Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jean Burgess, Professor and Associate Director, ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society, Queensland University of Technology

After Elon Musk bought Twitter (now rebranded X) in 2022, disaffected users began to seek alternatives. Alongside Meta’s Threads and the open source project Mastodon, Bluesky was one of several contenders.

Threads benefited from Meta’s existing user base but has failed to capture the popular imagination. Mastodon has proven complicated and difficult to grasp for most ordinary users and so use remains fragmented. Bluesky seemed promising but was in invite-only mode at the time and growth was muted.

But in recent weeks, the migration to Bluesky from X seems to have reached a tipping point, as large parts of the user community finally got fed up with X’s toxic culture and management. Following the recent US presidential election, in which Musk appeared to manipulate X’s algorithms to increase his own influence, these users found Bluesky’s doors wide open.

Since then, the user base has grown to more than 20 million users, a number that continues to climb. As others have noted, at least for the moment it feels a bit like early Twitter – a sandpit to explore new tools, a playful connection to the broader internet, and a relatively safe place to share personal thoughts and experiences, or to connect with friends and colleagues.

How is Bluesky different from X?

Bluesky looks very similar to X. Its azure butterfly icon bears obvious resemblances to Twitter’s blue bird, which Musk replaced with a stark white-on-black X.

Bluesky uses hashtags and users address one another using the @ symbol. Replies, quotes and reposts all work much as they do on X. This comforting resemblance is likely one explanation for the remarkable popularity of Bluesky in comparison to other decentralised platforms such as Mastodon.

Bluesky distinguishes itself from X through a rich set of features through which users can control their experience and shape the culture of the platform as a whole.

You can build multiple custom feeds based on your own interests and relationships then publicly share these feeds with others. This is a powerful mechanism to avoid the one-way “push” of algorithmic feeds and represents a more democratic approach to content curation.

Bluesky offers the ability to create custom “starter packs” – curated lists of suggested accounts related to topics, interests or locations. Starter packs can be shared publicly to help new users find people to follow. This is a novel feature that feels friendly and welcoming, and again doesn’t really rely on a top-down algorithm.

Bluesky’s settings menu also includes powerful content moderation tools that users can control. For example, you can create custom keyword lists to mute some types of content, and control who can interact with you.

This means if you don’t want to listen to certain political views, you don’t have to. It also means you can have a pleasant and sociable time without being subject to hate speech, bullying and harassment.

Critics argue these kinds of user controls will lead to “echo chambers” so the overall public sphere (or public square) is no longer a place for an exchange of differing views. But as I have previously argued, a public square owned by a billionaire that is full of shouting bullies does nothing to enable equal participation either.

How decentralised is Bluesky?

Bluesky began life in 2019 as an experimental project within Twitter, led by co-founder and former CEO Jack Dorsey.

The idea was to implement for social media a decentralised protocol – a system that prevents complete control by a single organisation and enables developers or users to build improvements. This would also enable Twitter to connect, or “federate”, with other decentralised platforms and services such as Mastodon.

Rather than being adopted by Twitter, Bluesky eventually became a standalone project and then corporation (Dorsey is no longer involved). There are debates as to how truly decentralised and interoperable it is: Bluesky uses its own AT Protocol (ATP), rather than the ActivityPub protocol commonly used throughout the broader “fedisphere” of decentralised social media. Critics argue this choice could limit Bluesky’s reach and hinder interaction across platforms. For example, a “bridge” is needed to connect Bluesky and Mastodon accounts.

Still, like other federated platforms, it is possible for users to host their accounts on their own servers or nodes. At least in principle, the platform, content, users and their relationships could continue to exist even if the Bluesky company were to disappear, or “exit”, in technical terms.

This is a big shift away from one private company owning all the servers, controlling all the algorithms and making all the rules, and so the next phase of Bluesky’s development will depend substantially on the actions of its users.

Blue skies ahead?

As Bluesky rapidly grows larger, familiar questions are beginning to emerge.

How will a small team relying primarily on community-led content moderation handle adversarial swarms of political bots or child sexual abuse material? Will it accept responsibility for the spread of harmful misinformation or manipulation of political opinion? The company is already investing more in trust and safety but more will be needed if Bluesky’s popularity continues to grow.

The organisation’s funding largely comes from libertarian-leaning cryptocurrency investors. The company has been clear advertising will not be part of the mix and has mentioned introducing paid services as an alternative revenue source. It is unclear whether such strategies will be enough to support a far larger operation, and whether the investors will remain neutral as difficult decisions on platform governance have to be made.

Growth may also bring more government interest. If Bluesky reaches more than 45 million EU users per month, it may be categorised as a “very large online platform”, and will face increased scrutiny.

Questions also remain about whether the “Xodus” to Bluesky will stick. A growth in new sign-ups is one thing, but a vibrant community that is actively posting, sharing and commenting is another matter entirely.

It is doubtful we will ever see a full replacement for Twitter in its heyday, and maybe that’s OK. As long as there is some interoperability between platforms and a healthy exchange of ideas, it may be better if we never again put all our little blue eggs in one basket.

Follow The Conversation on Bluesky.

Jean Burgess receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Canada).

– ref. What is Bluesky? Why tens of millions of people are heading for a ‘decentralised’ social media platform – https://theconversation.com/what-is-bluesky-why-tens-of-millions-of-people-are-heading-for-a-decentralised-social-media-platform-244508

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Patrick O’Connor, Associate Professor in Natural Resource Economics, University of Adelaide

Visiting a national park is good for our health and wellbeing. But the benefits are not shared equally across the community. Often the people who need it most are least able to access a high-quality dose of nature.

We wanted to quantify the benefit to the health system, in dollar terms. After all, health budgets are steadily growing while urban green spaces with high biodiversity are often degraded and squeezed by development.

Our new research puts a dollar value on the health benefits of visits to national parks within reach of the city of Adelaide in South Australia. We estimate every visit saves the health budget almost A$100 ($96).

Scaled up across the country, this means the 22 million day trips to national parks in 2019 could shave more than $2.1 billion off the nation’s health bill every year. This estimate assumes visits and benefits are similar across the country. It can pay to look after nature.

How did we estimate this?

Past research shows spending time in nature may reduce stress, depression, anxiety, obesity, type II diabetes, heart disease and lung disease. The health benefits of access to green space are often cited to support the conservation of biodiversity, particularly in cities.

But it’s hard to calculate the economic value of these benefits. There’s a lack of data on the number of people who benefit and it’s difficult to estimate how big the benefit is. For instance, how do you calculate the “dosage” of urban green space as a health treatment and measure the amount of health gained from a given dose?

To find out more, we examined the health benefits of access to nature in 20 national parks within 60 kilometres of central Adelaide over the 2018–19 financial year.

To work out how many people visited each park, and how far they travelled to get there, we used de-identified mobile phone “ping” data.

A ping is what happens when one of the apps on your phone sends a message to the nearest phone tower to check for updates. We obtained app ping data for each of the 20 national parks, which gave us the result of 1.45 million visitors over the 2018–19 year.

We combined the ping data with information from a survey of more than 1,000 park visitors about attitudes towards and use of South Australian parks. It was also combined with general Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data on South Australia’s population health.

We then estimated a health benefit from access to parks for citizens across various socioeconomic groups.

To work this out, we compared self-reported health rating data from people who did or did not visit these parks. This showed people who visit parks are much more likely to report their health as “very good” or “excellent” compared to those who don’t. We also looked at the shifts in health status for different socioeconomic groups.

We were able to control for the differences in underlying health of the people who answered the survey. This gave us a result: the difference in positive self-reported health between park visitors and those who don’t visit was between 2% and 5%.

We then used 2018-19 data on the cost of treating ten categories of major long-term chronic disease – such as diabetes, arthritis and cancer – to estimate savings to the health budget.

How much good does a visit do?

We analysed the health benefits of more than 1.45 million visits to national parks during the course of our study.

We found access to these green spaces could be worth $140 million a year in reduced healthcare costs. This is equivalent to around 4% of the total South Australian healthcare budget.

Dividing $140 million by 1,453,271 visits works out to $96 per visit.

Access to nature is not equal

We found people living in lower socioeconomic areas have to travel about three times as far to visit a national park than people in higher socioeconomic areas.

As a result, people from lower socioeconomic areas tend to make fewer visits to national parks. We found the number of visits for people from these areas was about 20% of the number of visits from people in higher socioeconomic areas.

This means the share of health benefits flowing to people in relatively disadvantaged areas is much lower. Health problems can have a greater financial impact for relatively socioeconomically disadvantaged people. So this group stands to benefit most from increasing access to nature, with greater potential savings for the health budget.

Spending on health and the environment

In total, Australia spent around $241.3 billion on health goods and services in 2021–22. That’s about $9,365 per person, on average. Health costs such as hospital spending continue to grow.

Commonwealth public hospital spending alone is expected to grow by $2 billion a year.

At the same time, spending on protecting nature makes up less than 0.1% of the Commonwealth budget and falls short of what Australians want. Almost all Australians (97%) want more action to prevent extinctions and more public investment to protect the environment and natural places (72%).

Our research suggests making nature more accessible by restoring urban biodiversity and increasing access to our protected areas can be a win for people, governments and the budget.

Health benefits for all

To fully realise and share these benefits, we need better integrated budgets which recognise how the natural world benefits our health and the broader economy. This requires being able to measure nature and our use of it in ways we have not been able to before.

Our research has attracted interest from policymakers in the recreation and wellbeing sectors. These sectors are becoming more prominent at the national level, as well as in South Australia, when it comes to valuing national parks and wildlife services.

As we come to better understand the relationships between contact with nature and health outcomes we stand a greater chance of investing well, and equitably, so everyone can benefit from improved physical and mental health.

Patrick O’Connor has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the South Australian, Victorian, New South Wales and Australian governments including the South Australian Department for Environment and Heritage. He is a board director of the Nature Conservation Society of SA, a committee member of the Restoration Decade Alliance and a councillor of the Biodiversity Council.

Adam James Loch has received funding from the South Australian Department for Environment and Water. He has also received ARC and ACIAR funds for both domestic and international projects.

John Maclean has received funding from the South Australian Department for Environment and Water.

– ref. ‘A dose of nature’: each time you visit a national park, you save the health budget almost $100 – https://theconversation.com/a-dose-of-nature-each-time-you-visit-a-national-park-you-save-the-health-budget-almost-100-243916

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marika Sosnowski, Postdoctoral research fellow, The University of Melbourne

The announcement of a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hezbollah is welcome news for a region torn apart by more than a year of warfare. Hopefully when implemented, the ceasefire will offer some respite for both Lebanese and Israeli civilians.

The deal came into effect at 4am local time on Wednesday. However, the previous 24–48 hours had seen a dramatic increase in violence on both sides. This is part of a well-established pattern in warfare in which fighting increases in intensity just before a ceasefire comes into force.

My research has shown that while ceasefires may be the least-worst option we have to reduce violence during wartime, they are certainly not a panacea.

Specifically, I study the terms and power dynamics of ceasefires to better understand some of their less obvious consequences. Here are four questions and concerns I have about the current Israel–Hezbollah ceasefire.

1. What happens after 60 days?

The ceasefire agreement reportedly has 13 points that aim to stop the hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah for 60 days.

This would, in theory, allow for more than a million people displaced from southern Lebanon and more than 60,000 people displaced from northern Israel to return to their homes.

Returning Israelis to their homes in the north has been one of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s explicit war aims. Thousands of Israelis from the north have been housed in hotels across the country for more than a year at great expense to the government, so there is also a large economic incentive to make this deal happen.

However, given the relatively short timeframe and the fragile nature of the ceasefire, it remains to be seen whether civilians on both sides will take the opportunity to return home.

Additionally, the destruction in southern Lebanon is extensive, making it difficult for people to return within the relatively short timeframe of the truce.

While US President Joe Biden and his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron have said the ceasefire will provide the basis for a “lasting calm”, the terms of the ceasefire provide no details on what will happen at the end of the 60-day period.

2. The conflict could expand to Syria

A number of the terms are concerned with limiting Hezbollah’s ability to rearm during the ceasefire. This includes the dismantling of all unauthorised infrastructure and weapons production facilities in southern Lebanon.

Hezbollah’s main patron, Iran, channels weapons to Hezbollah through Syria. The terms of the ceasefire raise the possibility that Israel will conduct more airstrikes inside Syria to ensure weapons from Iran do not reach Hezbollah.

While this is not explicitly authorised under the terms of the ceasefire or international law, the deal provides Israel with some justification for taking such action. It can argue it is enforcing the terms of the ceasefire by not allowing Hezbollah to rearm via weapons shipments from Iran.

Already in the wake of the ceasefire announcement, Israel targeted sites on Lebanon’s northern border with Syria for the first time, presumably as a way to curb Iran’s influence.

3. Lack of detail on troop withdrawal

In many ways, the ceasefire is based on UN Security Council resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel.

It’s ironic the terms of the ceasefire recognise the importance of this resolution when Israel has largely ignoredseveral other UN resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.

And arguably, resolution 1701 was never fully implemented by either Israel or Hezbollah.

Another term of the agreement says Israel will gradually withdraw its troops from southern Lebanon over the 60-day period.

During this time, Lebanese Army and state security forces will become “the only entities authorised to carry weapons or deploy troops” in the area south of the Litani River. Al Jazeera has reported that Israel insists Hezbollah dismantles and leaves southern Lebanon before any Israeli soldier withdraws.

Given the ceasefire provides no specific detail on logistics, it remains to be seen whether and how the Israel Defense Forces will withdraw its troops. Additionally, the Lebanese Army and security forces are generally seen as being hugely underfunded, as well as unable and/or unwilling to challenge Hezbollah’s primacy in Lebanon.

Further, another term of the ceasefire says the US will support indirect negotiations between Israel and Lebanon to achieve an internationally recognised delineation of their border.

The explicit mention of negotiations on the border suggests it may change as a result of the ceasefire. This could mean Israel may seek to retain and hold new territory as a result.

4. What about Gaza?

Netanyahu has said the ceasefire will enable Israel to focus its efforts on Hamas fighters in Gaza and his top security concern, Iran.

Other officials have called the ceasefire “a game-changer” that would show Hamas that the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon were de–linked.

Hezbollah had previously insisted it would not agree to a ceasefire until the war in Gaza ended. This new deal presumes this condition has been dropped.

Some have suggested a ceasefire with Hezbollah may put additional pressure on Hamas to agree to a deal with Israel regarding the release of the remaining Israeli hostages it holds.

However, this overlooks the fact Hamas has been willing to make a ceasefire deal in the past, while the Israeli government has stymied negotiations by adding new terms at the last minute.

Further, Qatar was frustrated to such a degree by an “unwillingness to engage” and “lack of good faith” from both sides, it recently withdrew as a mediator between the parties.

The ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah should not take attention away from the fighting in Gaza, nor the horrific and dire humanitarian situation there.

It remains to be seen how the war in Gaza will play out. Will Israel move forward with a more formal occupation of parts of the enclave, as some have suggested? Or will the ceasefire with Hezbollah serve to isolate Hamas to the extent it feels it has even less to lose than it – and the Palestinians – already have?

Marika Sosnowski 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. Ceasefires are not a panacea. Here are 4 reasons to be concerned about the Israel-Hezbollah deal – https://theconversation.com/ceasefires-are-not-a-panacea-here-are-4-reasons-to-be-concerned-about-the-israel-hezbollah-deal-244728

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Gould, Senior Research Fellow and Clinical Neuropsychologist, Monash University

Romance scams – where scammers create fake identities and use dating or friendship to get your trust and money – cost Australians A$201 million last year.

But the emotional impact of romance scams can often feel worse than losing money. Those who have been scammed may experience shame and embarrassment and have difficulty accepting the relationship wasn’t real.

People who have acquired a brain injury, for example after a stroke or car accident, may be more vulnerable to these scams. My research with colleagues shows they are often less aware of scams and find it harder to recognise red flags.

But our project has found there are benefits when people with brain injuries who have been scammed share their experiences. It can create awareness, reduce stigma and help prevent future scams.

Some groups are more vulnerable

Anyone can be scammed. But some groups are more at risk, including people with a disability such as an acquired brain injury.

We surveyed 101 clinicians in Australia and New Zealand who work with people who have acquired brain injuries. More than half (53%) had a client who had been affected by a cyberscam. The most common type was a romance scam.

How do romance scams work?

Romance scams involve a scammer (or sometimes multiple people) luring someone into a fake relationship in order to exploit them, often to get money. Scammers may use online dating platforms to connect, or social media, gaming and even online shopping sites.

Romance scammers build trust and strong emotions using techniques such as love bombing (early and frequent declarations of affection), grooming and manipulation over an extended period of time. They share common interests and even similar types of trauma to make people trust them. As a romance scam survivor with an acquired brain injury explained:

My way of thinking was sort of skewed because all I seen was love, the money, all the things I wanted, so I didn’t worry about all the other little stuff.

The identity of the scammer usually appears very attractive and trustworthy but is often fake, stolen from a real person or AI-generated. They present lots of evidence and exciting details about their everyday life to appear real and keep people hooked into the relationship.

Scammers use pre-written scripts with compelling narratives describing significant financial success, being a widower or orphan, or working overseas to attract people. Flirty language and flattery makes people want to keep communicating with the scammer. They might tell you they think you have a beautiful smile and their dog or cat would love you.

Scammers will invest weeks and months to build up a connection, then scammers present exciting “opportunities”. These may include investments and requests to cover international flights for a first meet-up. Or paying for medical bills for a sick relative. As a scam survivor with an acquired brain injury explained:

She was really jumping into a kind of quite intimate relationship with me, even though we haven’t met yet, but she’s promising we will one day. All I need to do is send money.

Why are people with brain injuries more at risk?

One in 45 Australians lives with a brain injury acquired during an event such as car accident or stroke. This can damage a specific part of the brain, widespread brain cells (neurons), or both.

The impact of a brain injury varies but can affect cognition, emotions, behaviour and neurological functioning. As a result, people can experience changes in their ability to care for themselves, work, socialise and make complex decisions.

Cognitive difficulties – such as memory problems and reduced information processing – can make it harder to learn, notice and respond to scam red flags in real time. People may struggle to comprehend new or complex information, have reduced judgement and be more impulsive.

Like other vulnerable Australians, people with brain injury may also be bored, lonely and require care. This may mean the scammers’ constant online availability, messaging, attention, praise and acceptance of the person regardless of their disability is even more attractive.

Shame and embarrassment

People with acquired brain injuries may also struggle to move from knowing or intending to do something, to actually enacting that behaviour. This is called the frontal lobe paradox. As one of our interviewees explained:

I make some big realisations and then I forget about it, like … ‘don’t do that again’. And then I go and do it again.

When the scam is uncovered, family, friends and frontline services such as police and banks may respond with blame, judgement and ridicule. This contributes to further distress:

They just say how stupid I was for being
conned.

Scams are likely under-reported to authorities such as Scamwatch as a result of shame and a lack of awareness about scams.

Family and clinicians of people with brain injury may cut or reduce their access to money or the internet, which adds to the scam’s financial and emotional impacts.

As one clinician explained:

The depression […] didn’t come from being scammed. It came from quite the opposite, almost like he […] feels like it’s his right to have access and leave himself open to those things.

Authentic partnerships with people with lived experience

Our research team has developed a suite of tailored resources called CyberAbility, which were co-designed with people who have brain injuries and experience of being scammed. We call them “Scambassadors”.

The Scambassadors alleviate some of the stigma and shame associated with being scammed, through conducting community education sessions, speaking with media, and co-facilitating therapy groups. They also spread awareness to other people with brain injuries about what to look out for – but the advice is helpful for everyone.

You can look out for signs someone in your life is being scammed. This could include a new unmet lover, major unexpected purchases or loans, or an increase in secrecy about online activities.

Approach difficult conversations about possible scams with curiosity, care and patience. Share your own experiences of being scammed or ripped off to normalise this and reduce judgement.

Whoever is scammed, the real fault lies with the criminals who commit this fraud. But regularly discussing scams can help reduce stigma and protect our community.

Kate Gould has received grant funding from the Transport Accident Commission, Lifetime Support Authority, Summer Foundation, auDA Foundation and Monash University.

– ref. People with brain injuries have a high risk of romance scams. ‘Scambassadors’ can help shed stigma – https://theconversation.com/people-with-brain-injuries-have-a-high-risk-of-romance-scams-scambassadors-can-help-shed-stigma-239604

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hans Westerbeek, Professor of International Sport Business, Head of Sport Business Insights Group, Victoria University

The AFL Women’s (AFLW) league was launched in 2017 as the Australian Football League (AFL) responded to growing demand for a professional platform for women in Australian rules football.

Interest had steadily risen over the previous decade, fuelled by an increase in grassroots participation and advocacy for gender equity in sports.

Part of this growth was stimulated by community-level programs and policy changes aimed at encouraging female participation in sports traditionally dominated by men.

As North Melbourne and Brisbane prepare to battle in this year’s grand final, let’s look back at what is working, what isn’t and what needs to be done in the future.

A blaze of glory

In its inaugural year, the AFLW received overwhelming fan support, attracting record-breaking crowds and viewership numbers.

The debut match at Melbourne’s Princes Park attracted more than 24,000 spectators, far surpassing initial expectations.

Other highlights included the emergence of AFLW greats like Erin Phillips, Daisy Pearce and Emma Kearney in the early seasons.

A defining moment occurred in 2019 when Tayla Harris became an unexpected symbol of resilience against misogyny. Captured mid-kick by photographer Michael Willson, Harris’s powerful image went viral.

Rather than celebrating her athleticism, social media was flooded with abusive, sexualised comments.

Unfazed, Harris seized the moment to confront gender-based violence, turning vile trolling into a platform for change.

Beyond her achievements on the field, Harris will be remembered as a trailblazer in the fight against misogyny in sport.

Over time though, challenges also emerged.

Problems arise

Issues around fair wages, part-time contracts, scheduling, and limited support infrastructure underscored the struggle to professionalise fully and retain fan interest.

Read more:
The AFL has consistently put the women’s game second. Is it the best organisation to run AFLW?

These issues resulted in a decline in attendance and television viewership since the inaugural season in 2017.

From an average of more than 6,400 fans per game during 2017–20, crowd numbers dropped significantly to almost 2,600 in 2021–24.

On television, the new league’s debut season attracted an impressive 180,000 viewers per match on average.

By season seven, however, this number had dropped to just 53,000. Notably, that season coincided with the men’s AFL finals, which likely has an impact on visibility and audience retention.

While AFLW boss Emma Moore recently announced a 9.8% increase in average television viewership from 2023, these figures remain far below the league’s early highs.

In cricket, the Women’s Big Bash League (WBBL) offers an insightful comparison – it overtook the AFLW in TV ratings in 2021 even amid its own challenges.

Despite a decline during the men’s T20 World Cup that year, the WBBL still achieved an average of 174,000 viewers per free-to-air match.

In contrast, AFLW games attracted around 91,000 viewers, according to data from Cricket Australia.

These figures underscore the challenge facing AFLW in an increasingly crowded sports market.

Experts call for action

Kelli Underwood, host of Fox Footy panel show AFLW on Fox, has argued a deep and comprehensive review is required.

Underwood believes the AFLW needs a significant reset before its tenth season, calling for a bold ten-year plan with players at the centre.

She criticises the scheduling, highlighting player fatigue, injuries and overworked staff due to crammed fixtures.

North Melbourne captain Emma Kearney also advocates for significant changes.

She proposes a trial of a heavier size-five football used by men, a longer 17-round season, and double-header matches alongside the men’s competition.

She also notes full-time coaches and better scheduling of matches are required changes.

The decision to expand from eight initial teams to 18 by 2022 has also been queried.

While the intent – to provide a team for every men’s AFL club supporter to cheer on – was commendable, this accelerated expansion has posed challenges to competition quality and development.

By contrast, the National Rugby League’s women’s competition has taken a more measured path.

With just ten teams, the NRLW maintains a consistent Thursday-to-Sunday schedule, allowing each team to face every other side in a home-and-away format, fostering competitive balance and spectator engagement.

What can be done?

At the heart of the AFLW’s struggles is the glaring reality that many players still cannot afford to dedicate themselves to the sport full time.

Many AFLW athletes are left to balance part-time jobs or study with their playing careers, inevitably leading to fatigue and underperformance. The same applies to coaching and support staff.

This part-time model is unsustainable and hinders the development of the league.

In addition to insufficiently rewarded and dedicated staff, the scheduling of AFLW matches is a major concern.

Some believe “football fatigue” is a real issue, in that extending the overall AFL season (sequentially combining the men’s and women’s competitions) is too much.

This hurts the women’s game more than the men’s, while the current fixture also leaves many players with insufficient recovery time between games, contributing to fatigue and injuries.

Poorly timed matches, often competing with other major sports or scheduled in unsuitable time slots, also reduces the number of fans tuning in or attending games.

For the AFLW to avoid fading into obscurity, the AFL must urgently redirect its focus to the human and technical infrastructure that will sustain the league.

This means proper salaries for players and staff, full-time professional roles for coaches and medical teams, and a thoughtfully designed schedule that prioritises player welfare. Partnering with the men’s game (double headers) may create economies of scale and efficiency.

Women’s football in Australia has made enormous strides in the past decade but those gains can be easily undone by neglect.

The AFL must invest in the foundations now – both in the people who make the game happen and the infrastructure that supports them – if the AFLW is to survive and thrive.

Without those investments, women’s football risks slipping back into the shadows.

Hans Westerbeek 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. Without more investment and better leadership, the AFLW risks slipping back into the shadows – https://theconversation.com/without-more-investment-and-better-leadership-the-aflw-risks-slipping-back-into-the-shadows-241366

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Evangeline Mantzioris, Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Accredited Practising Dietitian, University of South Australia

As the weather gets warmer, it’s the perfect time for ice cream or a gelato. Who am I kidding? It’s the perfect time year round.

But what’s the difference between gelato and ice cream?

Not everyone agrees. Some people say they’re made with different amounts of fat. Others say it’s all about the air content.

To add to the confusion, gelato is the Italian word for any type of ice cream. But in Australia, gelato refers to the frozen dessert of Italian origin.

How are they similar?

Ice cream and gelato are both sweet desserts served cold. They both contain varying amounts of cream, milk, sugar, flavours, and sometimes eggs.

The fat component from the cream provides the richness, smoothness and body. Eggs are normally associated with gelato but can also be added to ice cream to enhance the richness.

Most commercial ice creams and gelato also contain emulsifiers. These are food additives that act as a stabiliser by preventing liquids that normally don’t mix from separating. Emulsifiers have been linked to numerous gut symptoms. However most of the evidence comes from laboratory and animal studies, and there is limited robust evidence of this in humans.

Ice cream and gelato are both made by churning (whipping) the ingredients, leading to air bubbles forming. In fact, it’s the air bubbles that allow us to eat these desserts frozen. It gives them a palatable texture and mouthfeel by making the mixture softer and lighter. Imagine how hard it would be to eat a hard lump of frozen dessert.

Many people assume both ice cream and gelato are good sources of calcium, presumably because they’re made from dairy products. But due to the low proportions of milk (it’s mostly cream, which contains less calcium), they both only provide about 65 milligrams of calcium per half cup. That’s about 7% of the daily calcium requirements for adults aged 19-50.

They also both contain small amounts of protein – about 2-3 grams per half cup. That’s only about 5% of your daily protein requirements.

So ice cream and gelato are not a valuable source of calcium and protein, making them of low nutritional value. That’s why they’re regarded as “sometimes” foods.

How are they different?

It’s about the air

The speed at which the mixture is churned can determine the amount of air it contains. This impacts the product’s thickness and smoothness.

Ice cream is traditionally churned faster than gelato. This means more air is incorporated, making it feel fluffy and creamy compared to gelato, which tends to feels thicker and richer.

It’s about the ice

Churning at a slower speed, as you would typically for gelato, also increases the size of ice crystals. Large ice crystals give a coarse icy texture, compared to a creamier texture from smaller ice crystals in ice cream.

How about the fat?

Although many websites say ice cream contains more fat than gelato, this is a tricky one to tease out.

In Australia, food standards say ice cream should contain at least 100g milk fat per kilogram (or 10% milk fat).

So products with less fat need to be called something else – frozen dessert, iced confection, even gelato. So, in theory, a lower-fat product made the same way as ice cream could be called gelato. Non-dairy products made the same way as ice cream could also be called gelato.

So how much milk fat does gelato need to contain? I can’t find any legal requirements in Australia or elsewhere. Cooking websites often refer to it having 4-9% milk fat. But depending on the recipe, it could be higher.

Fat content also differs from flavour to flavour. For example, if you compare the nutritional content of half a cup of vanilla ice cream with half a cup of vanilla gelato, the ice cream has 2g more fat. Other flavours will give different results.

How about the sugar or kilojules?

If we just compare half a cup of vanilla ice cream with half a cup of vanilla gelato, the gelato has about 3g more sugar. Again, different flavours will give different results. The difference in kilojoules is very small – 15kJ per half cup.

Overall, which one’s healthier?

Effectively there is little difference nutritionally between ice cream and gelato.

But brands and flavours vary considerably. They each use different amounts of cream, eggs and other ingredients. So kilojoule, fat and sugar content can vary considerably too.

Should you still eat them? Yes, absolutely if you enjoy them. However, both are classified as sometimes foods due to their added sugar and low level of nutrients. And perhaps limit your serve size.

Evangeline Mantzioris is affiliated with Alliance for Research in Nutrition, Exercise and Activity (ARENA) at the University of South Australia. Evangeline Mantzioris has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, and has been appointed to the National Health and Medical Research Council Dietary Guideline Expert Committee.

– ref. What’s the difference between gelato and ice cream? One contains more air – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-gelato-and-ice-cream-one-contains-more-air-238988

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Johnny Chan, Lecturer, Business School, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

People determined to spread toxic messages online have taken to masking their words to bypass automated moderation filters.

A user might replace letters with numbers or symbols, for example, writing “Y0u’re st00pid” instead of “You’re stupid”.

Another tactic involves combining words, such as “IdiotFace”. Doing this masks the harmful intent from systems that look for individual toxic words.

Similarly, harmful terms can be altered with spaces or additional characters, such as “h a t e ” or “h@te”, effectively slipping through keyword-based filters.

While the intent remains harmful, traditional moderation tools often overlook such messages. This leaves users — particularly vulnerable groups — exposed to their negative impact.

To address this, we have developed a novel pre-processing technique designed to help moderation tools more effectively handle the subtle complexities of hidden toxicity.

An intelligent assistant

Our tool works in conjunction with existing moderation. It acts as an intelligent assistant, preparing content for deeper and more accurate evaluation by restructuring and refining input text.

By addressing common tricks users employ to disguise harmful intent, it ensures moderation systems are more effective. The tool performs three key functions.

1. It first simplifies the text. Irrelevant elements, such as excessive punctuation or extraneous characters, are removed to make text straightforward and ready for evaluation.

2. It then standardises what is written. Variations in spelling, phrasing and grammar are resolved. This includes interpreting deliberate misspellings (“h8te” for “hate”).

3. Finally, it looks for patterns. Recurring strategies such as breaking up toxic words (“I d i o t”), or embedding them within benign phrases, are identified and normalised to reveal the underlying intent.

These steps can break apart compound words like “IdiotFace” or normalise modified phrases like “Y0u’re st00pid”. This makes harmful content visible to traditional filters.

Importantly, our work is not about reinventing the wheel but ensuring the existing wheel functions as effectively as it should, even when faced with disguised toxic messages.

Catching subtle forms of toxicity

The applications of this tool extend across a wide range of online environments. For social media platforms, it enhances the ability to detect harmful messages, creating a safer space for users. This is particularly important for protecting younger audiences, who may be more vulnerable to online abuse.

By catching subtle forms of toxicity, the tool helps to prevent harmful behaviours like bullying from persisting unchecked.

Businesses can also use this technology to safeguard their online presence. Negative campaigns or covert attacks on brands often employ subtle and disguised messaging to avoid detection. By processing such content before it is moderated, the tool ensures that businesses can respond swiftly to any reputational threats.

Additionally, policymakers and organisations that monitor public discourse can benefit from this system. Hidden toxicity, particularly in polarised discussions, can undermine efforts to maintain constructive dialogue.

The tool provides a more robust way for identifying problematic content and ensuring that debates remain respectful and productive.

Better moderation

Our tool marks an important advance in content moderation. By addressing the limitations of traditional keyword-based filters, it offers a practical solution to the persistent issue of hidden toxicity.

Importantly, it demonstrates how small but focused improvements can make a big difference in creating safer and more inclusive online environments. As digital communication continues to evolve, tools like ours will play an increasingly vital role in protecting users and fostering positive interactions.

While this research addresses the challenges of detecting hidden toxicity within text, the journey is far from over.

Future advances will likely delve deeper into the complexities of context—analysing how meaning shifts depending on conversational dynamics, cultural nuances and intent.

By building on this foundation, the next generation of content moderation systems could uncover not just what is being said but also the circumstances in which it is said, paving the way for safer and more inclusive online spaces.

Johnny Chan receives funding from Netsafe New Zealand.

– ref. Unmasking hidden online hate: a new tool helps catch nasty comments – even when they’re disguised – https://theconversation.com/unmasking-hidden-online-hate-a-new-tool-helps-catch-nasty-comments-even-when-theyre-disguised-244636

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ariel Kline, Casual Lecturer in Art History, University of Sydney

At the Art Gallery of New South Wales, spread across four rooms on the lowest floor of the main building, sits Nusra Latif Qureshi’s first major solo exhibition, Birds in Far Pavilions.

The exhibition is introduced with Did you come here to find history?, a digital print Qureshi created in 2009 for the 53rd Venice Biennale.

The print is nine metres wide and features 17 Mughal and Venetian paintings overlaid with Qureshi’s own passport photograph. The work responds directly to the city of Venice – and history itself – as an “imagined land”.

Placed like a marquee leading towards the show’s interior, it suggests the exhibition asks this question, too. Did you come here to find history? The inquiry, Qureshi explains, refers in part to “the relationship of artist with art history”.

That the exhibition plays with scale is fitting for an artist who was trained in musaviri, or Mughal miniature painting, at the National College of Arts in Lahore, Pakistan.

In Descriptions of past II (2001), golden plants sway beneath a woman’s feet.

You’d need a magnifying glass to appreciate the blades of grass emerging from the ground like pieces of hair, rendered as finely as the woman’s own wavy strands.

An installation on the far wall in the first room, Shafts in ground (2015), combines maps of the Costerfield antimony mines in Victoria with some everyday wares from a prospector’s camp.

In Qureshi’s hands, the room, with its yawning ceilings and empty centre, toys with its own sparseness. Visitors are compelled to hew close to the works along the walls, skimming the edges as though in orbit of nothing. Such is Qureshi’s and curator Matt Cox’s command of the space.

The choice befits how the artist toggles with space in her works, which sometimes fill the boards on which they are rendered, and at other times yield to swathes of coloured ground.

Qureshi moved to Melbourne from Lahore in 2001 – from one former city of the British empire to another. This colonial comparison undergirds, but does not determine, her subsequent works.

At the exhibition’s heart is the Museum of lost memories (2024), in which Qureshi has gathered objects from the Art Gallery’s collection, the Powerhouse Museum and her own studio.

In several crowded display cases, she has placed Australian souvenirs, Mughal paintings, photographs, polo mallets and Indian daggers. Objects that speak to the museum’s encyclopaedic remit turn to converse with those from Qureshi’s own studio – a doily, a stone Bodhisattva, a textile, a plastic tank.

In the 19th century, musaviri painters repurposed their skills and began hand-colouring photographs. An old label tells us one photograph’s subject, embellished in deep blue, is a Shia Muslim from Sindh.

Leaning into the past

Qureshi’s work is as much art as it is art history. History and, by extension, historical art, seem to have become bad objects in Australia.

Perhaps to answer the neoliberal university’s obsession with KPIs, as well as the Australian government’s “job-ready” policy, art history has turned to the present to proclaim its relevance. Curators and artists present imagined futures and reparative gambits that obscure or sit alongside historical material.

These interventions are important, but if they are not matched by a rigorous and nuanced engagement with history, then historical objects become the tarnished relics of a benighted past. Relatedly, contemporary works become flattened into one or another critical posture.

This progressivist vision of history makes a villain of the past and a hero of the present.

But there are no perfect heroes or villains in Qureshi’s works. Or, if there are, they are strikingly adjacent – and only two among many strands of an ever-unfolding history.

Her paintings are often described for their layered effects. In Justified behavioural sketch (2002), the carmine outlines of British army officers with polo mallets resemble the rugged boundaries of maps as they invade a woman’s face.

This same outline forms the third diptych in the Accomplished missions series (2012), here slightly covered by an open, green hand.

In Gardens of Desire (2002), a botanical drawing from Scottish illustrator Sydney Parkinson is laid gently over Radha and her lover, the god Krishna.

From layers to threads

Over time, however, Qureshi’s layered lines have turned to string. Threads are animate and wayward, limp and tangled, in the Conference of birds series (2013). The same gossamer strings envelop and stabilise two acrobats in On the edges of darkness II (2016).

More recently, these strings have been brought into the world. We see them draped above and through Qureshi’s paintings of 19th and early 20th century portrait photographs from Melbourne in Refined portraits of desire (2018).

Red yarn spills from ringlet curls and feathered hats, connecting the oval paintings on the wall to one another and to corresponding works on a table below.

In the Museum of lost memories, bits of string and cord drape and adjoin objects like red, deflated roads. And in The room with red tiles (2023) – pictured in the header image above – hands gather and pass cascading thread down the length of a green ground.

Qureshi is pulling on things that may never untangle, but it is the pulling that matters. Her art draws together objects and images that resist resolution – looping the present into a past that continues to unravel.

In her work, we are bound to the past and to one another with pieces of scattered threads, should we choose to follow them.

Ariel Kline 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. Nusra Latif Qureshi’s art invites us to confront colonial histories – and the messy threads that led us to the present – https://theconversation.com/nusra-latif-qureshis-art-invites-us-to-confront-colonial-histories-and-the-messy-threads-that-led-us-to-the-present-244291

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Angelique Nadia Sweetman McInnes, Academic in Financial Planning, CQUniversity Australia

Australians are expected to spend more this Christmas than last, with spending projected to rise to A$69.7 billion. This is a 2.7% increase on what we spent last year on gifts, food and other treats for ourselves and others.

This is a lot at a time when many people are experiencing mortgage stress and high inflation. But by employing smart budgeting and spending strategies we can enjoy a festive Christmas season without huge financial stress.

Know how much you are spending

Being aware of what you are spending is important. So you don’t spend beyond your means, you need to decide what you are going to buy and track what you spend.

Using budgeting tools in your banking app will help you monitor your spending. Your bank’s app or a variety of budgeting apps, can also help you find deals and stick to your financial goals.

Research shows spending decreases when you use an online budgeting app by 15%.

Christmas budgeting means setting clear limits, like a gift allowance for each person of, for example, under $10, $25, $50 or $100. This helps us stay on track. Before shopping, we should also ask ourselves: “Is this worth buying?” or “Do I really need this?”.

How to bag a bargain

About 63% of Australian consumers say they start their shopping in November, before the last-minute push to fill the Christmas stockings. This enables them to take advantage of the Black Friday sales on now and Cyber Monday, next Monday.

Online research can uncover decent bargains to lower Christmas spending. Or you could wait until the Boxing Day sales to buy discounted gifts for people you don’t see until after December 25.

The post-Christmas sales are also good for stocking up on heavily discounted crackers and decorations for next year.

Most Australian shoppers (89%) are combining online (websites, mobile apps, social media) with physical in-store shopping. Major online retailers such as Amazon, eBay, and The Iconic (69%) are now more popular than department stores (59%).

There are also thrift and discount stores which offer affordable gifts while using their income to help those in need.

By using the internet to compare prices and set price alerts for goods you want to buy, you are more likely to get the best deals. Take time to search for store discounts. Using loyalty programs, coupons, promo codes, and free shipping also helps keep money in your pocket.

Why cash at Christmas is better

The federal government’s decision last week to require businesses to accept cash, not just credit or debit cards, also has benefits for saving. Cash purchases encourage you to spend wisely, set your spending limit, and prevent you from overspending, or paying interest and fees on cards.

There is also the old “cash envelope system” used for centuries and popularised in the 1990s to help curb spending. This sees cash divided into envelopes, each labelled for a specific expense (for example, gifts for A, B, C). Once the money in the envelope is gone, nothing more can be spent.

One way to help boost your Christmas budget; while simultaneously decluttering, your home is to sell items you no longer use. There are numerous online sites and bricks and mortar stores where this can be done.

Saving money with DIY

In 2024, Australians will spend an average of $660 per shopper on gifts, with popular choices including clothing and shoes, books, and gift cards.

However, it’s not necessary to buy all your gifts or Christmas decorations. Consider making affordable handmade gifts to add a personal touch. There are demonstration videos online showing you how to re-purpose old items, bake homemade festive treats, create a special moments photo album or scrapbook.

Mix Epsom salts, essential oils and dried flowers to create relaxing bath salts or scrubs. Use natural pine cones or salt dough to make ornaments. Make wreaths using pine branches, holly or dried oranges. Sew fabric garlands to place on the tree, fireplace or mantle.

Instead of buying multiple extravagant presents for each person, try doing a Secret Santa. This is the low-cost tradition where everyone buys only one gift for one recipient who is chosen using an online tool. Gifts are then given anonymously.

Festive food

Festive food spending is projected to be $28 billion, up 4.2%, this year, contributing to the overall increase in expected total Christmas spending.

To save on food expenses, asks guests to bring a dish to share. Or celebrate Christmas with an economical picnic or BBQ, weather permitting.

Get creative with food leftovers to make meals and reduce the amount of food waste, while stretching your wallet further once Christmas has come and gone.

Managing costs, avoiding debt

Sticking to your Christmas budget can feel rewarding. If you do overspend, reflect on why, and adjust your plan. If needed, explore debt options, like credit cards or personal loans, but only as a last resort.

Thoughtful planning will help you manage your costs, while enjoying the festive season. After all, the true spirit of Christmas is about creating memories and enjoying time with loved ones, not about overspending.

Dr. McInnes received funding from the Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand and Central Queensland University. She is a member of Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, the Financial Advice Association of Australia, the Society for Trusts and Estate Planning, the Academy of Financial Services, Cooperative Research Australia, the Association of Computing Machinery, the Health Informatics Knowledge Management Steering Committee, and the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education.

– ref. Track your spending, use cash and DIY gifts: how to keep your costs down this Christmas – https://theconversation.com/track-your-spending-use-cash-and-diy-gifts-how-to-keep-your-costs-down-this-christmas-244300

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elizabeth Elliot Noe, Postdoctoral Fellow in Biodiversity, Lincoln University, New Zealand

Globally, about 40% of ice-free land is used for agriculture, managed by farmers and herders.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, this share is even higher, with 51% of land used for agriculture and horticulture. Of this, currently about 10% is used for dairy farming.

When natural habitats are cleared for agriculture, most native biodiversity is lost. Dairy farms represent intensive farming systems with significant detrimental consequences for biodiversity, water and soil quality. However, hedgerows, riparian plantings and shade trees can enhance native biodiversity within these landscapes.

In our new study, we visited 14 dairy farms and interviewed farmers in the Waikato and Canterbury. The research was qualitative, allowing for an in-depth exploration of the experiences, values and priorities New Zealand dairy farmers have for their land and the implications for native biodiversity on farms.

We found dairy farmers have multiple values and priorities but limited time, resources and energy. While working within external constraints such as land ownership or regulations, farmers will act on what they value most.

Unlike most developed countries, New Zealand’s agricultural sector is entirely exposed to global markets. About 95% of dairy products are exported and government support is the lowest among OECD countries. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we found most dairy farmers list economic viability as their highest priority.

When biodiversity is a trade-off

While being profitable is a necessity, maximising profitability is an option. Our interviewees say they would trade off some profit for other values, such as spending time with family, enjoying one’s work, having a visually pleasant home and work environment, improving animal welfare and minimising some negative environmental consequences of dairy farming.

Waikato farmer Riley argued:

You have to make money to keep [the farm] afloat, to be sustainable. But it doesn’t have to spit out millions of dollars in profit. And we want the lifestyle, and we want everything to be better than when we found it.

Beyond the constraints of making a living and paying off farm debt, the landowner’s value hierarchy determines whether they incorporate native biodiversity into farm landscapes.

Our interviewees spoke of many barriers to planting natives, including the cost of plants and ongoing maintenance, labour and lack of knowledge of which species to plant where.

Apart from land ownership, however, these barriers are surmountable to those farmers for whom native biodiversity ranks highly in their hierarchy of values. They acknowledged that planting natives took time and cost money, but it was important enough to them to do it regardless.

These farmers had incorporated native biodiversity into their farm management. For them, planting natives was not an optional extra but an integral part of running a sustainable dairy farm. Their definition of land improvement, sustainability and being a good farmer had come to include planting natives.

Competing for land

Currently, farm productivity and native biodiversity are usually viewed as being incompatible and in competition for land. This is a sentiment dairy farmers voiced in our study as well.

Most participants did not see a clear connection between native biodiversity and milk production, and therefore did not believe planting natives could benefit the productivity or profitability of their farms. Some described areas of native vegetation as “lost land”.

Some of our participants did, however, see opportunities for native biodiversity to contribute towards other values, such as the attractiveness of the farm or animal welfare by providing shade and shelter for cows.

Many studies confirm that on-farm benefits are critical for the adoption of new management practices. Clarifying and emphasising known benefits of native biodiversity to the farm is therefore vital.

Value hierarchies can also shift over a farmer’s lifetime. How highly farmers value native biodiversity will influence how much land they are willing to “lose” for something other than milk production.

Even for the “greenest” dairy farmer, however, strong convictions about the morality of using land for food production will limit how much native biodiversity is acceptable on farm. Native species will primarily be restricted to “marginal” land, mirroring Aotearoa’s broader approach to have conservation land in unproductive mountainous areas.

Unless we can draw a clear connection between native biodiversity and the economic viability of a dairy farm, making space for natives will continue to depend on landowners’ value hierarchies.

Incorporating care for native biodiversity into what it means to be a good farmer has potential to contribute to some transformation of agricultural landscapes. This requires cultural change – a change in the socially embedded understandings and symbols of good farming.

A gradual shift may already be underway, as is suggested by the experiences of those participants who have seen changes in their own value hierarchies and in those of wider farming communities.

Some farmers perceived a shift from the older to the younger generation, with younger farmers being taught to consider the environmental consequences of their practices. Some older farmers described their increasing appreciation of native plants, though they still struggled with the idea of using land for something other than growing pasture.

We need to consider how as a nation we can work towards a shared understanding of good landcare and healthy landscapes.

Elizabeth Elliot Noe receives funding from Centre of Research Excellence Bioprotection Aotearoa.

Anita Wreford and Ottilie Stolte 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. Most NZ dairy farmers put profitability first – but some are planting native trees anyway – https://theconversation.com/most-nz-dairy-farmers-put-profitability-first-but-some-are-planting-native-trees-anyway-242189

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

Australia is on track to reach the Albanese government’s 43% emissions reduction target by 2030, according to the most recent analysis by the Climate Change department.

The analysis shows Australian emissions are projected to be 42.6% below 2005 levels in 2030.

The government has released the new numbers ahead of Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen’s Thursday annual climate change statement to parliament.

They show total net emissions are projected to be 3% below Australia’s 10-year planned carbon reduction budget. This means Australia would over-achieve the 2030 target on the budget basis. That compares to 1% above the budget projected last year.

If additional measures the government is committed to are taken into account, such as the Future Made in Australia policy to support the development of hydrogen and the critical minerals industry, Australia would achieve a projected 42.7% emissions reduction on 2005 levels. This compares to a projection of 42% in the 2023 emissions projections and 40% in the 2022 emissions projections.

Australia is on track to beat its emissions budget by 152 million tonnes over the 10 years to 2030. That would be equivalent to Australia’s entire electricity sector’s emissions in 2024.

The government has declined to say whether it will announce Australia’s emissions reduction target for 2035 before the election. It says it has to wait for advice from the Climate Change Authority.

Bowen said of the latest figures: “Our robust reforms and pragmatic policies are delivering what we’ve always said – Australia’s 43% target is ambitious but achievable.

“The Coalition can’t even name a 2030 target, let alone achieve it,” he said.

Meanwhile the government on Tuesday announced a review of the National Electricity Market (NEM). It will be conducted by a panel led by Tim Nelson, an associate professor of economics at Griffith University.

The inquiry will examine the NEM wholesale market settings “to ensure the market promotes investment in firmed renewable energy generation and storage capacity into the 2030s and beyond. This is vital as electricity demand grows and ageing coal fired power stations exit the system,” a statement from Bowen said.

As the proportion of renewables in the system expands, concern has increased about whether there will be enough firmed power in the system.

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. Australia on track to meet 2030 43% emission’s reduction target, on latest figures – https://theconversation.com/australia-on-track-to-meet-2030-43-emissions-reduction-target-on-latest-figures-244642

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

Big tech platforms won’t be able to compel people to provide digital ID or government-issued identification documents such as a passport, when verifying age for social media accounts.

The government is inserting this prohibition, recommended by a Senate committee, into its legislation banning people under 16 being on various social media sites.

Opposition communications spokesman David Coleman said this was “an important addition and further strengthens the privacy provisions of the legislation”.

As the bill is rushed through parliament this week, with Coalition support, a small number of rebels challenged it in the Opposition party room, with a handful threatening to cross the floor or reserving their right to do so. Two senators, Liberal Alex Antic and Nationals Matt Canavan, flagged they planned to vote against the bill, while Nationals MP Keith Pitt reserved his position.

The Coalition parties meeting on Tuesday debated the bill for nearly two hours. It received “overwhelming” support, Coalition sources said.

Canavan and Pitt were outspoken publicly with their criticisms of the legislation.

Pitt told Sky he was “on board” for taking action but questioned whether this was the right approach and asked why the rush.

Canavan doubted how effective the legislation would be. “Despite the good intentions behind this bill, it may be completely ineffective or worse,” he told the ABC.

The legislation was only introduced last week. A Senate inquiry on the bill received more than 15,000 submissions but only took a few hours of evidence on Monday before producing its report on Tuesday.

Google and Meta urged the legislation be delayed until the governmwent’s age verification trial is done.

The Senate committee report rejected this.

It said: “Some submitters were concerned that the age assurance trial should be completed prior to the passage of the legislation to enable it to inform the detail
and implementation of the bill. However, the committee notes that there is a
twelve-month implementation period for this legislation, and the results of the
age assurance trial will provide the scope and detail rather than technology
being prescribed in the bill.”

Elon Musk, owner of X, has cast doubt on the legality of the bill, reserving the company’s legal rights.

The government and opposition are both confident that, regardless of the rush and the critics, the move will be popular with the public.

YouGov’s latest public data poll found 77% of Australians back the social media ban. This is up from 61% support in an August poll, before the government’s formal announcement. Only 23% oppose the ban.

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. Social media companies won’t be able to compel people to provide digital or government-issued ID to verify age – https://theconversation.com/social-media-companies-wont-be-able-to-compel-people-to-provide-digital-or-government-issued-id-to-verify-age-244649

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

Having finally stared down Greens resistance in the final sitting week of the year, the Albanese government looks set to tick off the last of its 2022 housing commitments in need of parliamentary approval.

Like most of Labor’s other housing measures, the Help to Buy and Build to Rent tax reform initiatives are rather narrowly targeted and quite modest in scale.

But although no one is claiming them as silver bullets, both can be fairly justified as sensible efforts to address widely perceived housing pressure points: namely, home ownership affordability and private rental housing quality.

Read more:
Greens capitulate, announcing they will ‘wave through’ Labor’s Help to Buy and Build to Rent housing bills

How will Help to Buy work?

True to its name, Help to Buy is a mechanism to assist low to moderate income earners in accessing home ownership.

Other first home buyer assistance programs of course already exist. Nowadays, the most important is the Commonwealth’s Home Guarantee Scheme which enables access to low-deposit mortgages.

Created by former prime minister Scott Morrison, but expanded by his successor Anthony Albanese, this now offers such help to 50,000 households per year. This is well over a third of all first home buyers.

Importantly, though, Help to Buy is a more ambitious scheme that complements the guarantee program by targeting people on lower incomes.

It does this by setting lower income eligibility limits and by offering more substantial assistance to successful applicants. That combination means Help to Buy has the capacity to extend home ownership further down the income scale.

So whereas the Home Guarantee Scheme is mainly about enabling people to bring forward their first home acquisition, Help to Buy potentially enables home ownership for some people who were otherwise permanently excluded.

By taking a 30–40% stake, or “equity share”, in the acquired home, government reduces both the size of the buyer’s down payment and their mortgage loan.

Multibillion-dollar plan

This of course comes at a cost, because the government needs to fund that equity share.

The price tag for a four-year program involving 40,000 homes is estimated at $5.5 billion. But all that money and more will come back to government when homes purchased with support are sold.

The “and more” part is the proportionate share of any capital gain realised at sale.

So by comparison with the “something for nothing” first home buyer grant and stamp duty concession policies that drained more than $20 billion from government coffers during the 2010s, this is a relatively prudent and targeted use of public funds.

By offering a larger equity stake (40%) for newly built homes, the government is also justifiably looking to steer consumer choices in such a way that the scheme contributes to the wider policy objective of expanding new housing supply.

Similarly, by levelling the playing field for overseas funders of Build to Rent housing, ministers hope expanded investment will trigger a construction surge contributing to its overarching housebuilding target: 1.2 million new homes in the five years to 2029.

A lack of coherence

These initiatives are the latest in a wide-ranging array of housing initiatives taken forward during this term of government.

But other than the housing supply advocacy, there is little coherence or rationale that unites these measures.

Indeed, while promised in Labor’s 2022 platform, the National Housing and Homelessness Plan that would ideally serve that purpose remains under wraps.

It’s with this in mind that many have expressed frustration at the government’s low-profile approach to the plan’s development. This includes a perceived lack of enthusiasm to embed the plan in law.

In its commendable but slightly shapeless housing activism, the Albanese government’s record could be seen as resembling the Rudd government’s spirited housing policy revival from 2007–10.

In part, perhaps, because it similarly lacked a coherent overarching long-term strategy, that revival quickly dissipated – even under the successor Labor government, let alone once Tony Abbott took charge.

That is history we must hope is unrepeated.

Hal Pawson receives research funding from the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation, the Australian Research Council, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and Crisis UK. He is affiliated to Senator David Pocock as an unpaid, part-time policy advisor and is a Non-Exec Director of Community Housing Canberra.

– ref. The Senate has passed the Help to Buy housing scheme. It will help, but not much – https://theconversation.com/the-senate-has-passed-the-help-to-buy-housing-scheme-it-will-help-but-not-much-239087

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Howard Bamsey, Honorary Professor, School of Regulation and Global Governance, Australian National University

Many people long involved in global climate negotiations see the annual United Nations COP climate talks as fundamentally flawed. That includes me.

On Sunday, the 29th round of talks finished in Baku, Azerbaijan. It was likely my 25th COP. I have attended these talks in many different roles, but largely as a climate negotiator for the Australian government. These days I attend in my academic capacity.

COP29 did not achieve a breakthrough. It led to a modest increase in climate finance for developing nations and agreement on carbon market rules. But many issues were kicked down the road.

COP talks are slow. And the once-a-year meetings are seen as “win or lose” moments, which complicates the dynamics. Oil states and lobbyists work to avoid mention of quitting fossil fuels. Host nations need a win, leading to “commitments” which may not lead to substantive change. Ahead of this year’s talks, major climate figures called once more for reform to the COP process.

But however flawed, COP meetings are the only way to get the world’s nations in the same room to hash out what to do about climate change.

In recent years, global leaders have been distracted by COVID, the Ukraine-Russia war and now the Middle East. But climate change is only worsening. It won’t be long before real world events pull our attention back to the single largest threat we face.

Why do these talks matter?

Since 1995, the COP talks have acted as the main driver of global action on climate change. These talks will continue to matter until the transition to clean energy is complete and the burning of fossil fuels is no longer routine.

Climate change has a one-word solution: investment. Every day, companies and governments invest money. They either invest it in status quo technologies which make carbon pollution worse, or they invest in cleaner alternatives.

What the COP talks do is help change the direction of investment. You can see this working very clearly in how much is now being invested in green energy, electricity grid upgrades and energy efficiency – double that for new fossil fuels. (Unfortunately, if you include fossil fuel subsidies, the picture is very different.)

Last year, nations finally included text about the need to transition away from fossil fuels. It was hard-won. But this year, diplomats from Saudi Arabia and petrostate allies were able to block any mention of this.

The text on fossil fuels was not binding. But it was influential in boardrooms where decisions on investment are made.

Process over progress?

The way the COP talks are set up are not ideal.

A new country is chosen every year to take on the presidency role and host the summit. The talks run for a fortnight and the agenda is vast. This year, the hosts, Azerbaijan, struggled to keep control of the agenda. As a result, issues such as the Global Stocktake – which included the calls to quit fossil fuels – were kicked down the road to COP30 in Brazil in a year’s time.

Because these talks are just once a year, everything crowds into them. It is very messy.

Every June, climate negotiators meet for an inter-sessional meeting before the next COP talks in Bonn, Germany, where the UN Secretariat on Climate Change has its headquarters.

At these meetings, we often see efforts to walk back announcements made at the formal COP talks. Sometimes these are successful.

Every delegate sent to COP talks has two reasons for going. The first is because their government is to some extent committed to solving the great problem of climate change. Five or six nations might not be, but that leaves over 190 who are. The second reason is to protect their national interests. You can, of course, do both.

But this brings up a hidden issue. Many people who attend become, in my view, focused on the process, not the outcome. Twice a year, they travel to the COP itself and the Bonn intersessional, where they will meet friends and colleagues. It has become routine. The process has become, for some, the point.

Five ideas for change

COP talks are flawed but necessary. Could we improve them?

Here are five ideas:

1. Break up the negotiating process

Meetings of COP subsidiary bodies in cities where most nations have established diplomatic missions. These bodies could meet more regularly, creating pressure and momentum for more speed and outcomes.

2. Change COP presidency arrangements

At times, the nation hosting the talks tries to control outcomes as much possible. But this is an all but impossible task. A better option might be to rely on the negotiators from each nation who do most of the work – and make them accountable for achieving outcomes.

3. Make regional meetings more important

COP is big. Hundreds of countries, thousands of delegates, and many from civil society and business. It’s very difficult when everyone tries to talk to everyone. Much better progress would come if the thrust of COP talks was devolved to smaller, more regular regional meetings.

4. Gather more ambitious countries

There have been several gatherings of nations wanting to do more, faster on climate change, such as the High Ambition Coalition. These gatherings can help stimulate action among like-minded leaders. But they need sustained leadership to be effective.

5. Direct action by the largest emitters

In 2015, the Paris Agreement set a joint goal of keeping climate change below 2°C. It was the high water mark for COP talks. Before this agreement was signed, top emitters China and the United States found common ground on climate in direct talks, despite intensifying geopolitical jostling. This helped Paris succeed. In 2025 under President Donald Trump, the US will walk off the climate action stage again. But China is now feeling more confident in shouldering a climate leadership role.

What about preventing oil states from hosting these talks, as prominent climate movers and shakers have called for? You can’t easily shut out countries who have signed treaties and agreements. The solution here is to organise better. Oil-state pressure doesn’t have to win. While oil rich Azerbaijan’s presidency of COP29 drew scepticism, there was no sign that its leaders wanted the process to fail.

Needed: renewed political will

Ten years ago, it felt like the world was largely united on climate. But while the Paris Agreement has helped avert the worst emissions scenarios, it has not yet led to a single year of declining emissions.

Climate change has, by any measurement, slipped down the global list of urgent issues. That will change as more calamitous impacts arrive.

Howard Bamsey has attended many COP talks in Australian government, United Nations and non-government roles

– ref. After a disappointing COP29, here’s how to design global climate talks that might actually work – https://theconversation.com/after-a-disappointing-cop29-heres-how-to-design-global-climate-talks-that-might-actually-work-244645

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