Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Greste, Professor of Journalism and Communications, Macquarie University

Earlier this year, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM), Jake Blight, compared the sheer volume of Australia’s secrecy laws to works of literature.

“You’d be looking at about 3,000-plus pages. That’s about the same as the complete works of William Shakespeare, War and Peace, and the three volumes of the Lord of the Rings – added together,” he told the ABC.

Of course, secrecy laws are necessary in an increasingly dangerous world. And since the September 11 2001 attacks, Australia has passed more than any other country on Earth – more than 90 by a 2021 count (though the number is now closer to 100).

But as Blight went on to point out, when these laws also smother the transparency that legitimate whistleblowing and investigative journalism bring to a democracy, they can wind up damaging the very system they are designed to protect.

That is why Attorney General Mark Dreyfus’ announcement this week that he has accepted six of the INSLM’s 15 recommendations to reform Australia’s secrecy laws in full, and six others in part, is an important break from the direction of travel.

When classified information causes harm

In Blight’s review of the secrecy offences in the Criminal Code, some of those making submissions (including my own organisation, the Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom) argued that many of the laws are inconsistent with the rule of law and human rights principles.

Critics also argue the laws unnecessarily penalise legitimate whistleblowing and criminalise the very journalists, lawyers and activist groups that are essential to the effective functioning of our democracy.

As it stands, the law makes it an offence to “deal with” classified information – a phrase so broad that a journalist or lawyer cannot open an envelope containing a classified document without risking prison. The government has agreed that merely receiving information should not be an offence alone.

The law also assumes that if a document is stamped “classified”, it would be harmful if it were released. It is what the law describes as “deemed” harm.

Instead, the government has agreed that what matters is the actual harm that might be caused if a document is released, rather than the stamp at the top of it.

In his review, Blight agreed the current system of classifying documents depended on secret policies and anonymous public servants rather than the courts. He said, however, that should not form the basis for criminal prosecutions that could send people to prison for years.

He told journalists on Wednesday:

My concern is in taking a policy document and trying to enshrine it in the criminal law. Criminal laws need much more precision than a policy like that can provide.

‘The most extreme secrets’

Dreyfus also agreed to invite the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to revise the policy to consider press freedom when the office is dealing with journalists or publishers in cases involving classified documents.

But the government did not go as far as Blight had asked, particularly with regard to narrowing the scope of what is considered harmful information about intelligence agencies.

Currently, it is an offence to publish any information from an intelligence agency. Blight had recommended it be restricted to information about the data they handle, their operations, capabilities, technologies, methods and sources.

While Dreyfus agreed the scope of protected information is broad, he said Blight’s recommendation would “remove protections from categories of information which would cause harm if disclosed”.

Blight called that decision “unfortunate”.

Many of our intelligence agencies now do important work, but actually isn’t intelligence work, and I think our laws need to be tailored to that. Extreme secrecy should be focused only on the most extreme secrets.

Government lacking action

Broadly, though, Blight and other groups, including the Human Rights Law Centre and the Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom, have welcomed the government’s response as an important step towards improving transparency and press freedom.

But accepting the recommendations is not the same as implementing them. The government has a record of promising improvements in transparency, but falling short in terms of passing legislation.

In 2020, the parliament’s intelligence and security committee published a report into the impact of the law enforcement and intelligence agencies on the freedom of the press.

The report included 16 recommendations, and both the government and the opposition accepted 15 of them. Dreyfus, who was the shadow attorney general at the time, went even further. He described the recommendations as “the bare minimum”.

So far, five years on, only one has been implemented.

Peter Greste is Professor of Journalism at Macquarie University and the Executive Director for the Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom. The AJF made both written and oral submissions to the INSLM inquiry into secrecy laws. He was also a researcher on a University of Queensland project between 2018 and 2021 that studied the intersection of press freedom and national security.

– ref. The government agrees Australia’s secrecy laws need to change. Now comes the hard part – taking action – https://theconversation.com/the-government-agrees-australias-secrecy-laws-need-to-change-now-comes-the-hard-part-taking-action-244823

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa French, Professor & Dean, School of Media and Communication, RMIT University

The Future & Other Fictions, ACMI’s flagship summer exhibition, explores where storytelling imagines and rethinks the future.

It is an original show co-curated by ACMI’s Amanda Haskard (Gunai/Kurnai) and Chelsey O’Brien, in collaboration with director, featured artist and futurist Liam Young.

Featuring the work of 19 creatives, it brings together an impressive 180 works, showcasing film, videogames, screen-based art, costumes, paraphernalia from movies, video essays, textiles, fashion activism and new commissioned works.

The future, according to Young, “rushes over us like water”. It doesn’t just “happen to us” – “we can all be active participants in shaping and defining it”.

At the opening he described the exhibition as a “call to arms”, challenging visitors to imagine or be empowered to shape a more optimistic world. Young’s analogy with water is present throughout the exhibition.

Moving through the maze

The first part of the exhibition has a video essay that offers a provocative history of future worlds as seen on screen. As you explore, you encounter popular items from Marvel Studios’ Black Panther: Wakanda Forever (2022) to a miniature from Blade Runner 2049 (2017).

As visitors move through, the set design wraps around us, directing us – a bit like a maze drawing one forward.

Birth of Dawn, by Queensland-based artist Hannah Brontë, uses the pregnant form and water to represent the embodiment of her Country.

This work is mesmerising and tranquil. The experience includes the smell of an earthy blue gum scent, which I identified as suggesting the earth sweating. The exhibition label for this work observes “there is nothing more science fiction than nature itself”.

Another commission, After the End, is designed and directed by Young and written and narrated by Ngarrindjeri, Narungga, Kaurna and Noongar actor Natasha Wanganeen.

It is described in the publicity as reimagining “a world in which fossil fuel production has ceased, and communities return to rebuild the landscape”.

Much of the work evokes the sensation of floating in water. I found it utterly hypnotic. Viewers can recline on bean bags and let the experience gently wash over them.

Other works have this same imagining of speculative (hypothetical) futures, resistance and rebellion, including the idea Indigenous people reclaim sovereignty and Country.

Nigerian-born United States artist Olalekan Jeyifous’s Shanty Megastructures imagines “Anarchonauts”: an advanced and empowered African identity who turn neglected spaces into innovation and sustainability centres.

These works remind the viewer of Mad Max films, initially conjuring up dystopian ideas of society having gone wrong.

But Jeyifous’ vision feels utopian. We observe harmony realised by calm expressions, an image of a mother, child and technology (the latter creatively made wearable). The beaming face of a smiling child tells us that these shanty towns, usually places of extreme poverty, might be optimistic places of social ingenuity.

It flips the Max Max narrative. This society is resilient and thriving.

Screen culture and the future

Screen culture (which is everything a screen community does, from production, to this article, and to exhibitions) has always engaged in futurism, from Fritz Lang’s Metropolis (1927) through to the new commissions described above.

As the exhibition’s introductory wall text offers, many of the innovations of today, from “driverless cars, smart phones, virtual reality – first appeared on screen”.

From this perspective, this exhibition showcases a vision of the transformative power of screen culture for shaping the future. Throughout the exhibition, we are shown how screen productions of the past imagined the future, juxtaposed against contemporary creators speculating about futures they want to live in.

The environment and Indigenous cultures

Many of the works in the exhibition come from the Asia Pacific.

The fashion activist collective the Pacific Sisters celebrate Indigenous identities and mana wāhine (a concept from Māori culture in Aotearoa New Zealand that refers to the power, authority and prestige of women).

Their aim is to preserve culture through costume design and speculative storytelling.

Artwork that dramatically represents their sustainable approach is seen in Kaitiaki with a K; Tauleolevai: Keeper of the Water (Tuna).

There are three imposing fashion artworks, one made from VHS video tape. Due to a lack of materials, they recycled the tape, removing it from cassettes and plaiting it using a technique usually applied to palm leaves for making kikau brooms.

Videotape has its own qualities, shimmering in the light as if it were alive. This is a metaphor; VHS is considered obsolete but, as the wall text reminds us, in Māori and Pacific cultures, “the past lives in the present”.

Interactivity

The exhibition is mentally and physically interactive. It poses thought-provoking questions about our future selves, exploring how artificial intelligence will reshape cinema and whether screen culture predicts the future or merely reflects the fantasies and social realities of the era in which it is created.

It also has lots of interactive features from making posters to using the barcode on the entry ticket to capture things and take them home.

Visitors who’ve ever wondered what sci-fi renegades, afrofuturists, fashion activists, anarchonauts, Indigenous futurism, cyberpunks and screen culture have in common will be enlightened by the end of the show.

Each of these are woven into the story of the exhibition which has a positive message about how screen culture and environmental care can imagine and potentially create a future where human and nature thrive together.

It has something for audiences of all ages and will be a welcome cultural addition to the hot days of Melbourne’s forthcoming summer.

The Future & Other Fictions is at ACMI until April 27 2025.

RMIT is ACMI’s major research partner.

– ref. At ACMI’s The Future & Other Fictions, artists challenge us to imagine a more optimistic world – https://theconversation.com/at-acmis-the-future-and-other-fictions-artists-challenge-us-to-imagine-a-more-optimistic-world-243911

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Girardi, Lecturer in Speech Pathology and Researcher at the Centre for Health Research, University of Southern Queensland

Children, especially toddlers and preschoolers, have an uncanny ability to surprise adults. And one of the more alarming discoveries parents can make is their child has stuck a small object, such as a Lego piece, up their nose.

Queensland Children’s Hospital recently reported more than 1,650 children with foreign objects up their nose had presented to its emergency department over the past decade. Lego, beads, balls, batteries, buttons and crayons were among the most common objects.

With the Christmas season approaching, it’s likely more of these small objects will be brought into our homes as toys, gifts or novelty items.

But why do children stick things like these up their nose? Here’s how natural curiosity, developing motor skills, and a limited understanding of risk can be a dangerous combination.

1. Kids are curious creatures

Toddlers are naturally curious creatures. During the toddler and preschool years, children explore their environment by using their senses. They touch, taste, smell, listen to and look at everything around them. It’s a natural part of their development and a big part of how they learn about the world.

Researchers call this “curiosity-based learning”. They say children are more likely to explore unfamiliar objects or when they don’t completely understand how they work. This may explain why toddlers tend to gravitate towards new or unfamiliar objects at home.

Unfortunately, this healthy developmental curiosity sometimes leads to them putting things in places they shouldn’t, such as their nose.

2. Kids are great mimics

Young children often mimic what they see. Studies that tracked the same group of children over time confirm imitation plays a vital role in a child’s development. This activates certain critical neural pathways in the brain. Imitation is particularly important when learning to use and understand language and when learning motor skills such as walking, clapping, catching a ball, waving and writing.

Put simply, when a child imitates, it strengthens brain connections and helps them learn new skills faster. Anecdotally, parents of toddlers will relate to seeing their younger children copying older siblings’ phrases or gestures.

Inserting items into their nose is no different. Toddlers see older children and adults placing items near their face – when they blow their nose, put on makeup or eat – and decide to try it themselves.

3. Kids don’t yet understand risk

Toddlers might be curious. But they don’t have the cognitive capacity or reasoning ability to comprehend the consequences of placing items in their nose or mouth. This can be a dangerous combination. So supervising your toddler is essential.

Small, bright-coloured objects, items with interesting textures, or items that resemble food are especially tempting for little ones.

What can I do?

Sometimes, it’s obvious when a child has put something up their nose, but not always. Your child might have pain or itchiness around the nose, discharge or bleeding from the nose, and be upset or uncomfortable.

If your child has difficulty breathing or you suspect your child has inserted a sharp object or button battery seek immediate medical care. Button batteries can burn and damage tissues in as little as 15 minutes, which can lead to infection and injury.

If your child inserts an object where they shouldn’t:

• stay calm: your child will react to your emotions, so try to remain calm and reassuring

• assess the situation: can you see the object? Is your child in distress?

• encourage your child to blow their nose gently. This may help dislodge the object

• take your child outside in the Sun: brief exposure for a minute or two might prompt a “Sun sneeze”, which may dislodge the object. But avoid sniffing, which may cause the object to travel further in the airways and into the lungs

• never try to remove the object yourself using tweezers, cotton swabs or other tools. This can push the object further into the nose, causing more damage.

If these methods don’t dislodge the item, your child is not distressed and you don’t suspect a sharp object or button battery, go to your GP. They may be able to see and remove the item.

Prevention is better

Preventing these incidents starts with keeping small, shiny, tempting objects out of reach of children, and teaching them not to place objects in their noses or mouths.

Supervision is key. Parents and caregivers can also be stringent about what they bring into their home. If there’s an alternative item, for example, a similar product that doesn’t need a button battery, consider buying that instead.

Curiosity is a hallmark of children and a key learning process in the early years. However, this curiosity, combined with a limited ability to identify danger, can be a risky combination. With awareness of the dangers, supervision, and appropriate action when incidents happen, parents can keep their children safe, while they explore the world.

Anna Girardi works for Ramsay Health Care and Food Solutions Diet Consultants as a speech pathologist. She is affiliated with Speech Pathology Australia.

– ref. 3 reasons why kids stick Lego up their nose – https://theconversation.com/3-reasons-why-kids-stick-lego-up-their-nose-244729

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Baker, Professor of Public Health, University of Otago

The rising threat of epidemics and pandemics adds urgency for the government to act on the recommendations of the long-awaited inquiry into New Zealand’s COVID response.

The Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 report found New Zealand – like most other countries – was not well prepared for a pandemic of COVID’s scale and duration.

To prepare for the next inevitable pandemic, the report says New Zealand must build public health capacity to increase the range of response options and tools available to decision makers.

The big question is when and how the government will implement these recommendations, particularly in the context of job cuts and downsizing of public health capacity.

Te Whatu Ora/Health NZ is set to cut 1,500 more jobs (on top of more than 500 voluntary redundancies), including positions in the national public health service and its digital and data teams.

These capabilities are critical for any future pandemic response, so there is a strong argument to halt the cuts while New Zealand is implementing the recommendations of the COVID inquiry.

Strategy is key

The report concludes that New Zealand’s adoption of an elimination strategy was highly successful, but had wide-ranging impacts on all aspects of life.

The strategy required early use of border controls, lockdowns and other restrictions which helped prevent widespread infection until most of the population was vaccinated. This response gave New Zealand one of the lowest COVID mortality rates globally.

The report also found that as the pandemic progressed into late 2021, the negative impacts increased. Controlling the pandemic was focused on mandates, including restrictions on public gatherings, quarantine and isolation, contact tracing, masking and vaccination requirements.

The effects included declining trust in government within some communities and loss of social cohesion. Vaccine hesitancy emerged as a growing challenge to the vaccine rollout, fed by exposure to misinformation and disinformation.

The prolonged pandemic and lack of a clear exit strategy from elimination added to the difficulties, according to the commission’s report.

A road map for pandemic planning

The report identifies how COVID expanded international understanding of pandemic pathogens, which require a different kind of response from most other emergencies because of their scale and duration.

This challenge benefits from clear strategic leadership coupled with strong social cohesion and trust. Pandemics require anticipatory governance, and long-term planning and investment. This conclusion is consistent with those of the first published module from the UK’s COVID inquiry.

The report’s 39 recommendations provide a welcome and needed road map for future pandemic planning. It calls for a central agency function to coordinate all-of-government preparation and response planning for pandemics and other national threats, supported by strengthened scenario planning and modelling.

This planning would integrate sector-specific plans. The Ministry of Health would be responsible for the most substantial sector planning linked with the all-of-government plan.

This greatly expanded pandemic plan would set out a range of public health strategies (such as elimination, suppression and mitigation) and associated public health and social measures, as well as guidance on how they might be deployed.

The plan would cover quarantine and isolation measures, contact tracing, testing, vaccination, infection prevention and control, and information and data capability to deliver a pandemic response.

The recommendations also include improving the way public sector agencies work alongside iwi during a pandemic to support the Crown in its relationship with Māori under te Tiriti o Waitangi.

However, the report doesn’t say much about reducing the long-term effects of COVID infection, notably the large burden of long COVID. The pandemic is still continuing and ongoing vaccination and efforts to reduce infections remain important. This is an area where Australia’s COVID inquiry report had a stronger focus.

Challenges of implementation

The report’s final recommendation is critical. It calls for assigning a government minister to lead the implementation process, and for six-monthly reporting on progress to be made publicly available. This is where we need a clear response from the coalition government.

Implementation should begin immediately, the report proposes. However, it’s possible action could be delayed until the first half of 2026 while we wait for an additional phase 2 of the inquiry. This will review aspects of our COVID-19 response in greater detail.

But the major logistical barrier to implementation is the downsizing of key government agencies needed to do this work. The situation in New Zealand is in stark contrast with Australia where the release of their report coincided with an announcement of a A$251 million investment in establishing a national centre for disease control.

Building New Zealand’s pandemic capabilities would also help control the current pertussis epidemic and prevent a likely national measles epidemic.

Meanwhile, the risk of future pandemics is increasing. Modelling suggests an 18-26% chance of another COVID-magnitude pandemic within the next decade.

There is a long and growing list of infectious agents with pandemic potential. High on that list is influenza, with the risk from bird flu (influenza H5N1) increasing as it adapts to new mammalian hosts like cattle, and now humans in North America.

We have the plan, now all we need is a rapid government response, proactive leadership and anticipatory decision-making to give New Zealand the pandemic preparedness it urgently needs.

Michael Baker’s employer, the University of Otago, has received funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand and the New Zealand Ministry of Health for research he has carried out on COVID-19 epidemiology, prevention and control.

Amanda Kvalsvig’s employer, the University of Otago, has received funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand and the New Zealand Ministry of Health for research she has carried out on COVID-19 epidemiology, prevention and control..

Collin Tukuitonga and Nick Wilson 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. The COVID inquiry report is an excellent guide to preparing for the next pandemic – health cuts put that at risk – https://theconversation.com/the-covid-inquiry-report-is-an-excellent-guide-to-preparing-for-the-next-pandemic-health-cuts-put-that-at-risk-244820

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

The just-ended COP-29 in Baku, and the election of Donald Trump, have put the global response to climate change in the spotlight. Meanwhile back home, Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen this week reported Australia is on track to meet its 2030 target to reduce emissions as part of the Paris Climate Agreement.

But the government won’t say whether it will reveal its 2035 target before the election. It points out it is awaiting advice from the Climate Change Authority. The head of that authority, former New South Wales Liberal treasurer Matt Kean, joins the podcast to talk about COP, Australia’s energy transition, and the challenge of preparing that advice on the 2035 target.

Kean says COP left him more encouraged than he’d expected:

I arrived at COP incredibly pessimistic. It was on the back of Trump’s election victory where he basically called climate change a hoax. He said his energy policy was going to be “drill, baby, drill”. And it was clear that there was going to be an absence of American leadership in the climate discussion over the next four years. So, I arrived with not high hopes.

But I left optimistic and positive, and the reason for that is that this is the world’s most important climate conference. It’s the world’s biggest climate conference. It brings together people from all over the globe, be it governments at the national level or sub-national level, businesses, private enterprise, NGOs. And the message that I received from all those actors is, yes, there is a setback, but the effort required and the determination to continue the trajectory that we were on was very, very clear.

It’s an opportunity to collaborate and come up with new ways to solve this challenge. I mean, the world coming together in a global effort to limit global warming by 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels is one of the great challenges of our times. No country alone is going to solve it, and my message to your listeners is this: the fight for a cleaner, safer and better planet by tackling dangerous climate change is bigger than one election cycle in one country at one point in time.

Australia had hoped to get the nod during COP to host (together with Pacific countries) the 2026 COP but a decision has been deferred until June. Kean describes where things are up to and why it’s an important event not just for Australia’s reputation but also for its economy:

I was led to believe that there was a strong indication that other countries might pull out of the race. But clearly that didn’t happen. We arrived in Baku to hear the president of Turkey making a strong and forceful argument as to why Turkey should be the host of that COP. And I think that caught a few people by surprise, to be honest.

But […] hopefully, Australia will be chosen as the country that can host this world-class huge event which will bring lots of economic benefits.

Over 70,000 people descended on Baku. So, regardless of the importance of bringing people together to collaborate and try and solve this challenge, it is a huge economic boon for the city and the country that hosts it. I mean, I can’t think of many events that could attract 70,000 people to Australian shores.

On the Climate Change Authority’s progress report, released this week, Kean highlights a key opportunity for new renewable energy capacity:

Take, for example, one of the recommendations around using more business rooftops to meet our energy needs. Australia has the potential for an extra 28GW of solar capacity using the commercial and industrial rooftops of Australia. That’s bigger than the size of the New South Wales energy system alone.

[The Australian Energy Market Operator] predicts only 5% of the commercial and industrial customer demand will be met by rooftop solar and batteries and that’s compared to 50% for households. So we’ve got a huge opportunity to install more capacity into the grid, ensure that our system is more reliable and able to manage the exit of these unreliable coal fired power stations without adding a huge cost to consumers.

On when Australians will learn about our 2035 targets, and his authority’s advice on them, Kean says Australia will need to submit its targets before next year’s COP, but is coy about when the authority’s advice will be coming:

Let me firstly say what matters most is the quality of the target and the strength of the evidence and analysis that underpin it. So we want to give the Australian people confidence that Australia’s next target is ambitious, achievable and in our national interest.

As far as we’re aware, all countries intend to submit their next targets before the next climate conference in 2025. We will provide our advice in plenty of time for Australia to submit before then.

I’m not going to be rushed by domestic political timetables. I’m an independent voice in this process and as I said, what matters most is the quality of the target and the strength of the evidence and analysis that underpin it.

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. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Climate Change Authority head Matt Kean says ‘put more solar panels on commercial rooftops’ – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-climate-change-authority-head-matt-kean-says-put-more-solar-panels-on-commercial-rooftops-244827

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yucong Wang, Lecturer, University of Newcastle

Earlier this month, China declared new “baselines” around Scarborough Reef, a large coral atoll topped by a handful of rocks barely above sea level in the South China Sea.

By doing so, China reaffirmed its sovereignty claim over what has become a global flashpoint in the disputed waters.

This was a pre-calculated response to the Philippines’ enactment of new maritime laws two days earlier that aimed to safeguard its own claims over the reef and other contested parts of the sea.

This legal tit-for-tat is a continuation of the ongoing sovereignty and maritime dispute between China and the Philippines (and others) in a vital ocean area through which one-third of global trade travels.

The Philippines rejected China’s declaration as a violation of its “long-established sovereignty over the shoal”. Defence Secretary Gilberto Teodoro said:

What we see is an increasing demand by Beijing for us to concede our sovereign rights in the area.

As the tensions continue to worsen over these claims, there is an ever-increasing risk of an at-sea conflict between the two countries.

What is the Scarborough Reef?

Scarborough Reef is called Huangyan Dao in Chinese and Bajo de Masinloc by the Philippines. It is located in the northeast of the South China Sea, about 116 nautical miles (215km) west of the Philippine island of Luzon and 448 nautical miles (830km) south of the Chinese mainland.

At high tide it is reduced to a few tiny islets, the tallest of which is just 3 metres above the water. However, at low tide, it is the largest coral atoll in the South China Sea.

China asserts sovereignty over all of the waters, islands, rocks and other features in the South China Sea, as well as unspecified “historic rights” within its claimed nine-dash line. This includes Scarborough Reef.

In recent years, the reef has been the scene of repeated clashes between China and the Philippines. Since 2012, China has blocked Filipino fishing vessels from accessing the valuable lagoon here. This prompted the Philippines to take China to international arbitration under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 2013.

Three years later, an arbitration tribunal ruled that China has no historic rights to maritime areas where this would conflict with UNCLOS. The tribunal also concluded China had “unlawfully prevented Filipino fishermen from engaging in traditional fishing at Scarborough Shoal.”

China refused to participate in the arbitration case and has strongly rejected its ruling as being “null and void” and having “no binding force”.

What did China do this month?

China declared the exact location of the base points of its territorial claim around Scarborough Reef with geographical coordinates (longitude and latitude), joined up by straight lines.

The declaration of so-called “baselines” is standard practice for countries that want to claim maritime zones along their coasts. Baselines provide the starting point for measuring these zones.

A country’s “territorial sea” is measured from this baseline outward to as far as 12 nautical miles (22km). Under the UNCLOS treaty, a country then has full sovereignty rights over this zone, covering the seabed, water, airspace and any resources located there.

Countries want their baselines to be as far out to sea as possible so they can maximise the ocean areas over which they can reap economic benefits and enforce their own laws.

China is no exception. Along with other countries (especially in Asia), it draws the most generous baselines of all – straight baselines. These can connect distant headlands or other coastal outcrops with a simple straight line, or even enclose nearshore islands.

China is especially fond of straight baselines. In 1996, it drew them along most of its mainland coast and around the Paracel Islands, a disputed archipelago in the South China Sea. China defined additional straight baselines this March in the Gulf of Tonkin up to its land border with Vietnam.

China says these actions comply with UNCLOS. However, its use of straight baselines around Scarborough Reef conflicts with international law. This is because UNCLOS provides a specific rule for baselines around reefs, which China did not follow.

Based on our review of satellite imagery, however, China has only advanced the outer limit of its territorial sea by a few hundred metres in two directions. This is because its straight baselines largely hug the edge of the reef.

These new baselines around Scarborough Reef are therefore fairly conservative and enclose a dramatically smaller area than the US had feared.

China’s declaration signals that it may have abandoned its much larger “offshore archipelago” claim to what it calls the Zhongsha Islands.

China has long asserted that Scarborough Reef is part of this larger island group, which includes the Macclesfield Bank, a totally underwater feature 180 nautical miles (333 km) to the west. This led to concern that Beijing might draw a baseline around this entire island group, claiming all the waters within exclusively for its use.

The South China Sea arbitration tribunal ruled that international law prohibits such claims. There will be a collective sigh of relief among many countries that China decided to make a much smaller claim over Scarborough Reef.

Significance and future steps?

However, China’s clarification of its baselines around the reef signals it may be more assertive in its law enforcement here.

The China Coast Guard has said it will step up patrols in the South China Sea to “firmly uphold order, protect the local ecosystem and biological resources and safeguard national territorial sovereignty and maritime rights”.

Given the long history of clashes related to fishing access around Scarborough Reef, this sets the scene for more confrontation.

And what about the biggest prize of all in the South China Sea – the Spratly Islands?

We can now expect China will continue its long straight baselines march to this island group to the south. The Spratlys are an archipelago of more than 150 small islands, reefs and atolls spread out over around 240,000 square kilometres of lucrative fishing grounds. They are claimed by China, as well as the Philippines and several other countries.

These countries can be expected to protest any attempted encirclement of the Spratly Islands by new Chinese baselines.

Clive Schofield served as an independent expert witness appointed by the Philippines in the South China Sea arbitration case.

Warwick Gullett and Yucong Wang 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. Drawing lines in the South China Sea: what Beijing’s new claims over a disputed coral reef mean – https://theconversation.com/drawing-lines-in-the-south-china-sea-what-beijings-new-claims-over-a-disputed-coral-reef-mean-244197

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra

On Thursday night, after a whirlwind day in Canberra, the Senate finally passed the federal government’s long-delayed amendments to the Reserve Bank Act.

The reforms will create two separate boards for the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) – one will be focused on monetary policy, the other on governance.

The idea of having two boards emerged from a landmark independent review of the Reserve Bank, which reported back in March last year.

But only a couple of months ago, such reforms were feared “dead” after the government had failed to strike a deal with either the Coalition or the Greens.

The government’s stunning recent turnaround – which required it to make some concessions – will have important implications for the way the Reserve Bank operates.

Whether it will ultimately translate to different kinds of monetary policy decisions is less clear.

Read more:
Grattan on Friday: Albanese gets down and dirty in deal making and breaking as Senate rushes to Christmas finish

What will the new board look like?

Under the reforms, the current functions of the Reserve Bank board will be split across two new boards.

The first will be a specialist monetary policy board, dedicated to setting the “target for the cash rate”. This is the interest rate on overnight loans between banks.

Controlling this rate is how the Reserve Bank affects the interest rates charged by banks to households and businesses, and how it exerts its influence on the economy.

Like the current board, the new monetary policy board would have nine members. These would include a governor, deputy governor, treasury secretary and six external members.

Creating this board was a key recommendation of the 2023 review. It would bring the RBA into line with some other central banks, such as the Bank of England.

There is no evidence, however, that having a separate board has led to a superior performance.

Monetary policy experts

Monetary policy board members are likely to be selected for being monetary policy experts, rather than corporate executives and other non-economists.

The six external members will not be RBA staff, public servants or bankers. But they will be expected to spend the equivalent of a day a week on monetary policy considerations.

This is a significant time commitment, meaning it may be difficult to find qualified outsiders who are willing to perform the role.

That’s led some commentators, including former Reserve Bank board member John Edwards, to suggest the board risks becoming dominated by academics.

The other board will concentrate on governance and operational issues, such as staffing decisions, premises, IT and so on. It will be more like the board of a company.

Splitting off monetary policy decisions from this board may mean governance matters get more attention.

Why create a separate board?

It’s important to understand why the government had been pursuing these reforms in the first place.

One key argument that emerged from the independent review of the Reserve Bank was the board wasn’t challenging the governor enough on interest rate decisions – that it was simply “rubber-stamping” decisions.

That would be a problem if true, because providing quality scrutiny is supposed to be one of the board’s key roles.

According to the review’s final report, the board had:

not voted against a recommendation of the RBA executive in at least the last decade.

It said the board was “not always fully involved in decisions” and there was a need to “shift the nature of the board from what is in effect an advisory body to one that proactively shapes policy decisions”.

Differing views

That assertion was soon challenged, however, by then-Governor Philip Lowe, who said in April 2023:

The idea that the board members sit there meekly and accept the recommendation that I put to them is very far from the reality that I’ve lived as the governor.

Recent board member Mark Barnaba echoed Lowe’s sentiment, reflecting:

In my experience, the way this board operates is diametrically opposed to a simple rubber-stamping.

It is difficult to be definitive on this. We have not been in the room during the board’s deliberations – but neither had the review panel members.

It is therefore hard to know just how much the proposed changes will reduce the influence of the RBA governor and staff.

Under the current system, there have not been formal votes on the RBA board. But this does not necessarily mean the governor always gets their way. They may just not bring to the table a recommendation likely to be rejected.

Would a separate board have made a difference earlier?

Australia’s target cash rate has now been held at 4.35% for over a year, its highest level since 2011. That begs the question: if we’d had a separate specialist board of experts earlier on, would we have a different cash rate?

One way of assessing how much difference a panel of monetary policy specialists might have made is to look at the record of the nine-person “RBA shadow board”.

This was established by the Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis. Since 2011, it has been asked to report on what it thinks that the RBA should do. This is distinct from market economists, who concentrate on predicting what it will do.

In 105 out of 130 instances, it has made the same recommendation as that adopted by the actual board.

The average difference between the cash rate target set by the RBA and that suggested by the economists on the shadow board was less than 0.05%.

This would support the conjecture by academics Ross Garnaut and David Vines and journalist John Kehoe that had the separate boards been in place, recent policy settings would not have been very different.

Employment and inflation outcomes would likely to have been similar, too.

What had to be dropped?

To get the legislation through the Senate, the government had to drop two suggestions from the review. One was a proposal to remove the ability of the treasurer to overrule the RBA.

It is important to note this veto has existed in central bank legislation since 1945. It was introduced by a Labor government and retained by the subsequent Coalition government.

But it has never been used, despite having been considered on some occasions. In each case, one side backed off or a compromise was reached between the government and the Reserve Bank.

Actually exercising it would likely come at a large political cost to the government of the day. But that doesn’t automatically mean it shouldn’t be available.

There is a democratic principle around whether a central bank should be able to exercise total “unelected power”.

Back in the 1930s, the chair (this was before the governor became the ex officio chair) of the Commonwealth Bank (the Reserve Bank’s predecessor), arguably exacerbated the Great Depression by refusing to help the Scullin Labor government fund public works.

Another abandoned recommendation was to a plan to remove the Reserve Bank’s power to direct lending policies of banks.

This power has not been used for decades and is highly unlikely to be revived for monetary policy purposes.

Some other changes suggested by the review did not require legislation and have already been implemented.

John Hawkins was formerly a senior economist at the Reserve Bank of Australia.

Selwyn Cornish is the Official Historian, Reserve Bank of Australia.

– ref. The Reserve Bank will now have a separate board just to set interest rates. Here’s why that’s significant – https://theconversation.com/the-reserve-bank-will-now-have-a-separate-board-just-to-set-interest-rates-heres-why-thats-significant-244833

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Hickey-Moody, Professor of Intersectional Humanities, Maynooth, National University of Ireland, RMIT University

I’m not sure if you remember Kaitlyn and Leah […] they are social media famous and they’re a couple. That was the first time I’d seen representation in a positive way, ‘cause of my dad being so conservative about it […] And then I just saw a happy couple together. And I was like this actually doesn’t seem like the terrible thing that I am taught it is, you know.
– Sam

This quote is taken from a recent interview one of us (Anna) conducted with a trans teen living in Melbourne. It was the beginning of what turned out to be a detailed learning journey highlighting the role of internet access in trans youths’ education – and the importance of Instagram in creating safe spaces for them.

The Albanese government has passed a bill that will introduce a minimum age of 16 for most social media platforms, in a bid to protect children from social harm.

But our research has found social media platforms can play a very specific and much-needed role in the lives of Australia’s transgender youth, who face significantly higher rates of suicide and mental health challenges compared with their cisgender peers.

Transgender youth have symptoms of depression at nearly ten times the rate of the general young population, and anxiety disorders at ten to 13 times the average rate. A 2021 study also found nearly half of Australia’s transgender individuals had attempted suicide at some point in their lives.

Poor mental health is not inherent to trans people; it is caused by experiences of societal hostility, stigma, discrimination and a lack of support. Their wellbeing can be significant improved through supportive environments and access to appropriate resources.

Social media can be a lifeline for trans youth

Sam is a university student who lives at home with mum and dad. They have been brought up in a highly conservative Christian environment and speak a lot about their father campaigning against the gay marriage plebiscite.

Sam grew up being told – and believing – that being gay was a sin. They also had no formal education about being transgender. Like so many other young people, they learned about being trans through peer networks and online exploration. As Sam explains:

After somebody had told me their [gender/pronoun] label, I was like what is a label? So I googled it, and I was like what are all these labels? And that’s how I learnt it. And then I also tried to memorise it. I kind of know a lot of them off by heart by now. That’s how the internet has kind of guided me to it.

Sam’s choice to memorise the various gender identities beyond male and female goes some way to explain how important this information was to them.

While exploring their most positive life experiences, Sam focused almost entirely on Instagram accounts. They explained how various pages helped them learn about gender and sexuality and how the transgender accounts they followed helped boost their confidence.

Instagram is Sam’s safe and happy place of belonging. In contrast, Sam struggled – even with significant encouragement – to list happy “offline” places.

Sam’s story is just one of several examples that emerged from our research on how online platforms function as vital safe spaces for trans youth growing up in conservative religious households — which are often hostile to their identities.

Through virtual communities, many young people can navigate their faith while also exploring their gender identity. Online, they can find support networks and access mental health resources that would otherwise be unavailable.

A host of challenges

The government’s legislation will prevent people under 16 from creating accounts on sites such as Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok. But social media experts have raised concerns that this may cause more harm than good.

Many have raised questions about what platforms will be included in the ban, and how “high-risk” platforms will be differentiated from exempt “low-risk” ones.

The ban’s feasibility has also been challenged, as young people may find workarounds to continue accessing banned platforms. Some experts have even said the ban may be unconstitutional.

While these legislative moves to regulate social media seem well-intentioned, they risk cutting off a vital lifeline for trans youth. These young people need nuanced policies that will support them, rather than isolate them.

For the trans youth we speak to, social media sites can be healthy and life-giving spaces – and they ought to be kept available.

Anna Hickey-Moody receives funding from the Australian Research Council. This article arises from research that is funded through Discovery Project DP220100159 ‘Youth, religion and sexuality: digital media, school cultures, exemptions’.

Lizzie Maughan 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. Trans youth are already among Australia’s most marginalised people. The social media ban could make this worse – https://theconversation.com/trans-youth-are-already-among-australias-most-marginalised-people-the-social-media-ban-could-make-this-worse-244657

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katharina Doehring, Freshwater Scientist, Cawthron Institute

Water is the lifeblood of our planet. But in Aotearoa New Zealand, a staggering two-thirds of the rivers monitored for water quality are classified as unswimmable. Only 2% of large lakes are deemed to be in “good health”.

Unfortunately, this decline is due to the human impacts of urbanisation, intensive agriculture and poor land management. Many communities that depend on freshwater sources have witnessed this deterioration firsthand.

To address this critical issue, numerous catchment care groups have emerged over the past decade, championing sustainable land management to enhance the health of New Zealand’s rivers, lakes, aquifers and wetlands.

These groups engage in activities such as planting native vegetation along waterways, erecting fences to keep livestock at bay and altering farming practices to be more environmentally friendly. Many people care deeply about the land and water, and their intricate, collective knowledge is a powerful force for change.

Collective storytelling as a tool for freshwater restoration

Over the past few years, we have been listening to these communities and exploring a tool that might elevate their efforts and empower those who haven’t yet started on their river restoration journey. It’s a simple and ancient tool rooted deeply in human history and embedded in our social identities today: collective storytelling by trusted storytellers.

Rural communities, including food producers, identify with trusted peers. When they share their experiences, others can learn from them. We saw that this kind of trust motivates people to get involved in caring for waterways, for the benefit of generations to come. It is independent of changing governments and policies, and grows stronger when passionate people come together, united by their shared sense of place.

Our research highlighted an absence of collective storytelling in national freshwater restoration efforts and pioneered a way to develop this at scale.

To this end, we have been working with the Land Air Water Aotearoa (LAWA) environmental reporting platform. Communities can now share their restoration knowledge as “Actions for Healthy Waterways” in the form of stories. Beyond reporting facts and figures alone, stories represent more meaningful narratives that others striving for healthy waterways can relate to.

We interviewed 23 land managers and met with five catchment care groups across Aotearoa New Zealand. We discussed why knowledge sharing is important, how knowledge should be shared and who may be best placed as knowledge brokers.

Based on those conversations, we highlight three guiding principles of collective storytelling that can enhance the restoration of rivers, lakes, wetlands and aquifers.

1. Respected storytellers

Trust is crucial. It influences who is believed and who inspires action. When peers share their experiences, particularly farmers discussing restoration efforts, collective responsibility is created and drives others to participate.

One food producer encapsulated this sentiment, noting:

If you start creating that collective responsibility, then you can go, ‘Oh yeah, you’ve put a hundred [trees in] – we’ll do a hundred, too.

Catchment champions – locally respected individuals who are driving restoration activities and encouraging others – are immensely important in amplifying these stories. We found authentic storytellers could be individuals or an entire catchment group, as long as they held this trust.

In the New Zealand context we would say they had the mana (authority, prestige, status, charisma). One participant shared:

I’m a newcomer, so I was learning what’s gone well and what works. I don’t want to make someone else’s mistake, I can’t afford to already, so if I go “Oh this works well”, I will do that, too.

2. Authenticity in storytelling

The content of stories is as vital as the tellers. It needs to be genuine and honest.

Catchment care groups emphasised that restoration stories need to include failures as well as successes. Celebrating successes, like the return of a fish species, while also acknowledging challenges, such as vegetation die-off, creates a more genuine narrative. This unconditional storytelling fosters connection through shared experiences.

As one participant highlighted:

It is important to share what we know about land management and restoration: the things that worked and the things that didn’t work.

3. Future generations motivate action

The motivation behind restoration efforts is a crucial aspect of knowledge sharing.

Our research shows that rural communities expressed a profound responsibility to act triggered by a concern for future generations.

Farmers frequently voiced a desire to leave rivers in better condition for their children and grandchildren, saying:

We acknowledge that we are only passing through, so that whatever we do now should have long lasting impacts for our children.

This inter-generational perspective fosters a long-term commitment to restoration. While our study participants were Pākehā (New Zealanders of European ancestry), this view aligns well with kaitiakitanga, the integral Māori principle of environmental stewardship. It illustrates a shared deep sense of responsibility for future generations.

Given that reversing damage to freshwater systems will require sustained effort over time, collective storytelling that emphasises inter-generational goals helps cultivate patience and resilience within communities. It also possibly avoids disappointment when improvements are not seen as quickly as hoped.

We advocate for the broader integration of collective storytelling as a valuable strategic tool in restoring the health of waterways globally. At the same time, we emphasise that restoration is only one part of improving freshwater health.

Substantial changes in land use will also be needed in New Zealand and elsewhere to prevent further degradation. Authentic, local and collective storytelling can help both the transition in land use and restoration.

Katharina Doehring receives funding from MBIE, MFE and MPI. She is affiliated with the Motueka Catchment Collective (Steering Group member), Wai Connection (Governance Group member), New Zealand Advisory Group for Freshwater Citizen Science (member), Freshwater Champions Awards (Judge).

Cathy Cole is affiliated with the Graduate School of the Environment, at the Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) in Wales. She is a former Lecturer in Science Communication at the University of Otago in New Zealand.

Nancy Longnecker receives funding from MBIE, Marsden, Health Research Council, and Lotteries Environmental Heritage. She is a member of the Green Party. Before her work as a practicing and academic science communicator, she conducted research on nutrient efficiency in agriculture.

– ref. How sharing stories about river restoration can inspire others to take care of waterways – https://theconversation.com/how-sharing-stories-about-river-restoration-can-inspire-others-to-take-care-of-waterways-241359

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amelia Leavesley, Research Fellow in Urban Sustainability, The University of Melbourne

Earlier this week, the mining magnate Andrew Forrest made headlines calling for a global “polymer premium” – or plastic tax – to be placed on every tonne of newly manufactured plastics. A tax like this could form part of the Global Plastic Treaty being hammered out right now in Busan, South Korea. In fact, a treaty aimed at stopping plastic waste will have to have strong measures such as a plastic tax or a cap on plastic production to shift the status quo.

In economics, taxing things you don’t want should mean fewer get made. What Forrest is pitching is a way to curb the seemingly unstoppable rise in plastic production and tackle the plastic waste crisis at its source. While we may think recycling is all we need to solve the plastic waste problem, it’s nowhere near enough. Plastic is steadily choking seas and rivers, while toxic microplastics damage our health.

Forrest isn’t the first. Environmental groups and think tanks are also calling for a global tax on plastic producers and importers.

Many plastic products are designed to last for a long time. But manufacturers are increasingly churning out cheap plastics such as single-use items and food packaging which almost inevitably become waste.

Introducing a tax would add an additional cost to making virgin (new) plastic, to deter manufacturers from producing and selling as much non-recyclable and non-reuseable products as possible. If introduced, they would go some way to cut the overproduction of plastic.

What would a plastic treaty do?

Over this week and next, negotiators from more than 170 United Nations member states are working towards a Global Plastic Treaty at the fifth and final set of talks.

Work on this treaty has progressed rapidly. It was only in 2022 that 175 nations voted to adopt a historic resolution to negotiate a legally binding international treaty to end plastic pollution. In recognition of the danger posed by unchecked plastic production, nations set an accelerated timeline. If a treaty is agreed, it could come into effect as soon as 2025.

It would operate much like the legally-binding Paris Agreement on climate change, which requires nations to regularly report their greenhouse gas emissions and efforts to cut them. A Global Plastics Treaty would include binding measures requiring signatories to commit to action on plastic pollution. But exactly what will be covered and how is yet to be decided.

Nations have already agreed on measures to improve waste management and recycling as well as new design standards for plastic products.

While positive, the hardest part is yet to come.

These final negotiations wraps up on Sunday. Still to come is a decision on the most contentious issue: whether to introduce limits on how much plastic a company can produce. Plastic industry lobbyists are arguing strongly against any cap to plastic production.

Recycling isn’t enough

Plastic pollution has been a problem for decades. But to date, our efforts to respond have hardly made a dint. Today, there are about 7 billion tonnes of plastic waste in the world. So far, just 9% has been recycled.

The rest ends up burned in incinerators, in landfills, or in rivers, seas and forests. Plastics can also damage our health in many different ways.

Plastic production doubled between 2000 and 2019, reaching 460 million tonnes a year. By 2060, production is projected to almost triple that figure, to 1.2 billion tonnes a year.

An increasing proportion of plastic production is single-use packaging, which is cheap to make and almost impossible to recycle.

Researchers have found recycling and waste management will only cut plastic pollution by 7% in the long term. These tools won’t be enough.

Plastic taxes are not new

In 2021, the European Union introduced a levy on non-recycled plastic packaging waste created by its member states. Set at €0.80 (A$1.30) per kilo, the cost is borne by national governments, who in turn can pass the cost on to producers. The levy is expected to generate A$11.3 billion per year when fully implemented.

Nations in Europe have already begun to pass on the cost. Last year, Spain imposed a tax on producers and importers of single use plastic packaging, while Hungary expanded an existing scheme to include plastic products. Earlier this year, Bulgaria, Portugal and the United Kingdom introduced their own fees for single-use plastics.

Because these taxes are new, it’s difficult to fully assess their impact. But over time, these incentives should reduce plastic pollution and boost government revenue, which can be used to drive better recycling and resource recovery.

Australia’s government is consulting on new standards for packaging in a bid to phase out dangerous chemicals and boost use of recycled plastics, while some state and territory governments have introduced bans on single-use plastics. But plastic waste researchers and environmental advocates argue that stronger measures are needed to curb plastic waste.

Taxing single-use plastic packaging in Australia could raise $1.5 billion, according to one study. These funds could be used to accelerate progress on plastic pollution.

A global treaty needs teeth

Over the last 70 years, plastics have become ubiquitous. But the convenience of cheap plastics comes at a cost to our health and the health of the natural world.

Tackling plastic pollution will take concerted effort and financing to reduce plastic production.

As Andrew Forrest and others point out, taxing virgin plastic could discourage overproduction of plastics and encourage more investment in recyclable and reusable plastic products.

But for plastic taxes to work, they need to be widely adopted. That could be as part of the Global Plastic Treaty, or done on a national level. Plastic taxes could work as an alternative to capping plastic production, if negotiators can’t reach agreement in Busan.

Plastic taxes are not a silver bullet. We would still need a suite of measures addressing plastics throughout their lifecycle, from design and production to recycling and disposal. But putting a price on plastic would help.

Amelia Leavesley 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. A tax on new plastic would slash waste – if built into the global treaty on plastics – https://theconversation.com/a-tax-on-new-plastic-would-slash-waste-if-built-into-the-global-treaty-on-plastics-244517

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

Teachers’ jobs involve more than just teaching the required curriculum. A significant part of their role includes providing emotional support to their students

And with many students facing mental health challenges and experiencing trauma, meeting these emotional needs has become increasingly difficult.

My research investigates compassion fatigue among Australian teachers. This condition — which involves a reduced ability to empathise with others — can develop when people face ongoing emotional and psychological strain.

How is compassion fatigue impacting our teachers? And what can be done to address it?

What is compassion fatigue?

Compassion fatigue is a term for the physical, emotional and psychological impact of helping others who are under stress or experiencing trauma.

While this condition is commonly associated with healthcare workers, first responders and psychologists, teachers are also at risk.

Compassion fatigue involves two related conditions: burnout and secondary traumatic stress.

Burnout is characterised by emotional exhaustion, de-personalisation and a reduced sense of personal accomplishment.

Secondary traumatic stress mirrors symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). It occurs when teachers hear about or witness their students’ trauma and begin to experience symptoms like emotional numbing, intrusive thoughts or avoidance behaviours.

What is happening in Australian schools?

Children with trauma and poor mental health make up a significant part of Australian classrooms.

A 2023 Australian Bureau of Statistics study found 38.8% of 16-to-24-year-olds had experienced a mental disorder within the last 12 months, an increase on previous studies.

That same year, a Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne survey revealed one in three children between eight and 13 experienced symptoms of a mental health problem.

The Australian Child Maltreatment Study also found 40% of young Australians aged 16–24 had experienced more than one type of abuse, such as physical violence or neglect. Other research shows during 2019 and 2020 about 3% of Australian children received child protection services.

Managing outbursts and trauma

This means teachers are regularly managing emotional and behavioural crises in classrooms. This might include student meltdowns, violent outbursts or other disruptive behaviours.

Teachers are also exposed to their students’ traumatic experiences while trying to provide support. Research shows these interactions significantly contribute to stress and anxiety among educators.

Australian research has highlighted how compassion fatigue, burnout and secondary traumatic stress are significant factors pushing teachers out of the profession.

These issues don’t just impact teachers they also affect students. When teachers are highly stressed, research shows students are more likely to behave poorly in the classroom and record lower academic performance.

My research

In early 2023, I surveyed 1,612 Australian teachers to understand how compassion fatigue affects their emotional wellbeing. I also conducted interviews with 57 teachers later in the year to gain deeper insights in a study, which is yet to be published.

Teachers in my study worked across the country, though most were from Queensland primary schools. More than 93% of respondents were women.

I found 73.9% of respondents had moderate-to-high levels of burnout when compared to the general population, while 71.5% were exhibiting signs of secondary traumatic stress. These results align with findings from other research. For example, a 2024 study on Victorian teachers reported similar rates.

While additional research is needed to fully understand the scope of this problem in different types of schools and different locations, these findings suggest compassion fatigue and related issues are affecting a significant proportion of Australian teachers.

‘Extreme and very real’

Teachers who had compassion fatigue, spoke about how their emotional state was deeply influenced by the emotional needs and behaviours of their students. As one teacher told us:

The students that I am caring for at the moment are a very hard cohort. My compassion fatigue is extreme and very real at the moment. I am exhausted.

Another teacher noted how they could gauge how the day would go, based on the mood of their students.

When they’re struggling, I find it hard to keep my own emotions in check.

One teacher explained the difficulty of managing student behaviour while dealing with emotional exhaustion:

When behaviour blows up, which it does several times a day, I just don’t know if I have the energy to respond compassionately.

‘It’s frustrating’

Teachers described a tension between providing emotional support to students and needing to teach the required curriculum and meet administrative responsibilities.

It’s frustrating knowing what the students need emotionally, but the curriculum and administrative demands don’t leave room for that kind of support.

This also reflects a broader issue for teachers – who increasingly note how the pressure to constantly provide data about what they are doing limits their ability to focus on their students in general.

Impossible to switch off

Because of the intensity of the issues they encounter, teachers find it difficult to leave their work at work. As one interviewee told us:

The emotional load from school often follows me home. I find it hard to stop thinking about my students, even when I’m supposed to be relaxing.

Some teachers also feel like they should not be relaxing (out-of-hours) when their students need help.

It’s hard to focus on self-care when I know my students are struggling. I feel guilty taking time for myself when I should be helping them.

What can we do?

Supporting teachers who experience compassion fatigue requires a combination of three things.

1. Trauma-informed training: this can equip teachers with strategies to address trauma in their classrooms while also protecting their own mental health. Studies have shown trauma-informed approaches can improve teacher resilience and reduce burnout.

2. Mental health support: teachers should have access to counselling services and peer networks where they can share their experiences and receive guidance. Programs like “reflective circles”, which offer structured opportunities to process emotional challenges have been shown to be particularly effective in reducing stress and improving wellbeing for teachers.

3. Systemic changes: schools can reduce workloads, offer better administrative support and recognise the emotional labour involved in teaching. Research shows these changes help teachers manage their stress and enhance “compassion satisfaction”. This is the opposite of compassion fatigue and is the rewarding feeling of making a difference in students’ lives.

Understanding the toll of compassion fatigue and supporting teachers’ wellbeing ensures they can continue providing essential care and guidance to students.

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

– ref. ‘I am exhausted’: Australian teachers speak about how compassion fatigue is harming them and their work – https://theconversation.com/i-am-exhausted-australian-teachers-speak-about-how-compassion-fatigue-is-harming-them-and-their-work-244519

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa Toohey, Professor of Law, UNSW Sydney

This article is part of The Conversation’s “Business Basics” series where we ask experts to discuss key concepts in business, economics and finance.

Thanks to US President-elect Donald Trump, the term “trade war” is back in the headlines. Trump campaigned successfully on a platform of aggressive trade policies, and since being elected, has only doubled down on this posture.

On Tuesday, he threatened Mexico and Canada with new 25% tariffs on all goods, and a separate “additional” 10% tariff on China “above any additional tariffs”.

While the term might conjure up dramatic images of battlefield tactics, the real economic impact of any looming trade war is likely to hit much closer to home – both for Americans and the rest of the world.

Global supply chains are deeply interlinked. That means a major trade war initiated by the US could push up the prices of all kinds of goods – from new cars to Australian-inspired avocado on toast.

To understand where we might be headed, it’s worth unpacking the metaphor. What exactly is a trade war? What are the “weapons” countries use? Perhaps most importantly – can either side win?

The weapons of war

There are many “weapons” available to a country in a trade war, but tariffs are often a popular choice. This is simply an extra tax put on a product as it crosses a border as an import.

For example, all else equal, Trump’s proposed 25% tariff on goods from Canada would bump the price of a $32,000 Canadian-built car up to $40,000.

Tariffs are usually paid by whoever is importing the product and paid to the government of the importing country.

That means the extra cost is almost always passed on to consumers.

Why would any government want to force prices up like that? Because it gives locally produced goods without the tariff a cost advantage.

That might seem like a reasonable way to protect local industries, but tariffs can backfire in unexpected ways. Consider how many foreign parts go into “American-made” products.

When a car rolls off a US assembly line, it’s built from thousands of components – many of which have to be imported from other countries. If those parts face tariffs, manufacturing costs rise for domestic producers, and prices rise further for domestic consumers.

Read more:
What are tariffs?

Limiting what comes in

There are other trade restrictions, too, referred to as non-tariff measures.
Quotas are one example. These place limits on how many units of something can be imported during a specific time period.

Returning to our earlier example, the US could choose to set an import quota on that same Canadian-made car of one million per year. Once that limit had been reached, no more Canadian cars could enter the country, even if consumers wanted to buy them.

This artificial scarcity can drive up prices because demand stays the same while supply is restricted. Like tariffs, the theory is that those higher prices for imports will cause consumers to favour locally manufactured goods.

More covert weapons

Some other trade restrictions are more covert – arguably easier to conceal and deny.

Imagine your export permit was cancelled without explanation or your shipment of lychees was left rotting in a foreign port for reasons that seem to be political.

Or your country suddenly disappears from another country’s electronic export system, meaning that you now cannot export anything there at all (this happened to Lithuania, which was removed from China’s customs database).

These are the sorts of trade war tactics that my research team and I have been studying in our Weaponised Trade Project.

We have collected nearly 100 examples of coercive trade weapons over the past decade, used by a wide range of countries against their competitors.

Today’s tariff is tomorrow’s trade war

Once deployed, trade weapons can cause political tensions to escalate rapidly. Other countries often retaliate with their own tit-for-tat measures. From there, they can escalate into full-blown trade wars.

The new president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, has already warned this may happen, in response to Trump’s threats earlier this week.

One tariff would be followed by another in response, and so on until we put at risk common businesses.

We’ve had some nasty trade wars before. One of the most notorious examples from history were the “beggar-thy-neighbour” tariffs and other protectionist policies of the interwar years, which deepened the Great Depression.

You might remember this from the classic movie Ferris Bueller’s Day Off:

When countries restrict trade, prices typically rise for consumers, jobs can be lost in industries dependent on foreign materials, and trade and economic growth slow on both sides.

Politicians might claim victory when their foreign competitors make concessions, but economists generally agree that trade wars create more losers than winners.

Lisa Toohey receives funding from the Australian Government for a research project on Weaponised Trade, funded under the Defence Strategic Research Grants Program.

– ref. What’s a trade war? – https://theconversation.com/whats-a-trade-war-244750

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anahita Shadkam, Sessional Instructor, School of Urban and Regional Planning,, Toronto Metropolitan University

A Georgia mother was recently arrested for reckless endangerment after her 10-year-old son was seen walking outside alone. The warrant for her arrest claimed she “willingly and knowingly” endangered her son’s safety.

The boy had walked less than one mile into town to visit the local dollar store. Despite the boy’s evident ability to navigate public spaces independently, a passerby perceived his presence on the street as alarming and called the police.

This incident illustrates the damaging effects of “safetyism,” a societal anxiety that wrongly assumes children should not be out on their own. Such perceptions not only curtail children’s independence but also perpetuate unnecessary interventions that undermine the ability of parents to make decisions for their own family.

A focus on safetyism ignores the absence of child-friendly infrastructure in many of our towns and cities. For example, many suburban neighbourhoods in North America lack sidewalks and other pedestrian infrastructure. In the Georgia incident, the road the boy walked along did not have a sidewalk, meaning he had to walk on the shoulder. This lack of space exacerbates fears of children being in public spaces alone.

How did we reach a point where parents now risk arrest if their children are seen outside alone?

Rise of safetyism

My research focuses on how public spaces can be better designed for children. As societies change, their understanding of childhood changes. The way children were treated 50 years ago differs from what they are experiencing now. Likewise, perceptions of what is safe to do and what is not have also changed over time.

Spontaneous outdoor play is a vital way for children to explore, grow and understand their environment. Yet, urban and suburban design often stifles this natural inclination. These environments usually confine children’s play to parks and playgrounds while leaving broader public spaces off-limits.

Historically, attitudes toward children in public spaces have been shaped by industrialization, rapid urbanization and the growth of suburbs. Early playgrounds emerged during the child-saving movement of the 1980s, aiming to protect children from street dangers.

However, these heavily supervised, segregated spaces reflected societal biases, dividing children by race, gender and class. Activities prepared boys for leadership, girls for motherhood, and marginalized children for labour.

Architects and planners like Aldo van Eyck have challenged these restrictive notions, advocating for adventure playgrounds and child-friendly urban spaces. Their work emphasizes unstructured play that promotes children’s agency.

Despite these efforts, the rise of safetyism in recent decades has eroded children’s independence. Fears of busy traffic and stranger dangers have led caregivers to limit children’s exposure to the outdoors. This “bubble-wrapped generation,” as education professor Karen Malone describes, experiences childhood within narrowly defined boundaries, chauffeured between organized activities.

This overprotection deprives children of opportunities to develop resilience. Car-dependence also contributes to the very risks it seeks to prevent. For instance, traffic congestion caused by parental drop-offs near schools increases accident risks. Meanwhile, children shielded from navigating public spaces may lack the skills to handle unexpected situations, such as how to seek help when lost.

The Georgia incident starkly illustrates how societal attitudes perpetuate these cycles. The passerby’s decision to involve the police reflects a broader societal discomfort with children’s presence in public spaces. Addressing this issue requires both cultural and infrastructural change.

Child-friendly cities

It is time for a new child-saving movement. Cities like Barcelona and Copenhagen offer inspiring examples of child-friendly design that challenge these anxieties. The walkability of these cities contributes to children’s overall skill development.

Integrating playful elements along walkable pathways further advances opportunities to explore and develop a sense of safety and belonging. These opportunities normalize children being in public spaces, countering the harmful perceptions that fuel safetyism.

Implementing traffic-calming measures is another way to foster safer pedestrian movements around the neighbourhood. Among these measures are lowering speed limits around the residential buildings, adding more intersections with signals and mid-block crosswalks especially along the longer and curved streets.

Walkability can also be improved by implementing soft edges along pathways. As opposed to hard physical boundaries such as fences, incorporating soft edges, such as green buffers ensure the safety of children and pedestrians while still enabling them to freely navigate space and engage in playful activities.

Moreover, the creation of intergenerational public spaces must be prioritized over creating age-specific spaces, such as the common fenced playgrounds. First, being in these spaces encourages a sense of shared responsibility, thus improving children’s agency. Second, they foster a sense of community among all, which eventually improves parental perceptions of safety. Third, intergenerational spaces allow caregivers to socialize while children play. This opportunity is an important time-out for the caregivers, while still being able to supervise their kids.

Children’s well-being is a barometer for the health of our societies and cities. To create inclusive, sustainable communities, we must challenge the restrictive boundaries that confine children’s experiences and see their independence as a threat. By designing child-friendly public spaces we can nurture future generations who are better equipped to navigate our world.

Anahita Shadkam 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. How our public spaces can be safer and more welcoming for children – https://theconversation.com/how-our-public-spaces-can-be-safer-and-more-welcoming-for-children-244478

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University

The federal parliament has passed legislation to ban people under 16 from having an account with some social media platforms.

In doing so, it has ignored advice from a chorus of experts – and from the Australian Human Rights Commission, which said the government rushed the legislation through parliament “without taking the time to get the details right. Or even knowing how the ban will work in practice.”

The ban is, however, backed by 77% of Australians, according to a new poll. It won’t take effect for at least 12 months.

So what will happen before then?

What’s in the final bill?

The legislation amends the current Online Safety Act 2021 and defines an “age-restricted user” as a person under age 16. However, it does not name specific platforms that will be subject to the ban.

Instead, the legislation defines an “age-restricted social media platform” as including services where:

1. the “sole purpose, or a significant purpose” is to enable “online social interaction” between people
2. people can “link to, or interact with” others on the service
3. people can “post material”, or
4. it falls under other conditions as set out in the legislation.

The legislation does note that some services are “excluded”, but does not name specific platforms. For example, while services providing “online social interaction” would be included in the ban, this would not include “online business interaction”.

While it remains unclear exactly which social media platforms will be subject to the ban, those that are will face fines of up to A$50 million if they don’t take “reasonable steps” to stop under 16s from having accounts.

While there are reports YouTube will be exempt, the government has not explicitly confirmed this. What is clear at the moment is that people under 16 will still be able to view the content of many platforms online – just without an account.

The legislation does not mention messaging apps (such as WhatsApp and Messenger) or gaming platforms (such as Minecraft), specifically. However, news reports have quoted the government as saying these would be excluded, along with “services with the primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users”. It is unclear what platforms would be excluded in these cases.

In passing the final legislation, the government included additional amendments to its original proposal. For example, tech companies cannot collect government-issued identification such as passports and drivers licenses “as the only means” of confirming someone’s age. They can, however, collect government-issued identification “if other alternative age assurance methods have been provided to users”.

There must also be an “independent review” after two years to consider the “adequacy” of privacy protections and other issues.

What now for the tech companies?

As well as having to verify the age of people wanting to create an account, tech companies will also need to verify the age of existing account holders – regardless of their age. This will be a significant logistical challenge. Will there be a single day when every Australian with a social media account has to sign in and prove their age?

An even bigger concern is how tech companies will be able to verify a user’s age. The legislation provides little clarity about this.

There are a few options social media platforms might pursue.

One option might be for them to check someone’s age using credit cards as a proxy linked to a person’s app store account. Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said previously that this strategy would be included in the age verification trials that are currently underway. YouTube, for example, has previously enabled users to gain access to age-restricted content using a credit card.

However, this approach would exclude access for people who meet the age requirement of being over 16, but do not hold credit cards.

Another option is to use facial recognition technology. This technology is among the various strategies being trialled for the government to restrict age for both social media platforms (for ages under 16) and online pornography (for ages under 18). The trial is being run by a consortium led by Age Check Certification Scheme, based in the United Kingdom. The results won’t be known until mid-2025.

However, there is already evidence that facial recognition systems contain significant biases and inaccuracies.

For example, commercially available facial recognition systems have an error rate of 0.8% for light-skinned men, compared to nearly 35% for dark-skinned women. Even some of the best performing systems in use currently, such as Yoti (which Meta currently offers to Australian users ahead of a global rollout) has an average error of almost two years for people aged 13 to 16 years old.

What about the digital duty of care?

Earlier this month the government promised to impose a “digital duty of care” on tech companies.

This would require the companies to regularly conduct thorough risk assessments of the content on their platforms. And, companies would need to respond to consumer complaints, resulting in the removal of potentially harmful content.

This duty of care is backed by experts – including myself – and by the Human Rights Law Centre. A parliamentary inquiry into the social media ban legislation also recommended the government legislate this.

It remains unclear exactly when the government will fulfil its promise to do just that.

But even if the duty of care is legislated, that doesn’t preclude the need for more investment in digital literacy. Parents, teachers and children need support to understand how to navigate social media platforms safely.

In the end, social media platforms should be safe spaces for all users. They provide valuable information and community engagement opportunities to people of all ages. The onus is now on the tech companies to restrict access for youth under 16.

However, the work needed to keep all of us safe, and to hold the tech companies accountable for the content they provide, is only just beginning.

Lisa M. Given receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia and a Fellow of the Association for Information Science and Technology.

– ref. Australia’s social media ban for kids under 16 just became law. How it will work remains a mystery – https://theconversation.com/australias-social-media-ban-for-kids-under-16-just-became-law-how-it-will-work-remains-a-mystery-244736

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

In the chaotic dying days of 2024’s final parliamentary sitting, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese reverted to a role he played in Julia Gillard’s government.

He personally intervened in the wrangling and deal-making as the government battled to get as much as possible of Labor’s legislation passed.

The end of a parliamentary year is usually a mess. But 2024’s finale was beyond bad. A prime minister who likes to claim he runs an orderly government found himself presiding over a shambles, in which process was thrown to the winds and quick fixes and expedient capitulations became the order of the day.

Senators might have anticipated Wednesday’s suspension of the volcanic Lidia Thorpe, the Indigenous independent who last year defected from the Greens, would remove one distraction in a head-spinning week. Instead, it added a wild element to Thursday, when Thorpe shouted into the chamber from the press gallery: “Free, free Palestine. From the river to the sea”. Extra security guards were deployed to prevent a repeat.

Amid the rush, senators did take time out on Thursday to pay generous tributes to popular Senate opposition leader Simon Birmingham, after his surprise announcement he’ll leave politics at the election for the commercial world.

The week’s political mayhem delivered a big and unexpected win for Treasurer Jim Chalmers, but a major defeat for Special Minister of State Don Farrell.

After the Liberals in September refused to support legislation to split the Reserve Bank board and establish a special board to set interest rates, the plan appeared dead. But a late deal with the Greens has done the trick. Chalmers gets his restructured bank, after giving in to the Greens’ insistence the treasurer retain the current (never used) right to override the bank on rates.

Earlier in the week the Greens had agreed (without securing any concessions) to support Labor’s housing bills. It seems the minor party is putting on some pragmatic clothes ahead of the election.

Farrell unveiled his sweeping electoral reforms, designed to curb “big money”, just before the fortnight sitting.

The man they call the “godfather” thought, as late as Wednesday morning, that he would finally land what seems to have been only an in-principle understanding with the Liberals.

Then on Wednesday afternoon Opposition Leader Peter Dutton sat down with Farrell in the minister’s office. The Liberals wanted higher disclosure and donation limits. There was also argy bargy over the treatment of peak bodies such as the ACTU and the Business Council. Despite Farrell’s willingness to be flexible, the prospective agreement imploded.

On Thursday morning the government had to announce Farrell would continue discussions – which have been going on much of the parliamentary term – over the summer, with the hope of passing the legislation in February.

That’s assuming parliament comes back in February – Albanese said on Thursday night “we fully expect to be sitting in February” – and that the proposals’ critics don’t consolidate an upper hand. Reform of the electoral donations and spending regime has been a major Labor commitment. In the end the legislative push was left too late. A lot will have to go right for the measures (not due to start until mid next term) to be passed before the election.

The bill to ban children under 16 from accessing a range of social media sites, though passed, was also mismanaged. While many people will believe it’s good to have the legislation through, the process was appalling.

The ban is very controversial, with many experts highly critical. That made it all the more necessary for the legislation to have proper parliamentary scrutiny. More than 15,000 submissions were received by the Senate committee that looked at the bill. The committee took just one morning’s evidence on Monday, and on Tuesday tabled its report.

On Thursday, as it tried to accelerate dozens of bills through the Senate, Labor needed to use the guillotine to curb debate. But that plan was initially voted down.

Enter Albanese. In an extraordinary day of wheeling and dealing, Santa came early.

The support of ACT independent David Pocock for the quick passage of bills was secured with various bits and pieces including, the senator said in a press release, two “significant measures that will be announced in coming days”.

The Greens’ mood was lifted at the cost of $500 million for social housing upgrades. There was also an undertaking of “no coal, oil and gas funding in Future Made in Australia”.

Albanese was personally involved in the negotiations with Pocock and the Greens.

Some interpreted the government’s freneticism as indicating a likely March election. But that is an over-reading, even accepting the PM has left himself wriggle room. Clearing the decks (albeit partially) is useful if the PM wanted to call an election for March, but it doesn’t mean he will do so.

A March poll would involve the awkward problem of overlapping with the Western Australian election campaign.

Anything concerning WA is a trigger point for Albanese, who won a batch of seats there in 2022 and can’t afford too many losses in the state next year.

On Monday Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek and the Greens reached a deal, reportedly agreed to by the PM, to establish a new environmental watchdog to oversee compliance with environmental laws. On Tuesday Albanese killed the deal.

WA premier Roger Cook – who earlier this month revealed his talk with the prime minister about election dates – explained at a news conference on Wednesday how he’d ensured the bill wouldn’t proceed.

Cook said he’d had a conversation on Tuesday “at the highest level of the federal government”. He had reiterated the WA view that the Nature Positive legislation in the current form should not go ahead. He’d been assured it would not progress this week.

Albanese had his own version on the ABC on Thursday night. The “legislation remains stuck in the Senate”, he said. “We didn’t have the majority for it.”

He added, “I was the negotiator.”

Once again Albanese has delivered a blow to Plibersek, whom he installed in the environment portfolio when she had expected to receive the education post, for which she had been shadow minister. For Plibersek this has been a character-building parliamentary term.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Albanese gets down and dirty in deal making and breaking as Senate rushes to Christmas finish – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-albanese-gets-down-and-dirty-in-deal-making-and-breaking-as-senate-rushes-to-christmas-finish-244826

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Quoc Phuong Tran, PhD Candidate in Prebiotic Chemistry, UNSW Sydney

One of the biggest scientific mysteries is where life on Earth started.

Research has often focused on the role of deep-sea hydrothermal vents – those towering structures on the ocean floor constantly pumping out a melange of organic and inorganic material. Within these plumes are minerals called iron sulfides, which scientists believe could have helped trigger early chemical reactions that created life.

These same minerals are also found in hot springs today, such as the Grand Prismatic Spring in Yellowstone National Park in the United States. Hot springs are bodies of groundwater heated by volcanic activity beneath Earth’s surface.

Our new research adds to a small but growing body of evidence that ancient versions of these hot springs could have played a pivotal role in the emergence of life on Earth. This helps bridge the gap between competing hypotheses regarding where life could have emerged.

Geochemistry to biology

Carbon fixation is the process by which living organisms convert carbon dioxide, in the air and dissolved in water, into organic molecules.

Many life forms, including plants, bacteria and microorganisms known as archaea, have different pathways for achieving this. Photosynthesis is one example.

Each of these pathways contains a cascade of enzymes and proteins, some of which contain cores made of iron and sulfur.

We can find proteins with these iron-sulfur clusters in all forms of life. In fact, researchers propose they date back to the Last Universal Common Ancestor – an ancient ancestral cell from which scientists propose life as we know it evolved and diversified.

Iron sulfides are minerals that form when dissolved iron reacts with hydrogen sulfide – the volcanic gas that makes hot springs smell like rotten eggs.

If you look closely at the structure of these iron sulfides, you will find that some of them look incredibly similar to iron-sulfur clusters.

This connection between iron sulfides and carbon fixation has led some researchers to propose that these minerals played a crucial role in the transition from early Earth geochemistry to biology.

Our newly published research expands on this knowledge by investigating the chemical activity of iron sulfides in ancient land-based hot springs which have similar geochemistry to deep-sea vents.

Custom-built chamber

We custom-built a small chamber that would allow us to simulate hot spring environments on early Earth.

Then we spread synthesised iron sulfide samples through the chamber. Some were pure. Others were dosed with other metals commonly found in hot springs. A lamp above these samples simulated sunlight on the early Earth’s surface. Different lamps were used to mimic lighting with different amounts of ultraviolet radiation.

Carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas were constantly pumped through the chamber. These gases have been shown to be important for carbon fixation in deep-sea vent experiments.

We found that all of the iron sulfide samples synthesised were capable of producing methanol, a product of carbon fixation, to varying extents. These results showed that iron sulfides can facilitate carbon fixation not only in deep-sea hydrothermal vents but land-based hot springs too.

Methanol production also increased with visible light irradiation and at higher temperatures.

Experiments with varying temperatures, lighting and water-vapour content demonstrated that iron sulfides likely facilitated carbon fixation in land-based hot springs on early Earth.

An ancient pathway

Additional experiments and theoretical calculations revealed that the production of methanol occurred through a mechanism called a reverse water-gas shift.

We see a similar reaction in the pathway some bacteria and archaea use to turn carbon dioxide into food. This pathway is called the “acetyl-CoA” or “Wood-Ljungdahl” pathway. It is proposed to be the earliest form of carbon fixation that emerged in early life.

This similarity between the two processes is interesting because the former happens on dry land, at the edge of hot springs, while the latter takes place in the wet environment inside cells.

Our study demonstrates methanol production in a wide range of conditions that could have been found in early Earth’s hot springs.

Our findings expand the range of conditions where iron sulfides can facilitate carbon fixation. They show it can happen both in the deep sea and on land – albeit via different mechanisms.

As such, we believe these results support the current scientific consensus suggesting that iron-sulfur clusters and the acetyl-CoA pathway are ancient and likely played an important role in the emergence of life – regardless of whether it happened on land or at the bottom of the sea.

Quoc Phuong Tran 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. Minerals in hot springs performed a key chemical reaction for early life on Earth, new study confirms – https://theconversation.com/minerals-in-hot-springs-performed-a-key-chemical-reaction-for-early-life-on-earth-new-study-confirms-243586

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

Opposition leader in the Senate, Simon Birmingham, has announced he will retire from parliament at the election, to take up a “new, commercially oriented” career.

Birmingham, 50, the most senior Liberal moderate and the shadow foreign minister, leaves a hole in the Coalition team only months out from the election.

He has represented South Australia in the Senate since 2007, and served in a number of portfolios including finance, education and trade in the Coalition governments. In 2020 he replaced Mathias Cormann as Senate leader. In elections he often had an important role as campaign spokesperson.

Telling the Senate he had turned 50 this year, he said: “Now is the right time for me, for my family, and for new career pathways”.

“It is always better to go when there are some wishing you to stay, and none of us is irreplaceable.”

He was not specific about what job he will take up, saying just “I’m excited that next year I will step into a new commercially-oriented direction”.

But he gave the assurance: “You can all be relieved to know that it has nothing to do with lobbying, government relations or commentary”.

Senate leader Penny Wong said Birmingham was a “thoroughly decent person” and thanked him for his “constructive engagement”. She referred to how he had shown kindness to her after Labor’s election loss in 2019.

In his speech Birmingham said he was proud of “my small role in securing marriage equality in Australia, having been the first Coalition frontbencher to publicly back marriage reform”.

He also said he did not accept “the perceptions peddled by some in this building of it being a universally toxic workplace. There are many staff and members of parliament of all political persuasions who not only work hard and achieve much but they actually enjoy their time here too”.

He told the Senate he was troubled by “the global rise of populism and divisive tribalism peddled by ideological extremes.

“It risks social cohesion in countries like ours and jeopardises the economic wellbeing of countries like ours. I am confident that Australia is a country whose values sit at the centre and the parties of government forget that at their peril.”

His speech was followed by long applause, reflecting his popularity across the chamber.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said: “Birmo has a young family, and I know he’s going to be looking forward to spending more time with them, and he’s given an enormous amount to our country”.

Birmingham’s place as opposition leader in the Senate will be taken by his deputy Michaelia Cash.

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. Opposition Senate leader Simon Birmingham announces surprise retirement at election – https://theconversation.com/opposition-senate-leader-simon-birmingham-announces-surprise-retirement-at-election-244834

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa Wood, Associate Professor, School of Population and Global Health, University of Notre Dame Australia

Homelessness has now taken the lead as Australia’s largest and most damning disparity in life expectancy.

A landmark report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare looked at the deaths of those seeking help from specialist homelessness services in their last year of life between 2012-2022.

The sheer number of deaths – around 12,500 over the ten-year period – is staggering, as is the upward increase over time. But so are the disparities.

The average age of death for the general population in Australia is 83. That’s more than three decades longer than the homeless population in this data – they average just 46 years.

And the main causes of death – suicide and accidental poisoning (including by drug overdoses) – show the issue goes beyond housing. It is about the opportunities for hope and good health many Australians take for granted.

What gets counted counts

For too long, the death toll and enormous life expectancy gap associated with homelessness has been largely invisible in national data.

Deaths of people who have experienced homelessness rarely make it into newspaper death notices or obituaries, nor in national mortality data.

Their invisibility in death is linked to the invisibility in life of people who are homeless. It symbolises wider systemic abandonment and policy inertia on homelessness.

A landmark snapshot

The report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare is the first of its kind in Australia and confronts us with a sobering snapshot.

The figure of almost 1,500 deaths in the 2021-2022 financial year (the most recent year of data reported) is confronting. It is higher than Australia’s annual road toll death.

The report shows the main causes of death were suicide (12-15%) of all deaths over the ten-year period) and accidental poisoning (14-20%).

This population accounts for one in 20 suicides in Australia, and one in six deaths by accidental poisoning.

Yet the most recent national strategy on suicide prevention makes no mention at all of homelessness.

Deaths of despair

These latest statistics reflect what has been described in international literature as “deaths of despair”.

This term refers to deaths from drug overdoses, suicide and alcohol-related disease among people with compounded social and economic disadvantage.

What lies behind these figures are lives often marked by awful adversity, trauma, poverty and exclusion.

In my research, I have spent time with people in Perth trying to survive on the streets, often with multiple health conditions. Their despair was palpable. The longer people remain homeless, the more their health and hope erodes.

However it’s important to note they are also lives of incredible survival and resilience. In this context, living beyond age 50 is literally survival “against the odds.”

Compounding health conditions

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report shows a litany of other preventable conditions are also killing those who have experienced homelessness. These include coronary heart disease, lung cancer and diabetes.

Diabetes is a classic example of how homelessness affects management of a common chronic disease. What can you do when a hospital discharge summary says “store your insulin in the fridge” but you don’t have a kitchen?

This is a population left behind on many of Australia’s public health and preventive health successes, such as the downward trends in smoking and bowel and cervical cancer screening success.

UK research found almost one in three homeless deaths were attributed to conditions that could have been prevented or treated. This is likely conservative.

For people who have endured homelessness, the medically documented “cause” of death can mask many factors and the complexity of multiple health conditions.

Our research

Sadly, these statistics do not come as a surprise.

They echo evidence from recent studies in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Similar life expectancy gaps are seen in our own monitoring of deaths among people who have experienced homelessness in Perth. Our data shows there are on average two deaths a week in this population, in Perth alone.

Are we getting better or going backwards?

We can’t reverse the trend revealed in this gloomy new data unless we also challenge the increasing “normalisation” of homelessness in our country.

Yes, there is a housing crisis. But we are also not turning off the tap of drivers of homelessness, such as domestic violence, poverty, and intergenerational trauma.

This latest report is a good first step in countering the invisibility of homelessness.

It adds further weight to homelessness sector calls, to not only monitor and report annually on homeless deaths, but also to ramp up investment in ending homelessness in this country.

But we hope this won’t be a one-off report. The data should be updated annually. In England, Wales and Scotland — where deaths of people experiencing homelessness are publicly reported each year — a recent open consultation revealed the value of these data.

Future reporting should not be limited to deaths of people who sought assistance from a specialist homelessness service within the last year of their life. There is considerable evidence, including recent Australian research that any lifetime experience of homelessness increases the risk of premature death.

Housing is health, and rapid access to housing is fundamental to reducing life expectancy gaps and restoring hope.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Dr Andrew Davies from Homeless Healthcare contributed to this article.

Dr Andrew Davies also contributed to this article. He is Medical Director at Homeless Healthcare.

– ref. A new report links being homeless in Australia to dying 40 years early – https://theconversation.com/a-new-report-links-being-homeless-in-australia-to-dying-40-years-early-244743

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew King, Senior Lecturer in Climate Science, The University of Melbourne

After this spring’s heat, humidity, rain and storms across Australia, you may be wondering what summer has in store.

The Bureau of Meteorology’s long-range summer forecast, released today, gives some indication of how the coming months are likely to unfold. Notwithstanding the challenges of making these forecasts, seasonal prediction can be very valuable for climate-sensitive industries such as agriculture, as well as being of great public interest.

The latest outlook from the bureau suggests we’re in for more of the unsettled weather we’ve been experiencing during spring. On average, hotter night-time temperatures and higher rainfall are expected over summer.

Meanwhile, this summer’s seasonal bushfire outlook shows an increased risk of fire across large parts of Australia, such as southeastern South Australia and western Victoria, central Australia around Alice Springs, and southern stretches of Western Australia.

Unseasonal November weather in the southeast

This spring has been a mixed bag, with wetter than normal conditions through much of northwestern Australia, as well as swings between hot and dry weather and cooler, wetter conditions elsewhere.

There were several severe weather events, starting with record-breaking heat across the north and floods in Tasmania.

In recent days, eastern Australia experienced severe storms with unusually high humidity in states such as Victoria.

So what can we expect over the next three months? That’s a simple question with a not-so-easy answer.

How reliable are long-range forecasts?

Long-range seasonal forecasting is challenging, as the science is still developing rapidly. In contrast, short-term weather forecasting has been around much longer.

For daily weather forecasts, the skill lies in knowing the recent weather conditions very well. Having more observations of properties such as temperature, wind and rainfall helps to improve these forecasts. This information is then fed into weather models, which in most places are accurate for seven to ten days.

How can meteorologists predict chaotic weather systems further in advance? They rely on the fact that while the climate is variable, it is possible to predict this variability by looking at larger-scale drivers.

In Australia, our climate is strongly influenced by drivers of variability such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, which have some predictability. This lends some accuracy to seasonal outlooks.

These climate drivers have their own seasonal cycles. This means there are times in the year when seasonal outlooks are more accurate than others. El Niño and the Indian Ocean Dipole both have strong relationships with Australia’s climate in spring. As a result, spring outlooks tend to be more accurate than predictions for other seasons.

Over summer, more of our rainfall comes from thunderstorms. That means rainfall is more variable between places even just a few kilometres apart and also less predictable. Overall, this makes seasonal predictions for summer much harder.

How’s summer shaping up?

While it is harder to forecast summer, we can watch the climate drivers to gauge what’s likely to happen.

When the El Niño–Southern Oscillation is in an El Niño phase, the climate tends to be hotter and drier. In a La Niña, the climate tends to be cooler and wetter. But it can also be in betweeen, or “neutral”, as it has been since April. It looks likely to stay neutral over summer, though there’s a chance it might develop into a weak La Niña event.

In summer, the Indian Ocean Dipole, which can bring rain to southeastern Australia in its negative phase, tends to weaken and have less influence on Australia’s climate.

Locally, the seas around Australia remain warmer than normal, which increases evaporation and makes more moisture available for rainfall.

Taken together, this is why the outlook is pointing towards wetter-than-normal conditions for much of Australia over summer. But we can’t be sure because when the ENSO climate driver is in the neutral phase, the effect on our weather is weaker.

In many places, there’s a roughly 2-in-3 chance of a wetter than average summer. But that means there is still a 1-in-3 chance of a drier than normal summer.

Accompanying the wetter summer outlook is a prediction for warmer nights and, to a lesser extent, warmer days. Night-time temperatures tend to be higher when there is cloud and rain.

Most seasonal outlooks point to warmer than average conditions these days. That’s partly because we’re comparing the coming season to the average of all the summers from 1981–2018. It was cooler then.

Remember, Australia’s climate has already warmed by 1.5°C since 1900.

A summer of fire for some?

The National Council for Fire and Emergency Services draws on the bureau’s long-range summer forecast to develop its own seasonal outlook of bushfire risk, which was also released today.

Such seasonal bushfire outlooks are also challenging to make. Complex combinations of weather and fuel (dry vegetation) characteristics shape whether a fire is likely to occur and spread if there is an ignition source (such as lightning). But these outlooks are important when planning for managing one of Australia’s major hazards. They are also useful in raising public awareness of fire risks as the southern Australia fire season gets under way.

Areas most at risk include Western Australia’s southeastern coastline, South Australia’s lower Eyre Peninsula around Port Lincoln, and the lower southeast including Mount Gambier, stretching over the border into southwestern Victoria around Horsham.

Parts of northeast Victoria and the Mornington Peninsula near Melbourne are also at higher risk, as well as northern and central southern New South Wales.

In northern Australia, the areas most at risk include long-unburnt areas in the southern half of the Northern Territory through to north of the Barkly Highway and across to the Queensland border.

Some of these areas are also regions where rainfall has been below normal in recent weeks and months. The continuing stormy conditions and potential for heavy rain over parts of Australia will hopefully reduce the risk of fires in these areas.

Be prepared

In any summer, parts of Australia will experience periods of extreme heat, risk of fires, and stormy weather that can bring hail and flooding rains. Being prepared for severe weather, keeping an eye on the forecast and following any weather warnings that are issued is important to minimise your risk.

Andrew King receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence for 21st Century Weather and the National Environmental Science Program.

– ref. This summer will likely be wetter and warmer for most Australians, bureau forecast says – https://theconversation.com/this-summer-will-likely-be-wetter-and-warmer-for-most-australians-bureau-forecast-says-244520

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fethi Mansouri, Deakin Distinguished Professor/UNESCO Chair-holder; Founding Director, Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University

The Australian Human Rights Commission this week launched the National Anti-racism Framework.

It’s an important moment. For the first time, the country has a comprehensive approach to tackle, if not eliminate, racism in all sectors of society and across different levels of government.

The ten-year road map includes 63 recommendations acknowledging the ongoing impact of colonialism on First Nations people and the persistent racism that minority communities experience.

The goal of ending racism is highly ambitious, yet necessary. Here’s how the plan wants to do it.

What does the plan say?

This framework is a major policy document that will complement and strengthen the Racial Discrimination Act.

To date, Australia has not had a national approach to addressing racism. This is despite the numerous calls from many communities that have endured its damaging effects every day.

This framework promises to deal with this historical legacy of racism against Indigenous people, as well as its contemporary manifestations.

Anti-racism underpins the new approach. This means it aspires to more than simply “not being racist”. Rather, anti-racism involves identifying, challenging and dismantling racism at the individual, structural and institutional levels.

It outlines plans from a whole-of-society approach rooted in human rights. Indeed, one of its key recommendations is a national human rights act to lay the legislative foundations for such interventions.

Read more:
An inquiry has recommended Australia legislate a Human Rights Act. Here’s why we need one

The document identifies seven priority areas, including:

• legal protection and reform

• workplaces

• education

• justice

• media

• health

• data.

This acknowledges the widespread nature of racism.

The framework recommends legal reforms to include minimum requirements to counter racial discrimination. This includes embedding First Nations cultural safety across sectors.

It also includes recommendations for the education system to implement cultural safety and anti-racism reforms, and for workplaces to develop and implement various internal anti-racism strategies. One such suggestion is mandatory cultural safety and anti-racism training for all workers, including parliamentarians.

The plan involves strategies for recruiting and retaining staff from First Nations and other minority communities in leadership and senior roles.

It also calls for media organisations to adopt guidelines based on an anti-racist approach to reporting. To lead by example, parliamentarians and staff should adhere to a zero-tolerance approach to racism.

The framework recommends that the government establish a National Anti-racism Taskforce to develop separate implementation plans. One of these would focus on First Nations people; the other on the general population.

Race Discrimination Commissioner Giridharan Sivaraman says the national plan must be centred on First Nations people, because “there can be no racial justice in this country without racial justice for First Nations peoples”.

It therefore emphasises the importance of truth-telling and self-determination as crucial features of meaningful anti-racism action. This includes incorporating the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Australian laws.

Why do we need a plan like this?

The anti-racism framework comes at a time of intensifying hate speech and exclusionary nationalism.

For the past few years, nations have faced increasing political division and social fissures.

Disinformation, misinformation and identity politics are all fanning the flames of racism across Australia, from schools to public events.

The Diversity Council Australia reports that 59% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have experienced racial discrimination in workplaces.

In addition, the 2024 Scanlon Foundation Mapping Social Cohesion survey reveals that 17% of Australian adults reported experiencing discrimination based on skin colour, ethnic origin or religion over the past year.

This figure is notably higher among overseas-born Australians from non-English-speaking backgrounds, with one in three (34%) reporting similar experiences.

What compounds these recent forms of social division and political polarisation is the amplification of racism in key institutions.

Since its founding, Australia has grappled with systemic racism in its institutions and structures.

Systemic racism leads to poor outcomes for those affected. The poor quality of life standards for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities is an example of this. The over-representation of African-Australian youth in the justice system is another.

Yet acknowledging and confronting the painful colonial history and its enduring legacy continues to be a significant challenge.

The evidence from various studies, including our own research, shows systemic racism in Australia is mounting. The urgency of a coordinated approach across the whole of society has never been clearer.

Racism cannot be addressed by few individuals, one community, agency, or government body. An adequately funded, resourced and coordinated anti-racism approach is necessary.

In its calls for reform in key systems and structures, the framework acknowledges this.

What difference will it make?

If fully implemented, these recommendations have the potential to drive transformative change in Australia.

Policies and programs affecting First Nations communities would become better coordinated and integrated. With robust monitoring and evaluation, anti-racism initiatives would be more effective at tackling deeply entrenched racism.

Achieving a racism-free society will require sustained political will, meaningful action and a commitment to dismantling the structures that perpetuate inequality.

This means the real challenge lies in securing bipartisan support and implementing the necessary strategies to turn this vision into a reality.

The Australian Greens have already indicated support for the plan. But the government and the opposition are yet to respond.

Will this end racism?

The road map is ambitious and much needed vision for improving race relations, especially at a time of growing division and intolerance in our society.

The ten-year timeframe for achieving its goals is undeniably challenging. Racism is a deeply entrenched problem and will also need longer-term strategies to resolve.

The success of the framework hinges on the commitment and support of all Australians, from policymakers and community leaders to media organisations and everyday citizens.

Ending racism require increased individual awareness, stronger collective action, persistence, and an unwavering dedication to dismantling racism at every turn.

Fethi Mansouri receives funding from The Australian Research Council. He is affiliated with UNESCO.

Amanuel Elias is affiliated with the Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship & Globalisation, Deakin University.

– ref. Can we end racism in Australia? Yes, according to the first-ever national plan – https://theconversation.com/can-we-end-racism-in-australia-yes-according-to-the-first-ever-national-plan-244734

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By A J Brown, Professor of Public Policy & Law, Centre for Governance & Public Policy, Griffith University

As federal parliament rushes to a close, it’s become clearer that a dedicated agency to enforce the nation’s various whistleblower protection laws will be an important priority for the 48th parliament, after the next election.

Widely recognised as the biggest missing link in Australia’s national integrity systems, such a body would support employees who speak up about wrongdoing. It would also help employers and regulators resolve claims of detrimental action. Finally, it would help make legal protections real by shouldering the huge costs of securing compensation for impacts suffered by those doing the right thing.

This month, the landmark parliamentary inquiry into the PwC scandal, led by Labor Senator Deborah O’Neill and Green Barbara Pocock, was unanimous in its clear imperatives for reform:

• Ensuring whistleblower protections apply across all sectors and types of organisations. Because they are “partnerships” rather than “corporations”, large audit, accounting and consulting firms are one example of employers that escape current protections.

• Aligning whistleblower protection laws across the public and private sectors. The inquiry noted at least ten federal laws provide different, confusing standards of protection across different entities and sectors.

• Greater practical support for whistleblowers. Key to this is the establishment of a Whistleblower Protection Authority, covering “both the public and private sectors”.

These calls should help focus the two efforts the federal government has underway to review existing laws. The first is a consultation by Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus on fixing our failing public sector whistleblowing laws, which is yet to bear fruit. The second is a new statutory review of the main whistleblowing regimes that apply to the private sectors, overseen by Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones.

This week, federal independent MPs Andrew Wilkie, Helen Haines, David Pocock and Jacqui Lambie upped the ante by taking further steps towards their own Whistleblower Protection Authority bill.

This follows recommendations dating as far back as the Senate Select Committee on Public Interest Whistleblowing in 1994, and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services in 2017.

A body to protect whistleblowers could make a real difference

While any actual reform is unlikely before the next election, all these developments point to a growing consensus for action.

But with new integrity agencies coming under scrutiny, how do we expect a whistleblowing protection body – whether stand-alone or built into an existing body – to make a difference?

In a stark reminder of what is needed, Australian Taxation Office whistleblower Richard Boyle lost a bid earlier this month to have the High Court intervene in his six-year-long prosecution for speaking up against oppressive debt collection practices by his agency.

The High Court ruling demonstrated the gaping holes in federal whistleblowing laws. For example, they fail to cover reasonable preparatory or supporting actions that a whistleblower may need to undertake, not just the actual act of disclosure.

In a technical tactic to avoid the whistleblowing law, the ATO and Director of Public Prosecutions charged Boyle with improperly recording information – not with revealing it. This enabled them to pursue him criminally, despite having already sacked him for complaining too much.

In my view, far from serving any public interest, this prosecution was and is simply malicious. It should have been stopped long ago.

This loophole in the law needs to be fixed. But in addition, a whistleblower protection authority would have a crucial role to play as an extra check-and-balance, by acting as a block on any such prosecutions unless they truly are necessary.

And that is especially the case when agencies seek to punish whistleblowers after failing to first deal properly with their internal disclosures about wrongdoing. This situation applies not only to Richard Boyle, but also to Afghan Files whistleblower, David McBride.

In October, McBride won the right to appeal his five year, eight month prison sentence for providing defence documents to the ABC about the military justice response to alleged Afghan war crimes by Australian special forces.

The Commonwealth’s tactics in suppressing all evidence relating to his internal complaints about perceived injustices were central to his inability to raise a public interest defence as a whistleblower. These were never recognised by the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force for what they actually were: protected public interest disclosures.

Again, a whistleblower protection authority would ensure federal agencies honour the principles underpinning our whistleblower protection law. If they fail to recognise and manage internal disclosures properly, a whistleblower should then be entitled to raise a statutory public interest defence in a fair and open court.

Many agencies and companies fulfil their responsibility to have good whistleblowing policies. They are listening to whistleblowers and learning to properly support and protect them. These are fundamental goals of our laws.

Commonwealth public servants need particular protection

But as well as lots of loopholes and inconsistencies, there are too many agencies simply not implementing the laws, and doing nothing to support and compensate whistleblowers. This again proves why a dedicated enforcement agency is necessary.

The Robodebt scandal proved the problem on a wide scale. Despite Services Australia officers such as Jeannie-Marie Blake objecting to the scheme, none of their complaints were recognised for what they were: concerns about serious maladministration (or worse) requiring independent monitoring and rights to protection, under the Public Interest Disclosure Act.

Indeed, our research compiled for the attorney-general’s review of public sector protections highlighted that when a federal public servant raises concerns about wrongdoing, they are four times less likely to be recognised and protected as a whistleblower than in the New South Wales government. And seven times less likely than if the disclosure was made in the Queensland public service.

Small wonder, then, that protection and support does not flow, and that whistleblowers are left flailing for support and compensation for any damage done.

A whistleblower protection authority to change this situation, will only be as good as the powers and resources it is given, and the people tasked to lead it. The laws it enforces also badly need upgrading and simplification.

Thankfully, as momentum builds towards Australia’s next parliament, there is increased hope that within the next three years, this necessary reform will come to pass.

A J Brown AM is Chair of Transparency International Australia. He has received funding from the Australian Research Council and all Australian governments for research on public interest whistleblowing, integrity and anti-corruption reform through partners including Australia’s federal and state Ombudsmen and other regulatory agencies, parliaments, anti-corruption and private sector bodies (see https://whistlingwhiletheywork.edu.au/). He was a member of the Commonwealth Ministerial Expert Panel on Whistleblowing (2017-2019). He was also a proposed expert witness in public interest defence proceedings by David McBride.

– ref. For the sake of our democracy, Australia urgently needs a whistleblower protection authority – https://theconversation.com/for-the-sake-of-our-democracy-australia-urgently-needs-a-whistleblower-protection-authority-244387

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zahra Nasreen, Postdoc Housing Researcher, the University of Sydney, Macquarie University

Rental costs have hit record highs across Australia – in Sydney, for example, tiny two-bedroom apartments can fetch weekly rents well beyond $700.

The housing crisis is forcing some people into an impossible choice: homelessness or sharing not just an apartment but a bedroom with strangers.

“Hot bedding” – sharing the same beds in overcrowded rooms – has become a common reality for some tenants.

For marginalised populations, these housing arrangements become a survival strategy.

People living in severe overcrowding are considered to be a homeless group in Australia.

But what happens when shared housing, marketed as an affordable solution, fails to meet tenants’ basic needs and creates serious health and safety risks?

The realities for vulnerable renters

My recently published work reveals the hidden realities of people sharing rooms in Sydney.

Through a survey of 103 tenants and in-depth interviews with 35 of those, I discovered concerning patterns of overcrowding, poor housing conditions and health and safety risks.

In some cases, up to 20 people lived in two-bedroom apartments. Around 28% of tenants were sharing a bedroom with two or more people and 66% shared a toilet/bathroom with more than two people.

Living rooms were also partitioned (18%) for additional sleeping spaces.

One international student explained:

It felt asphyxiating, lonely and overcrowded at the same time. After dividing the rooms, there remained very little space for us to move or cook.“

Read more:
Tracking the rise of room sharing and overcrowding, and what it means for housing in Australia

Health and safety risks

Health and safety risks are serious concerns. Tenants faced life-threatening fire risks when “head tenants” deliberately removed smoke alarms to avoid penalties for false alarms triggered by cooking.

There are different types of head tenants: tenants who share costs through subletting, and people leasing properties solely to profit from overcrowded subletting.

One tenant explained, ahead of an inspection, their head tenant removed unsafe modifications made to the dwelling, while tenants were forced to leave during inspections to hide the true extent of overcrowding from authorities.

He had all these curtains on the bunk beds, so he removed the curtains [during the inspection] […] because [they were] obstructing water sprinklers that were for safety issues.“

Tenants told me poor ventilation, mould and overcrowding led to respiratory issues, depression and headaches.

Hygiene was also a major concern: bed bugs, cockroaches and bathroom drainage issues all impacted tenants’ mental and physical health.

Poor sleep was common too, as bedroom sharers navigated different schedules and disruptive sounds. Emotional distress also built up from constant negotiation and conflicts over space and resources.

The thing is […] he coughs throughout the night very loud, and with that kind of coughing I cannot sleep […] when I go to work, I was very tired.”

‘I know it’s illegal, but…’

Beyond the physical constraints of overcrowding, tenants faced restrictions from live-in head tenants or landlords that affected their daily routines and autonomy.

Cooking large meals was entirely prohibited for some tenants, while many were not allowed to use heaters or air conditioners, even during extreme weather.

Like, you’re not allowed to use the living room, you’re not allowed to talk loudly or laugh […] he mentions the time that you take in the shower, and that’s kind of awkward.

The problems go beyond inconvenience and discomfort of home: tenants reported deeply concerning patterns of exploitation and vulnerability.

Nearly half the tenants interviewed had no written lease and paid rent in cash – leaving them exposed to sudden eviction and financial exploitation. Some landlords did not return bond deposits.

Some landlords just say “I’m increasing your rent next week”[…] I know it’s illegal but you want to keep the relationship with the landlord because if he’s going to kick me out I just need to find another property and I may not be able to find it in such a short time.

Most alarming is how these tenants rarely seek help from tenancy and advocacy services, even in serious cases when they experienced exploitation and evictions.

A tenant alleged sexual assault by housemates, followed by bullying and forfeit of her bond deposit from the live-in head tenant.

When she finally sought justice through official channels, she endured a five-year tribunal battle just to reclaim the bond because she had no written lease to prove her tenancy.

A problem that must be solved

Sydney’s housing crisis is evolving into a hidden health crisis and as rents soar, some residents face an impossible choice: unaffordable housing or unsafe living conditions.

These housing conditions extend beyond Sydney and escalated during and after COVID and the cost-of-living crisis.

Precarious housing conditions are not just about comfort – they are key social and built environment factors that directly impact health outcomes, daily routines and economic productivity.

Solving this systemic failure will not be easy, but real solutions require:

• Extended rental assistance programs
• Purpose-designed co-living models with better amenities
• Dedicated dispute resolution services for shared housing tenants
• Affordable and safe housing alternatives
• A careful approach for regulatory enforcement – a flawed response can result in increased homelessness.

Zahra Nasreen has received funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI), Hope Housing, and Australian Coastal Councils Association. Zahra’s PhD has been supported by an Australian government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship.

– ref. 20 people in a two-bedroom apartment: the growing health and safety risks of ‘hot bedding’ – https://theconversation.com/20-people-in-a-two-bedroom-apartment-the-growing-health-and-safety-risks-of-hot-bedding-244279