Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jamilla Rosdahl, Senior Lecturer, Australian College of Applied Psychology

A new trend taking over TikTok is targeting vulnerable young men. The “looksmaxxing” phenomenon – to maximise one’s looks – is aimed at young men and boys who want to change their appearance to become more attractive and gain social acceptance.

Unhappy with their appearance, teenage boys and young men scrolling the app are directed to chat rooms where they’re instructed to upload photos in exchange for advice.

It begins with “softmaxxing”. This includes basic hygiene such as teeth brushing and whitening, removal of face and body hair, and “mewing” (tongue exercises that supposedly help tone facial muscles).

This progresses to “hardmaxxing”, which is to improve one’s appearance by any means necessary. More extreme measures include:

• steroid use
• hair transplants and plastic surgery
• using pumps for penis stretching
• removing ribs for a sculpted waist
• “bone-smashing”, which involves using hammers to break bones in the face to look more masculine
• “starvemaxxing”, which encourages extreme dieting and eating disorders
• “whitemaxxing”, which involves using creams to present as more White
• and “edgemaxxing”, which is described as “withholding climaxing in order to boost testosterone to improve appearance”.

Looksmaxxing may appear harmless, encouraging self-care, exercise and healthy eating. But at its core it has ties to violence, suicide and incels (involuntary celibates) – men who blame women for their struggles with establishing romantic or sexual relationships.

A click away from the incel rabbit hole

Looksmaxxing videos on TikTok have amassed many millions of views.

They pull young boys and men into a dark subculture of incels. Incel and extremist content is suggested to users on multiple platforms including TikTok Instagram and Youtube.

Within minutes, TikTok users may be bombarded with videos that promote suicide and gendered hate speech. One 2021 research report found young YouTube users will sometimes be suggested incel-related videos by YouTube’s algorithm within just five hops when starting from a non incel-related video.

‘Hunter’ versus ‘prey’ eyes

Male model Jordan Barrett has become an envied idol for men and boys following the looksmaxxing trend.

Many looksmaxxers believe having his “hunter eyes” with a positive canthal tilt (the canthal is the angle between the inner and outer corner of the eye), along with pursed lips and hollow cheeks, translates to a dominating stare women can’t possibly resist.

On anonymous incel forums, young men are trained to calculate their “sexual market value”. If they’re deemed below average, they’re bullied, accused of being “bitches who are feminine, weak and submissive, too ugly to live” and told to take their own lives.

The Bateman effect

At the apex of the incel beauty tower is the character Patrick Bateman from the 2000 satire-thriller American Psycho. Bateman is known by incels as a superior “sigma” male: a lone wolf and capitalist hustler who attracts money-hungry women.

In fact, he is shallow, manipulative, misogynistic and extremely violent. This sociopathic ideal resonates with many incels. Other characters idolised by incels include Tyler Durden from Fight Club and Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker.

Incels who feel they are misunderstood and demoralised by women also look to self-proclaimed powerful male influencers with perceived “social status”, such as Andrew Tate, for solace. Alongside messages about fitness, financial gain and self-improvement, Tate is openly misogynistic and suggests it’s socially acceptable to indulge in violent desires against women.

This false representation of masculinity creates a sense of entitlement in men who believe they are repressed. This can then be used as fuel for gender-based violence, femicide, copycat crimes and mass killings.

Bateman and incel ideology influenced self-proclaimed incel and mass shooter Elliot Rodger. In 2014, Rodger carried out a deadly mass shooting and stabbing spree in Isla Vista, California, killing six people. He blamed women for his celibacy and wanted to seek revenge by killing them.

Many misogynist incels now hail him as a hero. Some men use his initials claiming they want to “go ER” or “be a hERo”, implying they’re ready to commit mass murder.

A 2023 report from the Australia Strategic Policy Centre highlights concerning incel content online. One user says “women should be stripped of their rights because they still have primitive minds that need to be tamed”. Another says “I might start a political movement. ‘BRING BACK RAPE’ […] ‘WANNA STOP BEING INCEL, TIME TO START RAPING’.”

Read more:
Elliot Rodger: when sexual rejection turns deadly

Young people are under pressure

Our preoccupation with having a perfect appearance is an obsessive social disease alienating us from ourselves and others.

Researchers point to a link between trends such as looksmaxxing and the broader cultural pressures young people face. They’re growing up in an increasingly precarious world with war, post-pandemic anxiety, environmental degradation, unaffordable living and unstable employment. This is juxtaposed with neoliberal hyper-individualism, hypersexuality and consumer capitalism.

Where young people feel like they can’t control their environment, they may turn to trends such as looksmaxxing as something they can control.

In recent years, former members of the manosphere have started producing their own counter-forums that challenge the beliefs they once held.

Studies highlight young men and boys are beginning to recognise misogynistic ideology and restrictive performances of masculinity. These studies also argue these forums can offer alternative perspectives, with information that emphasises the importance of healthy socialising, consent and respectful relationships.

In the age of TikTok algorithms, schools and communities must do more to educate on masculinity, what it means to be a “man” and the dangers of incel culture, extremism, gendered hate speech and sexual violence.

Celebrities and influencers also have a role to play. Actors such as Mark Ruffalo and Ryan Gosling have helped foster positive ideas about what it means to be a man. Real, positive change can come from instilling the belief that collectively we can create a more equal and empathetic world.

Jamilla Rosdahl 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. ‘Looksmaxxing’ is the disturbing TikTok trend turning young men into incels – https://theconversation.com/looksmaxxing-is-the-disturbing-tiktok-trend-turning-young-men-into-incels-221724

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ruby Ekkel, PhD student in Australian History, Australian National University

Koalas are one of the world’s most beloved animal species. They serve as symbols for everything from bushfire destruction to Australian tourism to caramel chocolate bars. These tree-dwelling marsupials get far more attention than many other endangered native species. But Australians haven’t always felt this way about our seemingly cuddly teddy-bear lookalikes. Far from it.

Almost a century ago, Queensland announced open season on koalas. Over the next month, well over 600,000 koalas were shot, trapped or poisoned in what has been dubbed “Black August”.

These numbers seem shocking. That figure is about the same as the total number of koalas alive today, using the most generous estimate. Today, the koala is endangered in New South Wales, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory.

Why did it happen? Back then, koalas were far more plentiful in Queensland. And there was an established tradition of killing Australian marsupials for their pelts, which could be sold on the lucrative international fur market. At least a million koala pelts were sold in the previous 1919 open season.

As attachment to native wildlife has grown and the koala’s numbers have dwindled, we have come to think very differently about this creature.

A political miscalculation

Even in 1927, the koala kill was a gamble. Other koala-inhabited states had stopped licensed koala kills, alarmed by plummeting numbers caused by the fur trade, deforestation, bushfire, and disease. As early as the 1880s, worried locals shipped koalas to French Island near Melbourne as an insurance policy against fire and disease. Today, as historian Danielle Clode has written, koalas in South Australia and Victoria are largely descended from these island refugees.

So why did Queensland launch its kill? The economy was not doing well, and the Labor government hoped the open season would tackle high unemployment rates, raise revenue and win votes. Warm, waterproof koala fur was prized in Europe and the United States, where it was put to use in coats, gloves and even sleeping bags.

But the open season came as a shock to many. Scientists knew koala populations were already plummeting at the beginning of the twentieth century. And among the public, affection was growing for the koala.

The backlash was swift – and intense. Brisbane’s Anglican Archbishop Gerald Sharp called for protest, and a remarkable range of organisations responded, from city and shire councils to religious groups, women’s organisations, universities, scientific bodies, returned soldiers and children’s scouts groups.

The Brisbane Courier newspaper ran a “Spare the Bear” campaign, publishing hundreds of protests from indignant readers. Angry constituents deluged the acting premier, William Forgan Smith, with letters. Some deplored the cruelty of hunters who left baby koalas attempting to suckle from their dead, skinless mothers. Others focused their anger on the government. One caustic letter writer suggested an “open season for Cabinet Ministers” might be more appropriate.

Critics were united in their disgust at the mass killing of such a “lovable, non-destructive and quite unique little native animal” which posed no threat to human interests. Koala trappers had their masculinity questioned – no “true Bushman” would kill a defenceless animal.

Read more:
A home among the gum trees: will the Great Koala National Park actually save koalas?

We should be sceptical about one letter writer’s claim that “99% of Queenslanders” opposed the killings. But opposition was powerful and widespread.

The government tried to blame the furious response on out-of-touch city dwellers who did not live in Queensland. In fact, locals dominated the protests. At the time, many rural families kept koalas as beloved pets, which made the thought of killing them even more outrageous.

A question of national identity

When British colonists first came to Australia, many found the native animals freakish and backward. One unimpressed naturalist called koalas “torpid and senseless” and doubted their place in “God’s plan”.

But by the early 1900s, koalas, emus and kangaroos were becoming national symbols. They seemed to represent Australia’s new status as a federated nation, and helped settlers feel connected to the land. There was also a growing awareness that native species needed protection from environmental threats.

Books such as Norman Lindsay’s Magic Pudding (1918) encouraged readers to care for native animals. In 1925, James Barrett published a book begging for the “right use of our flora and fauna” and stressing their endangered state. He titled it Save Australia.

Perhaps because of their baby-like features, koalas were often depicted by authors and illustrators as good-natured and childlike friends. (In reality, they can be quite grumpy and their screams at night startle many campers). This might explain why fewer people protested to protect possums, the furs of which were also sought during open seasons.

Read more:
Why do we love koalas so much? Because they look like baby humans

The great U-turn

The 1927 koala open season would be Australia’s last. After the backlash, the koala was finally afforded lasting protection in Queensland. The acting premier promised to restock areas stripped of native animals. Even so, the government lost the election it had been trying to salvage.

Hundreds of thousands of koalas were killed before the government reversed course. Newspapers reported an estimated 600,000 koalas died due to the “massacre”, but this doesn’t account for koalas whose skins were not sold to dealers or young koalas killed with their parents or who starved without them. The total is likely close to 800,000.

The movement against koala-killing was perhaps the first organised conservationist campaign in Australia. It fostered the creation of wildlife societies, campaigns for national parks and nature studies for school students.

You can see the evidence even today. Sydney man Noel Burnett was so appalled by the killing that he opened his own sanctuary, Koala Park, which is still operating.

And whenever news breaks about koala deaths in blue gum plantations, we respond with outrage.

New threats, old choices

Today, koalas are safe from hunters. They’re so well known we use them as cuddly diplomats, similar to China’s panda diplomacy. But they face new threats – increasingly severe bushfires, disease, and habitat destruction.

Even as we have grown to love koalas, we have not yet been able to save them. It is now entirely possible these beloved national symbols could be facing a preventable extinction.

Read more:
Friday essay: the koala – when it’s smart to be slow

Ruby Ekkel 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. We once killed 600,000 koalas in a year. Now they’re Australia’s ‘teddy bears’. What changed? – https://theconversation.com/we-once-killed-600-000-koalas-in-a-year-now-theyre-australias-teddy-bears-what-changed-219609

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ye Xue, Research Fellow, International Relations, China Institute, University of Alberta

China’s football dreams have again suffered a huge blow, with the men’s national team exiting the 2024 Asian Cup in the group stage without scoring a goal.

It’s just the latest embarrassment on the international stage for a team that last qualified for the World Cup more than 20 years ago.

After China’s top leader Xi Jinping declared a decade ago that he wanted the country to become a football superpower, billions of dollars were spent to lure top talent from abroad to China’s domestic football league and to build schools and football fields around the country.

But the journey since then has been tumultuous. Once-prominent Chinese players and top-level officials became entangled in corruption, eroding public trust in the sport. The foreign stars in China’s Super League all departed and prominent teams were unable to pay their players. The progress of the national men’s team has sputtered.

How did the Chinese men’s football team reach this dismal state, and where does it go from here?

Economic short-termism leads to mismanagement and corruption

In response to former leader Deng Xiaoping’s famous 1992 “Southern Tour”, which reinvigorated the country’s economic reform agenda, the Chinese Football Association (CFA) decided to detach from the National Sports Committee and embrace market forces.

Before that, Chinese football operated under the so-called “whole nation system”, relying on the government to allocate resources to teams, including athlete training and funding. Although player salaries weren’t high, the system helped produce the the so-called “golden generation” of Chinese football stars and made China a major contender in Asia.

The establishment of the Chinese Professional Football League in 1994 led local football associations and teams to break away from the central government administration and source their own funding.

This, in turn, ignited the passions of Chinese football fans, who rallied behind local clubs. Football players became celebrities overnight. For instance, among fans of the team Sichuan Quanxing, a saying about two players became popular: “Girls should aspire to marry a hero like Wei Qun and aim to raise a son who follows in the footsteps of Yao Xia.” (嫁人要嫁魏大侠，生儿要生小姚夏).

Generous investments and sponsorships led to a significant increase in players’ incomes. By 1998, top-division players were earning a minimum annual income of 100,000 yuan (A$18,000), a staggering 20 times more than the average citizen. Some star players earned more than 1 million yuan (A$180,000).

Amid this flourishing environment, from 1996 to 2000, the number of registered youth football players in China surged beyond 600,000. Chinese fans believed the dynamic domestic football scene would propel their national team to greater heights internationally.

However, beneath the surface, the relationship between capital and clubs was unhealthy, as the teams became heavily reliant on funding from parent companies. This laid the groundwork for the eventual downfall of Chinese professional football.

The focus on short-term gains led to much mismanagement and corruption. By the early 2000s, the Super League faced issues such as match-fixing, biased refereeing, waning public interest and a constant reshuffling of club ownership. This pushed some clubs to the brink of dissolution and left players grappling with unemployment.

The aftermath was swift – registered youth football players in China reportedly dropped to a mere 180,000 in 2005 and reached just 7,000 by 2010.

Read more:
Beijing Olympics may get points for boosting China’s international reputation, but Games are definitely gold for Xi Jinping’s standing at home

Political opportunism foils another reform attempt

After the Evergrande Group, a massive real estate company, took over the Guangzhou Football Club in 2010, numerous companies entered the football market and spent lavishly on internationally renowned players.

This renewed enthusiasm was believed to be fuelled by the eagerness of local governments and businesses to align with Xi’s personal interest in the sport and his aspirations for the advancement of Chinese football.

In 2015, a key agenda-setting commission in the Communist Party sanctioned a central reform plan to boost the development of football in China. This approval underscored the belief that the “Chinese dream” of achieving the great rejuvenation of the nation was closely tied to the development of football.

This new government attention on football encouraged financial investment (again) to revitalise the Chinese football industry, resulting in a significant surge in salaries and benefits for players.

In 2018, the average annual income for men’s football players reached more than US$1 million per year (A$1.5 million), exceeding the average wage in China by more than 160 times.

While the professional league’s revival didn’t immediately elevate the men’s national team’s performance, it improved the perception of the sport among parents. In 2016, the number of registered youth players under the CFA surged to more than 40,000. The organisation set a target of reaching one million young players by 2020.

However, this prosperity, rooted in political opportunism, proved to be delicate and unsustainable. The economic downturn in China, the introduction of transfer cap, the COVID pandemic and the CFA’s decision to remove corporate references from club names significantly subdued investors’ enthusiasm for football.

Read more:
Will the Evergrande crisis doom China’s grandiose, big-spending football dreams?

Consequently, the Chinese professional league once again faces intractable obstacles. Since 2020, professional clubs have been disbanding annually as investors have withdrawn their funding. The former CFA chairman, Chen Xuyuan, has been charged with bribery, while former national team coach Li Tie has admitted to paying bribes and match-fixing.

All of this will only further undermine the public’s confidence in Chinese football. Parents are again questioning whether to encourage their children to play the sport. There are many signs that youth participation has declined sharply over the past three years.

Chinese football authorities should know now what doesn’t work. The marketisation of football and rampant financial investment driven by political opportunism didn’t work. Flooding the league with foreign stars didn’t work, either.

Perhaps it’s time for the state to take a more prominent role again, possibly even revisiting the “whole-nation system”. Transforming football into a stable and visible career pathway could, at the very least, inspire more Chinese youth to actively engage in the sport.

And this, in turn, could one day create a winning men’s national team, as well.

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

– ref. China wanted to become a football powerhouse to inspire the nation. Instead, its team has been an embarrassment – https://theconversation.com/china-wanted-to-become-a-football-powerhouse-to-inspire-the-nation-instead-its-team-has-been-an-embarrassment-221987

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paula McDonald, Professor of Work and Organisation, Queensland University of Technology

Young workers under 18 years of age occupy a unique and poorly understood position in Australia’s labour market.

They contribute to crucial industries and the economy, but are uniquely vulnerable. Compared to adults, child workers experience high rates of workplace injuries, bullying and sexual harassment, wage theft and unpredictable hours.

In Victoria alone, franchises currently face hundreds of criminal charges over alleged breaches of child employment laws, including shift lengths, break times and employing children after 9pm.

Protective regulations are insufficient and highly inconsistent across states and territories. Compounding this, few resources are directed to agencies responsible for monitoring the safety and quality of children’s work.

Different types of children’s work

In industrialised countries such as Australia, we use the term “children’s work” rather than “child labour”, which refers to work outside international legal frameworks that is harmful to physical or mental health.

Positive workplace experiences can help develop young people’s identities, career aspirations, financial skills and sense of responsibility.

The most visible child workers are employed in cafes, retail stores and fast-food outlets as apprentices or trainees.

Children also often do paid, informal jobs such as babysitting, dog walking or lawn mowing or work in family businesses such as farms and family-owned restaurants. This work is largely unmonitored, and in many states, is exempt from child employment legislation.

Another emerging form of work is content creation, where children and adolescents with large social media followings earn money by posting sponsored content, or feature on a parent-controlled platform.

The work of “kidfluencers” is not protected under Australian law, and there is no oversight of working hours or of content created, despite potential online harassment, abuse and body-shaming.

Children’s participation in elite sport can also be considered work because training can be extreme and young athletes may be subject to commercial contracts similar to professional athletes. There are currently no Australian or international legal provisions related to the duration and intensity of training regimes.

Read more:
Australia’s cotton farmers can help prevent exploitation in the global garment industry

Finally, children can be self-employed. A child can acquire an ABN on their own behalf from the age of 13. However, a lack of negotiating experience may make them vulnerable to coercion into unfair contracts with brands and talent agencies.

Patterns of work undertaken by children

It is unclear how many children are employed in Australia at any given time.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) collects data on employed people aged 15 and over but only reports occupation by the aggregated category of 15-24 years. The last ABS survey on employed children aged 5-14 years was completed almost two decades ago in 2006.

Other Australian surveys estimate labour force status only for people aged 18 to 64, or place limited focus on child employment. Indeed, the International Labour Organisation has lamented the lack of data on child employment in industrialised countries.

What is clear however, is most young Australians do not transition from education or training to work, but instead, combine part-time work and study, often for many years before reaching adulthood and working full-time.

Research suggests children are more likely to work if they are girls and from English-speaking backgrounds and from higher socioeconomic groups.

This may be explained by the gendered and classed preferences of the service industry which includes positions in fashion, retail and cafes where deferential, well-presented and engaging young employees are preferred.

Although there are some regulations restricting work in hazardous jobs, child workers in cafés and restaurants may still be expected to use dangerous equipment such as knives, hot ovens or deep fryers. Even when young people are aware of their health and safety rights, their capacity to redress violations may be limited.

Children want to work to gain skills and experience, enjoy social contact and earn money for discretionary spending. However, an estimated 10% work out of financial necessity, making vital contributions to low-income households.

Legislation currently protecting working children

In June 2023, Australia signed the International Labour Organization Minimum Age Convention 138, obliging all jurisdictions to protect child rights and presenting a powerful case for strategies to promote positive early work experiences.

However, while Australia’s Fair Work Act contains clauses such as ensuring minimum wages for junior employees, it has an express exemption for children under 18, allowing states and territories to self-regulate.

Other laws relevant to children’s work prevent children being employed during school hours or restrict hazardous work such as scaffolding or crane and forklift operation. There are also restrictions on very young children participating in some forms of public entertainment and measures deterring underpayments.

What changes are needed?

Currently, Australian regulation and policies governing work for minors are not fit for purpose, a problem compounded by children’s limited knowledge of relevant rights and obligations.

There is an urgent need to develop new protections and where possible, make the current patchwork of Australian laws relevant to children’s work more uniform. Particular attention should be given to minimum starting ages, participation in risky occupations, working hours relating to age or schooling, and requirements for employers such as working with children checks.

Government and non-government agencies also have a role to protect young workers by setting responsive guidelines, codes and industry standards and implementing strategies to respond to problems.

There is no doubt children in some parts of the world are subjected to dangerous and exploitative practices that would rarely be seen in Australia.

Read more:
Climate change contributes to violence against children – here’s how

However, our current understanding of the diversity and quality of work experiences of children and adolescents in Australia and other industrialised countries is severely limited by longstanding data deficits. Addressing this problem can establish a platform from which Australia can call on all nations to end hazardous child labour.

The significance and urgency of reforming policy and practice is amplified by profound changes impacting the world of work in which young people participate including the deregulation of trading hours, growth in franchises and work that is increasingly managed via automated technologies.

Child and adolescent labour is integral to the economy, yet their work experiences are complex. Comprehensive reforms will help safeguard the current generation of young workers and ensure a future where their dignity, rights and well-being are respected and protected.

Paula McDonald receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Australia’s child workers are vulnerable to injury, harassment and exploitation thanks to weak and inconsistent laws – https://theconversation.com/australias-child-workers-are-vulnerable-to-injury-harassment-and-exploitation-thanks-to-weak-and-inconsistent-laws-221577

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marina Deller, Casual Academic, Flinders University

Call them pet peeves, call them petty grievances, one thing is certain – complaining about everyday irritations feels cathartic. It’s also the premise of American comedy podcast I’ve Had It.

Hosts Jennifer Welch and Angie “Pumps” Sullivan state, tongue in cheek, that their goal is to compartmentalise complaining and be nicer in their day-to-day life. Their complaints range from pedestrian (cordless vacuums, people who clap when a plane lands, long Instagram captions) to political (the state of the education system). Eyebrow-raising complaints include, simply, “pregnant people”.

Since launching in late 2022, I’ve Had It has topped Apple’s podcast charts, become viral on both TikTok and X several times, and has led the hosts to guest-star on programs such as The Today Show. This podcast’s popularity across platforms signals a cultural shift from “toxic positivity” to indulgent pettiness – but a shift away from positivity into fully embracing complaints is not without risk.

Toxic positivity and emotional influencers

As community-minded creatures who want deeply to belong we often mirror others, including on social media, where we adopt phrasing, tone and expressions of emotion.

In the past few years, social media has had a focus on hyper-positivity (think cheery emojis and motivational quotes plastered over sunsets). Some put this “good vibes only” trend down to the pandemic and a desire to avoid painful feelings when ruminating on difficult realities.

However, attempting to convey constant happiness is not only difficult but impossible. Research suggests prescriptive positivity can make us react poorly to unfavourable emotions and is a “goal that backfires” when people view themselves as a failure for feeling unhappy, struggle to handle their feelings, or actively avoid processing them.

But now toxic positivity has been named and shamed, people are searching for more emotionally nuanced media.

The I’ve Had It hosts are in a new wave of content creators we can consider “emotional influencers”, in this case contributing to a new media landscape where complaining is not only embraced but encouraged.

Read more:
‘Toxic positivity’: Why it is important to live with negative emotions

Curated closeness

By putting our “retaliation” against negative experiences into words, we experience pleasurable emotions. Complaining can feel cathartic, reduce stress, and (like gossiping) help us feel closer to others.

This community aspect of complaining suits podcasting, which fosters intimacy through sharing deeply personal stories “directly into our ear” and “chosen just for you”.

Listening to hosts who feel like our friends, who are friends themselves, having a chat and sharing laughter can make us feel socially fulfilled in a similar way to a video chat or virtual message with a real-life friend.

Read more:
Australia tops the world for podcast listening. Why do we love them so much?

In I’ve Had It, the hosts and their guests share personal complaints and unfiltered stories in a curated approach for bond-forming. We know, for example, that Jennifer’s husband Josh (a regular guest) has struggled with addiction and that Jennifer has “had it” with family week at his rehab centre. We also know Pumps once tried to relieve constipation with a teaspoon.

Executive producer Kiley has become a regular feature, laughing at the hosts’ antics and acting as an audience surrogate. Fans are involved in the show via voice messages, reviews and as guests themselves.

These elements combine to provide a sense there is potential to become “real life” friends with Jennifer and Pumps: the promotional tagline for their live shows is “make your parasocial friendship real”.

While complaining brings people together, it can also push us apart through ostracisation or rejection. Although the goal of I’ve Had It is to compartmentalise pettiness, this may be easier for the hosts than the listeners.

Jennifer and Pumps are two undeniably affluent, well-connected women who have leveraged their privilege to build a platform about complaining. They also amp-up their on-air personas, with Jennifer admitting, “I’m not as cold-hearted as I play on the podcast”.

Just like prescriptive positivity can become “toxic” when it comes at the expense of other emotions, an overemphasis on grievances can breed negativity, or lead to passsive-aggressive and indirect communication styles.

Indulging in excessive pettiness can also make us less likeable, alienate our loved ones and worsen our mental health.

Embracing “idiocy”

Some commenters are critical of Jennifer and Pumps’ promotion of negativity. The hosts see this as fodder. They read critical reviews, double-down on complaints and laugh together, cleverly disarming the criticism.

Jennifer and Pumps are even more eager to mock those who take issue with their political views. In response to a reviewer accusation that they’re “both a couple of leftist idiots” the pair laugh. Jennifer states, “I could not agree more […] I say thank you, we are leftist, we are idiots”.

Ultimately, I’ve Had It concedes there is a kind of “idiocy” to pettiness, but there is joy and charm too.

Research suggests happy people can be complainers, as long as they have a good grasp of mindfulness and know when to stop.

If you, admittedly like me, enjoy a good bout of complaining now and again, but want to keep your emotions balanced and your relationships intact, there are a few things the experts recommend. It is important to differentiate when you need to enact “expressive complaining” to blow off steam or when you should complain “instrumentally” with a goal in mind. Talk about how something makes you feel, so others can emphasise with you. And ask your loved ones’ permission to complain before revving up a rant.

What about those who aren’t keen on complaining at all? Well, as far as the hosts and fans of I’ve Had It are concerned, you need not tune in. And, if you do decide to leave a comment decrying their pettiness, be warned it will make for some great content in the next episode.

Read more:
Michelle Obama, podcast host: how podcasting became a multi-billion dollar industry

Marina Deller 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. ‘Toxic positivity’ is out: welcome to the new world of indulgent pettiness – https://theconversation.com/toxic-positivity-is-out-welcome-to-the-new-world-of-indulgent-pettiness-221865

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julia Powles, Associate Professor of Law and Technology; Director, UWA Tech & Policy Lab, Law School, The University of Western Australia

Parking, and the enormous amount of space we cede to it, is undergoing two revolutions. The first is the rise of parking apps. The second is a reckoning with whether we really need so much parking, and what else we could do with all that space.

In the middle of both revolutions sit drivers. Apps like EasyPark, CellOPark and PayStay promise efficiency through pay-as-you-go parking, adjusted to the minute and location via a smartphone app.

Drivers avoid the fuss of meters and overpaid or overrun tickets, and parking operators get easy-to-monitor databases. Meanwhile, app providers take a handsome per-session fee in the order of 5–12%, depending on the provider.

Councils and campuses have been sold the trick, festooning parking signs with QR codes, “parking is changing” declarations, and discreet signals of outsourced responsibility.

But who is behind these apps? Are we getting a good bargain? And what does it mean for us and our cities?

Rise of the parking apps

Parking apps have been around since the 2000s, with the Australian market picking up strongly in the last five years. Three of the most common apps are EasyPark, CellOPark and PayStay. In New South Wales, there is also a government-backed app, Park’nPay.

EasyPark is a Scandinavian export, now owned by private equity firm Vitruvian Partners. Tactically, EasyPark Australia’s spread through a city can feel like a stack of dominoes. In Perth, the app popped up in a string of outer councils before closing in on the prized centres of Stirling and Perth.

Encircled by EasyPark’s magenta signs, the service’s most recent adoptee is the University of Western Australia (the author’s home institution). Their competitor CellOPark didn’t get a look in, despite operating in the state for over a decade, including just down the road at Curtin University.

Australian-headquartered CellOPark services over 75% of Australian universities offering a parking app. Its service fee is 6% to EasyPark’s 11.5%, and it integrates directly with university authentication systems.

Terms of the bargain

App providers deserve payment as much as the next business. But parking apps strike deals that go beyond convenience, so we need to assess them fully and transparently.

The NSW Department of Customer Service recently learned this when it was slammed by NSW’s Auditor-General for dealings with Duncan Solutions (developer of Park’nPay). The auditor cited no evidence of “value for money” and a rushed procurement process.

There are several key considerations. The first – parking apps generate honeypots of detailed information on people and their movements. This presents new privacy costs and risks, as experienced by EasyPark’s European customers when home addresses, phone numbers, emails, scrambled passwords and partial financial information were stolen in a December 2023 hack. (The company claims no parking data was accessed in the breach.)

Read more:
Why are there so many data breaches? A growing industry of criminals is brokering in stolen data

Those wanting to offer parking apps must determine precisely what data the apps collect, where it goes and what is done with it. They should conduct thorough risk assessments on potential data misuse. Preferably apps should maintain customer and location information encrypted and on-device, reducing the risk of improper third-party access.

Second, we need proper “value for money” assessments to address how parking apps cut into public revenue without significantly reducing costs (parking inspectors still patrol, and digital meters still need maintenance). Councils and campuses must publicly justify the trade-off – money paid to app providers reduces budgets for building public amenities or supporting core business.

In sum, there should be complete, public assessment of the financial, privacy, access and inclusion implications of adopting parking apps. To prevent underhanded dealing, councils and campuses should also enable open competition between apps, as Mosman Council has done in Sydney.

Parking is primal and paradoxical

Beyond data privacy and revenue implications, there is a more fundamental matter. Parking apps have a vested interest in an abundance of parking, it’s their core business.

But one of the most significant economic and environmental revolutions underway in cities is a radical reassessment of what we’ve sacrificed in pursuit of parking.

If we want long-term thinking about how to rescue and reimagine cities, we need to think beyond the apps.

Read more:
Freeing up the huge areas set aside for parking can transform our cities

In the past two decades, urban planning scholars have revealed a number of stunning truths about drivers and cities. Landmark Australian research and books show that parking is primal and paradoxical.

Every driver feels they deserve “rockstar” parking, ideally right at their destination, secure and free – and they’re aggrieved if they can’t have it. Behind the wheel, we assume a universal impatience, intolerance and entitlement. It simmers above the unspoken anxiety of not being able to park.

Since the 1950s, cities have been defined by their valiant efforts to cater to these base instincts.

We have paved them with carparks, relinquishing wetlands, parklands and foreshores. We have foregone housing and public amenities, all to ensure optimal storage of high-emissions private property.

Superficially, better managing the supply of parking presents a perfect union with parking apps. Real-time management is just the kind of technocratic petri dish where apps love to breed.

Yet scratch the surface and you’ll find the apps are locking in the status quo. They further subordinate people and places to the primacy of parking.

The great paradox is that while parking is both objectively abundant and an exorbitant tax on everyone, no driver is satisfied. So we build more parking, and download more apps, and our cities become less liveable.

Read more:
Of all the problems our cities need to fix, lack of car parking isn’t one of them

Julia Powles’ research centre, the UWA Tech & Policy Lab, receives support from nationally competitive research grants. She was not involved in her employer’s engagement of EasyPark as the University’s parking provider.

– ref. Parking apps are sweeping Australia’s cities. Here’s what you may not know about them – https://theconversation.com/parking-apps-are-sweeping-australias-cities-heres-what-you-may-not-know-about-them-221016

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rob Manwaring, Associate Professor, Politics and Public Policy, Flinders University

Democracy faces challenges around the globe in 2024: at least 64 countries will ask their citizens to elect a government this year.

One of the most keenly observed will be the United Kingdom general election, likely to be held in November. The British Labour party has not won an election since 2010, and has lost the last four elections. At the last election in 2019, it was beaten handsomely.

The 2019 result saw the Conservatives win 365 seats of the 650 seats in the House of Commons, while Labour limped in with 202 seats. At that point, Boris Johnson was an immensely popular political leader, single-handedly delivering the Conservatives a historic win.

Famously, Johnson broke down part of Labour’s “red wall” seats – historically safe Labour seats in parts of Northern England. With Johnson’s emphatic win, and Brexit “done”, one writer predicted a further “decade of conservative dominance”.

Yet, the decade of conservative dominance did not arrive, and on current reading the Conservatives look destined for opposition. The most recent poll confirms Labour’s long-standing 20-point lead over the Conservatives (45%-25%). Since the Brexit Referendum, there has been unprecedented volatility in British politics – not dissimilar to the leadership churn in Australia.

Read more:
A dog’s Brexit: Johnson’s missteps about to send weary voters to another election as the EU divorce gets ugly

Since the 2016 referendum, the Conservatives have chewed through five different leaders from David Cameron to Rishi Sunak. Each successive leader has been ensnared in a range of crises, from Theresa May’s record common defeats over Brexit, Johnson’s handling of COVID, Sunak’s problems with inflation, and of course, the blitzkrieg politics of shock and incompetence of Liz Truss. The Conservative party has fragmented and factionalised, with the hardline right pushing to veto key policies.

The volatility has led to wider governing instability. Since 2019, there have been five home secretaries, and a remarkable six chancellors (the role of federal treasurer in Australia). This turmoil takes an incalculable toll on effective government, as policy settings continuously change, and the public service are left reeling in the aftermath. For the Johnson government in particular, personal loyalty and factional support trumped appointing competent ministers.

The case of Priti Patel is instructive. She was forced to resign as minister for international development in the May government in 2017 after it emerged she had not been candid about unofficial meetings with Israeli ministers, businesspeople and a lobbyist.

Despite breaching the Ministerial Code of Conduct for allegations of bullying staff, she later became home secretary in Johnson’s government.

The political in-fighting and instability in the Conservative party fuelled volatility, which in turn has lead to voter disaffection. Suella Braverman is the other striking example, initially appointed home secretary under Truss, she also breached the ministerial code by sharing an official document from her personal email address. Sunak later appointed her home secretary, in part to appease the hard right of the party. However, in office, she proved to be a political liability, and was dismissed by Sunak.

The turbulence has been highly damaging for Sunak. Any political leader needs clean air to reset the agenda, but his government has been mired. He aimed to shape his agenda around five key priorities. One year on, one report card suggests he had only achieved one of these goals, and the critical ones (especially on immigration) are “off track”.

Immigration is the political battlefield the Conservatives will hope will help them, along with an improving economy, to help them retain office. The resonances here with Australian politics are all too familiar, and Sunak will be hoping for a repeat of the Liberals’ emphatic “dark victory” at the 2004 election. However, Sunak is widely seen as out of touch with the wider public – his and his wife’s vast wealth has been the subject of much commentary.

Read more:
Do not adjust your sets: with Truss gone, the UK is about to get yet another prime minister

This year’s election, then, looks increasingly like one Conservatives will lose – but it remains to be seen how well Keir Starmer’s Labour can win it. For some time, Labour has held a solid 20-point lead over the Tories in the polls, yet to take office, Starmer will need a record 12.7% swing. Starmer’s team will take inspiration from Anthony Albanese’s 2022 win in Australia, a solid election result off the back of a crumbling centre-right government, but hardly an emphatic victory. The lesson there is that you need to win seats, not necessarily the vote share.

The dilemma for Starmer is that he was elected leader in 2020 promising to fulfil much of Jeremy Corbyn’s agenda. However, since that time, he has been seeking to recalibrate and reduce the range of his policy agenda.

Much of his energy has also been used to diminish the influence of the Corbyn-ite left in the party. While there is much long-term ambition in his five “missions”, some are light on detail, and others rely on luck.

Long-term Labour politician and scholar Jon Cruddas’ lament is that Starmer’s vision is detached from Labour’s history. Labour looks set to take office, but it could be off the back of a large scale disaffection from the wider public, with voter turnout likely to decrease for the third election running.

Rob Manwaring 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. Labour hasn’t won a UK general election since 2010. Will 2024 be any different? – https://theconversation.com/labour-hasnt-won-a-uk-general-election-since-2010-will-2024-be-any-different-221611

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lee-Fay Low, Professor in Ageing and Health, University of Sydney

It’s a shock when we realise our parents aren’t managing well at home.

Perhaps the house and garden are looking more chaotic, and Mum or Dad are relying more on snacks than nutritious meals. Maybe their grooming or hygiene has declined markedly, they are socially isolated or not doing the things they used to enjoy. They may be losing weight, have had a fall, aren’t managing their medications correctly, and are at risk of getting scammed.

You’re worried and you want them to be safe and healthy. You’ve tried to talk to them about aged care but been met with swift refusal and an indignant declaration “I don’t need help – everything is fine!” Now what?

Here are four things to consider.

Read more:
Explainer: what is a home care package and who is eligible?

1. Start with more help at home

Getting help and support at home can help keep Mum or Dad well and comfortable without them needing to move.

Consider drawing up a roster of family and friends visiting to help with shopping, cleaning and outings. You can also use home aged care services – or a combination of both.

Government subsidised home care services provide from one to 13 hours of care a week. You can get more help if you are a veteran or are able to pay privately. You can take advantage of things like rehabilitation, fall risk-reduction programs, personal alarms, stove automatic switch-offs and other technology aimed at increasing safety.

Call My Aged Care to discuss your options.

2. Be prepared for multiple conversations

Getting Mum or Dad to accept paid help can be tricky. Many families often have multiple conversations around aged care before a decision is made.

Ideally, the older person feels supported rather than attacked during these conversations.

Some families have a meeting, so everyone is coming together to help. In other families, certain family members or friends might be better placed to have these conversations – perhaps the daughter with the health background, or the auntie or GP who Mum trusts more to provide good advice.

Mum or Dad’s main emotional support person should try to maintain their relationship. It’s OK to get someone else (like the GP, the hospital or an adult child) to play “bad cop”, while a different person (such as the older person’s spouse, or a different adult child) plays “good cop”.

3. Understand the options when help at home isn’t enough

If you have maximised home support and it’s not enough, or if the hospital won’t discharge Mum or Dad without extensive supports, then you may be considering a nursing home (also known as residential aged care in Australia).

Every person has a legal right to choose where we live (unless they have lost capacity to make that decision).

This means families can’t put Mum or Dad into residential aged care against their will. Every person also has the right to choose to take risks. People can choose to continue to live at home, even if it means they might not get help immediately if they fall, or eat poorly. We should respect Mum or Dad’s decisions, even if we disagree with them. Researchers call this “dignity of risk”.

It’s important to understand Mum or Dad’s point of view. Listen to them. Try to figure out what they are feeling, and what they are worried might happen (which might not be rational).

Try to understand what’s really important to their quality of life. Is it the dog, having privacy in their safe space, seeing grandchildren and friends, or something else?

Older people are often understandably concerned about losing independence, losing control, and having strangers in their personal space.

Sometimes families prioritise physical health over psychological wellbeing. But we need to consider both when considering nursing home admission.

Research suggests going into a nursing home temporarily increases loneliness, risk of depression and anxiety, and sense of losing control.

Mum and Dad should be involved in the decision-making process about where they live, and when they might move.

Some families start looking “just in case” as it often takes some time to find the right nursing home and there can be a wait.

After you have your top two or three choices, take Mum or Dad to visit them. If this is not possible, take pictures of the rooms, the public areas in the nursing home, the menu and the activities schedule.

We should give Mum or Dad information about their options and risks so they can make informed (and hopefully better) decisions.

For instance, if they visit a nursing home and the manager says they can go on outings whenever they want, this might dispel a belief they are “locked up”.

Having one or two weeks “respite” in a home may let them try it out before making the big decision about staying permanently. And if they find the place unacceptable, they can try another nursing home instead.

4. Understand the options if a parent has lost capacity to make decisions

If Mum or Dad have lost capacity to choose where they live, family may be able to make that decision in their best interests.

If it’s not clear whether a person has capacity to make a particular decision, a medical practitioner can assess for that capacity.

Mum or Dad may have appointed an enduring guardian to make decisions about their health and lifestyle decisions when they are not able to.

An enduring guardian can make the decision that the person should live in residential aged care, if the person no longer has the capacity to make that decision themselves.

If Mum or Dad didn’t appoint an enduring guardian, and have lost capacity, then a court or tribunal can appoint that person a private guardian (usually a family member, close friend or unpaid carer).

If no such person is available to act as private guardian, a public official may be appointed as public guardian.

Deal with your own feelings

Families often feel guilt and grief during the decision-making and transition process.

Families need to act in the best interest of Mum or Dad, but also balance other caring responsibilities, financial priorities and their own wellbeing.

Lee-Fay Low has received funding from aged care providers HammondCare, and The Whiddon Group, and collaborated with HammondCare, The Whiddon Group, BaptistCare, Catholic Heatlhcare, Scalabrini Aged Care, Montefiore Aged Care, Chinese Association of Social Services, Multicultural Care, Australian Nursing Home Foundation, Summitcare and Silverchain.

She has also received funding from the NHMRC, MRFF, Dementia Australia, NSW and federal governments.

– ref. How do I handle it if my parent is refusing aged care? 4 things to consider – https://theconversation.com/how-do-i-handle-it-if-my-parent-is-refusing-aged-care-4-things-to-consider-221210

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thomas Longden, Senior Researcher, Urban Transformations Research Centre, Western Sydney University

How long does it take to build a solar or wind farm? It’s a simple question with wide implications. To reach our ambitious 82% renewable energy target by 2030, we have to build many new projects – and start them soon.

In 2022, renewables hit a new high of 36% of Australia’s total electricity production, double that of 2017. That’s good – but there’s a long way to go.

Hitting the national target will require building about 40 wind turbines (7 megawatts) every month, and 22,000 solar panels (500 watt) every day.

At the start of the year, climate minister Chris Bowen called on all levels of Australian government to speed up planning decisions for renewable energy projects.

Reaching our target depends on one little-researched factor: completion time.

Solar and wind projects are built much faster than large fossil-energy plants. But the pre-construction approval process can be complex and slow projects down. In new research, my colleague and I found completion times have fallen significantly in recent years. But we need to go even faster to achieve the 2030 target.

Read more:
Renewables are cheaper than ever yet fossil fuel use is still growing – here’s why

How long does it take to complete renewable energy projects?

Very few studies have explored renewable energy lead times across a group of renewable projects in Australia or elsewhere. We investigated completion times for 170 onshore wind and solar projects completed in Australia between 2000 and 2023.

Using a data set we built, we found welcome news: Australian renewable projects are being built significantly faster.

Taking an onshore wind farm from idea to reality now takes about 53 months. This is substantially faster than wind farms started before 2016, which took more than 88 months. Obtaining pre-construction approvals and planning took up most of that time.

Solar projects now take about 41 months. It used to be double that, at up to 83 months before 2011.

Overall, there has been a decrease in solar lead times. Due to recent regulatory changes, the time taken for the construction and final stages has increased from 18 months to 21 months.

What does it take to build a solar or wind farm?

We break project lead times down into three stages:

1. Pre-construction – the developer designs the project and seeks approvals

2. Building and connecting – the time between starting construction and connecting to the grid to supply energy for the first time

3. Getting commissioned – this final stage involves obtaining a performance standard from the Australian Energy Market Operator. Essentially, a new renewable plant has to be able to perform as expected and pass a series of tests. In our study, this stage starts at the time of first generation and finishes when a site generates at least 80% of its total capacity.

Why can lead times differ?

Passing through all three stages can be smooth – or fraught. While build times are improving, some projects can get stuck in development for years, making it seem harder than it is.

Delays can come from seeking approvals from multiple authorities and difficulties in accessing and connecting to the grid.

As lead times are rarely tracked across a large number of projects, outliers can skew how long we expect things take to complete. These outliers can get a lot of publicity.

Even when lead times are monitored and compared, the raw data isn’t made public. A renewable energy pipeline database should be public and provide historical examples for comparison. It could learn from the Australia and New Zealand Infrastructure Pipeline and should track and compare lead times.

Read more:
To hit 82% renewables in 8 years, we need skilled workers – and labour markets are already overstretched

How did development speed up?

It wasn’t a single policy or process change that drove these faster build times. But the improvements in lead times were driven by faster pre-construction planning and approval stages.

We found clear evidence some states are faster than others. South Australia – Australia’s top renewable state – had notably lower pre-construction lead times for both wind and solar, likely due to streamlined approvals. We found some evidence of fast approvals for solar in Victoria.

Changes in project ownership occurred often (38% of projects) but this had little impact on how long they took to complete.

One issue that has increased lead times in Australia was a 2017 change to how renewables are tested, introduced as a response to the South Australia statewide blackout of 2016. One aspect of this – the controversial “do no harm” system strength assessment – has since been removed.

These changes added an average of three months of delay for projects commencing construction after 2017.

We can go faster still

Even though Australian renewable lead times have shortened significantly since 2010, we should do more. After all, there are now only 71 months until 2030, when Australia’s renewables targets must be met.

Government approvals could be sped up if renewable developers can clearly see the steps to follow and deal with one central agency. All authorities involved should have maximum response times for key stages of the approval process.

Suitable projects located close to existing projects could also be assessed as expansions and not new developments. This would notably streamline the process. Authorities are already allowing developers to do this when approving grid-scale batteries to be installed near solar farms.

Why do we need this data?

If you’re a renewable energy developer, it’s vitally important to know how long it normally takes to get a project up and running. It’s also a key piece of data for investors and policymakers.

That’s why we have provided clear detail of our data collection technique so it can be used by researchers, consultants, and government employees. Our data set is also available for download.

Is it still possible to hit 82% renewable energy by 2030? Yes – but based on our lead-time estimates, only if most projects start their planning phase in the next couple of years.

Read more:
The road is long and time is short, but Australia’s pace towards net zero is quickening

Thomas Longden receives funding from James Martin Institute for Public Policy. He is the Secretary of the NSW branch of the Economic Society of Australia and a Visiting Fellow at the Institute for Climate, Energy & Disaster Solutions (ICEDS), Australian National University (ANU).

– ref. Renewable projects are getting built faster – but there’s even more need for speed  – https://theconversation.com/renewable-projects-are-getting-built-faster-but-theres-even-more-need-for-speed-221874

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daryl Higgins, Professor & Director, Institute of Child Protection Studies, Australian Catholic University

There have been disturbing reports of Australian students making sexual moaning noises at teachers and other students. This includes students in both high school and primary school.

Along with making moaning noises, students might play pornographic audio in class. These behaviours can make students and adults feel uncomfortable, embarrassed, intimidated or humiliated. But it might not always be immediately obvious how it has affected those involved.

For teachers and parents, it can be hard to know what to do.

How often do teens harass other teens in Australia?

Recent findings from the Australian Child Maltreatment Study found adolescents make up a substantial proportion of perpetrators of child sexual abuse and this has increased over time.

Our soon-to-be-published results (as part of the child maltreatment study) suggest rates of peer sexual harassment are also on the rise. Although the maltreatment study did not specifically measure “moaning”, it paints a picture of how common issues like peer harassment and harmful sexual behaviour are in Australia.

Read more:
One-third of childhood sexual abuse is perpetrated by another child. Shannon Molloy tells his story – and urges us not to look away

What is ‘normal’?

This kind of behaviour can sometimes be dismissed as a “joke”. But normal sexual behaviour in children and adolescents only includes behaviours that involve shared decision making and are consensual, mutual, reciprocal and enjoyable.

Sexual behaviours may become problematic when they are developmentally unusual or socially unexpected. Behaviour may be considered normal in some contexts but not others.

Sexual behaviours where there are imbalances of power, a lack of informed consent, use of force or coercion, or even violence, can be considered harmful or abusive.

Moaning at other students or teachers may be either problematic or harmful, depending on the context and circumstances.

Specifically, moaning can be considered a form of sexual harassment, which the Australian Human Rights Commission describes as:
“any unwanted or unwelcome sexual behaviour” that makes someone “feel offended, humiliated or intimidated”.

How do I manage my own reactions?

As a teacher or parent you might experience a range of reactions to observing or hearing about a child moaning at their peers. Some may feel overwhelmed and distressed, while others may brush it off as “no big deal” or kids “not really knowing what they are doing”.

It is important to not overlook these behaviours. Equally, don’t normalise them with comments like “boys will be boys”. Remain calm and try not to demonise children.

So, take a big breath before you react.

What can I do?

Research shows most children and adolescents who engage in offensive, harmful or abusive sexual behaviours, will not go on to be adult sex offenders. With the right support and balanced responses we can prevent it from happening or escalating to more serious behaviours.

Regardless of if you are supporting a child or adolescent who is engaging in or experienced these behaviours, it is important for teachers and parents to:

1. take it seriously: children and adolescents benefit from adults holding them accountable for their actions while also meeting them with care and support. By finding this balance, we safeguard both the child or adolescent engaging in the behaviour, as well as those who are affected

2. understand the problem: these behaviours might happen for a range of reasons. It could be due to a lack of understanding, exposure to pornography, a desire to be accepted by peers, or experiences of abuse and adversity. Each child might need a different response

3. seek support: don’t try and deal with this on your own. Parents can ask their school counsellor or wellbeing unit for help. They can also look at wider resources around young people and sexual behaviour. If teachers are dealing with this in their classrooms, they can seek supervision and guidance from other colleagues. They should also be aware of their obligations to report to police and child protection in cases of child abuse and neglect. Training can also be helpful to learn how to cope with these kinds of behaviours

5. get specialist help: you can also contact an organisation providing specific services for children or adolescents experiencing or displaying sexualised behaviours. Bravehearts in Queensland has national information and a support line. There are also specialised sexual assault services in each state or territory

5. talk to your kids about healthy relationships: research shows comprehensive sex education works to prevent harm to children by teaching healthy relationships. This includes helping them to understand boundaries, the importance of informed consent and addressing “boys will be boys” attitudes

6. prioritise self-care: dealing with these issues can be incredibly confronting and even triggering. Look after yourself. This will help you respond calmly using the support of experts to help children and young people stop offensive, harmful or abusive sexual behaviours. This helps keep everyone safe.

Read more:
Major study reveals two-thirds of people who suffer childhood maltreatment suffer more than one kind

Daryl Higgins receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council and a range of government departments, agencies, and service providers, including Bravehearts. He is a Chief Investigator on the Australian Child Maltreatment Study.

Gabrielle works with the Australian Child Maltreatment Study (ACMS) team as part of her PhD Candidature. She has also previously worked for Bravehearts in various roles, including for the Turning Corners program, which provides support to young people who have displayed harmful sexual behaviours.

– ref. There are reports some students are making sexual moaning noises at school. Here’s how parents and teachers can respond – https://theconversation.com/there-are-reports-some-students-are-making-sexual-moaning-noises-at-school-heres-how-parents-and-teachers-can-respond-220136

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jack Vowles, Professor of Political Science, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

The coalition government’s approach to Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) will inevitably set the scene for Waitangi Day next week, with the ACT Party’s Treaty Principles Bill already generating protest and ill will.

But ACT’s initiative, even if ill-conceived, could still open up a widened debate that is long overdue.

The current Treaty “principles” were devised by the Waitangi Tribunal and the courts, and are based on interpretations of both English and Māori texts. ACT’s draft bill would rewrite the principles according to the English text only – or, at best, on a shallow reading of the Māori.

On the other far side of the debate, Māori “decolonialists” would simply abandon the principles, and advocate a return to their interpretation of the Māori text of Te Tiriti.

The decolonialists are correct on two key points: the Māori text is the original text and has the standing in international law; and the principles derived from both texts are problematic.

However, the decolonialists say Māori did not cede sovereignty in Te Tiriti, only the right for the Crown to govern non-Māori. They then revert back to a poorly defined Treaty principle in calling for an “equal partnership” that would constitutionally entrench a Māori parliament deep in the political process.

I argue against such a major constitutional change. If Māori did not explicitly cede sovereignty in 1840, neither did they fully retain it. Sovereignty is already being shared.

Because te Tiriti was between the Crown and iwi and hapū, demands for their greater self-determination can and are being addressed within our current constitution.

Complete government forever

Like ACT’s bill, the decolonial interpretation of Te Tiriti is both shallow and partial. It relies on a narrow legalistic interpretation of the concept of sovereignty, albeit one that is shared by Crown Law and much of the legal establishment.

The alleged lack of cession of sovereignty has been widely recognised by historians and legal experts for many years. Yet the late Hugh Kawharu’s authoritative translation of the key text of Te Tiriti says:

The chiefs […] give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land.

To a commonsense reader, “complete government for ever” might seem to mean “sovereignty”. However, as Kawhuru pointed out, at the time Māori had no experience or cultural understanding of the concept.

Nonetheless, “complete government” was not without meaning to Māori. Many had knowledge of the government of New South Wales, and some had even visited Britain. Māori accepted the Crown would govern settlers under British law.

Māori also accepted the Crown would “protect” them. In Kawhuru’s translation, that protection was for “the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages, and treasures”, and over “all ordinary people of New Zealand”, who would have “the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England”.

Kawharu also noted that “chieftainship” was based on limited authority and is best understood as “trusteeship”. By implication, then, chieftainship did not mean sovereignty. This idea was simply not in the Māori conceptual toolbox at the time.

An Indigenous people had agreed that an immigrant people could come to their land and be governed, not by Indigenous authorities, but by an immigrant government.

The Indigenous people also agreed that the immigrant government had a duty of protection over them: not just over the authority of their chiefs, but also over the “ordinary people”.

Such protection would require action to prevent tribal warfare and end slavery. It stretches credibility to interpret these agreements as meaning Māori signatories of Te Tiriti retained “absolute sovereignty”.

Read more:
Explainer: the significance of the Treaty of Waitangi

Secular sovereignty

Why is interpretation of Te Tiriti so subject to debate? One answer is that we are confused by misunderstanding of the concept of “sovereignty”.

It is a word and idea with big connotations. Traditionally it was drawn from the power of monarchies, the authority of which was said to be derived from God. The Crown was held by a single person.

In Māori terms it has been retrospectively interpreted as “mana”, another concept with big emotional resonance. In 2013, when arguing the Ngāpui claim at the Waitangi Tribunal, Crown Law defined sovereignty as meaning “absolute and undivided power to make law”.

But this legal interpretation is incomplete. Making law is but one part of sovereignty, and not necessarily the most important one.

Secular understanding of the concept of sovereignty emerged after disastrous civil wars in England and France, and devastating wars throughout Europe.

In England, a king was executed and a republic temporarily established. There was much fear, uncertainty and insecurity. Secular sovereignty is rooted in a belief in the need for a government that can preserve peace and order and thus protect its citizens.

That government must also be able to defend its borders and protect against foreign incursion. There can be little doubt Māori ceded those protective aspects of sovereignty to the Crown in 1840.

However, in Article Two of Te Tiriti, Māori retained the continuation of chiefly authority over their peoples.

Sovereignty of the people

Some legal historians now argue that at the time of the signing of Te Tiriti in 1840, the British Colonial Office understood British sovereignty to be consistent with a pluralistic recognition of persisting Indigenous political and legal authorities. In other words, sovereignty could be shared.

But an abstract, absolute and undivided legal understanding of sovereignty was soon imposed, and Te Tiriti ignored.

Yet during the 20th century the tide turned. Changes in the meaning of sovereignty under democratic government have recovered its pluralist interpretation. Meanwhile, governments’ protective powers have also grown. They have acquired responsibilities to protect people’s health and welfare in ways few would have anticipated in 1840.

Lawyers continue to describe parliament as sovereign or “supreme” and to speak of “the Crown” as a legal entity. In political terms, the Crown is a useful fiction that sums up a much more complex set of phenomena. It is a symbol of sovereignty, not its reality.

In a democracy, sovereignty is sourced in “the people”. Like everyone else, Māori vote in elections and elect MPs and are therefore part of the Crown: the sovereign people.

The authority of “the people” is transferred to representatives who make decisions for them. Those representatives transfer authority to a cabinet and prime minister. Further authority is transferred into the public service – and beyond it.

Read more:
Māori atheism on the rise: the legacy of colonisation is driving a decline in traditional Christian beliefs

The key to understanding sovereignty is simply this: there is no one consistent “particular place” where decisions with the force of sovereignty are always made.

Between elections, parliament may be supreme in terms of lawmaking, but parliament is subject to election every three years. In a democracy the people are the source of sovereignty but delegate its power to others. And the extent of popular sovereignty may be limited in particular ways by constitutions or treaties – like Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Sovereignty is effective where, at any one place or time, a binding decision is made within an entire system of government. Sovereignty cannot be divided, because such division would inevitably result in conflict that would often fail to be resolved.

However, sovereignty can be passed around and shared. Sovereignty is not only found in a prime minister’s office or in cabinet. Sovereignty is found in many places, at different times: or at the same time in many places, when multiple choices are being made by different actors about various different things.

So long as those choices are recognised as decisive at that time, and on that matter, there is no paralysis or divided authority. Although, of course, they may be challenged later by other arms of government, such as in the courts.

Read more:
New Zealand’s indigenous reconciliation efforts show having a treaty isn’t enough

Te Tiriti and the constitution

Sovereignty is found in the legislation passed by parliament, but also in the way the courts interpret that legislation. It is found in the decisions made by the police to prosecute or not prosecute, and in the ways the police choose to use their powers, because the police are not subject to direct ministerial control.

It is found in the policy and administrative decisions made throughout the machinery of government within the framework of legislation, and in non-governmental organisations that have been delegated to run government programmes.

It is found where any private individual or organisation can use powers made effective by legislation and delegations of authority, such as the ability of a private company to issue a parking fine.

Sovereignty lies behind the ways in which individuals and groups can claim ownership and control of resources, as it is “the Crown” that recognises and protects property rights.

Read more:
Learning to live with the ‘messy, complicated history’ of how Aotearoa New Zealand was colonised

Some claim that elections based on popular sovereignty and majority rule ignore the rights of minorities. But others argue that in a representative democracy minority rule is a bigger problem than majority rule.

Majority votes in elections are modified and constrained by deliberation in parliament, including public submissions that can bring minority concerns to the table, as well as the influential lobbying of special interests.

The interpretation and application of law may be challenged in the courts, where interpretations of Te Tiriti o Waitangi may also be brought to bear.

The institutions of government in Aotearoa New Zealand have evolved since 1840 and in the process have been fundamentally transformed. Because we do not have a formal constitution, our institutions have adapted to changing needs and demands.

If we can more clearly accept, define and clarify its constraints on popular sovereignty, Te Tiriti’s promise that Māori iwi and hapū should govern themselves as much as is possible can be addressed under our existing constitution, and can be accommodated within its liberal democratic principles.

Jack Vowles 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. The idea of ‘sovereignty’ is central to the Treaty debate – why is it so hard to define? – https://theconversation.com/the-idea-of-sovereignty-is-central-to-the-treaty-debate-why-is-it-so-hard-to-define-220201

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Graycar, Professor of Public Policy, University of Adelaide

Successfully tackling corruption is more than catching greedy public servants and politicians, miscreants and manipulators. It involves government at the highest level advancing a culture of integrity and setting up institutions that celebrate and facilitate good governance – in addition to catching the bad guys.

The latest Corruption Perceptions Index – an annual survey from Transparency International that tracks how corrupt governments are perceived to be – shows Australia still has a way to go on this front.

Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Norway and Singapore came out on top in the latest survey of 180 countries, while South Sudan, Venezuela, Syria and Somalia were at the bottom.

Australia came in at 14th place with a score of 75 out of 100, which is the same score as last year. Zero is considered highly corrupt, while 100 is very clean.

In 2012, Australia had ranked an impressive seventh in the world with a score of 85. By 2021, however, we had fallen to 18th with a score of 73.

The election of the Albanese government with its commitment to establish a National Anti-Corruption Commission brought a boost to our anti-corruption reputation last year, vaulting us back up to 13th position. But we’ve levelled off in this year’s report.

While Australia is still ranked ahead of countries like Japan, Iceland, the UK, France and the US, it appears those who assess our anti-corruption efforts are still waiting to ensure we are truly turning the corner.

Read more:
Australia and Norway were once tied in global anti-corruption rankings. Now, we’re heading in opposite directions

The anti-corruption commission is just the first step

The Corruption Perceptions Index is not a measure of corruption, but is a perceptions index. It is globally used and respected. Using rigorous methodology, the index compiles independent assessments of a country’s efforts to prevent and control corruption by business leaders and experts. It then scores and ranks countries.

Twenty-five years ago, when I was director of the Australian Institute of Criminology, I was berated by a senior official who said, “You have been director of the AIC for five years and crime is still a serious problem in our community. What a hopeless performance. You have failed miserably!”

Turning around a long-term trend is not something that occurs overnight, and of course, there are many factors that contribute to a country’s corruption score.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission, for example, is not the magic bullet that alone will restore Australia’s good standing on the global stage. Its establishment sends a signal that the government is serious about stamping out corruption, but it will take time to see results.

The previous government had been embroiled in a number of scandals, including “sports rorts”, “carpark rorts”, Robodebt, the Leppington triangle land purchase scandal, and workplace accountability and sexual harassment issues.

While it’s important to investigate these allegations of wrongdoing, the National Anti-Corruption Commission cannot stop every bad policy or practice. The real challenge is how to make sure those in government do the right thing – not because they are told to, but because they want to, and see it as a mark of ethical and responsive government.

Promoting integrity is bigger than the National Anti-Corruption Commission. It is part of the job of every political and public service leader and manager, and it trickles down to the lowest levels of government. This is where the Australian Public Service Commission can be effective – it has taken on board the challenge of creating a framework to better promote integrity within government.

Some sectors are more prone to corruption than others, such as those that engage in significant procurements, extend discretionary benefits to clients, or issue licences and permits. A mapping exercise could better identify these sectors, along with the associated red flags and risks.

Read more:
Perceptions of corruption are growing in Australia, and it’s costing the economy

Election financing and whisteblower reforms

We also need to look at the bigger picture beyond government services. I wrote last year about a blueprint for action emanating from a research team led by A J Brown, an anti-corruption and whistleblowing expert.

While the National Anti-Corruption Commission is a first step, we still need to implement reforms on election financing, foreign bribery and anti-money laundering regulations, and protections for whistleblowers.

Read more:
The new National Anti-Corruption Commission faces high expectations – and a potential mountain of work

The Australian Electoral Commission was listed in the latest Australian Public Service Commission survey as the nation’s most trusted public service. However, there is more the commission should be able to do if the government makes the appropriate policy decisions on election reform.

If trust in the electoral system is eroded, then our democracy is in real trouble and integrity will fly out of the window.

Three areas need attention:

1) We need limits on campaign financing and better regulation of political donations. It is essential for our government’s integrity that a campaign donation is a donation, not a transaction.

2) Donations need to be disclosed in real time. We need to know who is cosying up to the parties as it happens, not months later.

3) We need stronger regulations to monitor truth in political advertising, in particular on social media.

Ranking 14th on the latest Corruption Perceptions Index is pretty good, but it should absolutely not be a reason to be complacent. Australia can do better.

Adam Graycar has received funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a member of Transparency International.

– ref. Australia’s ranking in global anti-corruption index remains steady – but shows we cannot be complacent – https://theconversation.com/australias-ranking-in-global-anti-corruption-index-remains-steady-but-shows-we-cannot-be-complacent-222259

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jack Pascoe, Research fellow, The University of Melbourne

The Victorian government has confirmed duck and quail hunting will continue in the state, albeit with changes which would purportedly ensure the practice “remains safe, sustainable and responsible”.

The controversial decision is a rejection of recommendations by a bipartisan parliamentary committee chaired by a Labor MP, which recommended ending native bird hunting this year.

I, along with my Elder Anthony McKnight, made a submission to the inquiry. To us as Yuin men, Yumburra (black duck) – one of the species being hunted – is a culturally significant species and our tribal totem. Yumburra is Country, we are Country. Harm to Yumburra is harm to us.

Our submission argued against recreational hunting of native birds based on concerns for the ongoing health of duck populations and questions over the ethics of the sport. We acknowledge that not all Traditional Custodians share the same position, but this is ours.

Read more:
Why duck shooting season still isn’t on the endangered list

Open season for controversy

Duck hunting has long been contentious in Victoria. The issue emerges every autumn when the responsible minister is set to announce the details of the shooting season. Each year the same groups come out to wade through the muddy water and thrash out the same bloody arguments.

Advocates of the sport argue it brings money into regional communities and that it has become a tradition (albeit one with a short history in the context of this old land).

But the fact remains that waterfowl populations are in long-term decline. The inquiry heard that habitat destruction is the major contributor to this trend but that hunting was likely to be a small contributing factor.

Duck hunting also causes avoidable injuries to birds. The inquiry heard non-lethal wounding rates of ducks could be as high 6-40%, or 15,700 to 105,000 based on the 2022 season.

I cannot accept such high rates of injury to a significant totem. I hunt for feral deer, species that cause great damage to Country, but I only shoot when I’m confident of a humane kill. And I fish, but I only take fish when I’m comfortable that crayfish and abalone numbers are strong on the reefs where I have swum all of my life.

In allowing duck hunting to continue, the Victorian government is ignoring the main recommendation of the committee.

The government says it will accept the other seven recommendations “in full or in principle”, by changing the rules from 2025. This includes:

• making education and training for hunters mandatory
• improving compliance and toughening penalties
• reducing the risk of wounding
• increasing recognition of Traditional Owners’ knowledge of hunting and land management.

In theory this addresses many of the problems. But in practice these measures will be resource-intensive and challenging to implement effectively. Education and compliance activities will need to be well funded and staffed. And hunting-related harm to individual ducks and populations can only be reduced, when it could have been eliminated.

Finally, these measures fail to address the issues that have been driving waterbird populations down over decades.

A disturbing pattern of behaviour

The Victorian government has form in ignoring evidence of the declining health of our environment.

In December 2021 I was invited to present an Indigenous perspective to an inquiry into ecosystem decline in Victoria. I told them of watching the decline of the manna gum woodlands I had grown up in, and how that impacted me.

That inquiry found threatened native species are suffering severe declines and are not being holistically protected. It also recommended the Victorian government consider revoking the “unprotection order” that allows dingoes, a threatened native species, to be killed over vast areas of Victorian private and public land.

Read more:
‘The boss of Country’, not wild dogs to kill: living with dingoes can unite communities

Three weeks afterward as part of the Independent Expert Panel reviewing the Wildlife Act, I submitted our report to the state government. The government commissioned the review because it was concerned about limitations of the laws following two high-profile cases, including the deliberate mass killing of wedge-tailed eagles, a species acknowledged by many Indigenous Victorians as the Creator.

In the two years since we submitted our report, the Victorian government has not responded nor released our report publicly.

In September last year, the Barengi Gadjin Land Council called for an end to indiscriminate killing of dingoes, a species Indigenous Australians consider kin. Just weeks later, the Victorian government extended the unprotection order for dingoes.

In October 2022 the Victorian Auditor General’s Office released a report titled Protecting Victoria’s Biodiversity. It highlighted flaws in the state environment department’s threatened species protection and the data that informed decision-making.

That report also noted the department received less than half of the funding it requested to meet its own targets. What’s more, the most recent state budget decreased spending on the environment.

So where does this get us? Late last year the Victorian State of the Environment report was quietly tabled in parliament. Among the grim findings were that biodiversity continues to decline. Most biodiversity indicators assessed had deteriorated since 2018. These declines included “waterbird species in the Murray–Darling Basin” and “distribution and abundance of waterbirds in the Murray–Darling Basin”.

Demand more from the Victorian government

The Victorian government’s support for recreational duck hunting is just one in a litany of failures to respond adequately to environment decline and to support the views of Indigenous Victorians.

The world is achingly beautiful, but that beauty is fading. It’s not fading in a faraway place, it’s happening on your doorstep, within your sphere of influence.

We, as Victorians, must accept our responsibility to care for this place that sustains us both physically and spiritually. We must demand that governments acknowledge the environment is being devastated and prioritise policies to reverse the trend. We cannot abdicate this responsibility to Country any longer.

Read more:
Humpback whales hold lore for Traditional Custodians. But laws don’t protect species for their cultural significance

Jack Pascoe is affiliated with Back to Country and is Co-Chief Councilor of the Biodiversity Council.

– ref. Allowing duck hunting to continue in Victoria is shameful and part of a disturbing trend – https://theconversation.com/allowing-duck-hunting-to-continue-in-victoria-is-shameful-and-part-of-a-disturbing-trend-222156

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

The provisional measures issued by International Court of Justice (ICJ) in South Africa’s case against Israel under the Genocide Convention was, on balance, a victory for Israel.

While South Africa’s application was not thrown out, and the ICJ accepted it could rule on what is happening in Gaza, there was no provisional order for an immediate ceasefire.

This leaves New Zealand’s options less clear than in the case of Russia and Ukraine. In that instance, the ICJ urged that “the Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced” when it invaded.

Russia simply ignored the court, of course. But New Zealand will now have to take stock of what the ICJ has ordered in the case of Gaza.

This goes beyond the Genocide Convention. While the court found some of the assertions by South Africa were “plausible”, at this point it did not find that genocide was occurring. However, the ICJ was clearly disturbed by some of the rhetoric that has emerged from Israel during the conflict, which is also a humanitarian disaster.

It has ordered that Israel must carefully abide by the Genocide Convention, control its military, and “prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip”.

Significantly, Israel must report back to the court on what measures it has taken in a month’s time. So, even though the full case will now proceed in a process that could take years, the ICJ is watching matters closely. If Israel is not respecting the court’s provisional measures, the matter may quickly escalate.

Push for humanitarian aid

New Zealand will need to watch these next steps closely. The previous government focused on the “good faith” application of the Genocide Convention rules when it joined the proceedings in the Russia-Ukraine case.

As New Zealand highlighted then, the Genocide Convention was originally adopted with a dual purpose: to safeguard the very existence of human communities, and to confirm and endorse the most elementary principles of morality.

There is scope to expand New Zealand’s thinking on this further if it joins the next stage of the ICJ process over Gaza. This would need to focus not only on explicit acts of genocide, but also on the preconditions and context surrounding this most horrendous of all crimes, and the importance of a precautionary approach.

Read more:
UN’s top court puts Israel on notice over its war in Gaza. Here’s what its judgement could mean

New Zealand also needs to focus on the ICJ’s ruling that “the State of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip”.

This is a direct reflection of recent demands by the UN Security Council: the parties to the conflict must allow safe and unhindered delivery of humanitarian assistance, at scale, directly to the civilian population of Gaza.

The importance of supporting such humanitarian assistance has been a standard New Zealand demand since this latest conflict began. How the government reconciles support for this principle at the same time as pausing funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) presents an awkward conundrum, however.

Uphold international law

The ICJ went one step further than ruling on the Genocide Convention by emphasising that “all parties to the conflict in the Gaza Strip are bound by international humanitarian law”.

This includes the court’s “grave concern about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack in Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups”, and its call for their “immediate and unconditional release”.

This is where New Zealand can provide the most support. One of the shortcomings of South Africa’s case was that it focused on the most significant issue of all – genocide – but risked eclipsing dozens or hundreds of other possible violations of international humanitarian law.

Read more:
Gaza: high numbers of journalists are being killed but it’s hard to prove they’re being targeted

Taking hostages, murder, sexual violence, restricting humanitarian assistance, attacking hospitals, schools and places of worship, and collective punishment of civilians are all crimes. As such they are regulated by the 1949 Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilians in Times of War.

Furthermore, the ICJ has already ruled that Israel is bound by these treaty obligations within its occupied territories on the West Bank. The next step at the ICJ should be to focus on the applicability and accountability required by all sides in the conflict under the Geneva Conventions.

Just as individuals should be held accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court, states should be held accountable under international humanitarian law at the ICJ, as much as they are for allegations of genocide.

If New Zealand wants to help bring justice to this terrible conflict, these are the main areas where it should now plan to contribute.

Read more:
Drone attack on American troops risks widening Middle East conflict – and drawing in Iran-US tensions

Alexander Gillespie 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. The UN’s top court didn’t call for a ceasefire in Gaza – how does NZ respond now? – https://theconversation.com/the-uns-top-court-didnt-call-for-a-ceasefire-in-gaza-how-does-nz-respond-now-221977

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Diana Piantedosi, Honorary Research Fellow (Deakin University), PhD Candidate (La Trobe University), La Trobe University

The review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) released last month included welcome recommendations to better support First Nations people, understand culturally diverse concepts of disability and care, and advocacy for LGBTIQ+ people. The review acknowledges women with disability face barriers to access support and efforts to understand their experiences need to be accelerated.

As part of review feedback, key disability organisations said a gender strategy was needed.

Yet the final recommendations remain largely silent on gender, despite overwhelming gender inequality in the NDIS. This was also largely true of the Disability Royal Commission recommendations.

Here’s why change is needed.

Read more:
Recommendations to reboot the NDIS have finally been released. 5 experts react

To uphold women’s right to safety

More than one-third of women with disability are likely to experience intimate partner violence compared to 21% of women without disability, 15% of men with disability and 7% of men without disability.

The NDIS review places a strong emphasis on “safeguarding” participants and to this end, makes the controversial recommendation to use only registered providers (which some participants say will limit their choice and control). But when it comes to addressing violence and abuse disproportionately experienced by women with disability, the review doesn’t go much further than referencing the previously released disability royal commission recommendations.

Only three out of the 222 disability royal commission recommendations explicitly focus on women. These include the banning of non-therapeutic sterilisation (preventing some women with disability from getting pregnant), plans to develop action plans and adopting nationally consistent disability-inclusive definitions of family and domestic violence.

Read more:
Unregistered NDIS providers are in the firing line – but lots of participants have good reasons for using them

To support women as participants, as well as carers

Women with disability have significantly lower NDIS participation rates.

Women are also over-represented as carers for people with disability. Half of all NDIS participants are children and nearly 90% of primary carers for children are women.

Women are highly successful advocates for their children. Indeed, women’s advocacy for others has contributed to similar rates of access approval between male and female children up to the age of 14.

Older applicants are encouraged and more likely to advocate for themselves. From age 15, the likelihood of NDIS access is gendered. Male access requests are approved at far higher rates than females and applicants gendered “other”. This gap further widens with age.

To stop reproducing medical bias

NDIS assessments rely on evidence from health-care professionals, which means the NDIS likely reproduces the gender biases of the medical system.

On average, women wait two to five years longer than men to obtain a diagnosis and studies repeatedly find gendered differences in how symptoms are interpreted.

Read more:
More than mental illness. How the NDIS review could help people with psychosocial disability

Many chronic conditions experienced predominantly by women can have fluctuating symptoms. The reviews’ attention to the episodic nature of psychosocial disability (when mental illness is severe and disabling) is welcome, but episodic disability needs to be addressed more broadly.

Women are more likely than men to have at least one chronic health condition and are significantly more likely to experience two or more chronic conditions at once.

Chronic health conditions with higher prevalence among women include long COVID, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, lymphoedema, endometriosis and many autoimmune conditions, (such as multiple sclerosis, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis). These conditions – and others that get worse over time – can significantly escalate without appropriate daily living supports.

The NDIS review recommends doing away with lists of conditions that make people likely to be eligible for support. Instead the focus will be on functional impact. It’s unclear how effective removing such lists will be towards addressing gender inequity.

To close access gaps

State health systems are currently responsible for early intervention and treatment of chronic conditions but the existing framework doesn’t provide daily living supports where a condition leads to disability.

The fresh NDIS review echoes previous reviews that found gaps and ambiguity between the NDIS and health systems. New agreements with states announced prior to the review similarly lack attention to gender, so there is no assurance women trying to access support outside the NDIS won’t continue to face the same barriers.

Read more:
When is a condition ‘chronic’ and when is it a ‘disability’? The definition can determine the support you get

More detailed data would be a good start

The review reports some 36,500 participants have entered the scheme after initially being found ineligible. The cycle of applying and re-applying is a heavy administrative and emotional burden, disproportionately shouldered by women. Meanwhile, adults with chronic conditions make up over half those who didn’t meet NDIS access requirements. These decisions are likely to have disproportionately impacted women, but again, a gendered breakdown hasn’t been given.

Collecting more detailed data about participants “disaggregated by gender and sexuality” is listed in the review’s recommendations. Many people may be surprised to learn this is not happening already. If the government doesn’t urgently address the NDIS’ gender bias, women will continue to be left behind.

Diana Piantedosi works for Women with Disabilities Victoria (WDV) and is also a member of the Victorian Disability Advisory Council (VDAC), Victorian NDIS Community Advisory Council (VCAC) and DFFH’s LGBTIQA+ Disability Inclusion Expert Advisory Group.

Lena Molnar works for Women with Disabilities Victoria (WDV).

Maya Panisset and Raelene Wilding 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. There is overwhelming gender bias in the NDIS – and the review doesn’t address it – https://theconversation.com/there-is-overwhelming-gender-bias-in-the-ndis-and-the-review-doesnt-address-it-220042

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luke Heemsbergen, Senior Lecturer, Digital, Political, Media, Deakin University

Apple Vision Pro is a mixed-reality headset – which the company hopes is a “revolutionary spatial computer that transforms how people work, collaborate, connect, relive memories, and enjoy entertainment” – that begins shipping to the public (in the United States) later this week.

Critics have doubted the appeal of the face-worn computer, which “seamlessly blends digital content with the physical world”, but Apple has pre-sold as many as 180,000 of the US$3,500 gizmos.

What does Apple think people will do with these pricey peripherals? While uses will evolve, Apple is focusing attention on watching TV and movies, editing and reliving “memories”, and – perhaps most importantly for the product’s success – having its customers not look like total weirdos.

Apple hopes the new device will redefine personal computing, like the iPhone did 16 years ago, and Macintosh did 40 years ago. But if it succeeds, it will also redefine concerns about privacy, as it captures enormous amounts of data about users and their environments, creating an unprecedented kind of “biospatial surveillance”.

Spatial computing

Apple is careful about its brand and how it packages and describes its products. In an extensive set of rules for developers, the company insists the new headset is not to be referred to as a “headset”. What’s more, the Apple Vision Pro does not do “augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), extended reality (XR), or mixed reality (MR)” – it is a gateway to “spatial computing”.

Spatial computing, as sketched out in the 2003 PhD thesis of US software engineer Simon Greenwold, is: “human interaction with a machine in which the machine retains and manipulates referents to real objects and spaces”. In other words, the computer can interact with things in the user’s physical surroundings in real time to provide new types of experiences.

The Vision Pro has big shoes to fill for new user experiences. The iPhone’s initial “killer apps” were clear: the internet in your pocket (including portable access to Google Maps), all your music on a touch screen, and “visual voicemail”.

Sixteen years later, all three of these seem unremarkable. Apple has sold billions of iPhones, and some 80% of humans now use a smartphone. Their success has all but killed off earlier tools like paper maps and music CDs (and the ubiquity of text, image and video messaging has largely done away with voicemail itself).

Killer apps

We don’t yet know what the killer apps of spatial computing might be – if any – but here is where Apple is pointing our attention.

The first is entertainment: the Vision Pro promises “the ultimate personal theatre”.

The second is an attempt to solve the social problem of walking around with a weird headset covering half your face. An external screen on the goggles shows a constantly updated representation of your eyes to offer important social cues about your gaze to those around you. Admittedly, this looks weird. But Apple hopes it is less weird and more useful than trying to interact with humans wearing blank aluminium ski goggles.

The third is the ability to capture and and relive “memories”: recording and playback of 3D visual and audio from real events. Reviewers have found it striking:

this was stuff from my own life, my own memories. I was playing back experiences I had already lived.

Apple has patented tools to select, store, and annotate digital “memories”. These memories are files, and potentially products, to be shared in “spatial videos” recorded on the latest iPhones.

Biospatial surveillance

There is already a large infrastructure devoted to helping tech companies track our behaviour in order to sell us things. Recent research found Facebook, for example, receives data from an average of around 2,300 companies on each individual user.

Read more:
Explainer: what is surveillance capitalism and how does it shape our economy?

Spatial computing offers a step change to this tracking. In order to function, spatial computing records and uses vast amounts of intimate data about our bodies and surroundings.

One study on headset design noted no fewer than 64 different streams of biometric and physiological data, from eye tracking and pupil response to subtle changes in the body’s electromagnetic field.

Your face tomorrow

This is not “consumer” data like the brand of toothpaste you buy. It is more akin to medical data.

For instance, analysing a person’s unconscious movements can reveal their emotional state or even predict neurodegenerative disease. This is called “biometrically inferred data” as users are unaware their bodies are giving it up.

Apple suggests it won’t share this type of data with anyone, and Apple has proven better than most companies on privacy. But biospatial surveillance puts more of ourselves in use for spatial computing, in ways that are expanding.

It starts simply enough in the pre-order process, where you need to scan your facial features with your iPhone (to ensure a snug fit). But that’s not the end of it.

Apple’s patent about memories is also about how to “guide and direct a user with attention, memory, and cognition” through feedback loops that monitor “facial recognition, eye tracking, user mood detection, user emotion detection, voice detection, etc. [from a] bio-sensor for tracking biometric characteristics, such as health and activity metrics […] and other health-related information”.

Social questions

Biospatial surveillance is also the key to Apple’s attempt to solve the social problems created by wearing a headset in public. The external screen showing a simulated approximation of the user’s gaze relies on constant measurement of the user’s expression and eye movement with multiple sensors.

Your face is constantly mapped so others can see it – or rather see Apple’s vision of it. Likewise, as passersby come into range of the Apple Vision Pro’s sensors, Apple’s vision of them is automagically rendered into your experience, whether they like it or not.

Apple’s new vision of us – and those that surround us – shows how the requirements and benefits of spatial computing will pose new privacy concerns and social questions. The extensive biospatial surveillance that captures intimate biometric and environmental data redefines what personal data and social interactions are possible for exploitation.

Luke Heemsbergen 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. Editing memories, spying on our bodies, normalising weird goggles: Apple’s new Vision Pro has big ambitions – https://theconversation.com/editing-memories-spying-on-our-bodies-normalising-weird-goggles-apples-new-vision-pro-has-big-ambitions-221910

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Simpson, Senior Lecturer, International Studies, University of South Australia

Three years since a military coup ousted Myanmar’s democratically elected government on February 1, 2021, a brutal civil war has left the country devastated.

In December, a United Nations report on Myanmar’s humanitarian needs said the country “stands at the precipice [of] a deepening humanitarian crisis”, with a third of the population (around 18 million people) estimated to be in dire need.

Aung San Suu Kyi, whose elected government was toppled by the coup, is currently serving a 27-year sentence on trumped-up charges that include breaching COVID public safety regulations, illegally importing walkie talkies, inappropriately hiring a helicopter, violating the official secrets act and electoral fraud. She has appealed the convictions.

Despite this bleak picture, there is some optimism in the opposition camp that the civil war may be shifting in their favour, thanks to recent battlefield successes against the military. The junta’s forces look stretched and vulnerable.

Nevertheless, there will be no quick victory. The junta still controls the levers of government, the main cities and most larger towns.

Democratic governments from around the world might shorten the conflict by supplying the opposition forces and more progressive ethnic armed groups with aid and military support. But little has been forthcoming so far.

Sadly, regardless of whether opposition forces make further military gains in 2024, the heavy consequences of this bloody conflict for Myanmar’s 55 million people will continue to be felt for years to come.

Read more:
Myanmar junta reducing Aung San Suu Kyi’s sentence is an empty gesture from a failing state

What is life like under the military junta?

Economic conditions have deteriorated sharply since the coup. Myanmar struggled during the first year of the COVID pandemic, but unlike other countries, it has yet to see a recovery. The economy is estimated to be 30% smaller than it would have been without COVID and the coup, while real gross domestic product per capita is about 13% below 2019 levels.

Many other parts of society have been transformed for the worse by three years of jolting political violence. Educational institutions, health care providers, civil society organisations, news and other media outlets, and technology companies have all faced incredible challenges. Many limp along, a pale facsimile of the vibrant and outward-looking teams that did such impressive work before the coup.

Many foreign investors, understandably, have headed for the exits. Myanmar is now a disaster for anybody wanting to adhere to robust environmental, social and governance requirements. Some foreign companies remain, such as Japan’s Suzuki, South Korean bedding manufacturer Pan-Pacific, as well as various banking and energy conglomerates from Singapore and Thailand.

These keep people employed and families fed. But many companies do business with the junta and their taxes help fund the military. There is also no enthusiasm for fresh investment.

In day-to-day life, Myanmar’s people are poorer and more vulnerable than before, with less access to education and health services and fewer chances to improve their economic circumstances. Many young people have abandoned their studies and careers to fight against the military, or are plotting their routes to escape. Thailand and other neighbours continue to reluctantly absorb large migrant flows.

For those who choose to fight, life is perilous. Enemies of the regime are hunted mercilessly by police and security forces tasked with protecting the top generals.

What gains have been made by the opposition forces?

While the military and opposition have been in a stalemate for most of the last three years, there have been rapid developments on the battlefield in recent months, with the junta experiencing catastrophic losses.

In October, opposition forces known as the Three Brotherhood Alliance conducted Operation 1027, capturing two border towns in northern Shan state and overrunning hundreds of military posts and bases.

The offensive was accompanied by attacks on military forces in eastern Myanmar by ethnic Karenni and Karen resistance forces. And in the central Sagaing region, the People’s Defence Force, the armed wing of the exiled opposition National Unity Government, captured a key town.

Then, in mid-November, the powerful Arakan Army, part of the Three Brotherhood Alliance, broke a year-long ceasefire with the military in western Rakhine state. They seized border guard posts and attacked regime forces in four major townships, resulting in tens of thousands of displaced villagers.

In January, the group claimed control of the key western town of Paletwa near the border of India and Bangladesh.

Myanmar’s military has an overwhelming advantage in the air. It has used its jet fighters and helicopter gunships to indiscriminately bomb civilians and insurgents alike. But as the war in Ukraine has also shown, inexpensive drone technology is starting to win battles for the opposition forces, as well.

The insurgent Chin National Army, whose main area of operations is next to Rakhine state, has been using drones to attack military forces buried in the Chin Hills. This has helped them seize at least two towns in the border regions.

The opposition forces in Myanmar claim to have deployed about 25,000 unmanned aerial vehicles, or “drop-bombs”, on the battlefield since the start of Operation 1027.

Read more:
Beijing may have brokered a fragile truce in northern Myanmar – but it can’t mask China’s inability to influence warring parties

A China-brokered ceasefire announced in mid-January between the military and the Three Brotherhood Alliance in Shan state only highlighted the success of Operation 1027 and the difficulties facing the military.

However, it is unlikely to last and will probably be used by both sides to consolidate their forces in the border regions.

While China remains the key international player in the civil war, it is also losing some of its authority. The rise of new military forces unconnected to China, such as the democratic People’s Defence Forces, have further fractured an already complex battlefield that is becoming increasingly difficult to influence.

What will 2024 bring?

The big question this year is whether the region’s most influential body, ASEAN, will move to support Myanmar’s democratic forces more fully.

Thus far, ASEAN has taken a cautious approach. But it may find that keeping the coup makers in charge serves to delay the rebuilding of a shattered society and could further destabilise the region. The crisis in Myanmar also raises challenging questions about ASEAN’s coherence at a time when many members are seeking to balance their strategic relations with both China and the US.

With elections looming in Indonesia, a new government in Thailand, and increasing dissatisfaction with Myanmar’s status quo in Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines, there is a chance the victories for the anti-coup forces on the battlefield could lead to more proactive Southeast Asian diplomacy.

Rapid improvements in the use of drones and other battlefield technologies may also shift the strategic judgements of Western governments, who might see a low-cost path to success for the opposition. But as with the the conflict in Ukraine, US funding for Myanmar has been delayed due to gridlock in Washington.

The generals are also vulnerable to ongoing legal pressure. There is a case before the International Court of Justice accusing the Myanmar military of genocide in its treatment of the Rohingya, which received international support in November.

The junta leaders may eventually seek some kind of political compromise, particularly if there are fractures within the military. It’s not clear, however, if the democratic leaders and ethnic armed forces will again tolerate the political involvement of those who, three years ago, launched such a misguided and devastating coup.

Nicholas Farrelly has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council for Myanmar-focussed work. He is on the board of the Australia-ASEAN Council, which is an Australian government body, and also a Director of NAATI, Australia’s government-owned accreditation authority for translators and interpreters. These are his personal views.

Adam Simpson 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. Myanmar’s misery: 3 years after the military coup, is there any end in sight for a ravaged country? – https://theconversation.com/myanmars-misery-3-years-after-the-military-coup-is-there-any-end-in-sight-for-a-ravaged-country-221586

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Xiaoyue Xu (Luna), Scientia Lecturer, UNSW Sydney

One in three Australian adults has high blood pressure (hypertension). Excess salt (sodium) increases the risk of high blood pressure so everyone with hypertension is advised to reduce salt in their diet.

But despite decades of strong recommendations we have failed to get Australians to cut their intake. It’s hard for people to change the way they cook, season their food differently, pick low-salt foods off the supermarket shelves and accept a less salty taste.

Now there is a simple and effective solution: potassium-enriched salt. It can be used just like regular salt and most people don’t notice any important difference in taste.

Switching to potassium-enriched salt is feasible in a way that cutting salt intake is not. Our new research concludes clinical guidelines for hypertension should give patients clear recommendations to switch.

Read more:
Health Check: how much salt is OK to eat?

What is potassium-enriched salt?

Potassium-enriched salts replace some of the sodium chloride that makes up regular salt with potassium chloride. They’re also called low-sodium salt, potassium salt, heart salt, mineral salt, or sodium-reduced salt.

Potassium chloride looks the same as sodium chloride and tastes very similar.

Potassium-enriched salt works to lower blood pressure not only because it reduces sodium intake but also because it increases potassium intake. Insufficient potassium, which mostly comes from fruit and vegetables, is another big cause of high blood pressure.

What is the evidence?

We have strong evidence from a randomised trial of 20,995 people that switching to potassium-enriched salt lowers blood pressure and reduces the risks of stroke, heart attacks and early death. The participants had a history of stroke or were 60 years of age or older and had high blood pressure.

An overview of 21 other studies suggests much of the world’s population could benefit from potassium-enriched salt.

The World Health Organisation’s 2023 global report on hypertension highlighted potassium-enriched salt as an “affordable strategy” to reduce blood pressure and prevent cardiovascular events such as strokes.

What should clinical guidelines say?

We teamed up with researchers from the United States, Australia, Japan, South Africa and India to review 32 clinical guidelines for managing high blood pressure across the world. Our findings are published today in the American Heart Association’s journal, Hypertension.

Read more:
Slashing salt can save lives – and it won’t hurt your hip pocket or tastebuds

We found current guidelines don’t give clear and consistent advice on using potassium-enriched salt.

While many guidelines recommend increasing dietary potassium intake, and all refer to reducing sodium intake, only two guidelines – the Chinese and European – recommend using potassium-enriched salt.

To help guidelines reflect the latest evidence, we suggested specific wording which could be adopted in Australia and around the world:

Why do so few people use it?

Most people are unaware of how much salt they eat or the health issues it can cause. Few people know a simple switch to potassium-enriched salt can help lower blood pressure and reduce the risk of a stroke and heart disease.

Limited availability is another challenge. Several Australian retailers stock potassium-enriched salt but there is usually only one brand available, and it is often on the bottom shelf or in a special food aisle.

Potassium-enriched salts also cost more than regular salt, though it’s still low cost compared to most other foods, and not as expensive as many fancy salts now available.

A 2021 review found potassium-enriched salts were marketed in only 47 countries and those were mostly high-income countries. Prices ranged from the same as regular salt to almost 15 times greater.

Even though generally more expensive, potassium-enriched salt has the potential to be highly cost effective for disease prevention.

Preventing harm

A frequently raised concern about using potassium-enriched salt is the risk of high blood potassium levels (hyperkalemia) in the approximately 2% of the population with serious kidney disease.

People with serious kidney disease are already advised to avoid regular salt and to avoid foods high in potassium.

No harm from potassium-enriched salt has been recorded in any trial done to date, but all studies were done in a clinical setting with specific guidance for people with kidney disease.

Read more:
Is salt good for you after all? The evidence says no

Our current priority is to get people being managed for hypertension to use potassium-enriched salt because health-care providers can advise against its use in people at risk of hyperkalemia.

In some countries, potassium-enriched salt is recommended to the entire community because the potential benefits are so large. A modelling study showed almost half a million strokes and heart attacks would be averted every year in China if the population switched to potassium-enriched salt.

What will happen next?

In 2022, the health minister launched the National Hypertension Taskforce, which aims to improve blood pressure control rates from 32% to 70% by 2030 in Australia.

Potassium-enriched salt can play a key role in achieving this. We are working with the taskforce to update Australian hypertension management guidelines, and to promote the new guidelines to health professionals.

In parallel, we need potassium-enriched salt to be more accessible. We are engaging stakeholders to increase the availability of these products nationwide.

The world has already changed its salt supply once: from regular salt to iodised salt. Iodisation efforts began in the 1920s and took the best part of 100 years to achieve traction. Salt iodisation is a key public health achievement of the last century preventing goitre (a condition where your thyroid gland grows larger) and enhancing educational outcomes for millions of the poorest children in the world, as iodine is essential for normal growth and brain development.

The next switch to iodised and potassium-enriched salt offers at least the same potential for global health gains. But we need to make it happen in a fraction of the time.

Alta Schutte receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Medical Research Future Fund, and NSW Health. She is Company Secretary of the Australian Cardiovascular Alliance, Board Member of Hypertension Australia, and Co-Chair of the National Hypertension Taskforce of Australia.

Bruce Neal receives salary support from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, The George Institute for Global and Imperial College London. He receives research funding from multiple other national and international agencies but from none that represent a conflict of interest with this work.

Xiaoyue Xu (Luna) 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. This salt alternative could help reduce blood pressure. So why are so few people using it? – https://theconversation.com/this-salt-alternative-could-help-reduce-blood-pressure-so-why-are-so-few-people-using-it-221409

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rick Shine, Professor in Evolutionary Biology, Macquarie University

Many Australians who work outdoors – especially farmers and graziers – attempt to kill every snake they encounter, especially those thought to be venomous. In fact, research in one part of rural Australia found 38% of respondents tried to kill snakes wherever possible.

This attitude is misguided and dangerous. Despite their fearsome reputation, venomous Australian snakes pose little risk to human health. And snakes are hugely beneficial on farms by consuming pests such as rodents.

New research by myself and colleagues estimated the magnitude of that benefit. We found adult eastern brown snakes can collectively remove thousands of mice per square kilometre of farmland each year, which substantially increases farm productivity.

Our study suggests the benefits of snake populations on agricultural land far outweigh the potential costs, and farmers should tolerate rather than kill them.

A persecuted serpent

Brown snakes are the most common deadly snake species found in disturbed agricultural habitats in the southern half of Australia.

The snakes are fast-moving and active during the day. Brown snakes are generally persecuted in rural areas because the danger of fatal snake bites is seen to outweigh their benefits as pest controllers.

It’s true that brown snakes are the most common cause of fatal snake bite in Australia. But the bites are rarely fatal. Statistics show snakes of any species kill fewer than three people per year in Australia, on average.

Around 3,000 snake bite cases are reported annually – a high proportion of which occur when a snake retaliates to being attacked by a person.

Australian snakes, including brown snakes, generally retreat rather than attack, even when provoked. Eastern brown snakes, in particular, tend to dwell in places where they are unlikely to be encountered by people.

Read more:
‘Good luck fella, stay safe’: a snake catcher explains why our fear of brown snakes is misplaced

An upside to venomous snakes

The most obvious benefit of maintaining brown snake populations is to reduce rodent numbers. Introduced species of rats and mice are a major cost to Australian agriculture. In extreme cases, mice can destroy most or all of a crop.

We wanted to calculate the number of rodents removed from Australian farmland by brown snakes.

First, we drew on work I had done in the 1980s, which involved dissecting museum specimens to find out what proportion of brown snake diets consisted of rodents.

We then estimated the number of prey consumed each year by brown snakes. This was based on the feeding rates of captive snakes, data from commercially farmed pythons in farms in Thailand and Vietnam, and studies on a species of North American snake which is similar to brown snakes.

To estimate the abundance of brown snakes on farms, we consulted previous research on brown snake abundance, and rates of capture from fieldwork involving red-bellied black snakes. We also obtained data from the Atlas of Living Australia, an online compendium of information about the continent’s plants and animals.

Based on the combined data, we found a square kilometre of farmland can contain 100 adult eastern brown snakes, even where rates of encounters between people and those snakes are low. If each adult brown snake consumes around 100 wild mice each year – which is likely an underestimate – together this must equate to about 1,000 mice per square kilometre. Each mouse removed by a brown snake may eat several kilograms of grain crops over its life.

Give snakes a chance

Agricultural productivity gains are not the only benefits of tolerating brown snakes on farmland.

It would also allow a reduction in the use of chemical methods for rodent control, which can be expensive and ineffective. The chemicals can also threaten the health of humans, livestock, scavenging wildlife and pets.

Tolerating brown snakes might also reduce the incidence of snake bite. Most snake bites are inflicted when people are trying to catch or kill the reptile.

What’s more, one study suggests snakes that are long-term residents of an area are less agitated by close encounters with people and know the location of nearby safe havens, and so pose relatively little threat. Culling snakes may create an influx of new animals unfamiliar with the location and not used to humans.

The obvious rebuttal is that killing snakes reduces the incidence of future snake bite, by reducing overall snake numbers. However, data suggests this is not necessarily the case. For example, one study in Indonesia showed reticulated pythons remained abundant despite millions of individuals being removed over decades.

Maintaining viable populations of snakes has an ecological benefit. Removing high-level predators destabilises food webs and disrupts the way ecosystems function.

Finally, conserving snakes has merit in its own right. Many species of snakes are in decline, including in Australia, and should be protected.

Our findings suggest the need for a more balanced view of the costs and benefits of snakes, including brown snakes. Tolerating them may bring benefits that outweigh the already low chance of life-threatening snake bite.

The author would like to acknowledge the contribution of Peter Mirtschin, Nathan Dunstan and Jeff Abraham to the research underpinning this article.

Read more:
New research reveals these 20 Australian reptiles are set to disappear by 2040

Rick Shine receives funding from The Australian Research Council.

– ref. Stop killing brown snakes – they could be a farmer’s best friend – https://theconversation.com/stop-killing-brown-snakes-they-could-be-a-farmers-best-friend-222142

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amanda Gutierrez, Associate Professor in Literacy and WIL partnerships, Australian Catholic University

Are you worried about how much time your child spends playing video games? Do they “hibernate” for hours in their room, talking what seems like gibberish to their friends?

Fresh air and life away from gaming are undeniably important. But it may help to know our research shows many English teachers are thinking seriously about how gaming applies in their classrooms – even if there are divided opinions about how to approach it.

Video games and English education

The global gaming industry is huge and continues to grow. It is tipped to be worth US$321 billion (A$477 billion) by 2026.

While many gamers are over 18, we know video games are very important to young people’s culture and identity. In 2023, Bond University surveyed 1,219 Australian households on behalf of the Interactive Games and Entertainment Association. It found 93% of 5-14 year-olds and 91% of 15-24 year-olds surveyed in Australia play video games.

More than fifteen years of research has also shown video games can also have educational benefits. This includes developing problem solving and literacy skills, creativity, team work and developing a critical understanding of their place in the world.

From an English teachers’ perspective, many video games have complex narrative scripts and plots and clear character development. They also typically require players to interpret cultural contexts and apply them. For example, games like The Legend of Zelda (first released in 1986 with multiple spin-offs) contain back-stories and plot-lines that are ripe for analysis.

However, these sorts of games (or texts) are still not valued in English curricula. Greater value is placed on studying favourite classics such as Shakespeare, John Steinbeck, Ernest Hemingway and other print-based literature.

Read more:
Here’s why The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom is big news – even among those who don’t see themselves as ‘gamers’

Our research

To better understand how teachers value digital games in their classrooms and how they use them, we surveyed 201 high school English teachers around Australia. They came from all school sectors. More than 60% of those surveyed had been teaching for at least ten years.

Our research found:

• 58.6% of teachers surveyed believed digital games are a “legitimate text type”. This means they thought they can be taught in English programs alongside other texts such as plays, books and poetry. A further 27.4% were unsure and 14% of respondents said digital games were not legitimate texts

• 85% had not used digital games as a main or “focus” text for classroom study, with 74% having no plans to do so in the future

• teachers with less experience were more likely to think they could use video games as a text for classroom study. For example, teachers who had used digital games with their students were 260% more likely to have 15 years or less experience

• of those not using digital games as a focus or supplementary text, 23% reported limited knowledge of, and time to explore, how to use them in the classroom

• 80% of teachers had not received professional development on how to use digital games but 60% had independently read articles, books, or chapters about them.

Read more:
Video gaming can bolster classroom learning, but not without teacher support

What does the curriculum say?

The term “multimodal” appears more than 300 times in the Australian English curriculum. Multimodal means a text contains two or more modes, such as written or spoken text, video images and audio.

While digital games are indeed multimodal texts, the curriculum does not overtly name digital games (or video games) as an example of a multimodal text.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, only 30% of our respondents felt digital games were mentioned in the curriculum.

Teachers in their own words

In open-ended questions, teachers revealed strong and in some cases, polarised views about video games in their classrooms. Those who were positive, emphasised their ability to engage students. As one teacher told us:

I think digital games are the future of education […] a medium all students are familiar with, engage in, and enjoy. Students do not read books ‘en masse’ anymore, yet we as English teachers insist on dragging them kicking and screaming through texts they detest, whilst penalising them for playing the digital games they love.

Teachers also spoke of the rich, complex nature of some games. For example, they valued the way digital games have “multiple plot lines”, “connectivity between segments”, and “immerse students in worlds” as “active rather than passive” users of a text.

But some teachers also said video games hampered students’ creativity:

I am so over this stupid fixation. Digital games stymie imaginative writing and actually ‘flatten’ affect in the student’s ‘voice’. It comes to define their idea of writing and they regurgitate silly game stories that lack any emotional or creative flair.

They also expressed strong concerns they were were not good for students (echoing similar, ongoing concerns in news media), with one stating:

I really hate video games and I do not think they are healthy for kids […].

What does this mean?

Our research shows digital games remain a contentious issue among English teachers. This suggests there needs to be clearer curriculum guidelines about their use in the classroom (rather than general references to “multimodal” texts).

It also suggests teachers need more professional development around video games, including their potential benefits as well as how to use them effectively and for critical understanding in their English programs. This will require practical resources and research-based examples.

We need students to be able to think critically when engaging with all types of texts. Especially those that feature so prominently in their lives.

Read more:
Vacuuming, moving house, unpacking are boring in real life – so why is doing them in a video game so fun?

Laura Scholes has received funding from The Australian Research Council, Catholic Education, Qld, The Department of Education, Qld, and the Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre.

Amanda Gutierrez, Kathy Mills, and Luke Rowe 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. 60% of Australian English teachers think video games are a ‘legitimate’ text to study. But only 15% have used one – https://theconversation.com/60-of-australian-english-teachers-think-video-games-are-a-legitimate-text-to-study-but-only-15-have-used-one-220045

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Coates, Program Director, Economic Policy, Grattan Institute

Australia has an acute shortage of housing. Renters across the country face steep rents rises and record-low vacancy rates.

At the same time, net overseas migration has surged to a record high of 518,100 in the past financial year as international students, working holiday-makers, and sponsored workers returned to Australia after our international borders reopened and fewer migrants departed.

The trouble is, very few migrants arriving in Australia come with the skills to build the extra homes we need.

Migrants are back but lack home building expertise

Migrants are less likely to work in construction than in most other industries. About 32% of Australian workers were foreign born, but only about 24% of workers in building and construction were born overseas.

And very few recent migrants work in construction. Migrants who arrived in Australia less than five years ago account for just 2.8% of the construction workforce, but account for 4.4% of all workers in Australia.

Most migrants who work in construction in Australia have been here for a long time. The largest migrant groups in construction are permanent skilled migrants (including their spouses and children), followed by New Zealand citizens (who can remain in Australia indefinitely on a temporary visa) and permanent family visa-holders (many of whom arrived in Australia long ago as the spouses of Australian citizens).

But among those migrant groups where we’re now seeing the biggest rebound in numbers – international students, international graduates and working holiday makers – relatively few work in construction. And just 0.5% of all construction workers are on a temporary skilled visa.

Changing this situation won’t be easy. After all, Australia rightly wants to attract highly skilled migrants who will make the biggest long-term contribution to the country.

That means selecting highly skilled migrants – mostly tertiary-trained professionals. However, the construction workforce is one of Australia’s least educated. Just 22% of Australia’s construction workforce hold a diploma-level qualification or higher – the least of any industry.

What the government should do

But there are steps the federal government can take to make Australia more attractive to skilled trades workers who can help build the homes we desperately need.

First, the government should make it easier for employers to sponsor skilled trades workers to get a visa.

It should abolish labour-market testing and reduce sponsorship fees for the new “Core Skills” temporary sponsored visa stream – for skilled workers earning between A$70,000 and A$135,000 a year – to encourage more skilled trades workers to migrate to Australia.

The introduction of labour-market testing and extra fees like the Skilling Australians Fund Levy are big reasons why the number of visas granted to temporary sponsored workers in construction has fallen from more than 9,000 in 2011-12 to just 4,021 in 2022-23.

Read more:
Australia’s skilled migration policy changed how and where migrants settle

The government should also extend its new streamlined, high-wage “Specialist Skills Pathway” sponsored visa stream to skilled trades workers.

That pathway will be offered to workers who earn at least $135,000 a year. Visas will be approved in a median time of just seven days. Yet skilled trades workers earning more than $135,000 won’t qualify for the new streamlined pathway.

Second, the government should streamline the skills and occupational licensing process for skilled trades workers.

Currently, overseas qualified tradespeople must have their skills assessed separately to qualify for a skilled visa and to be granted a licence by a state or territory to practise their trade once in Australia.

The recent Parkinson Migration Review showed how that process can cost more than $9,000 for some skilled trades and take up to 18 months.

The Albanese government should work with states and territories to better align these processes. And it should pursue greater mutual recognition of qualifications and licences with other countries for skilled trades, as recommended recently by the Productivity Commission.

Migration offers big benefits to Australia. But we’d benefit even more if it provided more of the skilled workers we need to help fix the housing shortage.

Read more:
A prefab building revolution can help resolve both the climate and housing crises

Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute’s activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities, as disclosed on its website. We would also like to thank the Scanlon Foundation for its generous support of our migration research.

Trent Wiltshire 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 is welcoming more migrants but they lack the skills to build more houses – https://theconversation.com/australia-is-welcoming-more-migrants-but-they-lack-the-skills-to-build-more-houses-222126

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael James Walsh, Associate Professor in Social Sciences, University of Canberra

Music streaming can alter what was once a private activity into something more seemingly public.

Around 2016, streaming became the dominant way people engaged with recordings of music. Users engage in a constant process of renting music, by perpetually paying to use these services or by providing access to user data. Streaming services operate simultaneously in two types of markets: the circulation of music for users; and the exploitation of users’ data and attention.

With this sharing, music streaming has altered the social experience of listening to music. Now, anyone with an account could potentially be listening in and seeing what music we choose to spend our time with.

So how does “Spotify snooping” and streaming music more generally change the way we listen to music?

The ubiquity of music

To understand the changing nature of music listening, I interviewed 49 users of streaming services about how they listen to music.

One key finding is these services render music more ubiquitous across everyday life.

As one interviewee explains, streaming:

has made it easier for me to have it as a part of a soundtrack to my life, a part of what I do. Because it’s just so integrated. With technology it just allows things to be so simplified for us that we can just access music at a click of the finger. I think that therefore music is much easier for me to have it kind of flowing through.

Music streaming technologies seek to shape how users engage with music through algorithmic features, such as platform-curated playlists. Users are required to navigate features that decide, filter and select what to expose listeners to.

As one participant’s describes:

I almost feel like stuck in a rut… I’m like, ‘I actually do really want to find something new.’ And I’ll go out and find that. But even though it’s not Spotify’s fault, I kind of feel a little [trapped] in the world that I’ve set up for myself by listening to certain types of things. I guess the algorithm promotes what you’ve already been listening to and only gives you often slight variations on what that is because it doesn’t want to freak you out. And I guess that’s its job. It can be a little limiting sometimes.

Read more:
Stream weavers: the musicians’ dilemma in Spotify’s pay-to-play plan

Who’s listening in?

Because streaming services also act as social media platforms, your listening habits can potentially be viewed by outsiders, the users I spoke to talked of a need to navigate music streaming carefully.

One interviewee spoke of the “social pressure” to curate what he is listening to:

I’m also slightly conscious of how much I’m listening to something and, you know, like it’s not … is it embarrassing, but is it? Am I listening to it too much? Should I be listening to more varied music because I want to seem, I don’t know, like should I listen to more varied music? And so that kind of plays around in the back of my head as I’m choosing music as well.

Other people recoil at being rendered into a series of data points.

As one participant suggests:

sometimes you listen to things in a personal context, you know, I guess if the music you’re listening to is reflective of how you’re feeling, you don’t necessarily want to reflect how you’re feeling or communicate how you’re feeling with other people. Yeah, and if that’s being broadcast, it’s a little bit off, isn’t it? Awkward, you know.

This knowledge of how streaming services trace and allow others to follow users comes to frame the experience of using the service itself.

Another interviewee described once privately listening to songs on their iPod:

it was sort of a bit anonymous as well. I like that you could just sort of you know … I could just be in bed, for example, with the headphones in listening and it wasn’t sort of necessarily recorded online. And I suppose I have to admit there’s a part of me that feels a little bit resentful that you can’t just sort of download things the way you could in the past and have it […] [to] listen indefinitely.

Read more:
Audio cassettes: despite being ‘a bit rubbish’, sales have doubled during the pandemic – here’s why

Fading passions

While streaming undoubtedly commands a significant way we now engage with music, some interviewees also indicate it has changed their relationship with music:

I guess having ownership over music feels different to having, you know, like a subscription. I feel less passionate about streaming services […] I think I just feel more passive with Spotify I guess, like, less active. Because every time I try to be active I just get frustrated at not being able to find what I want […] Like, there was just so much more effort involved in music before whereas I think when something becomes less – less effortful perhaps it becomes less special, you know.

These experiences could also partly explain the resurgence in physical formats such as vinyl and even cassette.

Streaming technologies not only change how we access music recordings but also are associated with changes in the social experience of listening to music.

Streaming allows people to incorporate music ubiquitously and musically inflect everyday life in increasingly varied ways. But it can also transform private acts of listening into public ones to be viewed with risk if not managed carefully.

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

– ref. ‘I almost feel like stuck in a rut’: how streaming services changed the way we listen to music – https://theconversation.com/i-almost-feel-like-stuck-in-a-rut-how-streaming-services-changed-the-way-we-listen-to-music-219967

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ryan Borrett, Science Communications Coordinator, Murdoch University

Most things you eat grew in soil or ate plants growing in soil. We don’t think much about it, but soil is essential to life.

During the last Ice Age, much of the northern hemisphere was covered in glaciers. As they moved, glaciers eroded away the top layer of rock and left a fresh layer of rock, ready to weather into soil.

But Australia didn’t have this renewal of soil from grinding ice – or from volcanoes, which dredge up minerals vital to plant life from deep below. As a result, our soils are famously very poor – heavily weathered, old, and short on nutrients. This is one reason why we have so much land devoted to grazing animals (crops need more nutrients than grass does), a heavy reliance on fertilisers and a detailed knowledge of fertile soils where they exist.

Unfortunately, our soils – valued at A$930 billion – are under threat. The latest State of the Environment report rated the health of our soils as “poor” and declining. Late last year, the government released a national plan to improve our soils.

Researchers are working on ways of improving Australian soils to make agriculture more sustainable and less reliant on fertilisers. Here are some examples.

From farm to food

You might wonder what the problem is. Aren’t we growing and exporting more food than ever? Farm productivity and incomes are at record highs and many farmers are adopting more efficient practices informed by research to help manage their soil amid new risks such as shifting rainfall and flash droughts.

But many of our soils are fundamentally vulnerable because they function in old and weathered landscapes. To keep the food coming, farmers have had to resort to clearing more land and increasing fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides. That works short term. But there are increasing concerns this intensive approach ends up making soil worse – more eroded, more saline and more acidic. All three of these are worsened by our changing climate.

Read more:
‘Regenerative agriculture’ is all the rage – but it’s not going to fix our food system

What can be done?

Soil scientists have long worked on ways to get more out of our soils. The Green Revolution of the 1960s led to huge increases in yield – but required huge increases in application of fertilisers and other chemicals.

In Australia, farmers will likely have to rely on fertiliser for the foreseeable future as a way to correct soils which are naturally short on nutrients.

What we can do is learn to apply fertiliser only when it’s needed. That’s good for farmers – fertiliser is expensive – and good for the health of soil and nearby waterways.

Read more:
What sub-Sahara can learn from India’s ‘Green revolution’: the good and the bad

In southwest Western Australia, for example, soil scientists are working to understand how best to dose the soil with nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus – and how much to use.

In another project, scientists are working with farmers and land managers to sample and test their soil and interpret the data together. The goal is to pare back fertiliser use, which improves water quality in nearby waterways and estuaries, as unused fertiliser runs off and can trigger algal blooms.

Precision application of fertiliser is one method. But there are many other innovative soil projects across Australia.

For instance, fungi do vital work in cycling soil nutrients. And mycorrhizal fungi go one step further and live in symbiotic relationships with plants. What if we could use these fungi as a kind of living biofertiliser for grain crops? Scientists are exploring the potential for one such species, the ridge-stemmed bolete (Austroboletus occidentalis), to play this role.

It’s alive!

Researchers recently estimated soil contains about three-fifths of all species on the planet, including bacteria, fungi, viruses, nematodes, mites, worms and insects.

Soil is, in short, teeming with life. Some underground lifeforms are pests to farmers, chewing on the roots of crops. But many others are beneficial.

If we improve our understanding and measurement of soil microorganisms, we could use them to speed up recovery of degraded landscapes, such as former mine sites or unproductive farmland.

Our understanding of how things living in soil impact environments and respond to change is rapidly growing, but we are still scratching the surface. For example, more than 90% of the estimated 5 million species of fungi are currently unknown.

Digging deeper

Australia has the world’s third highest loss of soil carbon over the last 250 years, caused largely by very high rates of land clearing. We risk releasing even more soil carbon in the future, as climate change is expected to worsen erosion and bushfire intensity.

One response by the government has been to create a market for soil carbon credits, the first of which went on sale last year. The market-based approach has been widely criticised. Soil experts have called for the credit system to be much more robust to ensure it actually works.

Research into the problems facing our soil is important, but we’ll need government and industry backing to better coordinate the response.

That’s why last year’s action plan has been broadly welcomed, despite being 18 months overdue. The joint federal-state plan indicates governments at both levels recognise the danger to our soil. Framed around securing soil as a “national asset”, the plan envisages standardising soil data collection and sharing, accelerating uptake of best-practice soil management, among other things.

Will it stop the damage done to our lifegiving soils? That remains to be seen.

Read more:
Here’s how to fix Australia’s approach to soil carbon credits so they really count towards our climate goals

Ryan Borrett is part of SoilsWest and collaborates on projects that receive funding from Murdoch University, the Western Australian Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, and the Grains Research and Development Corporation.

– ref. Australia’s soils are notoriously poor. Here’s how scientists are working to improve them – https://theconversation.com/australias-soils-are-notoriously-poor-heres-how-scientists-are-working-to-improve-them-216640

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland

From pickles and french fries to oranges and ice cream, women and other people who are pregnant report craving a range of foods while they’re expecting.

A food craving is a strong urge to eat a specific food. The intense desire to eat is not necessarily related to hunger and can be difficult to ignore or resist. Think: “I must have this now!”.

Food cravings during pregnancy are common, with studies reporting anywhere between 50% and 90% of pregnant women experience a food craving at least once during their pregnancy. Most women who experience food cravings will do so in their second trimester (from week 13 to 27), and the cravings may also be most intense at this time.

Let’s delve into the science of food cravings and what it means for the health of mum and bub.

What are some typical cravings, and why do they happen?

There’s an old wives’ tale which implies food cravings can predict the sex of the baby, with sweet foods being associated with a girl, and savoury foods indicating a boy.

This isn’t backed by science. In reality, food cravings during pregnancy are highly individual, though they typically include carbohydrate-dense and protein-dense foods. Commonly reported cravings include biscuits, bananas, nuts, pickles, ice cream and potatoes.

Read more:
Pregnant women and babies can be vegans but careful nutrition planning is essential

We don’t know exactly why pregnant women experience food cravings, but there are a few possible reasons.

1. Changes in nutritional needs

Growing a baby takes a lot of work, and unsurprisingly, increases womens’ requirements for energy and specific nutrients such as iron, folic acid, magnesium and calcium. In addition, a woman’s blood volume increases significantly during pregnancy, meaning a greater demand for water and electrolytes (in particular sodium and potassium).

Some studies suggest women experiencing nutrient deficiencies are more likely to have food cravings. This might mean women crave foods high in energy and specific nutrients based on their needs.

However, this link is not consistently seen, and many women experience food cravings without being deficient in any nutrients.

2. Changes in hunger and taste

Hormonal changes that occur throughout pregnancy may change how hungry women feel. A specific hormone called neuropeptide Y has been shown to increase during pregnancy and is associated with increased hunger.

Also, many women report foods and drinks taste different during pregnancy. Most commonly, women report an increased taste of bitter flavours such as those in vegetables or coffee, and a heightened sense of sweetness from fruits.

Changes in how foods taste combined with increased feelings of hunger may create food cravings, particularly for sweet foods such as fruits. However, studies have not been able to consistently link hormone levels in blood with reported taste changes, suggesting hormones may not be solely responsible for food cravings.

Read more:
Childhood, adolescence, pregnancy, menopause, 75+: how your diet should change with each stage of life

3. Social and cultural influences

Pregnant women in different parts of the world report different food cravings. For example, the most commonly reported food cravings among pregnant women in Nigeria is fruits and vegetables. Rice is the most common craving among all women in Japan, while in the United States, women seem to crave chocolate the most. These differences may be due to what foods are available, and what foods are familiar.

Popular commentary around pregnancy food cravings, and even the notion of “eating for two”, imply a biological need for pregnant women to indulge their food cravings. These sentiments make eating different, strange, or large amounts of food more socially acceptable.

Also, food cravings may normalise eating foods which may be less healthy, such as chocolates or cake. Normalising a food choice that may usually be considered a special treat can then lead to increased urges for and consumption of those foods during pregnancy.

Some women can struggle with food cravings they know are not healthy, but cannot resist. This can lead to shame and negative relationships with food during pregnancy.

Cravings aren’t a big cause for concern

People may think food cravings lead to excess weight gain in pregnancy, which can be related to poor health outcomes for mothers. But studies to date have shown that while women who experience food cravings in pregnancy have a slightly higher energy intake than those who don’t, there’s no consistent link between food cravings and diet quality, changes in body weight or size, or development of pregnancy complications such as gestational diabetes.

Some people have also suspected food cravings in pregnancy might influence the baby while it’s growing. However, studies haven’t found a link between the mother’s food cravings during pregnancy, the size of baby at birth, the baby’s taste preferences, or behaviours of developing children.

Overall, it seems food cravings have little to modest impact on the health of mothers or their babies.

Read more:
3 reasons you feel hungrier and crave comfort foods when the weather turns cold

When to seek help

While all women should feel comfortable to eat foods they desire, moderation is still key. Resolving sweet food cravings with nutritious options such as fruits, dairy and wholegrains may be beneficial, as well as limiting less healthy cravings such as chocolates, lollies and chips.

Particular cravings, such soil or ice, can indicate underlying health conditions that warrant treatment.

If you or a loved one is concerned about food cravings or any aspect of food intake during pregnancy, make an appointment with an accredited dietitian.

Lauren Ball works for The University of Queensland and receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Queensland Health and Mater Misericordia. She is a Director of Dietitians Australia, a Director of the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network and an Associate Member of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences.

Katelyn Barnes is an accredited dietitian and is employed by ACT Health Directorate, University of Queensland, and the Australian National University. Katelyn is a volunteer, elected executive member of the Australasian Association for Academic Primary Care.

– ref. Pickle, anyone? 3 possible reasons women get cravings during pregnancy – https://theconversation.com/pickle-anyone-3-possible-reasons-women-get-cravings-during-pregnancy-221755

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Kirby, Associate Professor in Psychology, The University of Queensland

A cost-of-living crisis, the ongoing impact of COVID, climate change, and numerous global conflicts and refugee crises. When it feels like so many people are doing it tough, how do we decide where to direct our compassion?

In a world that seems increasingly fractured, we wanted to find out if people can bridge the divide between “us” and “them” – to grow their feelings of wanting to help others, who would be typically beyond their “moral circle”.

We discovered that a surprisingly short period of compassion training can expand how much someone cares about people far beyond their immediate circle.

Measuring who matters most to us

Not all moral connections are equal. If the person suffering is our child, our partner, our friend, we are quick to help. But when faced with the suffering of a complete stranger, or someone on the other side of the planet, our motivation to help is likely reduced.

Taking this further, what if the person suffering was actually someone we disliked, or even someone who may have caused harm to others? Would we care then?

Philosophers such as Peter Singer have developed the popular term “moral circle” to refer to those we consider worthy of our concern and those we do not. Typically we prioritise the moral needs of our family and ingroup (the social group we belong to) first, and we care much less about those different or distant to us.

Read more:
How we decide who and what we care about – and whether robots stand a chance

Researchers have found we order groups in this fairly predictable way: family/friends, ingroup, revered, stigmatised, outgroup, animals (high sentience), environment, animals (low sentience), plants, and villains.

Research also shows Australia is not particularly high in terms of moral expansiveness – the size of one’s moral circle. In a 2022 study, Australia ranked 32nd on a moral expansiveness scale (MES), with countries like Canada, France and China ranking much higher.

But are our moral boundaries fixed, or can we move up the moral expansiveness ladder? The question of whether our moral concern for others is stable or zero sum (that is, “my concern for someone comes at the expense of another”) is an empirical one.

Can we expand our moral circles?

When thinking about ways to grow our moral circle, things like empathy and mindfulness may come to mind. But our work shows that compassion is stronger than both at predicting the size of one’s moral circle.

Our work also shows that compassion predicts our willingness to help those we dislike. And other research shows compassion training increases feelings of closeness toward a disliked person.

Building on this, our latest research found that a brief compassion training intervention can increase our moral expansiveness.

In this study, 102 participants were randomly assigned to complete a brief two-hour seminar on compassion training, or to a control group who didn’t attend a seminar.

In the seminar, we focused on defining compassion. The message was: things like anger, anxiety and sadness are normal human emotions, but we have a responsibility to learn and practice how to work with these feelings in helpful and supportive ways.

Participants then had two weeks to continue to practice what we did in the intervention by listening to guided audio exercises, which were a combination of compassionate breathing and imagery exercises, as well as meditations.

Compassion meditations typically follow a set structure. We begin by expressing compassion to a target – someone we like – but then expand out to other targets, such as strangers or disliked others, to other sentient beings like animals, and to elements of the natural environment, such as coral reefs or forests.

We found that two weeks after the program, participants who had completed compassion training has greater moral expansiveness towards family and revered groups in society (for example, charity workers).

At the three month follow-up, these outcomes improved further. Moral concern for others had increased across the board, including towards outgroup members (such as political opponents), stigmatised members of society, animals, plants, the environment – and even towards supposed “villains” in our society (for example, convicted criminals).

This shows compassion and moral expansiveness are closely connected. We don’t know for sure, but the improved results at the three month mark may have been due to continuing the audio exercises, or perhaps due to a “sleeper effect” – it takes time for people to shift their moral view.

A hopeful future?

The year 2024 is full of big choices, with 4 billion people eligible to vote on who should lead their country.

Election years often spiral into divisions of “us” and “them”, with “we” the public having to choose between the people and policies we hope will improve our world.

Compassion might offer one way to ensure we don’t fall into the trap of turning against one another. We can all recognise the right for people and sentient creatures to live a life free of suffering.

And if compassion helps guide us in our decisions and actions, and even expand our moral sensibilities, we may be better placed to tackle some of the big challenges we are facing – and ensure those who are suffering most don’t get left behind.

Read more:
‘Do-gooders’, conservatives and reluctant recyclers: how personal morals can be harnessed for climate action

James Kirby receives funding from the Mind & Life Institute and is a board member of the Global Compassion Coalition.

Charlie Crimston 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. Who we care about is limited – but our research shows how humans can expand their ‘moral circle’ – https://theconversation.com/who-we-care-about-is-limited-but-our-research-shows-how-humans-can-expand-their-moral-circle-221605

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Phillips, Associate Professor, Centre for Social Research and Methods, Director, Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), Australian National University

The winners and losers from the Albanese government’s rejig of this year’s Stage 3 tax cuts have already been well documented.

From July 1 every taxpayer will get a tax cut. Most, the 11 million taxpayers earning up to A$146,486, will also pay less tax than they would have under the earlier version of Stage 3, some getting a tax cut twice as big.

A much smaller number, 1.8 million, will get a smaller tax cut than they would have under the original scheme, although their cuts will still be big. The highest earners will get cuts of $4,529 instead of $9,075.

But many of us live in households where income is shared and many households don’t pay tax because the people in them don’t earn enough or are on benefits.

The Australian National University’s PolicyMod model is able to work out the impacts at the household level, including the impact on households in which members are on benefits or don’t earn enough to pay tax.

More winners than losers in every broad income group

We’ve divided Australian households into five equal-size groups ranked by income, from lowest to lower-middle to middle to upper-middle to high.

Our modelling finds that, just as is the case for individuals, many more households will be better off with the changes to Stage 3 than would have been? better off with Stage 3 as it was, although the difference isn’t as extreme.

Overall, 58% of households will be better off with the reworked Stage 3 than they would have under the original and 11% will be worse off.

Importantly, there remain 31% who will be neither better off nor worse off, because they don’t pay personal income tax.

But it is different for different types of households.

In the lowest-earning fifth of households, far more are better off (13.5%) than worse off (0.2%) with the overwhelming bulk neither better nor worse off (86.3%).

In the highest-earning fifth of households, while more than half are better off (54.4%), a very substantial proportion are worse off (42.3%).

Very few (only 3.1%) are neither better nor worse off.

But high-earning households go backwards on average

In dollar terms, the top-earning fifth of households loses money while every group gains. That’s because although there are more winners than losers among the highest-earning fifth of households, the losers lose more money.

The biggest dollar gains go to middle and upper-middle income households with middle-income households ahead, on average, by $988 per year and upper-middle income households by $1,102. The highest-income households are worse off by an average of $837 per year.

As a percentage of income, middle-income households gain the most with a 1% increase in disposable income. Lowest income households gain very little, while the highest-income households go backwards by 0.3%.

The rejig does a better job of fighting bracket creep

And we’ve found something else.

The original version of the Stage 3 tax cuts was advertised as a measure to overcome bracket creep, which is what happens when a greater proportion of taxpayers’ income gets pushed into higher tax brackets as incomes climb.

We have found it wouldn’t have done it for most of the income groups, leaving all but the highest-earning group paying more tax after the change in mid-2024 than it used to in 2018.

The rejigged version of Stage 3 should compensate for bracket creep better, leaving the top two groups paying less than they did in 2018 and compensating the bottom three better than the original Stage 3.

Not too much should be made of the increase in tax rates in the lowest income group between 2018 ad 2024 because some of it reflects stronger income growth.

We find that overall, the redesigned Stage 3 does a better job of offsetting bracket creep than the original. It is also better targeted to middle and upper-middle income households.

Having said that, the average benefit in dollar terms isn’t big. At about $1,000 per year for middle and upper-middle income households and costing the budget about what the original Stage 3 tax cuts would have cost, its inflationary impact compared to the original looks modest.

Read more:
The 2 main arguments against redesigning the Stage 3 tax cuts are wrong: here’s why

Ben Phillips 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. Stage 3 stacks up: the rejigged tax cuts help fight bracket creep and boost middle and upper-middle households – https://theconversation.com/stage-3-stacks-up-the-rejigged-tax-cuts-help-fight-bracket-creep-and-boost-middle-and-upper-middle-households-221851

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Abigail M Smith, Professor of Marine Science, University of Otago

The fishers at Separation Point, between Golden Bay and Tasman Bay in New Zealand’s northwest South Island, used to be cautious. Something they called “hard coral” would tear their nets. If you dived down about 30 metres, you could see why: extensive reefs.

These reefs were constructed by bryozoans, tiny polyp-like creatures that cooperate to build large, branching colonies. They are similar to corals but live in deeper and cooler water.

The reefs at Separation Point were gorgeous and biodiverse. They provided shelter for small animals such as oysters and young fish. In 1980, the world’s first bryozoan-based fishing exclusion area was created to protect them: 146 square kilometres of seafloor was closed to most fishing, from the coastline to a depth of about 50 metres.

It went well at first. A 1983 study from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) of just one reef found 37 species of bryozoans and another 39 invertebrate species, plus numerous fish. In 2008, a study comparing fished and unfished areas off Separation Point found more biodiversity where fishing had been limited.

Alas, subsequent developments have not been so kind. Land clearance for agriculture and forestry since human occupation has resulted in a ten-fold increase in sediment runoff in the area.

Thick beds of mud and silt have built up, destroying and burying the reefs. A survey of the same area in 2021 found flat mud deposits, with the occasional small, dead bryozoan sticking up. No fish remained in this marine ghost town.

Part of a bigger picture

These days it’s hard to escape news that the ocean is in trouble. Warming waters cause heatwaves that bleach corals. Fish and sharks appear where they never used to. Plastic is everywhere, including the stomachs of dolphins and penguins. Overfishing is causing populations to crash.

Meanwhile, sea levels are rising, dredging and mining are destroying ecosystems, while underwater engine noise and artificial light are changing how animals behave. Even the fundamental chemistry of seawater is changing as CO₂ dissolves in it. UNESCO’s Ocean Literacy Portal reads like an obituary.

Read more:
Plastic pollution in some NZ lakes is comparable to northern hemisphere lakes in highly populated areas, global study finds

But there’s another problem often left off that grim list: sediment runoff. When people remove trees, build roads and overstock paddocks, sand, mud and silt flow into the sea.

The resulting damage to coastal ecosystems gets little press, despite being described by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as the greatest single source of pollution in the world’s waterways and coasts.

The first objective of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement in 2010 was to maintain and restore marine water quality. But that’s far from what we have today.

Dark waters, turbid with silt, affect marine life. We are increasingly aware of the changes in seaweed cover around New Zealand, from damage to kelp canopies to changes in phytoplankton. Seaweeds need light and clear waters.

Bryozoans, barnacles, oysters, cockles and scallops are suffering too. They literally starve to death by collecting dirt particles rather than food. Their delicate feeding tentacles are damaged or clogged, while their neighbours (such as pāua) are smothered or buried.

Read more:
NZ’s vital kelp forests are in peril from ocean warming – threatening the important species that rely on them

New Zealand’s disproportionate problem

Sediment runoff is most likely in wet places with high and regular rainfall, prone to being disturbed by storms and earthquakes, and with steep slopes, young rocks and soils. Agricultural land is a particularly strong source of sediment to waterways. Sound like somewhere you know?

Aotearoa New Zealand is eroding into the sea right under our feet. Over 200 million tonnes of sediment are transported by rivers to the sea each year, making fine sediment the most important and widespread water contaminant in this country.

Despite covering only 0.2% of global land area, the Ministry for the Environment reported in 2018 that New Zealand contributes 1.7% of the sediment to the world’s oceans.

Removal of forest and well-rooted plants, overgrazing and construction all result in sediment washing into the sea. Excavating old soils containing now-outlawed pollutants such as DDT, tin or lead exacerbates the problem.

Under the Resource Management Act, regional councils have the authority to prevent discharge of contaminants into water, and the responsibility to manage catchments to minimise sediment getting to the sea. Murky coastal waters suggest they’re not coping with this task.

Action and policy needed

We can make a difference. Planting and avoiding runoff are the most obvious solutions. Roots hold soil better than anything humans have invented. Usefully, they also direct water deep into the ground and remove carbon from the atmosphere.

The usual advice is to plant forests near the tops of catchments, where the ground is steepest and most vulnerable. Projects such as the government’s One Billion Trees Programme are promising, but the key is to leave those trees alone, or find ways to harvest them that minimise runoff.

Read more:
New Zealand’s maritime territory is 15 times its landmass – here’s why we need a ministry for the ocean

The Building Research Association of New Zealand recommends managing construction projects to avoid runoff, including using settling ponds and channels to retain dirty water, or chemical “flocculants” to make fine sediments bind together into a glob and sink. Every project should include the post-completion planting needed to retain soil.

Individuals and households can plant gardens and trees to avoid bare spots. They can limit the use of concrete and other impervious surfaces or choose permeable concrete. They can capture rain from their roof in a rain barrel instead of using storm water drains.

The Māori concept of “ki uta ki tai” recognises the connection between the land and sea, and should inform more robust and holistic environmental management policy, from the mountaintops to the deep ocean.

Regional councils use these words, but we need to see real action. Working together, we can keep soil on land where it belongs, and the ocean clean and clear.

Abigail M Smith 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. Sediment runoff from the land is killing NZ’s seas – it’s time to take action – https://theconversation.com/sediment-runoff-from-the-land-is-killing-nzs-seas-its-time-to-take-action-221966

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

Former Labor minister Greg Combet is to be the new chair of the Future Fund, replacing Peter Costello.

Combet, a member of parliament in 2007-2013, served in the industry and climate change and energy efficiency portfolios and in the Labor cabinet. Before entering parliament he was ACTU secretary.

The Future Fund is the country’s sovereign wealth fund, established by the Coalition government in 2006 to strengthen Australia’s financial position. It is Australia’s largest financial asset. At the end of last year it had $272 billion in assets under management.

It is responsible for a number of other sovereign wealth funds including the Medical Research Future Fund, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund, the Future Drought Fund, the Disaster Ready Fund, the DisabilityCare Australia Fund and the Housing Australia Future Fund.

Costello, who as treasurer set up the fund, served two terms as chair, and was on its board before that.

Last year Albanese government appointed Combet as chair of a Net Zero Economy Agency, a position he will soon quit before taking the fund chairmanship mid-year. His term is for five years.

Since leaving parliament Combet has been prominent in the superannuation industry. In 2018 he became chair of Industry Super Australia.

Announcing the appointment, Treasurer Jim Chalmers said Combet had “a distinguished career and extensive experience in investment and superannuation, government and the climate and energy transformation”.

He said Combet had served as Chair of IFM Investors, a Trustee of AustralianSuper and Superannuation Trust of Australia. He had broad experience as a non-executive director in the financial sector.

“He is the perfect appointment to take the Future Fund into the future,” Chalmers said

Mary Reemst becomes acting chair of the Future Fund until Combet takes over.

Chalmers also announced Nicola Wakefield Evans and Rosemary Vilgan as part-time members of the Fund’s board for five-year terms.

He said Wakefield Evans had extensive experience in capital markets, corporate finance, the energy sector and corporate law. She was a partner for more than 20 years at King & Wood Mallesons and served with the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

Vilgan had a background in investment and a range of board experience; she is currently the Chair of Commonwealth Bank Officers Superannuation Corporation .

“These two new member appointments will increase the representation of women on the Future Fund and continue the government’s strong track record of appointing women to senior roles in Australia’s most important economic and financial institutions,” Chalmers said.

“The appointments will help refresh and renew the Fund and help maintain the high level of skills and experience on the Board.”

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. Former Labor minister Greg Combet to succeed Peter Costello as chair of the Future Fund – https://theconversation.com/former-labor-minister-greg-combet-to-succeed-peter-costello-as-chair-of-the-future-fund-222138

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maria O’Sullivan, Associate Professor of Law, Deakin Law School, Deakin University

There’s been much discussion about how artificial intelligence (AI) will affect every part of our society, from school assignments to the music industry.

But while policymakers continue to debate how best to regulate AI, there’s a question that’s received little attention: how ready are our freedom of information laws to deal with new technology?

Freedom of information laws are important because they help keep governments accountable and transparent. Without them, key wrongdoings can remain secret.

As technology continues to evolve rapidly, it’s time for a fundamental rethink of Australia’s freedom of information regime to make it fit for purpose for 2024 and beyond.

Read more:
Australia plans to regulate ‘high-risk’ AI. Here’s how to do that successfully

Transparency laws key in automation issues

You may be wondering what freedom of information (FOI) laws have to do with AI and automation. A good example of how the two work together is the recent Horizon scandal in the United Kingdom.

This scandal occurred when a computer accounting system called Horizon incorrectly identified shortfalls in the finances of post offices across the UK. The UK Post Office authority prosecuted 700 post office masters as a result of the system’s findings. Some went to prison for fraud and theft, and many others were financially ruined.

It has been described as “possibly the largest miscarriage of justice in UK history”.

Importantly, campaigners in the UK made extensive use of FOI to obtain information about the system. For instance, a request by leading campaigner led to the disclosure of a Post Office document that used offensive and racist terms to categorise sub-postmasters under investigation.

Another FOI request found that government authorities were told of possible problems with the system back in May 2013.

This debacle should serve as a reminder to Australia of the implications of using AI and automation in government systems.

It should also cause us to question whether our laws are fit to deal with the particular challenges of technology, especially as Australia’s transparency laws are more restrictive than those in the UK. There is no absolute exemption for cabinet documents in the UK.

Read more:
Frank and far-reaching: Senate report recommends shake-up of the way freedom of information is handled

Reform desperately needed

Regulation of AI in Australia has been in the news recently due to the release of the government’s interim response to the responsible AI consultation.

While this is an important initiative, comparatively little attention has been given to the need to update some of our key transparency mechanisms.

For instance, the government has refused to implement an important recommendation from the 2023 Robodebt Royal Commission report. This recommended that the cabinet exemption (the provision that allows cabinet documents to be exempt from disclosure) in the Freedom of Information Act be repealed.

Despite saying it “accepts or accepts in principle all 56 recommendations” of the report, the government didn’t formally accept the freedom of information recommendation. In its response, it said this was due to the need to protect cabinet confidentiality, collective responsibility and the giving of “frank and fearless advice from Ministers and senior public servants”.

The royal commission report also noted that affected people and advocacy groups faced significant difficulties in obtaining information about the operation of the Robodebt scheme, including via the Freedom of Information Act. These findings are significant because the over-classification of government information was one reason Robodebt was allowed to continue with impunity for so long.

What needs to happen now?

The increasing use of automation and AI in government requires greater openness with the public. To achieve a balance between transparency and cabinet confidentiality, our paper recommends the following changes:

• the cabinet exemption to be supplemented with a legislated public interest test and appeal to the Information Commissioner, as in the UK

• narrowing the scope of documents covered by cabinet confidentiality

• reduction of the disclosure timeframe from 30 years to ten years, in line with several Australian states.

But we are also calling for a much larger review and modernisation of the Freedom of Information Act.

Read more:
Australians are concerned about AI. Is the federal government doing enough to mitigate risks?

The laws were passed in 1982, when hard copy documents were the norm and government online processes were in their infancy. Although it has been subject to some minor amendments since then, it has not yet been subject to a major overhaul to recognise the enormous technological advances that have occurred.

As we and others previously argued in a 2020 paper on technology and the law, future reforms should include expanding the scope of the Act to allow for greater openness and reducing the exemptions for trade secrets (to allow for disclosure of the commercial information used for automated technologies). We have also suggested that governmental agencies should be obliged to be more proactive in disclosing the details of the automated technologies they have used. This will assist in making our FOI regime fit for purpose – in 2024 and beyond.

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

– ref. Freedom of information laws are key to exposing AI wrongdoing. The current system isn’t up to the task – https://theconversation.com/freedom-of-information-laws-are-key-to-exposing-ai-wrongdoing-the-current-system-isnt-up-to-the-task-221404

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sabina Andron, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Cities and Urbanism, The University of Melbourne

In the early hours, poster installers head out with buckets of wheat paste and gig advertisements, refreshing the thousands of square metres of street poster sites in Melbourne. Graffiti writers and artists also take to the walls with their pieces. Municipal surface cleaners soon follow with chemicals and pressure washers.

Our city buildings are covered with posters, signs, art and graffiti. Their creators’ tools are images: profitable, seductive, confronting, removed.

Yet we rarely think about their collective role in articulating social values. While their creators’ values might differ, their ambition is the same: a higher stake in shaping the image and values of the city.

Our research draws together municipal agendas with a critical history of how public images are produced and regulated in cities. The aim is to develop ways to deal with images in more responsive and creative ways. How can we better manage them to support social justice, diversity and belonging in cities?

Read more:
COVID-19 murals express hope and help envision urban futures

Images are instruments of urban governance

Managing urban images is a priority for municipal governments across the world. Melbourne, the source of the images in this article, is no exception.

Urban branding, graffiti removal, mural art and graphic heritage are just some of the ways in which the city is governed through images. They contribute to how we read urban environments and can create a strong sense of place, identity and character.

Read more:
Vietnam’s disappearing vintage signs are pop culture remnants of a bygone era

At the same time, individual actions in creating images form a collective visual discourse. Displaying political placards in street-facing windows, writing graffiti on public walls or painting over unwanted tagging are all visual contributions to the city’s image and character.

While we may not agree on which of these approaches should take precedence, images play a significant role in how we all encounter, navigate and experience urban spaces. They form an urban aesthetic that is continuously calibrated by state and private actors.

Read more:
Transgress to impress: why do people tag buildings – and are there any solutions?

We value some images above others

The more successful instances of urban visual infrastructure are often innocuous. As the saying goes, great design is invisible. But it can also be informal, unregulated or even illegal.

A visit to the recently opened City of Melbourne Art and Heritage Collection reveals how unplanned images such as stickers, stencils or protest signs deserve attention alongside their standardised counterparts such as traffic signs, wayfinding signs, and memorial plaques. Yet our understanding of their cultural value remains partial and biased.

For example, more than 100 public murals are listed in the Victorian Heritage Register. Also listed are a handful of building signs that many Melbournians will know: the Skipping Girl, Pelaco and Nylex signs in Richmond, and the Whelan the Wrecker sign in Brunswick.

Read more:
How DC Mayor Bowser used graffiti to protect public space

However, graffiti is nowhere to be found in the upper echelons of our value scales for urban images. Neither are street posters, stickers or other mundane images that shape and enliven our public spaces.

Recent research on the governance of graffiti and street art, alongside our interviews with local authorities and graffiti removal companies, indicate the following:

• public image policies often value visual order above aesthetic and expressive diversity

• the protection of private property is prioritised over the imaginative use of public surfaces as a shared, common resource

• we enforce these values by privileging certain voices over others in the expression of public life and urban experience.

Read more:
Getting to the (street) art of a year like no other

All public images are culturally significant

Could we apply heritage principles of cultural significance to the names and messages scribbled next to our local tram stop in the same way as we do to murals or ghost signs? And could we develop more nuanced value protocols for public images in the face of increased social division?

Images in public space reflect and represent divergent social values. As a result, they force us to confront our individual and societal biases.

Cities are never unanimous, harmonious congregations, and neither are their public images. They are also bastions of resistance, radical politics and competing claims to urban rights. Protest signs, graffiti tags and political posters and stickers are social infrastructure.

As urban dwellers, our right to the city includes the ability to edit our urban environments and contribute directly to urban visual culture. Healthy urban environments grow at the intersection of all these image types, in their places of tension and disagreement – what we refer to as urban visual justice.

On your next journey through the city, stop to appreciate the variety of images it shows you. Which values do they capture and promote? What is visible and what is not? And where do you fit in?

A research and policy framework for urban visual justice can lead to greater belonging, representation and justice in urban experience. It improves visibility and voice for communities in public space. If we pay enough attention, images can teach us everything we need to know about cities.

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

– ref. Images shape cities, but who decides which ones survive? It’s a matter of visual justice – https://theconversation.com/images-shape-cities-but-who-decides-which-ones-survive-its-a-matter-of-visual-justice-216003

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Byron Lamont, Distinguished Professor Emeritus in Plant Ecology, Curtin University

Few plants conjure up the Australian bush better than banksias, whose beautiful flowers are irresistible to honeyeater birds, small marsupials and nature lovers.

But our research, published in Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, shows that the ancestors of banksias actually migrated here from North Africa.

From early fossil pollen studies, we already knew that the protea family (Proteaceae), which includes banksias, grevilleas, waratahs and macadamias in Australia, originated in northwest Africa 130 million years ago.

Our task was to track their migration to Australia, where they became the unique symbols of the Australian bush that we admire today. To give credit where it’s due, we need to know where our natural heritage originated. So, how did this iconic group of plants get here?

Looking at the entire family

Our study relied on two approaches. We used a DNA assessment of the entire protea family to create an evolutionary tree. Then we inserted key fossil pollen records of a known age into the tree, to serve as a “molecular clock”. This helped us work out the time of origin of all genera in this family.

We then searched the literature for records of ancient sedimentary deposits that contain fossil pollen with affinities to banksias in Africa, South America, Antarctica (which was covered in forest until 40 million years ago) and Australia.

This was made possible by the fact the hard walls of pollen grains allow them to be preserved for millions of years. Also, the pollen grains of plants in the protea family are quite distinctive from those of other families. We then compared the dates and locations of the fossil pollen against our family tree.

This showed that by 120 million years ago, the ancestors of banksias had begun crossing into northeast South America. The two continents remained joined at their tips until 100 million years ago.

The plants then migrated down the east side of South America – first reaching the Scotia Isthmus about 110 million years ago – and crossed onto the Antarctic Peninsula.

Read more:
The coastal banksia has its roots in ancient Gondwana

Two routes into Australia

Here, the ancestors separated into two groups. One, the soft-leaved group, followed a cool-temperate rainforest pathway (dark for up to four months of the year) along the south side of Antarctica. They entered Australia via Tasmania from 105 million years ago.

The rainforest elements continued up the east coast, with some eventually reaching New Guinea; others entered New Caledonian rainforests directly from southern Antarctica. This route remained open until 45 million years ago, when Australia and Antarctica finally separated.

The other, hard-leaved group followed an open, fire-prone woodland pathway along the warmer, sunnier northern side of Antarctica. They entered Australia via the southwest tip that remained attached to Antarctica until about 70 million years ago.

The two points of entry were separated by a huge inland sea that occupied the Great Australian Bight during that period.

A proliferation of banksias

Since banksia itself appears to have arisen 100 million years ago, the genus either evolved in northeast Antarctica or at the extreme corner of southwestern Australia. From there, they spread to the rest of Australia over the next 50 million years.

Banksias now consist of around 200 species, 90% of which are endemic to southwestern Australia. Ancestors of the bulk of the hard-leaved genera, such as grevilleas, hakeas, macadamias and waratahs, also entered Australia via the southwestern tip. They then migrated east along the margins of the Nullarbor Plain – thickly vegetated back then – to southeast Australia.

Until the results of our new study, it was believed the protea family arose in Australia and spread from here to Africa, South America, New Caledonia and Asia. Almost all migration would have needed to be over the oceans, as it was thought to have happened after the breakup of the Gondwanan supercontinent.

In fact, the journey was entirely overland as it occurred when Gondwana was largely intact, except for the early departure of Greater India.

Plants out of Africa

Anthropologists are keen to point to the “out of Africa” hypothesis for the origin and migratory history of humans. It now appears such a hypothesis is equally applicable to some important groups of plants.

This is the first time the southwest corner of Australia has been recognised as a major migratory route for the protea family.

We now need to take seriously the Antarctic–southwest Australian link as a likely major entry route for many other hard-leaved plant groups into Australia. They could have originated in Antarctica and South America, and possibly even Africa.

This north Antarctic pathway might well also apply to eucalypts, whose oldest records are for southern South America, as well as currently endemic animals and microbes.

Byron Lamont receives funding from the Australian Research Council

Lynne Milne is a member of the Australian and New Zealand Forensic Society and the American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists. She is currently the Treasurer of the Royal Societies of Australia.

Tianhua He received funding from the Australian Research Council.

Richard Cowling 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. Banksias are iconic Australian plants, but their ancestors actually came from North Africa – https://theconversation.com/banksias-are-iconic-australian-plants-but-their-ancestors-actually-came-from-north-africa-221589

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Duckett, Honorary Enterprise Professor, School of Population and Global Health, and Department of General Practice, The University of Melbourne

Forty years ago, Medicare as we know it today was born. It was the reincarnation of the Whitlam government’s Medibank, introduced in 1975 but dismantled in stages by the Fraser Liberal government.

Medibank was developed in the 1960s by health economists Dick Scotton and John Deeble, when disease prevalence was different and the politics of reform were diabolical.

But the nation has changed since 1984, and so have our health needs. Medicare is now struggling to ensure the access to health care for millions of Australians we were once promised.

Let’s look at how we got here – and three radical changes we need to keep the Medicare promise into the future: making it cheaper to see a GP; paying less for blood and imaging tests; and covering dental care.

Read more:
If you live in a bulk-billing ‘desert’ it’s hard to see a doctor for free. Here’s how to fix this

Free hospital care, but you might pay to see a GP

One of my first jobs in the health system, in the days before Medicare and Medibank, was acting in charge of revenue collection for three public hospitals. A small subset of people could get free, albeit stigmatised, care.

We had bad debts, because some people couldn’t afford to pay their hospital bills and I was allowed by policy to recommend that some be written off. But for others I had to seek court authorisation to seize their wages to pay off their hospital debt.

Medibank changed that. Now all Australians can get public hospital care without any financial barrier.

But the financial barriers to seeing a GP or a private specialist (out of hospital) have remained. Doctors continue to charge what they like, with Medicare often only covering a portion of their fees. This has left many patients facing significant out-of-pocket payments.

When Medicare was designed, medical care was provided mostly by solo medical practitioners working in practices they owned. It was a one-to-one professional relationship, with the patient paying the practitioner for each service.

Over time, general practice evolved into group practices organised as partnerships. Next, they consolidated and corporatised. A handful of corporates now provide all private pathology (which tests blood and other tissues) and radiology (which provides imaging services) and a large proportion of GP care.

Corporates have not made the same inroads into most other specialties. But since the 1980s, states have reduced public hospital outpatient services. So patients are now more reliant on private medical specialists for care referred by their GP.

Much has changed, but cost of living pressures remain

Health-care needs have changed. As we live longer, we live with more diseases, many of which are chronic. The care required increasingly involves many different health providers and includes non-medical specialties such as podiatry, physiotherapy and psychology.

When Medicare was introduced, university education was offered for only a few of these professions. But their training has evolved and so too what they can do. This is particularly the case for nursing. It has evolved from an apprenticeship model to a profession with its own specialties. A subset – nurse practitioners – have the authority to diagnose and prescribe medication.

Broader technology trends have also had an impact on health care, as with all other sectors. Virtual care and telehealth proved their worth during the early years of the COVID pandemic, just as generative AI is beginning to show its promise now.

Read more:
AI can help detect breast cancer. But we don’t yet know if it can improve survival rates

Medicare was first and foremost about efficiently removing financial barriers to access. It was introduced as part of an agreement with the Labor movement about reducing costs of living and, in particular, ensuring people could attend a doctor without having to worry about how they would pay for the visit.

However, about 1.2 million Australians deferred or missed out on seeing a GP because of cost in the 2022-23 financial year. Lower-income Australians have higher rates of missing out on care.

Medical fees aren’t regulated and so consumers face a lottery – not knowing whether a fee will be charged and having no control over that decision. Only about 52% of all Australians were always bulk-billed in 2022-23, down from 66% a year earlier.

So how can we get Medicare back on track towards its goal of universal health care for all Australians? Here are three radical reforms we should prioritise.

1. Make GP care affordable for all

Rebates are currently subject to political whim. The Liberal government (in office from 2013 to 2022) froze rebates, leading to increases in average out-of-pocket payments and reduced bulk-billing.

The first step in reducing costs as a barrier to GP care should be introduction of independent fee-setting.

Canadian Medicare – which was the model for Australia’s system – mostly has no out-of-pocket payments. Fees are set by negotiations, not politicians’ whims, and this is enshrined in legislation.

With independent fee-setting in place, a new scheme of “participating providers” should be introduced. Under such a scheme, practices would bulk-bill everyone, and participate in agreed quality-improvement programs.

Read more:
What if Medicare was restricted to GPs who bulk billed? This kind of reform is possible

If fees are set independently and fairly, extra billing over and above the fee is unjustifiable. Non-participating practices would not be eligible for Medicare benefits.

It’s anticipated the vast majority of practices would agree to participate. In Canada, the participation rate is roughly 100%, and bulk billing in Australia is still over 75%.

Participating practices should also be eligible for additional grants to employ other health professionals to provide a more comprehensive range of services – such as physiotherapists and psychologists – to meet the contemporary needs of a population with increasing chronic illness.

If successful, these changes would mean all Australians can access a GP and other primary care services without any out-of-pocket costs.

2. Deal with diagnostics

Despite the evolution of ownership and market structures, pathology and radiology services are still reimbursed by fees for each service (with complex rules about rebates when multiple tests are performed simultaneously).

But while both industries are expensive to set up and buy or lease equipment, the cost of processing an additional test or image is low and sometimes close to zero. This means Medicare pays pathology and radiology providers much more than the tests or images cost.

Both industries are also ripe for further technological change, with the quality of generative AI rapidly improving, and costs likely to further reduce.

Read more:
Blood money: pathology cuts can reduce spending without compromising health

The uncapped fee-for-service model for pathology and radiology needs to be replaced by one in which the benefits of technological change are shared between shareholders and taxpayers, rather than all accruing to the former.

This could be done by replacing fee-for-service payments with a payment model used in the corporate world. Private and public providers could be invited to tender to provide these services in certain areas, with conditions around geographic access, quality and no out-of-pocket payments for consumers.

The same model could also apply to other technology-intensive types of health care, such as radiotherapy for cancer.

These changes might be cost-neutral for government, and save consumers the $24 they currently pay out of pocket on every pathology test that is not currently bulk-billed and $122 on each non-bulk-billed diagnostic imaging test.

3. Cover dental care too

A major omission from Medicare from the start, and a source of continuing inequity, is oral health care. More than two million Australians missed out on oral health care because of cost in 2022-23.

A new scheme to slowly expand universal protection against the costs of oral health care should be phased in over the next decade. This would eventually mean all preventive and basic dental care would be available for everyone, with no out-of-pocket payments.

This would require a parallel expansion of the oral health workforce (dentists and oral health therapists) and development of new payment models based on a participating practice model rather than simply introducing another unregulated schedule of oral health fees paid via Medicare.

Innovation needs to be built into the Australian health system. However, the foundations for innovation must be based on Medicare’s founding principles of addressing financial barriers to provide universal and equitable health care to all Australians.

Read more:
Expensive dental care worsens inequality. Is it time for a Medicare-style ‘Denticare’ scheme?

Stephen Duckett, like all Australians, benefits from Medicare.

– ref. Medicare turns 40: since 1984 our health needs have changed but the system hasn’t. 3 reforms to update it – https://theconversation.com/medicare-turns-40-since-1984-our-health-needs-have-changed-but-the-system-hasnt-3-reforms-to-update-it-217264