Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Andrews, Senior Policy Advisor, Australian National University

Given the United States is Australia’s most consequential military ally, it is natural to consider what Donald Trump’s return to the White House will mean for the future of Australian defence policy – especially the AUKUS agreement.

Judging by the initial comments by one of the most senior members of Australia’s government, there certainly appears to be concern that Trump may look to modify – or even scrap – AUKUS.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong noted in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s victory:

We look forward to particularly prioritising AUKUS in our engagement [with the Trump Administration], which is the thing that we have been most focused on in the lead-up to this election.

This is a remarkable statement. In just over three years, AUKUS has now become the most important topic for discussion with the incoming US government. It has received higher billing than any other joint defence project and activity, as well as the global economic threat posed by potential US tariffs on Chinese imports.

This illustrates the enduring Australian government support for AUKUS and its centrality to our defence planning, as well as the significant concern this enthusiasm is not shared by Trump or his team.

Trump could seek a renegotiation

It is an extremely risky to try to predict what Trump will do. That said, the Australian government’s apprehension seems to be well-founded.

A consistent theme of Trump’s foreign policy has been his lambasting of allies he believes are taking advantage of the US and not paying their way. This has included South Korea, Japan and the members of NATO.

In each of these cases, Trump has wanted to renegotiate the terms of agreements. He’s tried to compel South Korea and Japan to contribute a greater share of the financial cost for basing US troops on foreign soil. And with NATO, he has threatened to withhold US assistance unless certain financial thresholds are met.

As a result, some commentators have posited that Australia may be asked to contribute more to the overall cost of AUKUS. This could be beyond the £2.4 billion (A$4.6 billion) and US$3 billion (A$4.6 billion) that Australia has already committed to invest in the UK and US defence industrial bases, respectively.

As the agreement currently stands, there is little to prevent Trump from making such a demand – or, indeed, any of the parties (Australia included) from walking away from the deal.

The most formal articulation of the deal so far is a draft trilateral treaty that was tabled in the Australian parliament in August. This treaty is designed to provide the legal framework for the parties to cooperate on the provision of US and UK naval nuclear propulsion information and technology to Australia.

As well as making its way through the Australian parliament, the treaty was presented to the UK parliament in September and transmitted to the US Congress in August.

Once approved by the three legislatures, it would enter into force until December 31 2075 (unless terminated or amended beforehand).

However, as with other US security treaties, if Trump decides he is unwilling to abide by the terms in the treaty, there’s ultimately little the Australian government can do about it. As is commonplace in these kinds of agreements, the members only need to give 12 months’ notice to withdraw.

So, this is an important formal step between the partners, but as with any such agreement, the longevity of AUKUS is fundamentally a question of political will.

AUKUS has sizeable US support

Even so, there is strong support for Australia in Congress, as well as broad support for AUKUS, specifically.

If Trump sought to formally renege on the agreement, or modify its terms, this would likely need congressional approval. This is by no means a guarantee.

Pat Conroy, the Australian minister for defence industry and capability development, and Matt Keogh, minister for defence personnel, have both stressed the same point in recent interviews – that there is support for AUKUS “across Democrats, Republicans, [and] Trump Republicans”.

As Conroy said in a recent interview, this includes “an 80% yes vote in an evenly divided Senate and a 75% yes vote in a Republican-dominated House of Representatives” on three key pieces of AUKUS legislation in December 2023.

Additionally, with the nomination of noted China hawks Marco Rubio as secretary of state and Mike Waltz as national security advisor, Trump’s foreign policy team is beginning to take on a certain Indo-Pacific emphasis.

This would undoubtedly see a crucial role for Australia, along with other US treaty allies in the region. Whether this is a role that is ultimately in Australia’s interests is another matter altogether.

So, while concerns about the future of AUKUS are perfectly reasonable (and sensible), initial signs do not point to a risk of US disengagement from the region. If anything, it’s the opposite. Alliance entrapment in a future conflict seems a more pressing concern than alliance abandonment.

What will the future bring?

Whether the current AUKUS partnership remains the same in five, ten or 20 years, though, is an open question. The debate over Trump’s intentions has only focused on Pillar 1 of the AUKUS agreement – the submarine component – and not the array of advanced capabilities being developed under Pillar 2.

This is truly a revolutionary agreement that is expected to last at least half a century. In that time, change and evolution are far more likely than not.

The question then is how you manage potential changes, and how much further Australia is willing to bend before any associated costs become too prohibitive. That question will certainly outlast Trump.

David Andrews has not personally received funding from any relevant external bodies. He has previously worked on projects funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Home Affairs. David is a member of the Australian Labor Party.

– ref. Will Donald Trump renegotiate the AUKUS treaty or walk away? That’s the $368 billion question – https://theconversation.com/will-donald-trump-renegotiate-the-aukus-treaty-or-walk-away-thats-the-368-billion-question-243450

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kris Gledhill, Professor of Law, Auckland University of Technology

The coalition government’s majority will no doubt ensure its proposed solutions to youth offending will pass into law. But evidence and past experience suggest these reforms are unlikely to succeed.

The Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill will introduce a rule that an offender’s age can be a mitigating factor only once after they turn 18. (Judges will have some leeway to avoid a manifestly unjust outcome, and to take account of remorse – but again, only once.)

The Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill will allow police to apply to the Youth Court to have someone aged 14 to 17 who has committed two or more serious offences designated a “young serious offender”.

The Youth Court will also be able to make a “military-style academy order” when sentencing a young serious offender aged 15 to 17. This will send them to a “boot camp” for their sentence.

The political rationale is that a “short, sharp shock” will deter future antisocial behaviour. As has been regularly argued elsewhere, however, the evidence and data do not support a more punitive approach to young offending.

Crime and the young brain

So, what does the evidence indicate? Firstly, most people never get involved in serious criminal offending. But the teenage-to-young-adult years are a peak time for those who do.

We know why this happens. Science has shown how the brain is being rewired during adolescence and up to the age of 25. The last area to mature is the frontal lobe, from where rational thinking and critical decision-making are controlled.

New Zealand currently has no Chief Science Advisor. But in 2018 the then adviser published a useful report about approaches to preventing youth offending. This highlighted that during this developmental stage,

[young people are] impulsive, temperamental and immature, finding it difficult to consider the feelings of others or the consequences of their actions [and they] undertake more risk-taking behaviour.

The courts, being rational bodies which follow the evidence, have recognised this. In 2023, the Court of Appeal (in a case called Dickey v R) said judges should take into account several factors when sentencing adolescents and young adults.

Looking back at the offence and the culpability of the young person, judges should recognise the biological explanations for risky behaviour and limited self-regulation.

But judges should also recognise that the plasticity of the developing brain means there are higher prospects of rehabilitation. Even for very serious offences, this means young people should not be given sentences that risk turning them away from rehabilitation.

Policy backfires

Some young people in the criminal justice system have other factors influencing their behaviour, including fetal alcohol spectrum disorder or autism spectrum disorder.

Overall, tackling criminal behaviour through therapeutic approaches is more likely to work and be more cost-effective. But the government’s proposed once-only discount for youth and remorse overlooks these biological influences on immature and risky behaviour lasting into the mid-20s.

Given this, we can expect the serious young offender label to become a mark of status and peer esteem for the misguided young brain. This was what was found in the United Kingdom when “antisocial behaviour orders” were introduced in 1999.

The same problem applies to boot camps, which the Chief Science Advisor stated in their 2018 report “have been shown not to work”.

The report also pointed to research showing efforts to scare young people onto a straight path can actually increase criminal behaviour because thrill-seeking and peer esteem outweigh societal disapproval and deterrence.

Dogma versus data

Judges can still take this information into account, including the recent Royal Commission on Abuse in Care report which showed what can go wrong with boot camps.

They might also be mindful of the regulatory impact statements issued about the bills now before parliament.

For example, the Ministry of Justice advised against the once-only discounts for age and remorse. Among the problems it identified was the potential impact on victims if cases were delayed in order to combine them to qualify for the once-only discount.

Also, the ministry warned that reducing the mitigating factor of an offender showing remorse could undermine victim recovery.

Oranga Tamariki-Ministry for Children was also cautious about the proposals. If there had to be change, it preferred more modest sentencing amendments, noting that the young serious offender category and military-style academies risk entrenching young people in the criminal justice pipeline.

The bills are now before the select committee and open for submissions. But if they pass in their present form, the risk is that politics will have trumped the abundant evidence that these approaches don’t work. And when dogma wins out over data, we can’t expect positive results.

Kris Gledhill is a member of the Executive Committee of the Criminal Bar Association. He is currently working on a grant from the Borrin Foundation to research sentencing matters. The views expressed here are his own.

– ref. We know enough about brain development to know youth offending reforms probably won’t work – https://theconversation.com/we-know-enough-about-brain-development-to-know-youth-offending-reforms-probably-wont-work-244289

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rakime Elmir, Associate Professor in Nursing and Midwifery, Western Sydney University

Babies are born with fine, downy, short, and slightly pigmented body hair called lanugo. The term comes from the Latin word “lana,” meaning wool.

In some babies, the hair is barely visible. In others, there can be quite a lot of hair, especially around the face, shoulders, back and head.

Either way, lanugo is nothing to worry about and will disappear on its own a few weeks after birth.

Why are some babies born so hairy?

Lanugo appears on the fetus around the third month of pregnancy.

As the fetus develops in utero, this hair grows thicker by the seventh month. It will end up covering most of the baby’s body, except for the areas that do not have hair follicles.

While not all babies are born with lanugo, all of us had it in the womb.

Most babies shed it in the womb at around 33–36 weeks of pregnancy, where it mixes with amniotic fluid and is swallowed by the baby.

The lanugo then passes through their system and becomes part of their first poop, which is called meconium.

Babies born before they are due, however, tend to have a lot more body hair as the lanugo has not had the opportunity to shed.

After the vernix (the white goo that is on a baby’s skin when they are born) is removed, small amounts of lanugo may stay on the baby for a few weeks.

Girl and boy babies are born with roughly the same amount of hair, which is replaced by the thicker hair that remains throughout life.

After the third month of life, the lanugo on the head will be replaced by permanent hair. This hair lengthens and falls out between 12 and 24 months of life. After this shedding, most of the baby’s hair will be permanent.

Parents do not need to worry if a baby is born with lots of body hair; generally, it goes away in a few weeks. Lanugo can be present in 30% of babies for the first few weeks of life.

Hypertrichosis lanuginosa, however, is a rare genetic disorder that causes excessive growth of lanugo or lanugo-like hair.

An infant can be born with this genetic condition, or it may develop later in life. It can be triggered by a health condition, eating disorder, or show up as a side effect of some medications.

What is the purpose of lanugo – and is it really linked to heartburn?

Lanugo protects the newborn’s skin, regulates their body temperature and binds to vernix.

Vernix protects the baby’s skin, prevents water loss, plays a vital role in controlling temperature, and contributes to natural immunity.

Lanugo will show up differently in different babies. Depending on the length of your pregnancy it can be absent or abundant.

Your family’s genetics will also play a role, making the hair lighter or darker.

Babies with lighter skin often have light or colourless lanugo, while those with darker complexions tend to have darker hair and, therefore, darker and more noticeable lanugo.

There may be some truth behind the belief that heartburn during pregnancy is linked to a higher chance of the baby being born with a lot of hair.

One US study published in 2006 found that “women who reported moderate or severe heartburn gave birth to babies with average or above average amounts of hair”.

The severity of symptoms was not related to the baby’s sex or mother’s age or weight. The authors suggested it was possible pregnancy hormones involved in making the lower esophageal sphincter relax were also involved in fetal hair growth.

A Thai study published in 2012 also concluded most women who reported heartburn gave birth to babies with average or above average amounts of hair.

Lanugo is an important part of your baby’s development. While some babies may be born with this soft fine hair, it is a normal feature of baby’s growth and maturation and usually not a cause for concern.

Alka Kothari contributes pro bono to the Board of Prepared Dad Foundation.

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

– ref. Why are some babies born so hairy? Lanugo is more common in early babies but is nothing to worry about – https://theconversation.com/why-are-some-babies-born-so-hairy-lanugo-is-more-common-in-early-babies-but-is-nothing-to-worry-about-243472

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Cothren, Lecturer in Creative Writing, College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, Flinders University, Flinders University

Arts and health is a broad field defined by its use of the arts to improve health and wellbeing. Practitioners make use of different artistic mediums such as visual arts, creative writing, music, dance, photography and more. This work can take place in hospitals, aged care homes, community centres, theatres, libraries, music festivals and beyond.

Arts and health can be the use of music to slow down the heart rate of premature babies. It can be a community choir that helps those with dementia connect with friends and family. It can be an illustrated book about resilience in the face of natural disasters. Or it can be a health promotion campaign about the everyday wellbeing benefits of the arts.

Benefits of arts and health include reduced loneliness and social isolation in older adults, improved social cognition, improved wellbeing, reduced risk of depression, reduced risk of dementia, and slower progression of frailty.

Arts and health is an interdisciplinary field blending the knowledge and practices of two very different areas. It relies on diverse organisations to bring together the collective voices and activities of arts and health workers and supporters.

Our recent international report, What does an arts and health organisation do?, interviewed staff members from 22 arts and health organisations across the world. We learnt about how they helped to connect practitioners, facilitate networking and disseminate research findings and best practice.

However, amid the many positive stories, we also found one country that was noticeably lacking this kind of national arts and health organisation: Australia.

A national hub

Australia has at times been a leader in arts and health, most notably through the development of its world-first 2013 National Arts and Health Framework.

This landmark document arose from decades of grassroots arts and health work. It marked the Australian federal, state and territory governments’ formal recognition and support for the arts and health sector, and was designed to raise awareness of the connection between the two fields and encourage government agencies nationwide to incorporate arts and health initiatives into their services.

However, the framework did not call for any funding or legislative changes, which meant no permanent arts and health policy was established after its endorsement.

Currently, arts and health research and practice is taking place across Australia in hospitals, community arts spaces, and universities. But while there are a number of regional networks, there is no central hub for the field.

As a result, interviewees from Australia say a national organisation is needed for arts and health to take the next step.

Christen Cornell, manager of research partnerships at Creative Australia, says that to be effective, arts and health in Australia “needs to be able to see itself, it needs to be visible”.

Naomi Sunderland, director of the Creative Arts Research Institute at Griffith University, argues a new organisation should be developed to play this role. This would be “a meeting point for people to come together and have conversations, build relationships and do collaborative work, connected work”.

Towards a diverse workforce

Interviewees in Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and Europe all reported an overwhelmingly white and female workforce.

Daniel Regan, founder of the London-based Arts & Health Hub, describes the UK arts and health workforce as “very female, very white, very middle class, very middle-aged”.

Cornell says there is a similar lack of diversity in the Australian arts and health workforce.

She points to a deeper economic context behind this lack of diversity:

One of the major reasons it isn’t [diverse] is because it doesn’t pay well. So you default to white middle class over and over again. If you want a more culturally diverse workforce, you have to address that economic issue.

We need to understand and address barriers to entry into the arts and health workforce for people from First Nations, Black, non-English speaking backgrounds, as well as people with lived experience of disability, illness and pain.

Initiatives such as Arts & Health Hub’s The Artists’ Represent Recovery Network and Wales Arts Health & Wellbeing Network’s Stepping In, and Jameel Arts & Health Lab address the lack of diversity by providing arts and health mentorship and training for previously underrepresented groups.

The politics of evidence

Evidence is crucial to advancing the field of arts and health. However, there is an ongoing debate about what type of evidence would significantly advance the field.

Some interviewees argued traditional gold standard evidence from medical trials is overestimated as a mechanism for unlocking decision-makers’ support.

Instead, they point to the value of narratives and lived experience.

Alexandra Coulter, director of the UK’s National Centre for Creative Health, testifies to the power of such arts and health narratives. During the UK’s 2017 inquiry into arts, health and wellbeing, Coulter organised themed roundtables on arts and health within parliament, managing to gather together “politician types” and “people with lived experience speaking out their stories”.

Organisations and practitioners should look for opportunities to share evidence and stories about arts and health with the public and decision-makers. Australian examples include Good Arts Good Mental Health’s Christina Davies talking about the benefits of arts engagement on a nightly news broadcast, and the Creativity Talks Podcast.

International examples include the powerful arts and health stories available on the WHO European Region’s YouTube channel.

Building on the momentum for arts and health

There is increasing interest in arts and health around the world, driven by the need to address health and wellbeing complexities.

In Australia, a national hub for this work would help connect best practice and build an evidence base to inform decision makers and funders. Arts and health needs to be embedded in the future health systems and wellbeing strategies for our individual and national benefit.

Alexander Cothren receives funding from the Global Arts and Health Alliance for arts and health projects.

Joanne Arciuli receives funding from a variety of funding bodies including the Australian Research Council. She has received funding from Flinders University and from the Global Arts and Health Alliance for arts and health projects.

Tully Barnett receives funding from the Australian Research Council and from Flinders University and from the Global Arts and Health Alliance for arts and health projects.

– ref. Arts and health working together can change lives. Here’s how Australia can do it better – https://theconversation.com/arts-and-health-working-together-can-change-lives-heres-how-australia-can-do-it-better-243481

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Power, Associate Professor and Principal Research Fellow, Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University

Globally, the rates of common sexually transmissible infections (STIs) are increasing among people aged over 50. In some cases, rates are rising faster than among younger people.

Recent data from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that, among people aged 55 and older, rates of gonorrhoea and chlamydia, two of the most common STIs, more than doubled between 2012 and 2022.

Australian STI surveillance data has reflected similar trends. Between 2013 and 2022, there was a steady increase in diagnoses of chlamydia, gonorrhoea and syphilis among people aged 40 and older. For example, there were 5,883 notifications of chlamydia in Australians 40 plus in 2013, compared with 10,263 in 2022.

A 2020 study of Australian women also showed that, between 2000 and 2018, there was a sharper increase in STI diagnoses among women aged 55–74 than among younger women.

While the overall rate of common STIs is highest among young adults, the significant increase in STI diagnoses among midlife and older adults suggests we need to pay more attention to sexual health across the life course.

Why are STI rates rising among older adults?

STI rates are increasing globally for all age groups, and an increase among midlife and older people is in line with this trend.

However, increases of STIs among older people are likely due to a combination of changing sex and relationship practices and hidden sexual health needs among this group.

The “boomer” generation came of age in the 60s and 70s. They are the generation of free love and their attitude to sex, even as they age, is quite different to that of generations before them.

Given the median age of divorce in Australia is now over 43, and the internet has ushered in new opportunities for post-separation dating, it’s not surprising that midlife and older adults are exploring new sexual practices or finding multiple sexual partners.

It’s also possible midlife and older people have not had exposure to sexual health education in school or do not relate to current safe sex messages, which tend to be directed toward young people. Condoms may therefore seem unnecessary for people who aren’t trying to avoid pregnancy. Older people may also lack confidence negotiating safe sex or accessing STI screening.

Hidden sexual health needs

In contemporary life, the sex lives of older adults are largely invisible. Ageing and older bodies are often associated with loss of power and desirability, reflected in the stereotype of older people as asexual and in derogatory jokes about older people having sex.

With some exceptions, we see few positive representations of older sexual bodies in film or television.

Older people’s sexuality is also largely invisible in public policy. In a review of Australian policy relating to sexual and reproductive health, researchers found midlife and older adults were rarely mentioned.

Sexual health policy generally targets groups with the highest STI rates, which excludes most older people. As midlife and older adults are beyond childbearing years, they also do not feature in reproductive health policy. This means there is a general absence of any policy related to sex or sexual health among midlife or older adults.

Added to this, sexual health policy tends to be focused on risk rather than sexual wellbeing. Sexual wellbeing, including freedom and capacity to pursue pleasurable sexual experiences, is strongly associated with overall health and quality of life for adults of all ages. Including sexual wellbeing as a policy priority would enable a focus on safe and respectful sex and relationships across the adult life course.

Without this priority, we have limited knowledge about what supports sexual wellbeing as people age and limited funding for initiatives to engage with midlife or older adults on these issues.

How can we support sexual health and wellbeing for older adults?

Most STIs are easily treatable. Serious complications can occur, however, when STIs are undiagnosed and untreated over a long period. Untreated STIs can also be passed on to others.

Late diagnosis is not uncommon as some STIs can have no symptoms and many people don’t routinely screen for STIs. Older, heterosexual adults are, in general, less likely than other groups to seek regular STI screening.

For midlife or older adults, STIs may also be diagnosed late because some doctors do not initiate testing due to concerns they will cause offence or because they assume STI risk among older people is negligible.

Many doctors are reluctant to discuss sexual health with their older patients unless the patient explicitly raises the topic. However, older people can be embarrassed or feel awkward raising matters of sex.

Resources for health-care providers and patients to facilitate conversations about sexual health and STI screening with older patients would be a good first step.

To address rising rates of STIs among midlife and older adults, we also need to ensure sexual health promotion is targeted toward these age groups and improve accessibility of clinical services.

More broadly, it’s important to consider ways to ensure sexual wellbeing is prioritised in policy and practice related to midlife and older adulthood.

A comprehensive approach to older people’s sexual health, that explicitly places value on the significance of sex and intimacy in people’s lives, will enhance our ability to more effectively respond to sexual health and STI prevention across the life course.

Jennifer Power receives funding from the Australian Department of Health and Aged Care and the Australian Research Council.

– ref. STI rates are increasing among midlife and older adults. We need to talk about it – https://theconversation.com/sti-rates-are-increasing-among-midlife-and-older-adults-we-need-to-talk-about-it-243692

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Jane Archer, Senior Lecturer, Communication, Edith Cowan University

Australian celebrity and “public relations maven” Roxy Jacenko has said she regrets turning her daughter, Pixie Curtis, into a child social media influencer.

The 13-year-old’s Instagram account had long been used by her mother to generate income via brand sponsorships and online businesses such as Pixie’s Bows and Pixie’s Toys. But Jacenko is now saying the money wasn’t worth the negative effects of Pixie’s public persona, which included being bullied at school.

This admission, along with the government’s decision to ban social media for under-16s, is a timely reminder for parents to reflect on how they share images of their own children online – even for those of us who don’t intend to make our children influencers.

Parents’ views on ‘sharenting’

A 2019 survey of 613 Australian parents (mostly mothers) found 15% posted images of their children to Facebook at least once a week, while 13% posted at least weekly to Instagram. Only 20% said they never shared images to Facebook, and 37% never shared them to Instagram.

Research has found parents who choose to not share images of their children are often driven by concerns over privacy and future consequences.

Parent “influencers”, however, remain much more likely to do this – and are often unaware of the potential risks. Nonetheless, a number of them are now pushing back against the practice and offering alternatives to posting images of one’s children online.

According to research by one of us (Katrin), many Australian parents understand their children’s images and details (such as name, address and school) can be considered sensitive information.

They associate this identifiable information with risks posed by bad actors (such as paedophiles) who could identify and follow their children both online and offline. These concerns are further fuelled by media reports of such incidents.

Many parents will use strategies to minimise risk, such as by blurring children’s faces in online posts, or covering them with emojis. They may also crop the image, or have the child turn away from the camera to protect their identity.

That said, some people may still be able to identity the child in question, such as by feeding the image through an online image search and certain AI tools. An image’s metadata may also include details such as where and when a photo was taken, making it easier to trace.

Balancing risks with benefits

Although the concerns are clear, sharing images of one’s children in online spaces can also have many benefits for families.

By reducing the information they share about their kids, parents may also miss out on opportunities to gain social support from peers and celebrate major milestones in their kids’ lives. After all, many families use social media platforms as digital family albums and tools to archive key memories.

Katrin’s research also found that families – particularly those from diverse cultural backgrounds – may also use these platforms to maintain important connections with loved ones living overseas.

Similarly, parents from non-traditional family structures, such as same-sex parents, often depend on social media as important spaces to proudly share, advocate for and normalise their experience of family life.

What to ask yourself before you post

Despite the move to ban social media for children under 16, it doesn’t look like Australia will follow France’s lead in curtailing sharenting through legislation such as a children’s image rights law.

In France, this law aims to tackle the risks of sharenting by enshrining children’s right to privacy. It means protecting children’s privacy is among a parents’ legal duty – and that children legally need to be consulted.

Nonetheless, there are several things parents can consider before they share their child’s data, including images and video. For instance, they can:

1. get consent from a child (if they are old enough) before before posting about them

2. share carefully. Try sharing less through public avenues, or be more mindful of your audience. Ensure identifiable information such as school logos are not featured in images. You can even remove a photo’s metadata

3. review the policies and practices of institutions your child may be part of. Check if they ask for children’s consent before taking video or photographic images – as well as options for opting out

4. have a conversation with your child, partner and other family members (such as grandparents) about an approach that feels comfortable when it comes to sharing your child’s images. You may ask friends and family members to reduce unnecessary sharing

5. consciously select password-protected apps or online platforms to share photos with family and friends, rather than social media

6. regularly review each platform’s provided privacy settings, and purposefully use these features. For example, you may set your Facebook account to “private”, or only participate in private Facebook groups.

Posting content online comes with a range of risks, some of which remain unknown in the face of developing technologies. But it can also have immeasurable benefits. It’s important all family members consider these nuances and share the responsibility of making balanced, informed decisions about their online practices.

Catherine Jane Archer is an Associate Investigator with the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for Digital Child.

Giselle is a Research Assistant at the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child.

Katrin Langton is an Associate Research Fellow at the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child.

– ref. The online world isn’t always safe. Here’s what to know before posting photos of your child – https://theconversation.com/the-online-world-isnt-always-safe-heres-what-to-know-before-posting-photos-of-your-child-244171

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

Next month’s update of the federal budget will forecast a bigger deficit for 2024-25 than was predicted in the May budget, according to the Deloitte Access Economics’ Budget Monitor, released on Tuesday.

Deloitte forecasts a deficit for the current financial year of $33.5 billion, $5.2 billion worse than the $28.3 billion deficit that the budget forecast.

Multiple factors are contributing to the worsening figure, including the flat economy, less company tax revenue than earlier expected, the overseas situation particularly the problems in China’s economy, and continued spending pressures.

In his economic statement to parliament last week, Treasurer Jim Chalmers foreshadowed the budget update was expected to revise company tax receipts down for the first time since 2020.

Deloitte says: “While Australia appears to have achieved the much-vaunted soft economic landing that policy makers had been seeking, the federal fiscal position is returning to earth with a thud”.

If its deficit forecast is realised, “that would represent a deterioration in the budget bottom line of more than $49.3 billion following the $15.8 billion surplus inked in 2023-24,” Deloitte says in its November Budget Monitor.

“That stunning turnaround in Australia’s fiscal fortunes would be the largest nominal contraction in the underlying cash balance on record, excluding the pandemic-hit budget of 2019-20.”

Deloitee adds: “Worryingly, there is little to suggest that the situation will right itself in the years to come.”

It warns if the Trump administration imposes subsational tariffs on imports, including up to 60% on Chinese goods, Australia’s budget “will not be immune given its reliance on commodity prices via company tax receipts”.

Deloitte says Australia needs a more sustainable fiscal strategy.

On the present timetable, the government is due to deliver a budget on March 25. Some commentators have argued that because of the budget’s problems, including a looming string of deficits, the government may want to avoid a budget by an earlier election.

Deloitte also questions the government’s change to the mandate to the Future Fund, saying “the changes raise more questions than they answer”.

Last week Chalmers said the Future Fund should give priority to investments in housing, the energy transition and infrastructure where that was consistent to its requirements in relation to returns and risk.

Deloitte asks: “If having regard to these national priorities can be consistent with maximising returns, why has the Future Fund not invested more in these areas in the past?”

“Equally, if the new Investment Mandate doesn’t change the benchmark risk or return, and doesn’t strictly require investment in a specific area – in other words, if it changes nothing – then why was it published?”

It says a better explanation of why the fund requires “refreshing” is needed to build broader support for the changes.

Deloitte criticises the lack of substantial economic reform over the last more than two decades.

“That has resulted in a coddled and cosseted economy bereft of competitiveness and dynamism.

“Economic and productivity growth are moribund and real incomes are declining, while income, wealth and intergenerational inequality has morphed into a broader schism through Australian society.”

Commenting on the report, Chalmers said:“We’ve warned for some time that pressures on the budget are building, not easing, and this is consistent with that.

“Our budget position in the mid-year update will be a bit weaker than what Treasury forecast in May, but still much stronger than what we inherited”.

“Deloitte’s report shows that global economic uncertainty like the slowdown in China is a key factor weighing heavily on the budget right now.”

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. Deloitte predicts December budget update will show bottom line has worsened since May, in fiscal ‘thud’ – https://theconversation.com/deloitte-predicts-december-budget-update-will-show-bottom-line-has-worsened-since-may-in-fiscal-thud-244512

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

The government has stared down the Greens over its Help to Buy and Build to Rent housing legislation, with the minor party announcing late Monday it will “wave through” the legislation in the Senate this week.

The Help to Buy legislation establishes a shared equity program to assist low to middle income earners to purchase new or existing homes. Some 10,000 homes annually, in each of four years, are envisaged. The government would take up to 40% equity.

The Build to Rent bill provides for tax concessions to encourage the construction of properties for rent.

At question time on Monday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese taunted the Greens. “There will be a vote tomorrow in the Senate on the Help to Buy scheme.

‘That will be a test of whether the Greens political party will vote for something that is their policy, that they took to the election, a shared equity scheme.”

The Greens, with the Coalition, had been holding out for months on the Help to Buy and Build to Rent bills. Recently they put a raft of demands to the government for a possible compromise.

But Albanese took a hard line, believing the Greens’ opposition to measures that could help the housing crisis would discredit them at the election. The Greens appear to have come to the same view.

Greens leader Adam Bandt said: “There comes a point where you’ve pushed as far as you can. We tried hard to get Labor to shift on soaring rents and negative gearing, but we couldn’t get there this time.

“We’ll wave the housing bills through and take the fight to the next election, where we’ll keep Peter Dutton out and then push Labor to act on unlimited rent rises and tax handouts to wealthy property investors.”

Greens Housing spokesperson Max Chandler-Mather said last year the Greens had obtained $3 billion for social housing. “We hoped we could secure a similar outcome this time, but the tragedy is Labor decided they’d rather have a fight with the Greens than actually help people.”

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. Greens capitulate, announcing they will ‘wave through’ Labor’s Help to Buy and Build to Rent housing bills – https://theconversation.com/greens-capitulate-announcing-they-will-wave-through-labors-help-to-buy-and-build-to-rent-housing-bills-244513

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Dooley, Senior Research Fellow, School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, The University of Melbourne

Negotiators at the COP29 climate conference in Baku have struck a landmark agreement on rules governing the global trade of carbon credits, bringing to a close almost a decade of debate over the controversial scheme.

The deal paves the way for a system in which countries or companies buy credits for removing or avoiding greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere in the world, then count the reductions as part of their own climate efforts.

Some have argued the agreement provides crucial certainty to countries and companies trying to reach net-zero through carbon trading, and will harness billions of dollars for environmental projects.

However, the rules contain several serious flaws that years of debate have failed to fix. It means the system may essentially give countries and companies permissions to keep polluting.

What is carbon offsetting?

Carbon trading is a system where countries, companies or other entities buy or sell “credits”, or permits, that allow the buyer to offset the greenhouse gas emissions they produce.

For example, an energy company in Australia that produces carbon emissions by burning coal may, in theory, offset their impact by buying credits from a company in Indonesia that removes carbon by planting trees.

Other carbon removal activities include renewable energy projects, and projects that retain vegetation rather than cutting it down.

Carbon trading was a controversial part of the global Paris climate deal clinched in 2015.

The relevant part of the deal is known as “Article 6”. It sets the rules for a global carbon market, supervised by the United Nations, which would be open to companies as well as countries. Article 6 also includes trade of carbon credits directly between countries, which has begun operating even while rules were still being finalised.

Rules for carbon trading are notoriously complex and difficult to negotiate. But they are important to ensure a scheme reduces greenhouse gas emissions in reality, not just on paper.

A long history of debate

Over the past few years, annual COP meetings made some progress on advancing the carbon trading rules.

For example, COP26 in Glasgow, held in 2021, established an independent supervisory body. It was also tasked with other responsibilities such as recommending standards for carbon removal and methods to guide the issuing, reporting and monitoring of carbon credits.

But the recommendations were rejected at COP meetings in 2022 and 2023 because many countries viewed them as weak and lacking a scientific basis.

At a meeting in October this year, the supervisory body published its recommendations as “internal standards” and so bypassed the COP approval process.

At this year’s COP in Baku, the Azerbaijani hosts rushed through adoption of the standards on day one, prompting claims proper process had not been followed

For the remaining two weeks of the conference, negotiators worked to further develop the rules. A final decision was adopted over the weekend, but has attracted criticism.

For example, the Climate Land Ambition and Rights Alliance says the rules risk “double counting” – which means two carbon credits are issued for only one unit of emissions reduction. It also claims the rules fail to prevent harm to communities – which can occur when, say, Indigenous Peoples are prevented from accessing land where tree-planting or other carbon-storage projects are occurring.

Getting to grips with carbon removal

The new agreement, known formally as the Paris Agreement Trading Mechanism, is fraught with other problems. Most obvious is the detail around carbon removals.

Take, for example, the earlier scenario of a coal-burning company in Australia offsetting emissions by buying credits from a tree-planting company in Indonesia. For the climate to benefit, the carbon stored in the trees should remain there as long as the emissions produced from the company’s burning of coal remains in the atmosphere.

But, carbon storage in soils and forests is considered temporary. To be considered permanent, carbon must be stored geologically (injected into underground rock formations).

The final rules agreed to at Baku, however, fail to stipulate the time periods or minimum standards for “durable” carbon storage.

Temporary carbon removal into land and forests should not be used to offset fossil fuel emissions, which stay in the atmosphere for millennia. Yet governments are already over-relying on such methods to achieve their Paris commitments. The weak new rules only exacerbate this problem.

To make matters worse, in 2023, almost no carbon was absorbed by Earth’s forests or soils, because the warming climate increased the intensity of drought and wildfires.

This trend raises questions about schemes that depend on these natural systems to capture and store carbon.

What next?

Countries already can, and do, trade carbon credits under the Paris Agreement. Centralised trading will occur under the new scheme once the United Nations sets up a registry, expected next year.

Under the new scheme, Australia should rule out buying credits for land-based offsets (such as in forests and soil) to compensate for long-lasting emissions from the energy and industry sectors.

Australia should also revise its national carbon trading scheme along the same lines.

We could also set a precedent by establishing a framework that treats carbon removals as a complement — not a substitute — for emissions reduction.

Kate Dooley receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. After nearly 10 years of debate, COP29’s carbon trading deal is seriously flawed – https://theconversation.com/after-nearly-10-years-of-debate-cop29s-carbon-trading-deal-is-seriously-flawed-244493

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matteo Vergani, Associate professor, Deakin University

Last week, emergency services were called to the Sydney suburb of Woollahra, where a car was found engulfed in flames.

While the blaze was quickly extinguished, the situation soon escalated. Police discovered that around a dozen vehicles and at least three nearby premises had been vandalised with anti-Israel graffiti. The vehicles were defaced with the phrase “fk Israel” in spray paint.

On Monday, a man was charged with 21 offences, including 14 counts of destroying and damaging property.

This incident is part of a worrying trend of rising antisemitism since the October 7 attacks in 2023. What can be done to stop it?

Counting the crimes

The rise in antisemitic incidents is supported by data from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ). It recorded 495 incidents from October 2022 to September 2023.

An alarming increase is projected this year, with more than 1,800 incidents expected between October 2023 and October 2024.

The council’s antisemitism report, due to be released soon, outlines the circumstances of each event. This enables readers to assess for themselves whether the acts should be classified as antisemitic.

This task is inherently complex. It often hinges on the perceptions of victims or witnesses. They must identify specific slurs or contexts to classify an event as one motivated by prejudice.

Most hate crime registers employ a “perception” approach. This means an act is considered to be motivated by prejudice depending on how it is viewed by those directly affected.

Objectively verifying these motivations demands extensive investigations and resources. It often requires the involvement of the justice system, which goes beyond what community registries can typically handle.

This complex process highlights the challenges in tracking trends in not only antisemitism but all forms of prejudice-motivated crimes including Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, and many more.

Read more:
The long, dark history of antisemitism in Australia

Why is this happening?

Research indicates antisemitic attitudes and behaviours are influenced by a range of factors, especially overseas conflicts.

Although “fk Israel” might not necessarily seem to be an antisemitic slur per se, the selection of Woollahra was strategic.

The suburb is known for being home to many Jewish people, who represent 13% of the suburb population, compared with the New South Wales average of 0.5%.

This likely means Jews — regardless of their views on the conflict — were targeted, not Israelis.

Such acts qualify as hate crimes when the targets are chosen based on their identity or perceived membership of a minority group.

Read more:
The ‘new’ antisemitism conflates criticism of Israel with prejudice against Jews. But it’s complicated

What can be done?

Hate crimes, like terrorism, aim to make a group of people feel unsafe.

When a community understands that the victims in this case were selected solely because of their Jewish identity, others who share that identity feel threatened. This is regardless of whether they live in close proximity or if they are identifiably Jewish.

Recent research shows Jewish Australians are feeling this threat more than ever.

In a survey of 7,611 people, only 6% of Australian Jews considered antisemitism a “very big” problem and 38% saw it as “fairly big” in 2017.

In 2024, however, these perceptions shifted significantly, with 64% viewing it as a “very big” problem and 28% considering it “fairly big”.

Police can play a significant role. They can reassure communities that hate crimes and related incidents are taken seriously. They can also make people feel more secure by providing a visual presence which can deter similarly minded offenders.

An example of this sort of community engagement is Victoria Police’s Priority and Safer Communities Division, which works with communities disproportionately affected by crime motivated by prejudice.

Given the nature of this sort of offending, the prejudice motivating the crime is relevant at the time of sentencing.

Sentences that recognise the true intention behind crimes like these — to terrorise a minority group — will send a powerful message to the targeted community that our society has zero tolerance for such acts of hate.

In many cases, judges can impose harsher sentences when it’s clear the offender is hostile towards a “protected attribute” during the crime. These attributes include religion, race and gender and sexual identity.

Addressing antisemitism effectively demands a comprehensive, multifaceted strategy due to the complexity of the factors that fuel it.

Antisemitic prejudices often persist covertly. They can be sustained by deep-seated stereotypes such as mistrust towards Jews or misconceptions about Jewish control of media and finance.

In Australia, these biases remain prevalent even without specific trigger events, as demonstrated by recent surveys.

Research suggests that to mitigate these attitudes, educational programs and interfaith or intercultural dialogues might be effective.

But care is needed: in times of heightened tension, such interactions can sometimes be counterproductive.

Research shows that intergroup contact requires equality, shared goals and cooperation to reduce prejudice. Otherwise, it could escalate the problem.

Nonetheless, sustained efforts in education involving schools, museums, and other cultural institutions remain a key strategy in fostering long-term understanding and reducing prejudices.

To effectively mitigate the risk of violent incidents like the Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting – which we have so far avoided in Australia – implementing specialised and targeted strategies is crucial.

These strategies encompass the monitoring of fixated individuals and violent groups. They also include referral systems where trained professionals discreetly engage with people at risk of committing targeted violence. These professionals focus on building relationships and addressing the root causes of such behaviours, including social, psychological, employment, or housing issues.

Although this approach is challenging and often overlooked, it is a crucial building block for ensuring community safety.

Matteo Vergani receives funding from the Campbell Collaboration, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet, the Australian Human Rights Commission.

– ref. Rising antisemitism looms large over the lives of Jewish Australians. Here’s what can be done – https://theconversation.com/rising-antisemitism-looms-large-over-the-lives-of-jewish-australians-heres-what-can-be-done-244281

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Donald Rothwell, Professor of International Law, Australian National University

Ever since the October 7 2023 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel, the Albanese government has consistently said Australia respects Israel’s right to defend itself, but how it does so matters.

To an international lawyer, those words are code for simultaneously exercising the right of self defence and respecting international humanitarian law. In effect, remaining compliant with the laws of war.

Now, with the International Criminal Court’s issuing of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, Australia and other like-minded states face a dilemma.

In July, Australia, Canada and New Zealand issued a joint statement that said, in part:

Israel must listen to the concerns of the international community. The protection of civilians is paramount and a requirement under international humanitarian law. Palestinian civilians cannot be made to pay the price of defeating Hamas.

Since the arrest warrants were issued last week, Canada, a number of European countries and others have made clear they would arrest Netanyahu if he steps foot in their countries. Will Australia and New Zealand now follow suit?

International courts and the Gaza war

Over the past year, there has been an increasing focus on the legality of Israel’s actions in Gaza and its impact on the Palestinian population.

This was first highlighted by the case brought by South Africa in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in late December alleging Israel was responsible for genocide against the people of Gaza.

This was followed by the ICJ’s separate advisory opinion in July saying that Israel’s continued occupation of the Palestinian territories violated international law and its presence there should end “as rapidly as possible”.

Then, last week, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity arising from their roles as political leaders in the prosecution of the Gaza war.

The ICC’s prosecutor, Karim Khan, had also been seeking arrest warrants for three Hamas leaders. Two have been killed in recent months, while the third, Mohammed Al-Masri, more commonly known as Mohammed Deif, is also believed to be dead. The ICC nonetheless issued a warrant against him, too.

The jurisdiction of the ICC over the Gaza war, however, is not clear cut because Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute. This is the treaty that established the court and gave it the remit to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The court’s jurisdiction in its Israel and Gaza investigations is therefore founded on Palestine having become a party to the statute in 2015. That was a matter of legal, diplomatic and political controversy because Palestine is not universally recognised as a state.

The Rome Statute also gives the court jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed in countries that are not members of the ICC. The UN Security Council can refer these actions to the court for investigation, though given the split between the United States, Russia and China on the Security Council, it’s unlikely they’d find agreement on Israel.

The legality of the arrest warrants

The ICC’s arrest warrants have raised two other substantive legal matters that states will likely take into account when deciding how to respond.

First, the ICC was designed as a “court of last resort” in relation to allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

This means it gives deference to national war crimes investigations and prosecutions. So, there is a possibility the Netanyahu and Gallant arrest warrants could be paused if Israel starts its own investigations.

Israel’s military has an internal agency that investigates alleged violations of international rules of conduct. However, human rights groups have accused the military of a lack of transparency and will to investigate its own soldiers. And there is no evidence Israeli political leaders are under investigation for their actions during the war.

The second issue is that international law recognises the principle of “head of state immunity”, which means a leader of a country is immune from arrest for alleged crimes.

This principle, however, does not apply under the Rome Statute. And because Israel is not a party to the ICC, Netanyahu arguably still enjoys immunity under customary international law.

Whether this immunity applies to certain international crimes, such as war crimes and crimes against humanity, has become increasingly contested.

This was tested in the late 1990s when Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was arrested in the United Kingdom on a warrant issued by a Spanish judge for alleged torture committed against Spanish citizens in Chile. Pinochet claimed immunity as a former head of state. British courts rejected his claim, though he was never extradited to face trial.

After the ICC issued an arrest warrant against Vladimir Putin for his actions in the Ukraine war, Western states have given little weight to this principle.

South Africa’s genocide case

While the recent focus has been on the ICC’s actions, the ICJ has also been reviewing the legality of Israel’s conduct in Gaza.

The ICC is a criminal court that seeks to hold individuals accountable for alleged crimes, while the ICJ is focused on the responsibility of states for breaches of international law.

South Africa’s case against Israel has already been before the ICJ an unprecedented four times since January. Three sets of provisional measures have been issued against Israel based on what the court says is a “plausible” case of genocide.

This case, however, remains in the early stages and has many years to run. There is a very high legal bar to clear to conclusively prove Israel has committed genocide. Much will turn on evidence of genocidal intent.

Israel’s supporters now face a choice

These legal processes highlight how important international law has become in seeking to hold Israel and its leaders (in addition to Hamas) to account for their actions.

And this, in turn, has placed Australia, New Zealand and like-minded countries that have historically been strong friends and supporters of Israel in a diplomatic and political quandary.

There is an historical and strong bipartisan position in Australia that supports the rules-based, international order founded after the second world war. The ICJ and ICC are at the core of this international order. Australia also has a judge that sits on the ICJ, and has strongly supported the ICC’s pursuit of Putin over Russia’s war in Ukraine.

As a middle power, Australia’s global interests are deeply embedded in this international order. As difficult as it has been for Australia to see Israel and its leader placed under the international legal spotlight, failing to support these processes and their outcomes risks further undoing the international order.

Donald Rothwell receives funding from Australian Research Council.

– ref. Many of Israel’s Western supporters indicate they would arrest Netanyahu. Will Australia and NZ follow suit? – https://theconversation.com/many-of-israels-western-supporters-indicate-they-would-arrest-netanyahu-will-australia-and-nz-follow-suit-244500

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Joseph, Professor of Human Rights Law, Griffith University

On November 21 2024, the Albanese government unveiled its bill to introduce a minimum age of 16 for most social media platforms. The government claims the bill is necessary to protect children from social harm.

But it might violate the implied freedom of political communication (IFPC) in the Constitution if it is passed. If so, it will be invalid.

Children, politics, and media

Children are not apolitical. Significant “underage” political activists include Greta Thunberg, the Schools Strike 4 Climate movement, and the local Channel 6 news channel, founded by Leo Puglisi when he was 12.

Some of the most compelling footage of the Amsterdam soccer riots involving Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters came from a 13-year-old journalist known as Bender. And children do not need to be activists to be politically engaged: a person’s political consciousness and identity often starts to evolve in childhood.

Social media is a crucial source of political information and communication for children. They pay comparatively little attention to legacy media sources such as newspapers or television news. Furthermore, legacy media rarely publishes content from children, unlike social media. The interactivity of the latter allows for conversation, debate and galvanisation that is simply not replicated in the former.

What is the implied freedom of political communication?

The IFPC applies where a legal “burden” is placed on political communication, which is defined as communications on matters that might affect a person’s federal vote, their opinion of the federal government, and constitutional referendums. That definition from Lange v ABC (1997) has since been interpreted to encompass communication about virtually any topic that can be viewed as political.

A “burden” arises where the “flow” of political communication is disrupted, which includes a legal disincentive to communicate openly.

In the first Unions NSW case (2013), restrictions on political donations from non-voters, namely corporations and trade unions, were found to breach the IFPC. Restrictions on political donations and expenditure would reduce the political information available to voters and others.

The proposed ban would disrupt the flow of political communication to and from children. Unlike corporations and trade unions, children are future voters. Their later political choices are often influenced by views developed while they are children. Furthermore, the minimum age requirement will deprive us all of children’s political voices on social media.

The IFPC is not absolute. Once a burden on political communication is established, the High Court will then apply a test of proportionality to establish whether the law is nevertheless constitutional. Almost all IFPC cases have turned on this issue of proportionality.

So the government would first have to establish whether the impugned law has a purpose that is compatible with Australia’s system of representative government. The purpose of protecting children would satisfy this step.

There is then a three-step test to establish proportionality. First, is the law suitable for achieving its purpose? Laws fail this test if they lack a rational connection to the purpose. Here, a social media minimum age might be suitable if there is good evidence that social media harms children.

However, we do not yet know how the minimum age requirement will be practically implemented, in particular how social media platforms will verify the age of users. The ban will not be “suitable” if it is unworkable or easy to thwart.

Furthermore, there are views that a ban could harm children and breach their human rights. For example, social media might give some children access to online communities that alleviate feelings of isolation and alienation. If a ban significantly harms children, it is not a suitable or rational way to protect them.

Second, is the ban is necessary for achieving the purpose? Or are there other ways of achieving the purpose that might impose a lesser burden on political communication?

Notably, a parliamentary inquiry, which tabled its report on the impact of social media on Australian society on November 17, did not recommend a ban. Instead, it favoured the imposition of a duty of care for online platforms to take steps to prevent harm to users. Parliament’s own investigation concluded that less drastic means might suffice to protect children, which indicates the minimum age requirement might fail the test of necessity.

Third, the extent of the impact on political communication is weighed against the importance of the purpose of reducing harm to children. The potential impact on the flow of political communication is massive, given a huge age group will be excluded from using most social media, so that side of the equation should carry considerable weight in any “balancing” exercise.

The bill, if passed, is arguably vulnerable to failing all three steps of the proportionality analysis. It only needs to fail one to be invalid.

A bill that is ripe for constitutional challenge

The IFPC has been one of the most litigated aspects of the Constitution in the past three decades. The vast majority of impugned laws have survived challenge because they have been found to pass the test of proportionality.

Yet this bill seeks to cut a giant swathe of political communication out of existence in Australia. It could feasibly be a rare example of a law that disrupts political communication to such an extent that it is invalid. Social media companies will surely mount a constitutional challenge to find out.

Sarah Joseph 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. Banning under-16s from social media may be unconstitutional – and ripe for High Court challenge – https://theconversation.com/banning-under-16s-from-social-media-may-be-unconstitutional-and-ripe-for-high-court-challenge-244282

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Dawes, Research Fellow in Medico-Legal History, Australian National University

This month marks 35 years of DNA evidence being used in Australian legal cases. But unlike DNA firsts in other countries, Autralia’s is perhaps the most significant legal milestone that is practically unheard of.

The 1989 trial in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court of Desmond Applebee was a messy case, about a nasty crime. This case was the first time in Australia DNA evidence was admitted in court.

Importantly, it failed to properly engage with the legal and scientific issues DNA evidence raised.

The case graphically illustrates the challenge of interrogating novel scientific evidence – a difficulty that persists in Australia’s legal system today.

The Applebee case

In 1988, a knife-wielding serial rapist had sexually assaulted a number of young women in Canberra, including the 18-year-old daughter of a diplomat. Police suspected known offender Desmond Applebee because he fit the physical description, had used weapons in past crimes and had recently got out of prison – which the rapist had told one victim.

Police found a balaclava and guns in Applebee’s car. But Applebee claimed that at the time of the rape, he was unconscious from a fainting attack. The emergency room doctor who saw him shortly after, however, didn’t find symptoms of a fainting episode.

The diplomat’s daughter’s identification of Applebee from a photo line-up, after not picking him in an identification parade, was a potential weak point.

An identification parade is where the police place a suspect of a crime in a lineup of similar-looking people before the victim. If the victim identifies the suspect from the parade, it is considered stronger evidence than a photo line-up because the suspect is there in person and can object if they feel it is being done unfairly.

The Australian Federal Police turned to DNA evidence to firm up their case.

A DNA match

Forensic DNA testing was very new at the time. The concept had been proposed in 1985 by genetics researchers at the University of Leicester, led by Alec Jeffreys. It was used in a United Kingdom immigration dispute in 1985. It was then famously used as part of the investigation into the Leicestershire rape-murders of Dawn Ashworth and Lynda Mann, and ultimately led to the conviction of Colin Pitchfork in 1988 in the UK.

Forensic DNA testing was not done in Australia at the time. But Australian Federal Police officers had heard about the Pitchfork case. They had samples from the Applebee investigation hand-couriered to Cellmark Diagnostics in the UK, the company licensed by Jeffreys to use his DNA technique.

The tests showed a match between Applebee’s DNA and that of the rapist the police were looking for.

Over-egged claims

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions flew Cellmark’s lab technician and supervisor to Canberra to testify in Applebee’s trial. Their testimony slightly over-egged the claims for their DNA testing.

For example, Cellmark’s lab technician drew a connection between the DNA test and genes, “which make us what we are […] all individuals”. However, the tests actually used characteristic repeated sequences in the non-coding or “junk” part of the genome, not genes. These sequences are where a pattern of DNA base pairs are repeated over and over again. The number of repeats varies between individuals. Jeffreys’ DNA test looks at the number of repeats.

Cellmark’s lab technician and supervisor also described the company’s test as producing a “DNA fingerprint”, metaphorically linking it to unique fingerprints.

However, the company’s DNA analysis involved several separate tests, each looking at non-unique characteristics, which were then combined. Only in combination did the tests support the “1 in 165 million” claim, whereas a fingerprint is a single, unique thing. This nuance was not made clear at trial.

The “1 in 165 million” claim was also calculated based on the frequency of the component characteristics in white people. Applebee, however, was Aboriginal. The data on how common his DNA combination was in white people wasn’t relevant to Applebee, and there wasn’t data available at the time to say how common his DNA combination was in other ethnicities. This, however, wasn’t raised during the trial.

After the DNA evidence was presented, Applebee changed his story. He hadn’t fainted, he said, but the sex was consensual. The jury took just half an hour to return a guilty verdict. Applebee was sentenced to ten years in prison.

Doubts over scientific evidence?

A weight of other evidence also supported the guilty verdict against Applebee. But the handling of the DNA evidence in the case was problematic.

Defendants have a right to interrogate the evidence against them.

But novel scientific evidence – that is, evidence based on newly developed science – underscores the difference in resources between the state prosecution and the individual defendant. Very few people have resources comparable to what the state has. Legal aid doesn’t entirely level the playing field.

The failure to highlight some of the problems with the DNA evidence in Applebee’s case was arguably partly his own fault. He had fired his lawyer and got another one only after the DNA testimony.

But unless the defence makes an argument, our adversarial legal system has no other routinised gatekeeping mechanism for dealing with novel scientific evidence.

Testing reliability

One interesting idea for putting novel scientific evidence through a rigorous examination process was floated in the United States in the 1970s. It was known as a “science court” and would provide a specialised assessment process for new scientific evidence.

More commonly, many jurisdictions including in the UK and US, incorporate a “reliability test” to assess scientific evidence in court.

This requires the prosecution to convince the court that its scientific evidence is sufficiently well developed and validated to be accepted by professionals in the field. Meeting the test implies there are independent experts available to the defence to critically examine the evidence.

Australian criminal law, however, does not have a reliability test. And that’s a problem because novel forms of scientific evidence will continue to be developed. Proteomics, DNA phenotyping, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence – such developments in science and technology will keep presenting the courts with new types of very complex, technical evidence.

The National Sexual Assault, Family and Domestic Violence Counselling Line – 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) – is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for any Australian who has experienced, or is at risk of, family and domestic violence and/or sexual assault.

Laura Dawes 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 milestone legal case from 35 years ago holds important lessons for how courts deal with scientific evidence today – https://theconversation.com/a-milestone-legal-case-from-35-years-ago-holds-important-lessons-for-how-courts-deal-with-scientific-evidence-today-244033

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vicki Lowik, Adjunct Research Fellow, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Sciences, CQUniversity Australia

In a recent Newcastle trial, a jury found three men guilty on multiple charges of sexually assaulting three teenage girls over two nights.

The victims provided harrowing evidence of the violence perpetrated against them. In their victim impact statements, they described the significant trauma caused by these men.

Nevertheless, the convicted rapists were able to furnish the court with 20 good character references. These references spoke to the men’s caring natures and their respect for the dignity of women. The presiding judge is yet to hand down the sentence.

This is a standard feature of the criminal justice system, but there’s a social and legal push to change it, especially in sexual assault cases.

What’s a good character reference?

The legal purpose of good character references is to provide the judge with insight into any factors that could mitigate the defendant’s sentence.

Demonstrated prior good character, through a character reference, enables the judge to ensure the appropriateness and fairness of the sentence.

It is particularly relevant when the defendant does not have a criminal history or a history of that type of offence.

Writing a good character reference is quite simple. You just need to:

• address the judge

• provide your name and occupation

• explain your relationship with the defendant and how long you have known them.

Also, before giving an opinion about the character of the defendant, you must acknowledge their charge, but don’t suggest what sort of sentence would be appropriate.

As a general rule, referees are to provide an understanding of the defendant’s charge. This is to counter “old” glowing character references being submitted without the referees’ knowledge, as occurred in the Jeffrey “Joffa” Corfe trial.

In this instance, the judge took into account “powerful” character references when deciding the fate of Corfe. However, the authors of these references had provided them years earlier for a different purpose.

What about victims?

In comparison to the simplistic requirements for completing a good character reference, victims who want to provide a Victim Impact Statement must abide by various stipulations.

Most importantly, the victim can only read their statement if the defendant is found guilty, or enters a plea of guilty and is being sentenced.

The statement can include any information about how the crime has affected the victim or their family.

However, the prosecutor can remove any details about the crime perpetrated by the defendant or any other crimes they may have committed. They can also remove any references to medical conditions, if there is no supporting documentation.

Also, the victim cannot give their opinion about the character of the defendant or the sentence they should receive.

Retraumatising victim-survivors

Victim-survivors describe being re-traumatised at various stages in the criminal justice system. One such stage can be when the defendant receives a sentence the victim-survivor sees as inadequate.

Sentences can be reduced through the consideration of good character references, with a notable example being the Luke Lazarus trial.

Referees of significant standing in the community submitted good character references on behalf of Lazarus.

He was found guilty of raping 18-year-old Saxon Mullins and was sentenced to five years jail, with a minimum of three years to be served.

He was later acquitted on appeal due to an error in jury directions. Lazarus served just 11 months in jail.

Barristers consider the submission of good character references to be part of a defendant’s right to procedural fairness.

Such references can serve to promote the assault as being out of character for the defendant, indicating he is unlikely to re-offend.

But it can also be re-traumatising for a victim-survivor to hear positive character comments about someone who has pleaded guilty or been found guilty of assaulting them.

Though there are moves towards introducing more trauma-informed court processes for victim-survivors of sexual violence, reforming court culture and the justice system can be challenging – but it is possible.

Reform campaigns

Child abuse survivor advocates, Harrison James and Jarad Grice, are seeking to prevent convicted child sexual abuse offenders from having their sentences reduced due to good character references.

James and Grice have launched a campaign Your Reference Ain’t Relevant that is gaining momentum and has gathered mainstream coverage and support from advocates and the public.

Now laws need to catch up. There’s been some movement in the right direction, but nothing definitive.

In February 2024, the Victorian County, Magistrates and Supreme Courts implemented changes to rules about the use of good character references.

Practice notes now state that referees must acknowledge that they are aware of the charges against the defendant.

Also in February, a petition led by victim-survivors was tabled in the ACT Legislative Assembly to amend the relevant act so that good character references can no longer be considered when sentencing child sexual abuse offenders.

The Attorney-General has referred the petition to the Justice and Community Safety Directorate for stakeholder consultation. How this might play out is unclear, especially as the ACT Bar Association doesn’t support the move.

And in May, the NSW Sentencing Council commenced a review. It’s looking into the the sentencing act and the common law about applying “good character” in sentencing child sexual abuse offenders and in sentence proceedings in general. The council will make recommendations for reform, if considered appropriate.

On a federal level, the government in January requested the Australian Law Reform Commission undertake an inquiry into improving justice responses to sexual violence.

It has since released an issues paper for comment on various options that could likely improve justice responses for victim-survivors.

One option raised for comment was “the harmonisation of sentencing legislation”, including legislation that excludes good character being used as a mitigating factor in sentencing. The final report is due in January 2025.

Amanda-Jane George is currently serving on the Expert Advisory Group to the Australian Law Reform Commission’s inquiry into the Justice Responses to Sexual Violence, which is funded by the Australian Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department.

Vicki Lowik 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. Character references tell a court you’re a good person. Why are convicted rapists allowed to use them? – https://theconversation.com/character-references-tell-a-court-youre-a-good-person-why-are-convicted-rapists-allowed-to-use-them-240324

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shahper Richter, Senior Lecturer in Digital Marketing, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming education, with schools and universities increasingly experimenting with AI chatbots to assist students in self-directed learning.

These digital assistants offer immediate feedback, answer questions and guide students through complex material. For teachers, the chatbots can reduce their workload by helping them provide scalable and personalised feedback to students.

But what makes an effective AI teaching assistant? Should it be warm and friendly or professional and competent? What are the potential pitfalls of integrating such technology into the classroom?

Our ongoing research explores student preferences, highlighting the benefits and challenges of using AI chatbots in education.

Warm or competent?

We developed two AI chatbots – John and Jack. Both chatbots were designed to assist university students with self-directed learning tasks but differed in their personas and interaction styles.

John, the “warm” chatbot, featured a friendly face and casual attire. His communication style was encouraging and empathetic, using phrases like “spot on!” and “great progress! Keep it up!”.

When students faced difficulties, John responded with support: “It looks like this part might be tricky. I’m here to help!” His demeanour aimed to create a comfortable and approachable learning environment.

Jack, the “competent” chatbot, had an authoritative appearance with formal business attire. His responses were clear and direct, such as “correct” or “good! This is exactly what I was looking for.”

When identifying problems, he was straightforward: “I see some issues here. Let’s identify where it can be improved.” Jack’s persona was intended to convey professionalism and efficiency.

We introduced the chatbots to university students during their self-directed learning activities. We then collected data through surveys and interviews about their experiences.

Distinct preferences

We found there were distinct preferences among the students. Those from engineering backgrounds tended to favour Jack’s straightforward and concise approach. One engineering student commented:

Jack felt like someone I could take more seriously. He also pointed out a few additional things that John hadn’t when asked the same question.

This suggests a professional and efficient interaction style resonated with students who value precision and directness in their studies.

Other students appreciated John’s friendly demeanour and thorough explanations. They found his approachable style helpful, especially when grappling with complex concepts. One student noted:

John’s encouraging feedback made me feel more comfortable exploring difficult topics.

Interestingly, some students desired a balance between the two styles. They valued John’s empathy but also appreciated Jack’s efficiency.

The weaknesses of Jack and John

While many students found the AI chatbots helpful, several concerns and potential weaknesses were highlighted. Some felt the chatbots occasionally provided superficial responses that lacked depth. As one student remarked:

Sometimes, the answers felt generic and didn’t fully address my question.

There is also a risk of students becoming too dependent on AI assistance, potentially hindering the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills. One student admitted:

I worry that always having instant answers could make me less inclined to figure things out on my own.

The chatbots also sometimes struggled with understanding the context or nuances of complex questions. A student noted:

When I asked about a specific case study, the chatbot couldn’t grasp the intricacies and gave a broad answer.

This underscored AI’s challenges in interpreting complex human language and specialised content.

Privacy and data security concerns were also raised. Some students were uneasy about the data collected during interactions.

Additionally, potential biases in AI responses were a significant concern. Since AI systems learn from existing data, they can inadvertently perpetuate biases present in their training material.

Future-proofing classrooms

The findings highlight the need for a balanced approach in incorporating AI into education. Offering students options to customise their AI assistant’s persona could cater to diverse preferences and learning styles. Enhancing the AI’s ability to understand context and provide deeper, more nuanced responses is also essential.

Human oversight remains crucial. Teachers should continue to play a central role, guiding students and addressing areas where AI falls short. AI should be seen as a tool to augment, not replace, human educators. By collaborating with AI, educators can focus on fostering critical thinking and creativity, skills AI cannot replicate.

Another critical aspect is addressing privacy and bias. Institutions must implement robust data privacy policies and regularly audit AI systems to minimise biases and ensure ethical use.

Transparent communication about how data is used and protected can alleviate student concerns.

The nuances of AI in classrooms

Our study is ongoing, and we plan to expand it to include more students across different courses and educational levels. This broader scope will help us better understand the nuances of student interactions with AI teaching assistants.

By acknowledging both the strengths and weaknesses of AI chatbots, we aim to inform the development of tools that enhance learning outcomes while addressing potential challenges.

The insights from this research could significantly impact how universities design and implement AI teaching assistants in the future.

By tailoring AI tools to meet diverse student needs and addressing the identified issues, educational institutions can leverage AI to create more personalised and effective learning experiences.

This research was completed with Guy Bate and Shohil Kishore. The authors would also like to acknowledge the support of Soul Machines in providing the AI technology used in this research.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Warm and friendly or competent and straightforward? What students want from AI chatbots in the classroom – https://theconversation.com/warm-and-friendly-or-competent-and-straightforward-what-students-want-from-ai-chatbots-in-the-classroom-244261

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Highfield, Associate Professor, Early Childhood Education Academic Lead, University of Canberra

Screen use and internet safety are two of the top concerns Australian parents have about their kids’ health and wellbeing – even ranking ahead of diet, exercise and depression.

We know it’s important to teach children how to be safe around technology. But it can be really hard to know where to start, or when.

Our new project shows how parents can begin teaching children about screen use, consent, image sharing, and where you go online from as young as three years.

It doesn’t need to be a big “sit down chat”, either. It’s something parents and carers can model as they go about their day.

Use screens together

Our project, Young children in Digital Society, produced resources for early childhood educators to teach children about living well and safely with technology. These ideas can also be used by families at home.

One of our key messages is the importance of young children using screens with adults.

When children play games or watch digital content with trusted adults, they have opportunities to discuss information and ideas that can extend their thinking.

For example, you can talk about why the characters in a program did what they did. Or, after watching a show featuring a dog, you could go away and look up different dog breeds together.

Using technology together also means children have active supervision when online. As the animation below shows, the mum first checks “Kitten Quest” is a safe game for her four-year-old, then turns off in-app purchasing and in-game chat functions. Then she sits down to play it with her child, so they can enjoy it together.

Read more:
3 ways to help your child transition off screens and avoid the dreaded ‘tech tantrums’

Talk as you use screens

Our resources also emphasise the importance of what we call the “talk aloud protocol”.

This means as they use screens, adults explain to children what they are doing, what they are noticing and why.

For example, if you are doing your online supermarket order you might get your child to help select how many apples you will put in your cart. You could point out to them how it costs more money the more you put in your cart. You could also point out how the website is full of other advertisements and promotions, encouraging you to buy more things (that you do not necessarily need or want).

Or, if you are searching for information on a video streaming platform together, you may want to remind your child not to be distracted by the “suggested for you” content, or banner advertising on the page.

In this Play School clip, Big Ted talks about how information is presented on the internet as he searches for more details about a dinosaur.

He talks about going to a trusted source – in this case, a website he has used before – and staying focused on the information you are seeking, not on all the other things the internet might suggest for you (such as a bottle of fancy “Dinosaur Water”).

Only talk to people you know

Another message our resources emphasise is how important it is for children to know who they are interacting with online.

This is about showing them the internet is just another part of real life, rather than a different world away from it.

An example of this for adults and children alike, is not responding to emails or opening links if we don’t know the sender.

In the clip below, Maurice sends Big Ted a photo from his field trip. Maurice uses the “talk aloud protocol” as he explains the components of the process, from taking the photo, to finding Big Ted’s email address, attaching photos and then sending the email.

At the other end, Big Ted announces he has an email and it’s from his friend Maurice. He is excited there’s a photo attached and he knows who it is from before he opens it.

You can start early

Even before children start school, parents can help lay the building blocks for children to stay healthy and safe online.

This includes using screens together, talking about what’s happening on them and highlighting things to watch out for.

The Young children in Digital Society project was a collaboration between researchers and groups such as ABC Early Childhood, the Australian Federal Police, eSafety Commissioner and the federal government’s parenting website, Raising Children. The authors wish to thank to ABC Early Childhood Education producer Laura Stone for her help with the research mentioned in this article.

Kate Highfield consults for ABC Kids, with a focus on supporting healthy technology use in play and learning. With colleagues, she receives or has received funding from the Australian Research Council.

Susan Edwards receives funding from Australian Research Council. The research in this article was funded under the Linkage Projects scheme, project number 190100387.

– ref. Why parents need to be like Big Ted and ‘talk aloud’ while they use screens with their kids – https://theconversation.com/why-parents-need-to-be-like-big-ted-and-talk-aloud-while-they-use-screens-with-their-kids-243357

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

The Albanese government is still discussing the details for the remaining five of the “Bali nine” to be repatriated to Australia, Special Minister of Sate Don Farrell has said.

The planned repatriation follows the representations from Anthony Albanese to new Indonesian president Prabowo Subianto on the sidelines of APEC.

The five are Scott Rush, Matthew Norman, Si-Yi Chen, Martin Stephens, and Michael Czugaj.

They were sentenced to life imprisonment for their role in a heroin smuggling plot in 2005.

Two of the original nine, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were executed by the Indonesians in 2015. Tan Duc Than Nguyen died of cancer, and the sole woman , Renae Lawrence, has been freed.

On Sunday the government to emphasise a deal hadn’t been finalised.

Farrell, appearing on Sky on Sunday, said discussions with Indonesia about the five were ongoing.

“The proposal isn’t, as I understand it, to release these people. They would continue to serve their sentence, except they’re serving them in Australia,” Farrell said.

The initial report of the expected release, with confirmation from the Indonesian government, appeared to catch the Australian government on the hop.

The Weekend Australian reported the Indonesian Coordinating Minister for Law, Human Rights, Immigration and Correctional Institutions, Yusril Ihza Mahendra, saying: “In Peru, the Australian Prime Minister made the request for the transfer of Australian prisoners with President Prabowo.

“The Indonesia President responded that they are currently reviewing and processing the ­matter, and it is expected to be carried out in December.”

The Dutton opposition took a hard line on Sunday. Shadow Attorney-General Michealia Cash called on Albanese to release details of whatever agreement had been reached.

“What is the deal? What is Australia giving up in relation to the deal? How much is it going to cost the Australian taxpayer? Will they continue to serve their prison sentences because they have been sentenced to life imprisonment in Indonesia? Will they continue to serve them out in Australia? And if not, why not?” she said on Sky.

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. Remaining members of ‘Bali nine’ set for repatriation, with conditions – https://theconversation.com/remaining-members-of-bali-nine-set-for-repatriation-with-conditions-243597

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacqueline Peel, Director, Melbourne Climate Futures, The University of Melbourne

The petroleum-laden dust has settled on this year’s United Nations climate summit, COP29, held over the past fortnight in Baku, Azerbaijan. Climate scientists, leaders, lobbyists and delegates are heading for home.

The meeting achieved incremental progress. Negotiators agreed on a new climate finance target of at least US$300 billion a year by 2035 (A$460 billion), up from US$100 billion now. These funds would help developing nations shift away from fossil fuels, adapt to the warming climate and respond to loss and damage from climate disasters.

Nations also agreed on the essential rules for a global carbon trading market, the last agreement needed to make the 2015 Paris Agreement fully operational.

As UN climate chief Simon Stiell said in the final session, the 29th Conference of the Parties (COP29) meeting showed the Paris Agreement was delivering on climate action, but national governments “still need to pick up the pace”.

I attended COP29 as an expert in international climate law and litigation. I observed the finance negotiations firsthand and represented a new alliance of Australian and Pacific universities supporting international climate cooperation.

At the outset, expectations for the conference were low. The United States had just voted for the return of climate denier Donald Trump. And Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev declared oil and gas a “gift of God” at an opening event.

But even with these considerable headwinds, progress was made.

Progress on climate finance

The world’s rich countries currently contribute US$100 billion a year to climate finance for developing nations. It pays for measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change by making systems more resilient.

Two years ago, countries agreed to create a new “loss and damage” fund for nations dealing with climate disasters, launched at the summit in Dubai last year.

At these COP29 talks, Australia announced it would contribute A$50 million (US$32 million) to this fund. Climate change is already costing developing countries huge sums, estimated at US$100-$500 billion a year.

These flows of funding from rich countries are essential for developing nations to increase their emissions reduction, as well as respond to climate damage.

The COP29 deal sets a target of at least US$300 billion per year by 2035, with richer countries leading delivery.

While this goal represents a tripling of the previous target, it falls far short of the $400-$900 billion many developing countries had called for in finance from rich governments.

Disappointed developing country representatives labelled it “a paltry sum” and a “joke”. It also falls short of what experts say is needed by 2035 to meet global climate finance needs.

Recognising this gap, the text calls on “all actors to work together” to scale up finance from all public and private sources to at least US$1.3 trillion per year by 2035. Ways this might be achieved will be presented at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, a year from now.

Making the international carbon market a reality

COP29 also reached an agreement that settles longstanding disputes about making the international carbon market a reality. This hard-won deal delivered global standards for carbon trading, opening up new ways for developing countries to boost their renewable energy capacity.

These rules will pave the way for country-to-country trading of carbon credits. Each credit represents a tonne of carbon dioxide either removed from the atmosphere or not emitted. The deal will give countries more flexibility in how they meet their emissions targets.

It’s not perfect. Concerns linger on whether the rules will ensure trades reflect real projects and how transparent and accountable the market will be.

But the agreement will boost the importance of carbon credits and could increase incentives to protect carbon “sinks” – such as rainforests, seagrass meadows and mangroves – with flow-on nature benefits.

New national climate goals

By February 2025, all 195 Paris signatories have to announce more ambitious emission targets. Some countries announced their new plans at COP29.

The most ambitious was the United Kingdom, which upped its 2030 goal of a 68% cut to reducing 81% below 1990 emissions by 2035.

Next year’s host, Brazil, released new targets for a 59%–67% drop below 2005 levels by 2035.

But Brazil didn’t amend its 2030 ambitions and plans to boost oil and gas production 36% by 2035.

The United Arab Emirates announced target cuts of 47% before 2035, ahead of net zero by 2050. But this pledge was criticised by climate campaigners because the UAE is projected to boost oil and gas production 34% by by 2035.

The host, Azerbaijan, did not release its goals. Many other countries, including Australia, also held off from announcing new targets in Baku.

Indecision on fossil fuels

Fossil fuels were the elephant in the room. At last year’s COP in Dubai, nations finally agreed to include wording on:

transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science

But at this year’s COP, there was no decision on how, exactly, to begin this transition – and fossil fuels are not explicitly mentioned in the outcome documents.

Delegates from oil giant Saudi Arabia repeatedly tried to block mention of fossil fuels across all of the negotiating streams.

Trump’s return wasn’t a deal-breaker

The consequences of Trump’s re-election for climate action were much discussed. But I observed a surprising amount of acceptance and even optimism for climate cooperation.

The US is the world’s second-largest emitter, after China. Trump has promised to ramp up the country’s oil and gas production, and pull the US from the Paris Agreement as he did during his first term.

But climate action continued regardless – especially in renewables giant China, which hit its 2030 renewable target this year. The US is no longer the main player in climate negotiations, and many countries are much further down the road of cutting emissions. Few show signs of backtracking.

As the US bows out, it creates a vacuum. At COP29, middle powers such as Canada, the UK and Australia stepped up.

Negotiators from a progressive High Ambition Coalition – including small island states, the European Union and Latin American countries such as Columbia – played an important role in pushing to urgently increase finance for climate action.

China, for its part, is clearly eyeing off the position of climate leader about to be vacated by the US. And leaders of progressive US states attended COP29 to show parts of the US are still on board with climate action.

Australia’s hosting bid for 2026 talks in limbo

Australia’s bid to host COP31 in 2026 alongside Pacific nations was tipped to win, given it had the support from nearly all of the 29 “Western European and Other States” group of nations which will decide the host this time. Many observers expected an announcement at the end of COP29.

But no decision was made, as the rival bidder, Türkiye, did not withdraw its bid.

An announcement is now likely in mid-2025 – after Australia’s next federal election.

What now?

Many people are disappointed by COP29. It did not bring transformative change. The huge jump in climate finance called for by developing countries, and many in civil society, didn’t eventuate.

It came as 2024 is on track to be the hottest on record, and the costs of extreme weather have risen to more than US$2 trillion over the last decade.

But this year’s talks were still a step forward, affirming international climate cooperation at a time of significant geopolitical tensions globally. As the UN’s Simon Stiell said:

the UN Paris Agreement is humanity’s life-raft; there is nothing else […] We are taking that journey forward together.

Jacqueline Peel receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) for a Discovery Project 2022 on investor action on climate change, and from 2025 will take up an ARC Laureate Fellowship examining international law’s role in ensuring corporate climate accountability.

She is the chair of a new COP Universities Alliance, which is an initiative between leading Australian and Pacific universities to coordinate the efforts and contribution of the Australia-Pacific higher education and research sector towards COP31.

– ref. From a US$300 billion climate finance deal to global carbon trading, here’s what was – and wasn’t – achieved at the COP29 climate talks – https://theconversation.com/from-a-us-300-billion-climate-finance-deal-to-global-carbon-trading-heres-what-was-and-wasnt-achieved-at-the-cop29-climate-talks-243697

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Grantham, Lecturer in Communication, Griffith University

The federal government’s proposed social media ban for under-16s has sparked widespread debate, affecting millions of young Australians, their families and educators. But will it actually work?

While the aim behind this ban is to protect children from online harm, it appears to be more of a kneejerk reaction to win votes.

In a world where technological advancement is accelerating and online communication is part of our everyday lives, teaching children about safe online use, rather than imposing bans, is a more effective way to protect them from harm while still allowing them to be technologically savvy.

Critics such as independent MP Zoe Daniel highlight potential issues such as social media sites becoming less safe as adults increasingly share any content, believing that children no longer have access:

What we’re doing is saying, ‘Well, we’re going to lock everyone under 16 out, and then everyone else can do whatever they want in there’. And also, we know that some people under 16 will get in.

Daniel is not the only person to express concern. Former Labor and now independent Western Australian Senator Fatima Payman used TikTok slang to highlight that young people often feel unheard in parliament.

Why a ban is the wrong way to go

Young people live a lot of their social lives online. Shielding youth entirely could disconnect them from peers and affect their social wellbeing. This has been demonstrated in a study on international high school students, who are particularly at risk of loneliness and isolation and are often living away from family and friends. While this study was on international students, the results have implications for others who are at risk of feeling lonely and isolated.

At 16, teens might face harmful content for the first time, including behaviours glorified on social media, which could be seen as “exciting”. This risks amplifying the very problems policymakers aim to prevent.

Australia recently revoked the visa of an OnlyFans star attempting to recruit 18-year-old boys at “schoolies” to create explicit content for her OnlyFans page.

While this star’s visa was revoked, other Australian-based OnlyFans creators have posted to TikTok showing videos of young men lining up to meet them.

This is being considered by many as new predatory behaviour to which young people might be exposed for the first time, with no education or support systems in place.

If young people are not allowed to navigate social media until they are 16, how will they navigate the risks once they can? Instead, teaching young people digital resilience offers a more sustainable approach.

The Finnish approach

Finland’s approach to digital literacy education is comprehensive and integrated. It aims to equip citizens of all ages with the skills to navigate the digital world effectively.

Finland’s education system embeds digital literacy as a fundamental component of its curriculum, integrating technology across all grade levels to prepare students for the digital age.

From preschool education, students are introduced to digital tools, safety and technology to learn responsible online behaviour. As Finnish academics Sirkku Lähdesmäki and Minna Maunula highlight:

creating a secure and empowering connection with media is a shared educational responsibility that necessitates the active participation of both schools and families.

Integrating digital literacy into the education system ensures skills are not taught in isolation, but embedded across the system.

Digital literacy in Finland extends beyond formal schooling. Public libraries and community centres offer programs to improve skills among adults, ensuring that digital literacy is a lifelong pursuit. As they say, digital competencies are civic skills.

This approach has been in place, with considerable success, for a decade. In 2014, in response to the rise of misinformation, Finland’s government launched an anti-fake news initiative aimed at teaching residents, students, journalists and politicians how to counter false information designed to create division.

This initiative is part of a multi-pronged, cross-sector approach to prepare citizens of all ages for the complex digital landscape.

In addition, the education system was reformed to emphasise critical thinking. This taught students to identify bots, understand image and video manipulations, and recognise half-truths and false profiles. The approach has been practical, with Finland ranking first out of 35 countries in a digital media literacy index measuring resilience six times in a row.

Similarities to smoking

Some politicians have likened social media use to smoking in terms of addictive qualities and potential to cause harm. For example, South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas said:

The evidence shows early access to addictive social media is causing our kids harm […] This is no different to cigarettes or alcohol. When a product or service hurts children, governments must act.

Drawing comparisons to smoking highlights the long-term challenges with tackling the issue. The proportion of Australians aged 14 and over who have ever smoked has significantly declined over the past two decades. But this is the result of a long-term change campaign that the government committed to in the 1990s. It has been successful largely due to a concerted public education campaign.

The government’s proposed legislation oversimplifies a deeply complex issue. Protecting young people requires long-term solutions such as fostering digital literacy, informed choices, and robust safeguards — not rushed, over-the-top, short-term measures.

Dr Aida Hurem’s cited research was funded by the Australian Research Council.

Susan Grantham 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. Educating young people about social media would be far more effective than a ban – Finland can show us how – https://theconversation.com/educating-young-people-about-social-media-would-be-far-more-effective-than-a-ban-finland-can-show-us-how-244304

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sam Robinson, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland

With the start of summer just days away, many of us will be looking forward to long sunny days spent at the beach, by the pool, out camping or picnicking in the park.

Insects also love summer. This is when most of them breed and feed. But this shared appreciation of the season can sometimes lead to conflict.

Insects have long been prey to many species, including birds, mammals, amphibians and other insects. As such, they’ve evolved a diverse range of defences – perhaps none more familiar to humans than the sting.

Many ants have a sting at their rear end which they use to deliver venom. It’s not the sting itself that causes pain, but rather the venom. Ant venom contains a cocktail of different chemicals, some of which have evolved specifically to manipulate nerve endings in our skin to cause pain.

Let’s look at some of the different ant stings you might experience this summer in Australia, and how to respond.

Bull ants

Bull ants (also known as bulldog ants, jumper ants, or jack jumpers) are large, for an ant. Some species can reach a length of 4 centimetres. They are easily recognisable with their large eyes, long mandibles (jaws) and aggressive nature.

Their sting is immediate, hot, sharp, and unmistakable, not dissimilar to that of a honeybee. The intense pain will last only a few minutes, before it’s replaced by some redness and swelling around the sting site.

Green-head ants

Green-head ants are also called green ants (but not to be confused with the green tree ants of northern Australia which do not sting). Green-head ants are common, and love our grass lawns.

At around 6 millimetres long, they are significantly smaller than bull ants. They can be recognised by their shiny green and purple exoskeleton.

Green-head ants tend to be less aggressive than bull ants, but they can still deliver a meaningful sting. The pain of a green-head ant’s sting can build more gradually, and create an intense, sticky ache.

Fire ants

Fire ants (or red imported fire ants) are originally from South America. They were first detected in Brisbane in 2001, thought to have hitched a ride in shipping containers, and have since spread across south-east Queensland.

Fire ants are reddish-brown and black and range in size from 2–6 millimetres long.

You’re most likely to encounter fire ants at their nests, which look like a pile of powdery soil. A fire ant nest doesn’t have an obvious entry, which is a good way to distinguish them from other similar ant nests.

Disturbing a fire ant nest will awaken an angry mass of hundreds of ants and put you at risk of being stung.

The initial pain from an individual sting is like an intense, hot itch, though manageable. But fire ant stings rarely occur in single digits. One ant can sting multiple times, and multiple ants can sting one person, which can lead to hundreds of stings. Fire ant stings can lead to pus-filled ulcers and scarring in the days afterwards.

If you live in an area where there are fire ants, it’s worth taking a few minutes to educate yourself on how to recognise and report them.

Electric ants

Electric ants are another nasty accidental import, originally from Central and South America. Currently restricted to Cairns and surrounds, these are tiny (1.5 millimetres long) yellow ants.

Like fire ants, these ants will typically defend en masse, so many will sting at once. Their sting is more painful than you’d expect from such a tiny creature. I liken it to being showered in red hot sparks.

If you think you see electric ants, you should report this to Biosecurity Queensland.

Aussie ants aren’t the worst

You might be surprised to hear Australian ants don’t even make the podium for the most painful ant stings. Among the prize winners are harvester ants (North and South America) which cause an extreme, sticky ache, likened to a drill slowly turning in your muscle – for as long as 12 hours.

The gold medal goes to the sting of the bullet ant of South and Central America, which has been described as:

Pure, intense, brilliant pain. Like walking over flaming charcoal with a 3-inch nail embedded in your heel.

How to avoid getting stung (and what to do if you do)

Fortunately, the solution is usually very simple. Look before you sit on the ground or lay out your picnic blanket, avoiding areas where you see ant nests or lots of foraging ants.

Choice of footwear can also be important. In my experience, perhaps unsurprisingly, most stings occur on thong-wearing feet.

If you do get stung, in most cases it’s going to get better on its own. Pain will usually subside after a few minutes (sometimes a little longer for a green-head ant sting). The redness, swelling and itch that typically follow can last for a few days.

In the meantime, if needed, an ice pack will help with the pain. If it’s particularly bad, a local anaesthetic cream containing lidocaine may offer some temporary relief. You can get this over the counter at the pharmacy.

A small proportion of people may have an allergic reaction to ant stings. In very severe cases this might involve trouble breathing or swallowing. If you or someone you’re with experiences these symptoms after an ant sting, seek urgent medical attention.

Sam Robinson receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and the National Geographic Society.

– ref. Ant stings can be painful. Here’s how to avoid getting stung this summer (and what to do if you do) – https://theconversation.com/ant-stings-can-be-painful-heres-how-to-avoid-getting-stung-this-summer-and-what-to-do-if-you-do-241582