difference of opinion over how to create safer online environments.

What do young people think?

In our research, educators and policymakers thought young people from some communities are more at risk from social harms related to accessing inappropriate content. Therefore, these adults argued for more parental controls and limits on social media use.

Meanwhile, the young people in our study claimed social media allows them to fulfil responsibilities that go beyond personal safety.

These include:

• connecting with family and friends, locally and overseas
• learning about their own and other cultures, and becoming informed about the world and their roles and responsibilities within it
• engaging in activism and advocacy to address systemic hate and racism experienced in their everyday lives, and
• defusing toxic online cultures through participation in, and moderation of, digital communities and fandoms.

As one participant told us:

As younger people, we realise, oh, we have beliefs and stuff too, we need to share them […] because obviously adults, they can do it through voting.

Others spoke about the privilege that young people in Australia have to speak up on social issues and contest government policies. They compared this to countries where media, including social media, is censored or banned by the state.

This is also a point that speaks to some of the dangers of banning social media for this age group:

I think it’s important for the citizens of Australia to raise awareness and protest about stuff […] because they’re a free country and they have the access to using information […] I feel like if you had that access, you should […] raise awareness for people who […] don’t have that same opportunity.

Socialising online isn’t always public

Rather than social media engagement always being public and vocal, young people also participated in quieter, less public acts. These were focused on finding information and building supportive communities through moderation and respectful dialogue. One participant said:

There’s been a certain person in the Discord [online messaging platform with individual communities] that I moderate on, which is the one me and my friends made, who […] it wasn’t necessarily stuff he was doing on the Discord, but in person he was doing some quite rude stuff. So we kind of just ended up cutting him off and banning him from Discords and group chats and stuff like that.

The latter point is important given that, in the current debate, politicians seem to view young people’s safety as being dependent on political, legal and platform intervention.

This denies culturally diverse young people agency. It also ignores their capabilities and skilful navigation of social media.

In our study, young people demonstrated a sense of social responsibility to raise their voice against collective harms, and to learn the tools and skills to defuse toxic online cultures. By banning their access to social media, these skills become lost.

This shows we need to move beyond only viewing social media as a source of harm to young people. Instead, we argue that age-based social media bans would create unintended consequences and harms, such as the withdrawal of diverse voices critical to realising and building safer digital communities and societies.

Read more:
Age verification for social media would impact all of us. We asked parents and kids if they actually want it

Amelia Johns receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Culturally diverse teens greatly benefit from social media – banning it would cause harm – https://theconversation.com/culturally-diverse-teens-greatly-benefit-from-social-media-banning-it-would-cause-harm-232906

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachael Evans, Lecturer, Kaupeka Ture | Faculty of Law, University of Canterbury

When the Supreme Court used the idea of damage to a person’s mana to posthumously overturn Peter Ellis’ historic convictions for child sexual abuse, it created a remarkable precedent.

However, two more recent cases show the courts are still grappling with the concept of mana. They also raise important questions about its use as a defence, and about the place of Māori tikanga (custom) in the law and how it is taught.

The Ellis case was one of the longest-running and most controversial in New Zealand legal history, with multiple appeals leading up to the eventual Supreme Court ruling in 2022.

As well as overturning the convictions, the court was unanimous that tikanga has been, and will continue to be, recognised in the development of the common law of Aotearoa New Zealand in cases where it is relevant.

However, the Supreme Court did not explain how tikanga will be approached in the common law. This has left it up to lower courts to develop that body of law, known as “jurisprudence”. The difficulty of this is now becoming more apparent.

For starters, the concept of mana is not easily translated into English. As te reo Māori expert Mary Boyce writes:

the word mana is used throughout Polynesia to signify a core cultural force, which is rendered in English variously as power, authority, prestige and effectiveness.

Author, scholar and pūkenga (expert) Tā Hirini Moko Mead explains there is a high value placed on mana, and that every person is born with it. This can increase or decrease throughout life, affected by an individual’s deeds and how these are regarded in the community.

This shifting nature can make mana a difficult concept for non-Māori to understand. And it adds to the complexity of incorporating concepts of mana and tikanga in courts still largely derived from the British legal system.

Weighing up mana

In the case of Green v Police earlier this year, Joshua Green was able to obtain a discharge without conviction because a conviction would have significantly affected his mana.

A discharge without conviction application involves a judge weighing up whether the consequences of the conviction outweigh the seriousness of the offending. In this case, Green had been charged with obstructing a constable.

He owned a logging company and one of his truck drivers had crashed. Green went to the scene to assist his driver and take photos despite being instructed not to by police.

Green was a kaumatua and respected leader. The High Court found the negative effect of a conviction on his mana would outweigh the seriousness of the offending.

While a discharge seemed appropriate on the facts, adding mana into a balancing exercise like this is not without complication. In weighing up someone’s mana as part of this exercise, a judge must consider how much mana someone actually has.

As Hirini Moko Mead has explained, Māori society understands that mana is not equal across everyone. Asking a common law judge to weigh up a person’s mana comes with some pressure. Also, a leader perceived to have greater mana may be entitled to a discharge without conviction when an ordinary person may not be.

Limits of tikanga

In the case of Sweeney v Prison Manager of Spring Hill Corrections Facility from May this year, Paul Sweeney sought the creation of a new cause of action based on damage to his mana.

His visitor status as an addiction counsellor had been revoked at Spring Hill due to concerns arising from his social media posting that he may be associated with the Mongrel Mob. Sweeney requested the High Court recognise a novel tort (cause of action) based on damage to his mana and hauora (health).

He wanted NZ$325,000 for the damage he said happened to his mana, and a court order that he be given a marae-based apology. These claims were dismissed. The High Court looked at how tikanga works and held that the tort being sought could not be recognised by common law.

Sweeney’s claim was twofold. On one hand, he sought to have tikanga rights recognised, on the other he sought a monetary penalty that is more like that seen in common law.

This perhaps signals a problem with integrating some aspects of tikanga into common law without much direction from the superior courts. There is at least a potential risk of claims using aspects of tikanga where it is convenient.

Risks to tikanga

Some Māori commentators have warned that the common law could corrupt elements of tikanga by subsuming it inappropriately. If a claim combining the two were successful, that might happen. However, it appears a “mana calculator” won’t be necessary in the immediate future.

But the issues raised by both cases discussed here highlight the need for education about tikanga in our law degrees. Lawyers need to understand where, when and how tikanga is relevant in order to properly advise their clients.

The courts can only build good, authoritative jurisprudence where the arguments presented by lawyers are good and authoritative. There is a risk of damage to tikanga concepts if lawyers do not have that knowledge and do not respect the authenticity of tikanga.

I teach tikanga-based legal concepts into the law degree at the University of Canterbury.

– ref. Can the courts measure mana? How Māori tikanga is challenging the justice system – https://theconversation.com/can-the-courts-measure-mana-how-maori-tikanga-is-challenging-the-justice-system-232825