Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leah Barclay, Lecturer, University of the Sunshine Coast

NAIDOC Week celebrates and recognises the history and culture of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Here Australia has an opportunity to reflect on the crucial importance of First Nations knowledge systems in addressing many of the challenges in our world today.

Beeyali is a creative research project currently featuring in the Djagan Yaman exhibition as part of NAIDOC Week. The project began in Queensland to visualise the calls of wildlife using the science of visualising sound. Beeyali is a word from the Kabi Kabi peoples in southeastern Queensland, which means “to call”. The project aims to sound an alarm for the multitude of vulnerable species on the brink of extinction in Australia.

Read more:
Rediscovering the art of Tracker Nat: ‘the Namatjira of carving’

Beeyali was conceived by Lyndon Davis, a Kabi Kabi man and artist with works featuring in national and international collections. Working in collaboration with sound artist Leah Barclay and photographer Tricia King, Davis conceived Beeyali as a way to encourage communities to listen, connect with place and share knowledge through new technology.

The trio (who are also the authors of this article) first worked together on Listening in the Wild. This was a series of immersive soundscapes and photography exploring how remote experiences of natural environments can encourage ecological empathy, cultural knowledge and connection to place.

What are cymatics?

Beeyali was first commissioned as a large-scale projection work for NEW LIGHT 2021 – a national award from the Australian Network for Art and Technology. This allowed us to experiment with cymatics, an interdisciplinary field studying the visual interpretation of sound.

Cymatics emerged from scientist Hans Jenny’s experiments in the 1960s that generated distinctive and complex patterns with sound on plate when activated with sound waves. Jenny discovered links between cymatics and the environment, with striking similarities between the geometric patterns emerging and naturally occurring principles and patterns in ecosystems.

This evidence of ecological interconnection resonates strongly with some Indigenous Peoples’ connection to environment and was the initial inspiration for the Beeyali project. This project was often informed by Lyndon Davis’ belief that understanding these patterns is fundamental to human health and connection to Country.

The most fascinating result of these experiments were cultural symbols emerging in the patterns. In the images below, the feathers and eye of the cockatoo become a rippling cymatic pattern where landscapes and trees emerged in the imagery. Davis immediately referenced the four small trees at the top of the image as Bunyas – culturally significant trees on Kabi Kabi Country.

In the following image, the pulsating geomatic patterns responding to cockatoo calls resulted in patterns resembling Kabi Kabi cultural shield patterns.

The meeting of Indigenous knowledges, science, creative practice and new technology is core to this ongoing collaboration. The work is being presented at EVA London this week and is currently on show in Djagan Yaman, Davis’ first solo exhibition in the USC Art Gallery.

Our Beeyali project is now expanding, with a recent successful grant from the Australia Council for the Arts which will see the project expand to include the White-bellied Sea-Eagle and Humpback Whale – two culturally significant species on Kabi Kabi Country.

Recognising our ecological crisis

Rapid environmental disruptions and changes are becoming increasingly visible and audible in ecosystems across the planet. There is still much to learn about how our planet’s ecosystems cross over and connect with one another.

We urgently need more effective ways to engage communities in conservation to address the endangered species at risk of being lost if we don’t.

The theme for NAIDOC 2022 “Get up! Stand up! Show up!” calls for action and change. This needs to include addressing the loss of wildlife due to colonisation, and address the damage done to Country and the ecosystems residing within it.

Beeyali upholds First Nations cultural rights through self-determination and we have a mutual respect for the ways we can authentically work together to heal Country. This interdisciplinary collaboration comes from a shared commitment that embodies core values from a place of trust, friendship and reciprocity.

Listening to the environment allows us to understand the patterns of place and can help us better connect with Country and its ecosystems.

Leah Barclay receives funding from the Australia Council for the Arts

Lyndon Davis receives funding from the Australia Council for the Arts

Tricia King receives funding from the Australia Council for the Arts

– ref. New creative project Beeyali is a call to look after Country and its endangered ecosystems – https://theconversation.com/new-creative-project-beeyali-is-a-call-to-look-after-country-and-its-endangered-ecosystems-186123

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By C Raina MacIntyre, Professor of Global Biosecurity, NHMRC Principal Research Fellow, Head, Biosecurity Program, Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney

Australia has just expanded access to a second COVID booster to everyone 30 years and over, while recommending it only for people 50 and over. That means it’s up to people aged 30-49 years to decide whether they would like a second booster, but they will not be actively encouraged.

The promise of COVID vaccines as a means to completely ending the pandemic was short-lived. Just as vaccines matched to the original strain of the virus were being rolled out in late 2020, multiple new variants of concern emerged, with increasing vaccine breakthrough infections.

Vaccines are not as protective against variants such as Omicron and also wane in protection, which is why we have seen continued waves of infection even in highly vaccinated countries. Two doses do not protect against infection with Omicron, especially if you had the Astra Zeneca shot, so high booster rates are essential.

The strong messaging we received in 2021 about being “double-jabbed” being the end of the road, left many people unaware a third dose was essential. Compared with a stunning 95% of people 16 years and over having two doses, only 70% have had three doses. Yet even the protection of a third dose wanes, even against severe infection and death. But this can be restored with a fourth dose.

Some countries, such as the United States, have recommended fourth doses to anyone over 50 for some time, while Australia has had restricted access, until now just for people over 65.

Read more:
Israel is rolling out fourth doses of COVID vaccines. Should Australia do the same?

Why we need a fourth shot

Australia has essentially used a vaccine-only strategy to control COVID since late 2021. Masks and other measures such as QR codes have been largely abandoned and testing is expensive – many cannot afford a regular supply of rapid antigen tests, and PCR tests can cost an individual more than $100. Antivirals are only available to restricted groups, unless you can afford $1,200 for a private prescription.

Meanwhile, more than 10,000 people have died in Australia, the majority within the supposedly “mild” Omicron wave in 2022 when we were given the message the pandemic was over.

Many of these deaths and hospitalisations could have been prevented by using extra, layered measures to reduce transmission. The crippling of the health system, disruption of workforce, schools and airports, and the burden of long COVID are other reasons to try our best to reduce case numbers. Repeated reinfections should also be prevented, as they increase the risk of death.

A fourth dose becomes even more crucial when we have no other plan – no mask mandates, no mandated indoor air quality standards nor universal, affordable access to antivirals. It will save lives and reduce the load on our health system.

The BA.5 Omicron subvariant is now taking over, and has even more “escape” from current vaccines. But a fourth dose will help.

Ideally, we would have vaccines matched for Omicron, but these may not be available in Australia for many months, during which time many more lives will be lost from the BA.4/5 wave. Even the original vaccine will still provide better protection with a fourth dose compared with only three doses.

Read more:
Here’s why you might need a 4th COVID vaccine dose this winter

Could too many vaccines be bad?

Some argue about “original antigenic sin” (or “immune imprinting”) as a problem with repeated doses of COVID vaccines – as in, they think after repeated doses the vaccine’s effectiveness will be reduced. However, this reflects a misinterpretation of what original antigenic sin means – it means the first time you are exposed to a virus or vaccine, the body remembers that first time when it subsequently encounters something similar. But this immune memory can lead to either a blunted or an enhanced response.

The concept arose around influenza, but even that, which has been studied far more than SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID), is not conclusive or necessarily detrimental – and we still recommend repeated flu vaccines every year.

There is no evidence of original antigenic sin being a problem for COVID boosters – studies show significantly better protection from four compared to three doses. In people with weakened immunity, even five doses continued to boost the immune response. When we have better matched boosters, it is likely they too will be offered, but holding out for these for an unknown period of time will result in preventable deaths and chronic illness.

Read more:
Do COVID boosters cause more or fewer side effects? How quickly does protection wane? Your questions answered

What about younger adults?

ATAGI did not recommend fourth shots for under-30s reportedly because of the low risk of myocarditis following vaccination in young males – but the risk of myocarditis is far higher after COVID infection than after vaccination, and even if that argument held, what about young women?

Omicron causes excess mortality in all adults, even younger ones, so the benefits of expanding access to a fourth dose to everyone 18 years and over would likely outweigh any potential risks.

Health workers miss out yet again, with no specific allowance for them and many being under the age of 30. This will not help the exodus of burnt-out health workers, many of whom got infected in the line of duty.

Meanwhile, we are bracing for a massive wave of BA.4 and 5, predicted to be as bad as the last peak early in 2022. In the absence of other public health measures such as masks, and if a vaccine-only strategy is continued, expanding fourth dose eligibility is the only way to mitigate the next COVID wave.

Much more could be done to mitigate and prevent COVID, by using a “vaccine-plus” strategy of layered measures.

C Raina MacIntyre receives funding from NHMRC, MRFF and Sanofi. She is on the WHO COVID-19 Vaccine Composition Technical Advisory Group. She is currently an investigator in a Moderna CMV vaccine trial.

– ref. Access to a second COVID booster vaccine has been expanded to people 30 years and over – https://theconversation.com/access-to-a-second-covid-booster-vaccine-has-been-expanded-to-people-30-years-and-over-186377

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Podger, Honorary Professor of Public Policy, Australian National University

Peter Coaldrake’s report to Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, Let the Sunshine In, is a clear and frank assessment of culture and accountability in the Queensland public sector today. With one exception, it also offers refreshing guidance to jurisdictions across Australia showing signs of complacency about integrity.

First to the important exception: Coaldrake’s proposal that all cabinet submissions and their attachments, all agendas and all decision papers be published online within 30 days of cabinet decisions.

While the report acknowledges some of the risks associated with such a change – including the possible compromising of frank and fearless advice – it claims that New Zealand’s experience with early disclosure has worked well. As it points out, the NZ system explicitly omits:

exploratory advice, “blue skies” thinking or advice generated in the early and formative stages of a policy development process and intended to ensure the free and uninhibited exchange of ideas that is necessary for the development of robust policy advice […]

Coaldrake believes NZ takes a “measured approach” to redacting small sections of documents where free and frank advice is offered. He also firmly endorses NZ’s principle that

the possibility of a cabinet paper being proactively released must not undermine the quality of advice included in the paper, and therefore the quality of the decision ultimately reached by ministers.

But it is important to recognise the context in which those rules operate:

• NZ’s voting system means that it doesn’t emulate Australia’s strongly adversarial political culture; indeed, governments tend to be coalitions and cross-party negotiation is common
• NZ’s public service commissioner is the employer of departmental secretaries (and other agency heads), limiting their exposure to penalties if advice embarrassing to the government is released
• NZ has far fewer ministerial advisers devoted to minimising political risks, including risks from public servants’ written advice.

Even if governments move towards NZ practice on the latter two points, I wouldn’t support such early release of cabinet papers.

The cabinet system nurtures the important principle of collective responsibility. It requires cabinet ministers to consider fully and frankly all perspectives and expert evidence, enabling each of them to stand by the collective decision regardless of differences robustly debated.

It is likely that Australian governments would adjust their cabinet processes or papers if they knew these documents would soon be available to opposition members and journalists eager to find divisions within cabinet or failures to accept expert advice.

It would be better, in my view, to start at the other end: to go back to a culture in which departments undertake and publish more research and analysis, produce substantial annual reports and perform evaluations for public release. Governments would issue green papers and white papers; the definition of an “exempt cabinet document” would be tighter; attachments to cabinet submissions and memoranda would be released if they didn’t include direct advice or ministerial recommendations.

The tone at the top

A number of Coaldrake’s other recommendations echo the key proposals of David Thodey’s 2019 Independent Review of the Australian Public Service rejected by the Morrison government:

On ministerial staff: “Development and continual reinforcement of a common framework to determine appropriate relationships among ministers, their staff and senior public servants.” Here, Coaldrake recognises that the tone set at the top – the attitudes of political and public service leaders that foster the culture of the system – is essential. For the Commonwealth, I would go further. A major overhaul of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act is long overdue, as is a cut in the oversupply of ministerial staff.

On capability and the Public Service Commission’s role: “Rejuvenation of the capability and capacity of the public sector” to emphasise performance and integrity, with the Public Service Commission playing a key role. For the Commonwealth, I would go further towards the NZ model, with the Australian Public Service (APS) Commissioner as professional head of the APS.

On consultants and contractors: “Departments [to] more robustly account for the benefits from engaging consultants and contractors with regular monitoring by the Auditor-General.” Hear, hear.

On top appointments and tenure: “Stability of government and performance of public service [to] be strengthened by appointment of agency CEOs on fixed term, five year contracts, unaligned to the electoral cycle.” For the Commonwealth, I would further strengthen the merit basis of appointments and constrain terminations.

Institutions matter

Coaldrake’s recommendations about integrity bodies provide excellent guidance to the new federal government. As it develops legislation for a federal anti-corruption authority, Coaldrake’s proposed “single clearing house for complaints, with capacity for the complainants and agencies to track progress and outcomes” would be of enormous use.

This clearing house would help to ensure the new authority works with existing bodies such as the ombudsman and the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) – and, indeed, with the departments and agencies complained about. It would also ensure it focuses on serious corruption and major crime.

Read more:
‘Sports rorts’ shows the government misunderstands the public service

Coaldrake also recommends that integrity bodies’ independence be enhanced by involving parliamentary committees in setting budgets and contributing to key appointments. To some extent this already applies to the Australian National Audit Office. But it should apply more firmly not only to that body but also to the ombudsman, the information commissioner, the human rights commissioners, the electoral commission and, indeed, the APSC.

In essence, Coaldrake’s report is a reminder of the importance of institutions and the need to review their roles and performance regularly. Critical to their effectiveness is the tone at the top, a point also emphasised in NZ’s integrity system. That tone has been wanting not only in Queensland but also in the Commonwealth and a number of other states.

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

– ref. A new report from Queensland offers guidance on integrity to all Australian governments – https://theconversation.com/a-new-report-from-queensland-offers-guidance-on-integrity-to-all-australian-governments-186470

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vanessa Pirotta, Postdoctoral Researcher and Wildlife Scientist, Macquarie University

Australians have watched in horror this week as two separate humpback whales were tangled up in Queensland shark nets on the same day. These put the number of whales caught in Queensland shark nets to four this season – that we know about.

Worryingly, most humpback whales migrating north from Antarctica haven’t even passed Sydney yet. With more whales travelling to the warm Queensland breeding waters, this probably won’t be the last shark net entanglement we’ll hear about this year.

I’ve seen the reality of whale entanglement in shark nets firsthand, when I studied a humpback whale calf who died in a shark net a few years back. The animal autopsy (necropsy) conducted later confirmed the animal drowned. It was terrible.

So what are shark nets exactly, and how do they harm animals?

Read more:
Is Migaloo … dead? As climate change transforms the ocean, the iconic white humpback has been missing for two years

Shark nets don’t just harm sharks

Whale entanglement in fishing gear is a global problem. In some cases nets – combined with other human-made threats such as ship collisions – limit the recovery of some whale populations since whale hunting ceased, including the North Atlantic right whale.

Fortunately, the number of Australian humpback whales has been growing post-whaling. In fact, Australia’s east coast humpback whale population has an estimated 40,000 individuals.

The bad news is, more whales means more potential interactions with humans and our fishing gear, such as shark nets.

Shark nets are dotted around Queensland to try to minimise shark interactions with swimmers. These nets are anchored by chain to the seafloor and are designed to capture sharks before they swim too close to the beach.

But the nets offer little protection. For one, they’re typically between 124 and 186 metres long, 6 metres deep and don’t cover the entire beach, which means sharks can easily swim around and under them.

Indeed, despite the use of shark nets and other shark control equipment (such as drumlines), new data released today shows the number of shark bites in Australia have actually increased since 1791. Scientists caution that we are yet to understand why.

Sadly, shark nets usually kill the sharks that swim into them as they’re unable to move. And as we’ve seen this week, these nets do not discriminate. Other marine life – turtles, dolphins as well as whales – get caught up in this problem, too.

What happens when a whale is entangled?

We don’t exactly know why whales become entangled. Whales are extremely curious mammals and may investigate these dangers as they migrate, but get too close. Another reason may be that whales and other animals might simply not see the danger, and swim into it.

It’s not just shark nets, though. Whales in Australian waters get tangled up in a range of fishing gear – lobster and crab pots, longlines, gillnets and ghost nets (discarded or previously-used gear).

Whale entanglement can be an extremely stressful experience. Often, we see whales thrashing at the surface trying to free itself. This can make the situation worse and limit its movement even further.

Depending on the entanglement and gear type, some whales may be unable to surface for air, and drown.

Alternatively, some whales might manage to get partially free, but suffer long-term consequences from dragging the nets and ropes, which can cut into their blubber.

Over time, these wounds can become infected, restrict the movement of the whale, or both. This leaves them vulnerable to predators such as killer whales and sharks, or unable to dive and dodge vessels.

Read more:
Shark nets are destructive and don’t keep you safe – let’s invest in lifeguards

Can we use technology to stop entanglements?

The reality is no one wants entanglements. Humans don’t want it to happen and I’m sure an entangled whale doesn’t enjoy the experience. It’s an unintended consequence of our attempts to protect swimmers.

So, what can we do about it? Stop swimming in the ocean? Remove the nets? Or is new technology our only answer?

Some suggest removing Queensland’s shark nets during winter when whales make their annual migration. This has yet to take place. What’s more, people often swim year round in Queensland’s warm ocean waters.

In contrast, shark nets in New South Wales are removed during the winter to avoid the main part of whale migration. They’re deployed again later in the year, from September 1, which overlaps only with the southward migration back to Antarctica.

In the meantime, we can continue to trial other options. One is using SMART drumlines for a more targeted approach to capture and relocate sharks.

This is where a baited hook is placed on an anchor with two buoys and an attached satellite (GPS) technology unit. Once a shark takes the bait and is captured, authorities are alerted and can respond quickly to tag and relocate the animal offshore, away from the area of concern.

Scientists can then use shark movement data from the tag to learn more about shark habitat use.

Read more:
Lifeguards with drones keep us (and sharks) safe, and beach-goers agree

While this isn’t a solution to whale entanglement, it does reduce the amount of netting in the water compared to shark nets. It’s also a much better option for sharks.

The Queensland government has invested in shark-control technology called “catch alert drumlines”, which are a type of SMART drumline. Trials of their use began in 2021.

Drone surveillance has also been a complimentary shark monitoring tool on Queensland beaches.

What should you do if you see an entangled whale?

Whale disentanglement should never be attempted by the general public.

Disentangling a whale requires trained personnel, specialised gear and trained vessel operators. Even experts with years of disentangling experience have been killed helping free whales from nets.

Whales are big. When they’re stressed and exhausted, they pose a serious threat to humans. Instead, if you see a whale caught in gear at the beach, tell the appropriate people about it immediately.

Authorities, such as the Queensland Government (The Department of Environment and Science) or The Sea World Foundation are key contacts in Queensland.

Read more:
Curious kids: do whales fart and sneeze?

Other options include ORRCA (NSW based, with coverage in Queensland), which can relay important information to the people best placed to help. Social media can also be a powerful tool to alert authorities.

Queensland whale rescue crews also remain on standby during whale migration season and can deploy trained personnel to respond to entanglements swiftly, weather permitting.

As the whale migration continues north, lets hope these recent entanglements continue to prompt timely discussion about shark nets in Queensland waters.

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

– ref. Why do whales keep getting tangled in shark nets? And what should you do if you see it happen? – https://theconversation.com/why-do-whales-keep-getting-tangled-in-shark-nets-and-what-should-you-do-if-you-see-it-happen-186468

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Plank, Professor in Applied Mathematics, University of Canterbury

New Zealand has been in a COVID lull for the past two months, but with the BA.5 variant on the rise and more than 10,000 new daily cases reported this week, it appears we are now at the start of a second Omicron wave.

How large it will be is difficult to predict, but a number of factors coincide to make this the most serious moment in the pandemic this year since the first wave in March.

BA.5 is the latest instalment in the Omicron series. It was first detected in South Africa in February 2022 and is closely related to BA.2, the variant currently still dominant in New Zealand.

It carries distinct mutations in the spike protein, two of which are associated with higher transmissibility and immune evasion. The rise in BA.5 seems to stem from its ability to infect people who were immune to earlier variants, but so far there is no indication the variant causes more severe disease.

BA.5 was first detected in the New Zealand community in April and cases have been appearing consistently since May. It has quickly risen to 32% of sequenced community cases and looks set to become the dominant variant in the next week. It already is dominant in other countries.

Our recent modelling showed a second wave of COVID this year was likely as a consequence of waning immunity, but the spread of BA.5 has hastened its arrival.

Read more:
Why are there so many new Omicron sub-variants, like BA.4 and BA.5? Will I be reinfected? Is the virus mutating faster?

What to expect

A big concern at the moment is that case numbers in older age groups are higher now than ever before. The March wave was heavily concentrated in younger people, with under 60s making up 91% of all cases up to the end of April.

That helped keep a lid on the hospitalisation rate and has built strong hybrid immunity, acquired from both infection and vaccination, in these groups. But it leaves a large susceptible population in older groups.

Part of BA.5’s advantage is a better ability to re-infect people who’ve had COVID before. Nevertheless, prior infection with a different variant does provide immunity, however imperfect, and those who haven’t been previously infected are at higher risk of catching the virus in the second wave. In New Zealand, this predominantly means older people.

Waning immunity means many people who are five to six months after their third vaccine dose will have significantly lower immunity now than they did in March.

And winter is flu season. The healthcare system is already swamped with patients with influenza and other winter ailments. Winter weather means people tend to gather indoors, in more crowded and poorly ventilated spaces that create ideal conditions for viruses to spread.

This wave is starting with much busier hospitals than in February, and any additional demand caused by COVID will add more stress to a system already under extreme pressure.

The risk of hospitalisation is around six times higher in people over 70 compared to younger groups. Even if the number of cases in this wave is lower than in the first wave, our modelling shows the shift in age distribution means it’s possible the number of hospitalisations will actually be higher.

What to do

The vaccine is still our best line of defence against COVID. It provides a high level of protection against getting seriously ill, even if it is less effective at preventing infection with BA.5.

That protection does wane over time, which is why a fourth dose is now available to over 50s. If you or your whānau are eligible for a vaccination, whether it’s the first dose or the fourth, now is a really good time to get it.

Strong uptake of fourth doses in older age groups, as well as third doses among the one million New Zealanders currently eligible, is the best way we have to mitigate this wave.

The influenza vaccine is also important as it can prevent more people getting sick this winter and ease the burden on the healthcare system. Free flu vaccines are available from GPs and pharmacies for everyone over 65, for Māori and Pacific people over 55, and for children aged between three and 12.

Read more:
As flu cases surge, vaccination may offer some bonus protection from COVID as well

Other easy measures – using high-quality masks indoors, testing and staying home if sick – remain important. Rapid antigen tests (RATs) are an extremely useful tool for managing risk. They are a reliable indicator of whether someone is currently infectious.

Doing a RAT before visiting a vulnerable person or before large gatherings is an excellent way to reduce risk. They are available for free to anyone with symptoms or whose household members have tested positive.

Even if you test negative on a RAT but have respiratory symptoms, you could have flu or another virus. Staying home when sick is the best way to protect others and reduce the rates of sickness this winter.

The pandemic is clearly not over yet. The virus will continue to evolve to get around our immunity and this will lead to ongoing waves. But we are not helpless in the face of it. Updated vaccines, better treatments, action to lower transmission through improved ventilation, and the build-up of hybrid immunity will continue to blunt its effects.

Michael Plank works for the University of Canterbury and receives funding from the New Zealand Government for mathematical modelling of Covid-19.

Audrey Lustig is affiliated with Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research and receives funding from the New Zealand Government for mathematical modelling of Covid-19.

David Welch works for the University of Auckland and has received funding from MBIE, MoH, ESR, and HRC.

Giorgia Vattiato is affiliated with the University of Auckland and receives funding from the New Zealand Government for mathematical modelling of Covid-19.

– ref. A new Omicron wave is upon New Zealand, with older people now most at risk – here’s what to expect – https://theconversation.com/a-new-omicron-wave-is-upon-new-zealand-with-older-people-now-most-at-risk-heres-what-to-expect-186394

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yianna Zhang, PhD Candidate, The University of Melbourne

“Beauty is an iron mine,” once remarked the Australian mining magnate, Gina Reinhart. She was talking about a precious resource, but iron is also profoundly important to living organisms: from bacteria and fungi, to mammals like us.

Iron acts as a key to numerous metabolic functions within our bodies. But iron deficiency remains as one of the top global health risks recognised by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Iron deficiency has become the most prevalent micronutrient disorder worldwide, and COVID may be worsening the problem.

Iron is hard to get

The type of iron we mine is different from the “free-form” iron that can be used biologically. Free-form iron has a propensity to jump between two chemical states, allowing it to bind to various molecules, and participate in all sorts of essential reactions within our bodies.

But we see a different story again during food digestion. Inside our upper small intestine where iron is most effectively absorbed, free-form iron tends to bind to oxygen, other minerals and food components. This often results in rock-like, insoluble clumps (which are like the ones we mine!). These are too big to pass through or between our cells.

This means that even when we consume enough iron, typically only ~15–35% of it is absorbed. It also means iron availability can be improved, or inhibited depending on how we eat it or what we eat it with.

For example, heme iron from animal flesh has a cage-like structure, which carries the iron in a soluble form that prevents it from clumping during absorption. In many Western countries, heme iron only accounts for 10% of the iron eaten, but two thirds of the total iron absorbed.

More of us are at risk of deficiency

Getting sufficient iron sounds like simple maths: we want to add enough to our dietary intake to make up for the iron being lost from the body, such as through faeces, skin shedding, menstruation (for women) and sweat. But the two sides of the equation can change depending on who and where we are throughout our lifetime.

Generally, iron deficiency occurs when our body’s stores of iron are depleted from not having consumed or absorbed enough iron to meet our needs.

This can happen when people restrict their diets, such as for religious, social or medical reasons. Some people also have a tough time keeping up when their iron needs increase, such as pregnant women and growing children.

But iron deficiency can also happen when the body has enough iron, but can’t effectively transport it into cells. This is common in those with both acute and chronic infections, heart and autoimmune conditions, and cancers. In these cases, the underlying disease needs to be treated first, rather than improving iron intake.

The table below summarises some common causes of iron deficiency. Sometimes multiple causes may occur simultaneously – for example, for many elite athletes (35% of women and 11% of men), iron deficiency results from reduced absorption due to inflammation, on top of increased loss through sweat and breakdown of blood cells.

COVID hasn’t helped

The ongoing COVID epidemic has also introduced multiple risk factors for iron deficiency.

We know severe infection with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID) may change the way some people metabolise iron, leading to lower iron levels up to two months after infection. This contributes to symptoms commonly reported after infection, such as fatigue and lethargy.

Recovery from the pandemic itself has also exacerbated food supply issues, as well as the rising global income inequality.

This means more people face barriers to food security – and the nutrient-dense foods that help boost our iron intake like red meat or leafy greens may be unavailable or unaffordable for them.

Read more:
Why we should take a women-centred approach to diagnosing and treating iron deficiency

Before you pick up a pill

It may be tempting to pick up one of the many widely available iron supplements to attempt to boost your intake. However, we have to keep in mind that conventional iron supplementation is associated with some negative side effects.

These include damage to our gut lining, nausea, diarrhoea and constipation. Iron supplementation has also been linked to changes in the gut microbiome, a critical determinant of health.

The WHO has recommended two other approaches: diet diversification and food fortification.

Diet diversification is exactly as it sounds: having a diet with a variety of wholefoods such as fruits and vegetables, grains and legumes, meat, dairy, and nuts and seeds.

This approach not only ensures sufficient levels of iron are found in the foods we eat, but also that they come with different forms or “vehicles” to improve absorption. This approach works even with plant-based foods.

Read more:
What to drink with dinner to get the most iron from your food (and what to avoid)

Food fortification, where iron is added to processed foods, is also a fairly safe yet accessible option due to its lower dose. In Australia, iron is commonly fortified in products such as bread, cereals and ready-to-drink mixes.

It can be challenging to get the iron into our body and where it’s needed. But before turning to supplements, we must remind ourselves that food sources should always be first-in-line. In cases of diagnosed deficiencies, your healthcare professional will provide you with further information where supplements are necessary.

Read more:
Lemon water won’t detox or energise you. But it may affect your body in other ways

Yianna Zhang receives funding from the CSIRO as a part of the Postgraduate Scholarships program, and from the University of Melbourne’s Melbourne Research Scholarship program.

Said Ajlouni and ngkf@unimelb.edu.au 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. Low iron is a health risk made worse by COVID. How to get more without reaching for supplements – https://theconversation.com/low-iron-is-a-health-risk-made-worse-by-covid-how-to-get-more-without-reaching-for-supplements-185020

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maui Hudson, Associate Professor, Director of Te Kotahi Research Institute, University of Waikato

Record high ocean temperatures and marine heatwaves have become increasingly common in the waters off New Zealand in the past decade.

During the same period, commercial fisheries have landed lower volumes for several fish stocks, including hoki and tarakihi.

Māori hold almost a third of commercial fisheries interests in Aotearoa, but these are constrained to certain areas. The impacts of warming seas on Māori communities’ cultural and economic future well-being are not well understood.

For many Māori, fisheries are the most significant assets. With my colleagues Tony Craig and Katherine Short at Terra Moana, we explored how changing ocean temperatures may affect Māori commercial fisheries as part of the Moana Project.

Most of the fish species of interest to New Zealand’s commercial, recreational and customary fishers are managed under the government’s Quota Management System (QMS).

It was introduced in 1986 and determines allowable fish harvests, known as “total allowable catch” (TAC). The system replaced open access with set catch limits and transferable quota rights, which means quota holders can trade and sell their catch allowance.

The impacts of climate change on the marine environment are well documented in the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They include marine heatwaves, more severe storms, rising sea levels and changes in salinity, stratification, circulation, oxygen levels and acidity.

Read more:
Putting the community back into business: what te ao Māori can teach us about sustainable management

As our moana (ocean) changes, so will the distribution of fish species.

Recent reviews analysed the effects of climate change on New Zealand’s commercial fisheries and found most fished species to be vulnerable to changes in temperature.

Any geographical expansion or shift in fish stocks will have major implications for Māori commercial seafood interests, given quota ownership is limited to specified management areas.

The distribution of fisheries is changing

Snapper, for example, prefer waters of 12-21℃. This correlates with better survival rates of larval and subsequent life stages.

This also matches with fishers’ observations of significant increases in snapper in Te Moana-a-Toi/Bay of Plenty where sea surface temperatures reached up to 2.4℃ above average in the first six months of 2022.

Recent declines in tarakihi in Te Moana-a-Toi have largely been attributed to overfishing. But given this migratory fish is known to travel from Banks Peninsula in the south to Te Moana-a-Toi in the north, it is also feasible that changing temperatures have affected the locations of spawning, which is usually triggered when temperatures are below 16℃, and restricted the species’ migratory journey.

Fishers have also recently caught snapper and kingfish around Rakiura/Stewart Island, an area previously considered too cold for these species. What if finding snapper around Rakiura represents both an expansion in the species’ distribution and a geographical shift?

Read more:
Why Indigenous knowledge should be an essential part of how we govern the world’s oceans

The quota system is not set up for a changing ocean

In the negotiations between Māori and the Crown leading up to the 1992 Fisheries Settlement, climate variability from El Niño and La Niña weather patterns was considered, but little thought was given to the implications of climate change.

New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone is divided into ten fisheries management areas (FMAs). Based on the known biological distribution of QMS fish stocks, quota management areas (QMAs) were defined for individual species. Some align with FMAs, but with environmental change and fish movement related to climate change, the future footprint of fisheries may differ considerably from the time QMAs were defined.

Climate change will affect Māori fisheries and aquaculture ownership rights and interests. If fished species move into new areas, this will affect the rights of individual iwi under the fisheries settlement. The allocation of quota under the settlement will be affected over time by the relationship between static iwi land interests and mobile fish stocks.

Two species, hoki and snapper, illustrate how this could play out.

Excluding the Kermadec Islands where neither species is caught, hoki can be considered as having a single QMA (left map above). This means that quota ownership is not likely to be affected by any climate-related geographical shift as any stock movement remains within one QMA.

Conversely, snapper (right map above) is fished in five quota management areas, and any geographical change could have major consequences for individual area-based quota allocations. Of the fished areas, the Snapper 1 (SNA1) fishery is by far the biggest, with a total allowable catch of 8,050 metric tons (mt) allocated annually between commercial (4,500mt), recreational (3,500mt) and customary (50mt) interests.

Quota value changes over time

To understand the potential implications of geographical shifts of fished species, we determined the changes in quota values for some species over the past ten years.

How science and policy respond to the potential implications of climate change will be critical for iwi interests.

Māori now own 33% of New Zealand’s fishing quota volume (47% of value). These iwi revenue streams are vulnerable to climate change, rendering the fisheries settlements less timeless than intended.

It is critical for iwi to understand how their rights and interests in the marine environment are likely to evolve. To uphold iwi interests, we need economic analysis alongside the science exploring the effects of climate change on stocks.

This will better enable iwi, as kaitiaki and right holders, to participate in the marine reform agenda announced last year to ensure the long-term health and resilience of ocean and coastal ecosystems, including fisheries.

Tony Craig and Katherine Short, at Terra Moana, carried out the primary research. Maui Hudson leads the research within the Moana Project, where this work was completed.

Maui Hudson receives funding from MBIE Endeavour Fund.

– ref. Māori hold a third of NZ’s fishing interests, but as the ocean warms and fish migrate, these rights don’t move with them – https://theconversation.com/maori-hold-a-third-of-nzs-fishing-interests-but-as-the-ocean-warms-and-fish-migrate-these-rights-dont-move-with-them-186284

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

The SARS-CoV-2 virus was first detected in Australia on January 25 2021. Within two months, the lives of all Australian were upended.

Australians were stranded overseas as external borders were slammed shut. State borders were closed to people from other states. Lockdowns severely restricted movement of the population. People watched in fascination as case numbers went up and then down.

The daily drama dragged on for months, with premiers and chief health officers fronting the media with announcements of case numbers and tightening or loosening of restrictions.

But the daily spectacle made it difficult to see the wood for the trees. Now, new data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows how Australians’ health changed over the course of the pandemic. It allows us to step back and assess what happened, and to whom.

Australia’s management of the pandemic was overall very good, leading to about 18,000 deaths averted in 2020 and 2021. This was primarily due to restricting arrivals and hotel quarantine for those who did arrive, and lockdowns when quarantine was breached, which inevitable happened.

From late 2021, with more than half the total population vaccinated, these restrictions were lifted following the Morrison government’s national plan, released on August 6 2021.

However, the pandemic is not over. The number of deaths in the eleven months since the plan was released is almost ten times the number than in the 18 months before.

Read more:
How should an Australian ‘centre for disease control’ prepare us for the next pandemic?

COVID became less deadly, but some Australians were disproportionately affected

Australia has had four pandemic waves so far. Daily deaths during the first three waves peaked at around 20 per day. The peak in the current wave is much higher, around 90 deaths per day.

Although more transmissible, the current variant of the virus is less deadly, with a death rate in April 2022 about 0.1% compared to a rate of over 3% in April 2021.

However, the number of daily new infections, some of whom will become long COVID cases, is much higher than in 2021.

Although most deaths throughout the pandemic were in people aged over 60, each of those was a shortened life. Thousands of years of life have been lost prematurely because of COVID.

Deaths did not fall evenly. Those born overseas had twice the death rate of Australian born. The death rate in cities was three to four times that in regional areas.

The bungled management of COVID in residential aged care facilities resulted in deaths in aged care accounting for three-quarters of all COVID deaths in 2020.

The residential age care death rates in 2021 (17%) and 2022 (26%) are tragically high.

People living in the poorest communities had death rates three times that in wealthier communities.

For younger people, COVID was a disease which led to disability rather death, although this does not diminish the impact on those who suffered – and might still be suffering – as a result of the infection or long COVID.

Warnings of things to come

Some preventive care was deferred during the pandemic, which could mean some diseases weren’t detected in their early stages, resulting in poorer outcomes.

Endoscopies are procedures where clinicians look inside the body using a long tube with camera attached, sometimes to detect cancer. Rates of endoscopies were down, suggesting some cancers may have been missed.

The rate of Indigenous health checks also took a downturn:

This may mean it will be even harder to close the gap between the health of First Nations Australians and the rest of the population.

The overall pattern about mental health is mixed, with raw numbers suggesting no statistically significant change in long-term patterns.

However, there were upticks of reported psychological distress in early 2022, and so the underlying pattern may not yet be clear.

Read more:
COVID-19 slashed health-care use by more than one-third across the globe. But the news isn’t all bad

Outcomes have been good so far, but we’re still in the pandemic

Extended border closures led to stress on those separated from their families, and so too did the state border closures. Overall, however, outcomes from the pandemic have been good so far.

But the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report was released in the same week the 10,000th Australian COVID death was reported. The ongoing deaths from COVID are barely reported in the media and appear to be ignored by policymakers.

The previous prime minister dichotomised potential COVID responses into lockdowns or “living with COVID”. This was never the case.

A more nuanced response – supplementing a drive to increase vaccination rates with mask mandates and density limits when required, and improving ventilation – was always part of the public health response.

Unfortunately, third dose vaccination rates are sitting at around 70% of those eligible, leaving many Australians dangerously exposed to the virus.

There should be a return to the “vaccine-plus” strategy, where we focus on lifting vaccination rates and implementing other public health measures – such as mask mandates or density limits – where required.

Otherwise we risk all the good work done in 2020 and 2021 being completely negated and more unnecessary deaths occurring, especially among the most disadvantaged.

Read more:
First, COVID hit disadvantaged communities harder. Now, long COVID delivers them a further blow

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

– ref. How has COVID affected Australians’ health? New report shows where we’ve failed and done well – https://theconversation.com/how-has-covid-affected-australians-health-new-report-shows-where-weve-failed-and-done-well-186461

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Glasser, Honorary Professor, Institute for Climate, Energy & Disaster Solutions, Australian National University

The climate policies of the former Morrison government were widely panned – largely for a weak commitment to cutting emissions and a slow transition to renewable energy. But amid all the shortcomings, arguably the biggest was the Coalition’s neglect of security threats posed by climate change.

The Albanese government has moved to address this gap. It has launched an urgent review of climate and security risk led by intelligence chief Andrew Shearer, working closely with Defence. The review team now faces a daunting task.

Climate change is a pressing and accelerating threat to global security. It will disrupt trade, displace populations, cause food and energy shortages and drive conflict between nations.

Southeast Asia, on our northern doorstep, is particularly at risk. It’s a global hotspot of overlapping climate hazards such as intensifying cyclones, sea level rise and extreme heat.

What’s more, the region is heavily populated – 275 million people live in Indonesia alone – and its social safety nets cannot support all those displaced by disasters.

The government review is a crucial first step in preparing Australia for the dangers ahead. But to be successful, it must avoid these five pitfalls.

1. Narrow definition of national security

Climate change will no doubt challenge our defence force, threatening military infrastructure and readiness. It will also exacerbate tensions in military hotspots such as the South China Sea, where sea level rise and ocean warming will amplify disputes over maritime boundaries and fisheries.

But the most pressing regional security threats will come from climate change disruptions to social systems. In particular, disruptions to food, water and energy will displace large populations, undermine the legitimacy of governments and cause other social upheaval.

The issues go far beyond traditional national security portfolios such as Defence, Foreign Affairs, Home Affairs and intelligence agencies. A wide range of government departments must be involved in addressing these risks.

Read more:
Seriously ugly: here’s how Australia will look if the world heats by 3°C this century

2. Focusing too much on overseas threats

The risk assessment should consider the need to both respond to climate harms within Australia while being prepared to meet overseas threats, such as military instability abroad. This will primarily require personnel to deal with both tasks.

During the election campaign, Labor mooted a new civilian national disaster response force. This force would free Defence to meet intensifying military threats abroad.

A review too heavily focused on overseas threats would miss the need for such measures.

3. Taking a siloed view

Most analysis of climate damage tends to focus on individual, rather than system-wide, impacts.

For example, a study might examine how rising temperatures will reduce food production, but not the compounding effects of hazards happening at the same time such as floods, drought and increased pests.

It’s difficult to analyse how hazards can trigger cascades of disruptions across society. But unless the review grapples with this reality, it will fundamentally misjudge the scale of the challenge.

4. Underestimating the urgency

It’s easy to assume the pace of climate impacts we’ve experienced in the recent past is what to expect in future. But in fact, these impacts are now increasing rapidly.

Extreme heat events, for example, have mushroomed 90-fold over the past decade, relative to the previous 30 years. Severe one-in-100-year flood events will soon become annual events in many parts of the world.

These changes are already visible in Southeast Asia where sea levels are rising at the fastest pace globally. Some 75 million Indonesians are now exposed to high flood risk.

So the risk assessment must avoid miscalculating how soon major disruptions to society will be felt.

5. Oversimplifying

Labor wants the review completed urgently (although it will be updated regularly). With time pressures, some shortcuts will be needed. But the assessment team should avoid oversimplifying the process.

It would be unfortunate, for example, if the review involved a series of common questions presented to government departments, with the answers collated to form the final report. This was essentially the approach of the Biden administration in the US. The result was a patchy assessment with little whole-of-government integration.

Ideally, the process should begin with consultation across government to identify the key objectives – many of which will fall within the mandates of multiple government department, such as:

• securing our borders
• ensuring energy security
• tackling transnational organised crime
• countering terrorism and violent extremism.

Read more:
Climate change poses a ‘direct threat’ to Australia’s national security. It must be a political priority

The objectives would be the reference points for the review, and relevant government agencies would work together to identify the risks and responses.

For example, China’s regional trajectory cannot be understood separately from the risks posed by climate change. Australia must develop a deep and nuanced understanding of how climate change may affect Australian efforts to compete (or cooperate) with China in the region. The review should lay the groundwork for this.

Getting it right

Climate threats exist all at once in every direction: domestically, regionally, and internationally. This is the core challenge the review must tackle.

It will take exceptionally good judgement and execution to ensure that the risk assessment avoids becoming a platitude or, at the other extreme, mired in complexity.

Our national security, and the safety and well-being of all Australians, depends on getting it right.

Read more:
Indonesia’s capital Jakarta is sinking. Here’s how to stop this

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

– ref. Australia’s finally acknowledged climate change is a national security threat. Here are 5 mistakes to avoid – https://theconversation.com/australias-finally-acknowledged-climate-change-is-a-national-security-threat-here-are-5-mistakes-to-avoid-186458

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachael Sharman, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, University of the Sunshine Coast

As any parent will tell you, a common feature of the school holidays is an increase in squabbling kids. Whether in the back of the car, at the park or by the TV, you will hear the whingey sounds of “Muuuum, Ollie just called me a stupid head!”.

It is a popular idea that if you have multiple children they will have a playmate and life is easier for everyone in the family.

But this is not what the research says. While it is true the sibling relationship is often the longest most people will have, having another child increases time-pressures and stress for parents.

And of course a new child introduces a new challenge – sibling rivalry.

Sibling rivalry

From an evolutionary point of view, sibling rivalry is about competition for resources. Think of baby birds in a nest, squawking the loudest to receive their food. They can even kick competitor chicks to their death to increase their share of the bounty.

Human sibling rivalry can also turn very nasty in extreme cases (you can read more about the severe end of the sibling bullying spectrum here). But in an everyday sense, bickering among siblings is a developmentally normal expectation. This allows children to work out differences among themselves, develop skills in negotiation, conflict resolution and emotional regulation.

When you look at it this way, squabbling can even be seen as a positive. Even if parents would prefer it didn’t happen under their roof so often.

The good news is you can help your children work through conflicts, and in doing so, increase their empathy. If school holiday or routine squabbling is stressing out your household, here are a few things to consider:

Read more:
Nearly 30% of kids experience sibling bullying – as either bully or victim

Are you playing favourites?

Children will quickly pick up on any indication you may be playing favourites and may act out negatively to get your attention back to them.

Be honest with yourself – are you paying more attention to one child because they are more similar to you, or share your interests? If that’s the case, make an extra effort to be involved with all of your children equally.

Kids need to do some growing up

Children genuinely pass through different stages of development.

For example, a two-year-old can be quite narcissistic and may even hit, bite and scratch to get their way. Explaining firmly they are not allowed to do that to other people, and introducing the idea that their behaviour hurts others can help build empathy.

Children also take until they are about four to develop a “Theory of Mind”
or the capacity to understand issues from another’s perspective. So, it is important to take time to explain why their sibling is upset with them and ways in which they could resolve this conflict.

Is there a big age gap?

If your children have a larger age gap, consider just how different their interests and developmental capacity truly might be.

Asking a teenage child to “hang out” (or in reality, babysit) a younger sibling and thinking this will foster a friendship between them may be unfair and lead to tensions.

You also need to explain to younger children why a teenage sibling is allowed to do x, y and z but they can’t (or else this will seem unfair and possibly lead to resentment).

Are the siblings very different?

Also consider that people can be genuinely differ in terms of personality or temperament. For some siblings, trying to live with someone who is so fundamentally different to them (and they would never willingly choose as a friend) is a real challenge.

Read more:
The Gallaghers, the Stefanovics and the Rineharts: what’s behind sibling rivalries?

Occasionally a highly introverted family finds themselves with a tap-dancing, attention-seeking extrovert, whom they find reckless and exhausting. Similarly, a rowdy hyperactive mob gets thrown a nerdy introvert who they find boring and weird.

Sometimes you just need to accept that your kids aren’t going to grow up to be best buddies, they are too different, and that’s OK.

Have a plan

When kids are thrown together for longer periods than usual, have a plan.

Try to arrange activities that are fun for the whole family, as well as some things they can do on their own if they need a break from one another. This may include arts or craft, gardening, practising sports skills, or visiting friends and family.

Support kids to talk

When conflicts arise, you really can help children by supporting them to express themselves and say why they’re upset, then have a balanced discussion about what might be a reasonable solution.

Discuss why conflict might be occurring – perhaps they have differences in temperament, interests and age-related abilities. This will really help kids of all ages build social understanding.

If you’re dealing with highly emotional or aggressive behaviour, resist the urge to launch into a big negotiation straight away. Keep kids separate for a bit and engaged in a calming activity such as reading, Lego or outdoor play.

Once the dust has settled, then you can come back and talk about it calmly.

The squabble silver lining

Sibling rivalry and squabbling are common. But they can be made worse by parents stretching themselves too thin, not paying attention to their kids, or playing favourites.

Similarly, rivalries can be inflamed by genuine incompatibilities between children and developmental differences.

Try to remember this is your kids’ first go of figuring out how to get along with others. Squabbling is annoying but it is also an opportunity to teach them empathy and social skills that will benefit them outside the family as well as within.

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

– ref. Are your squabbling kids driving you mad? The good/bad news is, sibling rivalry is ‘developmentally normal’ – https://theconversation.com/are-your-squabbling-kids-driving-you-mad-the-good-bad-news-is-sibling-rivalry-is-developmentally-normal-186300

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Haskell-Dowland, Professor of Cyber Security Practice, Edith Cowan University

Greed, desire, wishful thinking and naivety are lucrative markets for scam artists – and their age-old hustles are increasingly being supplemented by digital chicanery.

In 2021 Australians lost an estimated $2 billion to fraudsters, more than double that of 2020, according to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

The consumer watchdog’s latest scam report details more than 20 different scam types, primarily based on reports made to its Scamwatch agency.

Some scams are perennials. Topping Scamwatch’s list are investment scams, dating and romance scams, remote access scams (convincing you to allow access to your computer or phone), and threats or blackmail.

This article is going to focus on the five scam types that have grown most in value from 2020.

These aren’t necessarily the scams anyone (including you) is most likely to fall for. But they provide a useful snapshot of how scam techniques that rely on human nature are increasingly being executed via technology.

1. Ransomware and malware

This type of scam has been on the wane due to the use of anti-malware protection. But in 2021 it roared back with a 1,482% rise in reported losses over 2020.

This was mostly due to 2020 numbers being much lower than 2019, but the reported costs per incident (about $21,704) are still worrying given how easily such scams can be spread.

They typically involve installing malicious software on your computer or phone to make files inaccessible or lock the device. This is done by sending a bogus email, text message or voicemail with an enticing message directing you to a link that automatically installs the malicious software when you open it. The scammer then demands a payment to “unlock” the system.

Contributing to ransomware’s resurgence was the Flubot scam, in which tens of thousands of Australians with Android phones received scam text messages about missed calls or deliveries. The malware could harvest banking details as well as use contact lists to spread to other devices.

Read more:
Is Australia a sitting duck for ransomware attacks? Yes, and the danger has been growing for 30 years

2. Pyramid schemes

The pyramid scheme promises you riches by recruiting others to the scheme. While such recruitment is also a feature of multi-level marketing (also known as referral selling schemes), in an illegal pyramid scheme financial returns are entirely or substantially reliant on convincing other people to join.

In 2021 reported losses from pyramid schemes were 368% higher than in 2020. This was due, as with malware, to losses in 2020 being abnormally low. But even though the total number of reported cases was quite low (fewer than 500) the percentage of of those reports involving people losing money was one of the highest (44%), with an average loss of $6,239.

This suggests pyramid scams remain quite alluring to some people.

3. Identity theft

Identity theft – using your personal information to steal money from you or someone else – is one of the most challenging scams to deal with. It may involve stealing money from your own account or using your identity for credit purchases, which you then have to untangle.

This is a true growth area. In 2021 there 22,354 identity theft reports, up from 20,939 in 2020. While only 951 of these cases (about 4%) reported losses, average losses more than doubled to about $10,683. The total losses ($10,159,930) were 230% higher than in 2020.

Read more:
How cybercriminals turn paper checks stolen from mailboxes into bitcoin

4. Investment scams

Investment scams tempt victims with promises of large profits from share deals and crypto-currency opportunities. In 2021, 4,068 Australians reported losing more than $177 million on such scams – an average loss of about $45,350.

While investment scams come in many varieties, the Scamwatch report itemises three main types. Cryptocurrency scams accounted for $99 million of reported losses. The selling of fake high-yield corporate or government bonds accounted for $16 million. Ponzi schemes, which create the charade of investment success by paying dividends from the money of new victims, accounted for $8 million.

Ponzi schemes are named after Charles Ponzi, who in the 1920s promised to double people’s money in 45 days. One such scheme doing the rounds in 2021 was the Hope Business app, which promised windfall returns simply by paying money into an account.

Interestingly the consumer watchdog’s report says men were almost twice as likely to be victims of investment scams and reported double the losses of female victims.

Read more:
Scams and cryptocurrency can go hand in hand – here’s how they work and what to watch out for

5. Phishing

Phishing, closely linked to identity theft, was the most reported scam in 2021 – with 71,308 cases, compared to 44,079 in 2020 and 25,168 in 2019.

These scams are usually seeking to obtain our credentials (passwords) to various services including email, online banking and government services such as MyGov.

That just 861 cases reported a direct financial loss suggests this is one of the most recognised scams. We’ve all had emails or SMS messages asking us to confirm our details or click a link to listen to a voicemail or receive a parcel.

Even so, a total of $4.3 million was reported lost from phishing scams in 2021 – 156% more than in 2020. The average loss was slightly more than $5,000.

Read more:
Your digital footprints are more than a privacy risk – they could help hackers infiltrate computer networks

How to avoid being scammed

If something seems too good to be true, it probably is. If you have any inkling you may be being scammed, the best advice is to stop and think.

If you are being asked to move money, make an unexpected payment or send personal information to someone, stop.

If you are being asked to provide information or take some action, contact the organisation involved using a number you already have (bank statement, credit card etc) or find the number yourself.

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

– ref. 5 big trends in Australians getting scammed – https://theconversation.com/5-big-trends-in-australians-getting-scammed-186380

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ari Mattes, Lecturer in Communications and Media, University of Notre Dame Australia

Review: Nude Tuesday, directed by Armağan Ballantyne

Nude Tuesday is a tale of two films – two subtitle tracks, anyway.

Directed by Armağan Ballantyne and written by Jackie van Beek, who also stars, the whole thing is spoken in a Scandinavian-inspired gibberish.

Comedian Julia Davis subtitled the first version of the film, a recent crowd-pleaser at the Sydney Film Festival and now playing in select cinemas, and comedians Celia Pacquola and Ronny Chieng subtitled the second version for Stan, where it joins the Davis version.

Both follow the same narrative structure. Bored middle-class couple Laura (van Beek) and Bruno (Damon Herriman) lead a banal existence, sharing a mildly dysfunctional relationship while living and working on fictional Pacific island Zǿbftąņ.

They have two daughters, no longer have sex, and are fairly unimpressive in their uninteresting jobs.

For their anniversary, Bruno’s mum gives them a voucher to a sex therapy retreat in the mountains. When they reluctantly arrive at the retreat, presided over by egotistical guru Bjorg Rasmussen (a likeable but caricaturish Jemaine Clement), the pre-existing fissures in their relationship break wide open.

Laura embraces the “treatment” straight away, whereas Bruno remains resistant to it. When Laura has an erotic encounter with Bjorg, the couple split up, before coming together again at the end.

Read more:
The 5 best films from the 2022 Sydney Film Festival

A cinematic experiment

Despite the fact the film’s vision and sound are identical in both versions, the affect of each is significantly different – to the extent, I would suggest, that a fan of the Davis version would not necessarily enjoy the Chieng/Pacquola version, and vice versa.

The significance of the actual words of a film (versus merely dramatic arcs and scenarios) comes into stark relief in this experiment. This is where Nude Tuesday is most interesting: as a cinematic experiment demonstrating the power of the spoken word to move viewers in different directions.

Davis’ version relies on daggy and only sometimes funny toilet humour and infantile sex gags. It’s the kind of film that would appeal to people like the main characters: repressed types who think nudity, sex, euphemisms for genitalia and anodyne tripping experiences are inherently funny.

There are menstruation jokes, gags about volume of ejaculation, and plenty of scatalogical humour (“Let’s birth our brown bottom babies,” Rasmussen declares, straight-faced, in a therapy session).

The problem is, the whole thing is already sufficiently silly that the additional jokes in the dialogue come off as forced as often as not, and Nude Tuesday quickly wears thin.

The Chieng/Pacquola version features more carefully crafted dialogue, relying on verisimilitude in relation to the absurdity of the premise rather than broad toilet humour.

It is, as a result, more watchable – even if it features fewer laugh out loud moments. The dialogue is more deadpan and less deliberately bawdy, and, given the scenario is silly enough as it is, this makes its padded out 100 minutes more bearable.

Read more:
What We Do in the Shadows – the NZ gothic with sharp comic chops

Funny, but not that funny

The films are, of course, technically identical, and there are consistencies between them.

Herriman is an excellent actor, and he adds a touch of pathos to his (predominantly comedic) role as a bitter and hopeless man, which anchors both versions.

“Nobody needs me. I’m just a broken little man,” Bruno cries in the Davis version, holding a shotgun to his chin.

Clement’s performance is similarly effective in lampooning New Age culture, and he plays the part of guru-charlatan with a subtly menacing quality that makes it more believable.

The whole cast, in fact, demonstrate exceptional chops in speaking authentic gibberish, with believable modulation and intonation – far more difficult to do than people might think, given the direction words pull performances.

The film is effectively shot on New Zealand locations, with the contrast between the warmly lit interiors and the cold exteriors successfully mapping the tensions between the characters.

Though enjoyable, Nude Tuesday is far from a masterpiece. It’s funny but not that funny, and labours too hard at its conceit.

It is also far too long. It begins to wear thin after an hour, and both versions would work better at a more economical 80 minutes. To hold it up as a splendid example of absurdism – as have some reviews – is a huge overreach, and a description more applicable to far sharper, more misanthropic comedies like Yorgos Lanthimos’ brilliant The Lobster (which surely must have been an influence on this?).

Both versions of Ballantyne’s film are pretty tame by any standards, but while the Davis version feels affected in its attempts at gross-out humour, the Chieng/Pacquola version comes off as sweet-natured (if a little dull) in its more restrained tone.

I can understand the pleasure of seeing the Davis version in a cinema with an audience, but I suspect the Chieng/Pacquola version will play better on the small screen.

In any case, both versions will be available on Stan. If neither appeals to you, try the third version which features no subtitles. The gibberish versions of pop songs, including Kenny Rogers’ and Dolly Parton’s Islands in the Stream, are probably the best thing about the film. And who needs subtitles for these?

Nude Tuesday is out now on Stan and in select cinemas.

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

– ref. Nude Tuesday has a sex therapy retreat, an egotistical guru, a script in gibberish – and two very different translations – https://theconversation.com/nude-tuesday-has-a-sex-therapy-retreat-an-egotistical-guru-a-script-in-gibberish-and-two-very-different-translations-186039

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

Federal Education Minister Jason Clare has committed to a “reset” of relations between government and universities, and promised more effort to boost the proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds, in a major speech on higher education.

He is also speeding up visa processing to help rebuild Australia’s education export industry, and wants Labor’s September jobs summit to discuss how to retain foreign students after they complete their degrees, to enlarge Australia’s skilled workforce.

In his address, titled Reset, Rebuild and Reform, to a Universities Australia dinner in Canberra on Wednesday night, Clare announced an independent inquiry into the role and function of the Australian Research Council, which administers the national research grants program.

The higher education sector had a fraught relationship with the former government, which declined to include universities in the JobKeeper scheme in the pandemic.

Clare said that in coming months he would appoint a group of eminent Australians to lead Labor’s planned “Australian Universities Accord”.

The accord would draw on university staff, unions, business, students, parents and all political parties, and look at “everything from funding and access to affordability, transparency, regulation, [and] employment conditions”.

It would also examine how universities, TAFEs and other providers worked together.

Highlighting the importance of more action on equity, Clare said in 2008 when the Bradley review of higher education was published, 29% of 25-34-year-olds had a bachelor degree. The review set a target of 40% by 2020.

Read more:
Politics with Michelle Grattan: Jason Clare on Australia’s education challenges

That target was met – the figure was now more than 43%. But Bradley’s other target – that 20% of enrolments by 2020 should be students from low socio-economic backgrounds – had not been met.

“At the time it was about 15%. And it has barely moved,” Clare said.

“Where you live also matters,” he said. In capitals more than 48% of 25-34-year-olds had a degree, but in regional Australia it was just over 20%, and in more remote areas about 16%.

“And it’s even worse than that for our Indigenous brothers and sisters. That figure is less than 10%.”

“Where you live, how much your parents earn, whether you are Indigenous or not, is still a major factor in whether your are a student or a graduate of an Australian university.”

Clare said just over 70% of students who walked into a university walked out with a qualification. But the figure was lower for those from a poor family, lower again for those from regional or remote areas, and lower again for Indigenous people.

He announced $20.5 million over four years to expand the work of the National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education based at Curtin University.

Clare said rebuilding the international education sector “starts with sending a clear message to students around the world that we want you to study with us”.

A visit next month by the Indian education minister would be an important opportunity for rebuilding, and “we need to do that with other countries in the region as well”.

The backlog in processing student visas was a problem and he had asked the secretary of his department to work directly with the secretary of Home Affairs on this.

“I also think there is more we can do to get more of the students we teach and train to stay after their studies end and help us fill some of the chronic skills gaps in our economy.

“Only 16% of our international students do that at the moment. In some of the countries we compete with for talent, it’s a lot higher than that. This is something I’d like to see discussed at the jobs summit in September.”

Clare said delays and political interference in the operation of competitive grants needed to end.

“It damages our international reputation. It also makes it harder for you to recruit and retain staff”, he told his university audience.

“I get it. You work with industry. We want you to work with industry. Industry want certainty. Time means money. They want to get on with it. So do you.”

Following a Senate committee recommendation from March, he would set up an independent review of the ARC’s role and function, with “a particular focus on the governance framework and reporting mechanisms”.

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. Jason Clare promises ‘reset’ of government’s relations with universities – https://theconversation.com/jason-clare-promises-reset-of-governments-relations-with-universities-186472

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

New Education Minister Jason Clare is travelling the country taking soundings in the education sector.

This, he says, is “the best way to get across this big, vast portfolio that stretches from the education of our youngest children right through to the incredible work our brilliant postgraduate people are doing in our universities.

“What am I hearing? What am I learning? I get the impression that a lot of people are desperate for re-engagement with the government.”

Outlining his plans for an Australian Universities Accord, Clare says there’s a desire for the government “to work with our universities, not just our vice-chancellors, but everybody who works in our universities and harness all of the skills and expertise that sit within our universities. I don’t think we do enough of that.”

One of Clare’s main imperatives is to address equity issues. “It’s in our collective interest as a country to make sure that more people – wherever they live, whether their skin is black or white, whether their parents are rich or poor – get access to university, and when they get there that they stay there and get a qualification.”

He strongly argues that “there’s more work we need to do in helping young people get access to university.

“I’m conscious […] that all the answers don’t lie at the front door of the university. The work that we do long before someone is old enough to go to university – that’s critical here. But universities can help answer this question too. What are the things we do from the age a child is born and until they’re five, that set them up for success? Because if we narrow the gap in opportunity there, the impact will be enormous come university.”

The COVID pandemic has had a major impact on Australia’s international education program. “International education was crushed by the pandemic – when the borders shut, that shut out students.”

Australia’s international education program is “an incredible national asset, extraordinarily important for the Australian economy. Before the pandemic [it was] something like $40 billion. [It’s] now about half that. We’ve got to rebuild it. It’s important not just because of the money it makes us, but because of the goodwill that it provides for us.”

There is currently a “backlog of visa applications. International students [are] hungry to get back to study here in Australia, particularly ahead of semester two. And there’s work that we need to do there to assist in that processing task.”

One of the most pressing issues in education is the teacher shortage, which includes the challenge of retention,

“It’s about what we do to encourage people to stay being teachers. In all of the conversations I’ve had with educators, they’ve made this point to me time and time again – that people are feeling burnt out mid-career and that they’re hanging up the boots and leaving teaching. We’re expecting the shortage of teachers to get worse and worse in the years ahead. Something like 4,000 teachers short of what we need by 2025.”

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Jason Clare on Australia’s education challenges – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-jason-clare-on-australias-education-challenges-186473

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pi-Shen Seet, Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Edith Cowan University

Australia is facing serious labour and skills shortages both now and in the longer term. The immediate priority is to help employers fill current vacancies. In the longer term, the government needs to ensure its investments in education and training prepare Australia for future skill needs and opportunities arising from rapid technological change and other grand challenges like climate change.

The new minister for skills and training in the Albanese government, Brendan O’Connor, is faced with competing calls to increase the skilled migrant intake and to invest in education and training to meet the demand for skilled workers.

Decisions are typically framed in an “either-or” way in largely Western, Anglo-Saxon societies such as Australia. Polarisation becomes the norm. We see this in the portrayal of Australia’s employment and skills problems in the media and by various interest groups.

On one side is the call for more immigrants, whether temporary or permanent, by the main industry and employer groups. Based on Australia’s experience over the past couple of decades, migrants will generally be the quicker and cheaper option to ease the shortages employers are facing now. However, many of these are general shortages of workers who may be unskilled or semi-skilled.

Relying on migrants to solve skills or labour shortages may only be a quick fix. It also serves to reinforce current practices and problems. And that doesn’t position Australia well for future industries.

On the other hand, the trade unions, Reserve Bank and Grattan Institute have argued that going back to the previous migration settings may only reinforce the negative effects of minimal real wage growth for Australian workers. It’s also likely to reinforce the exploitation and underemployment of migrants.

For example, the federal parliamentary inquiry into a modern slavery act found certain industries (like horticulture) exploited temporary migrants, backpackers and international students through “wage theft”. This happened when profit margins were squeezed and Australian workers were reluctant to do those jobs.

Read more:
Migration is a quick fix for skills shortages. Building on Australians’ skills is better

And research shows an over-reliance on migration risks entrenching outdated industries and slowing Australia’s economic transition as part of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. This revolution is being driven by technology becoming embedded in societies through the fusion of multiple technologies into what are known as cyber-physical systems.

But investing in education, skills and training can take years to deliver a significant return. Typical apprenticeships already take up to four years. The move towards higher apprenticeships to foster skills in advanced industries may take even longer.

What has changed since the pandemic?

Research has found many employers, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, lack the resources or resilience to survive external shocks for very long. And they no longer have government COVID-19 support schemes like JobKeeper to keep them afloat.

The former Coalition government planned to throw money at the skills problem. Its 2022 budget allocated more than A$2.5 billion to vocational education and training (VET) policies to help fill skills gaps.

It’s unclear how much the new Labor government is prepared to stick to those plans or even to bring forward investments that were mostly back-loaded until after 2023-24. A large budget deficit and inflation are compounding the difficulties.

Immigration may have been an effective solution in the past. Today, things may not be that simple.

For one thing, migrant source countries like China are still restricting international travel by their citizens due to ongoing COVID-19 restrictions. Many of Australia’s traditional source countries have long delays in issuing travel documents.

Australia also faces increased competition from other developed countries like the Unite States, United Kingdom and Canada, which have made themselves more attractive for migrants. These countries were less restrictive during the pandemic, giving them a head-start on Australia, which closed its borders.

Read more:
International student numbers hit record highs in Canada, UK and US as falls continue in Australia and NZ

So what are the solutions?

As both the Business Council of Australia and O’Connor have recognised, Australia doesn’t have the luxury of adopting a binary approach – migration or training. Both are necessary.

First, it needs to attract migrants and make it easier to enter Australia to reverse the outflow caused by issues like the lack of JobKeeper support for temporary migrant workers.

Second, it must invest urgently in education, skills and training for growth industries of the future. These include renewables, healthcare and Industry 4.0. The latter is the result of the cyber-physical transformation of manufacturing – for example, 3D printing needs advanced materials with internet-linked printers, which are increasingly intelligent and autonomous.

Read more:
‘I will never come to Australia again’: new research reveals the suffering of temporary migrants during the COVID-19 crisis

Other stakeholders should work together to design and invest in education and training solutions too. These stakeholders include major employers, state and territory governments, trade unions, vocational education and university providers.

Besides streamlining the migration process, federal, state and territory governments need to quickly refresh their National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development.

Industry, vocational education and university providers should collaborate on micro-credentialled offerings These short courses are a way to rapidly upskill both domestic and international workers. This can help fill current gaps without the long lag effects associated with traditional educational qualifications.

Read more:
Microcredentials: what are they, and will they really revolutionise education and improve job prospects?

Employers may also need to change their mindsets. Instead of employing only fully qualified employees they may have to take on ones who require ongoing support for lifelong learning.

Finally, while there may be good opportunities in the current job market in so-called traditional industries, potential employees should not take the easy route of stereotypical careers. Younger people should explore and invest in training and education for careers that will be opened up by disruptive technologies. Examples include automation, artificial intelligence, robotics, machine learning and digitalisation.

Australia has to take a more creative approach. We need to use the post-COVID and post-election opportunities to overcome current shortages and make sure the economy can respond to future challenges.

Read more:
If you’re preparing students for 21st century jobs, you’re behind the times

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. Migration offers an urgent fix for the skills we need right now, but education and training will set us up for the future – https://theconversation.com/migration-offers-an-urgent-fix-for-the-skills-we-need-right-now-but-education-and-training-will-set-us-up-for-the-future-186374

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Turnbull, Postdoctoral Research Associate, UNSW Sydney

Environmental scientists see flora, fauna and phenomena the rest of us rarely do. In this series, we’ve invited them to share their unique photos from the field.

On the surface, it looks like any other bay near Hobart. But beneath the calm waters live a small population of one of the rarest and most endangered fish in the world: the red handfish.

I was diving in early 2020 with a small crew of some of the best handfish hunters on the planet, people who had monitored and nurtured knowledge of this tiny creature over recent years.

We laid out a series of “swim lanes” using survey tapes, which we would then search painstakingly in our wetsuits and SCUBA gear. We would take perhaps an hour to drift along each 50 metre lane, carefully moving seaweed and peering into each little nook for elusive handfish.

Towards the end of my first lane, I found one. Nestled between two seagrass plants, the little fish with its seemingly oversized hands stared up at me.

I marked it with a bright yellow flag so the research team could record the little critter in all its glory. This involved collecting essential scientific information, such as length and photographs of both sides of the fish, all the while avoiding disruption to it and its environment.

There are just two small areas near Hobart, and therefore in the world, where the red handfish is known to still live, amounting to a wild population of around 100 adults.

Earlier this year, the species was thankfully earmarked for federal conservation funding, but more must be done to stop this otherworldly creature from continuing to vanish.

Read more:
These underwater photos show Norfolk Island reef life still thrives, from vibrant blue flatworms to soft pink corals

Red handfish are cryptic and bizarre

Red handfish (Thymichthys politus) are a contradiction – this species is just several centimetres long, partly camouflaged yet trimmed by flashes of bright red. They are cryptic, and use their enlarged pectoral fins resembling human hands to walk across the seafloor, rather than swimming in the water column.

Handfish are a type of anglerfish. They are ambush predators, which means they prefer to sit and wait among seaweed, sponges and other cover for their prey to swim past, before they strike.

To help attract their prey – such as small fish and invertebrates – they have a fluffy lure on their forehead.

With so few left, the red handfish is extremely vulnerable to any pressures impacting the two areas it’s found in.

This includes habitat loss (driven largely by a boom in native urchins overgrazing seaweed), pollution and other urban impacts.

Direct disturbance by humans such as boating, anchoring and possibly diving are also potential threats, particularly during breeding season. And climate change impacts, such as warming waters, also play a big role in the decline of the species.

The red handfish aren’t Australia’s only handfish, with the southeast of the continent home to 14 different species.

One, the Ziebell’s handfish, lives deeper than the red handfish and we know even less about its conservation status. Another, the spotted handfish, lives in the Derwent estuary and nearby, with a population of fewer than 3,000 individuals.

Both of these species, along with the red handfish, are critically endangered.

How we’re protecting them

Recent government funding will help build resilience against threats to wild red handfish populations. This conservation effort includes re-building wild populations through a captive-rearing and release program known as “head-starting”.

This strategy involves collecting eggs from the wild, and nurturing the young in captivity. There, they have unlimited food, and they’re protected from predators and harsh conditions.

Once big enough, handfish are released back into the wild, and monitored through dive surveys which identify individual fish through their unique pattern of spots, similar to the way we use fingerprints.

As well as using this finger-printing technique, we’re also using ultra-sound to help us identify fish gender, which we’re otherwise unable to do by sight alone. This information will help us implement a captive-breeding program so we can continue our re-wilding program, and will also allow us to establish a captive insurance population.

We’re also working on restoring the fish’s habitat and mitigating direct disturbances through a SCUBA diver/snorkeller education and awareness program, called Handfish Guardians.

Early habitat restoration efforts have included working with divers to remove urchins, but we now plan to couple this with seaweed restoration trials. Through these efforts, researchers hope to halt the decline of red handfish.

But to truly safeguard this species from extinction and increase their numbers, we need longer-term efforts. This includes ongoing mitigation of urban impacts and restoration of ecosystem balance that can only be achieved through improved habitat management.

Read more:
Photos from the field: why losing these tiny, loyal fish to climate change spells disaster for coral

Jemina Stuart-Smith receives funding from the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Sustainable Marine Research Collaboration Agreement, National Geographic Society, and Sea World Research and Rescue Foundation.

John Turnbull 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. Photos from the field: diving with Tasmania’s rare and elusive red handfish, your new favourite animal – https://theconversation.com/photos-from-the-field-diving-with-tasmanias-rare-and-elusive-red-handfish-your-new-favourite-animal-180962

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sallie Cowan, Senior Research Fellow and Musculoskeletal Physiotherapist, La Trobe University

Netball is one of the biggest team sports in Australia with more than 1.2 million men, women and children playing each week, underpinned by a nationwide footprint of more than 4,000 community clubs.

Across the world more than 20 million people play netball in more than 70 countries. And it’s not just for young women; men play in mixed and male only competitions, 5-7 year olds play in the NEtSetGO program and older players play in the Walking Netball competition.

Despite its popularity, netball continually gets bad rap for joints. Time and time again in physiotherapy clinics, we hear patients say, “I have bad knees because I used to play netball” or “I’m scared of letting my child play netball – isn’t it terrible for joints?”

The research, however, shows a more nuanced story.

Yes, there is a risk of injuring yourself while playing netball but the overall risk of serious injury is relatively small – and far outweighed by the benefit of being fit, active and part of a team.

What are the knee and ankle risks with netball?

Unlike other court-based sports, netball has strict rules on footwork.

Players can only take one and a half additional steps after receiving the ball.

They’re also restricted to certain areas of the court, depending on which position they’re playing.

The sudden braking required of netball players requires good strength, body control and footwork.

A recent systematic review reports netball injuries in people aged over 15 predominantly occur in the lower limb, particularly the ankle and knee. Ligament sprains are the most common injury.

Ankle injuries are more common than knee injuries, the systematic review found. And younger players tend to experience more upper limb injuries (such as fractures) than lower limb injuries.

There are more injuries in matches than in training. Pain at the front of the knee-cap is also very common in adolescent girls who participate in jumping and pivoting sports such as netball.

Insurance claim data indicates damage to the ACL (anterior cruciate ligament, a major stabiliser of the knee) represents about 13% of the most serious netball injuries presenting to emergency departments.

This equates to a rate of only one injury for every 2,500 participants. However, this figure likely underestimates the actual injury rate as many people with these injuries go straight to their GP or local physiotherapist (rather than hospital).

The limited data available makes it hard to accurately indicate the injury rate in community netball. But in similar court-based sports (such as handball or basketball), the ACL injury rate is one in every 100-200 players per calendar year.

Though ACL injuries are rare, they are a serious injury often requiring time off work or study and are costly to the individual and the health care system via increased risk of arthritis.

So is netball terribly much worse than other sports for joint injury risk? We don’t have enough data to conclusively answer this question. But what we can say from the limited evidence available is the overall risk of knee and joint injury in community netball is low.

Can anything be done to reduce injury risk for netballers?

Yes! There is great evidence injury prevention programs work, reducing ACL injuries in female athletes by up to 67%, other knee injuries by up to 50%, and all lower limb injuries by 30%.

Netball even has its own injury-prevention program, known as the KNEE program (KNEE stands for knee injury prevention for netballers to enhance performance and extend play).

The KNEE Program is an on court warm-up program aimed at all levels of netball. It aims to improve the way players run, change direction, jump and land (as this is how many knee and ankle injuries happen).

For pain at the front of the knee-cap (patellofemoral pain), there is also great evidence that exercises that strengthen the hip and knee muscles – combined with advice about activity modification – can help.

For adolescents, patellofemoral pain often occurs during periods of rapid growth, but it is important to see a health professional for exercises and advice, as one in three continue to experience pain 12 months down the track.

Yes there are risks with netball, but the benefits far outweigh them

As a fast moving non-contact sport, netball is fantastic way to keep active, improve hand eye coordination and reap the physical, mental, and social benefits of participating in a team sport.

Being physically fit and strong can improve your health and reduce your risk of illness.

Knees in particular like to be exercised; recreational runners have healthier knees than those who lead a sedentary lifestyle.

Participation in sport is particularly important for adolescent girls, who are dropping out of sport at alarming rates.

Girls who do play sport have a more positive body image and better states of psychological well-being.

Being part of a team also helps girls enjoy shared experiences, reduce isolation and be part of something bigger than themselves.

Many sports provide similar benefits but all sports have some risks. If you or your children enjoy netball, keep playing – the overall benefits of netball outweigh the possible risks.

Importantly, netball in Australia can serve as a vehicle for empowerment, providing strong female roles models to inspire current and future generations.

Kay Crossley receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council to investigate knee injuries in sport

Brooke Patterson and Sallie Cowan 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. Is netball actually bad for knees and ankles? What does the research say? – https://theconversation.com/is-netball-actually-bad-for-knees-and-ankles-what-does-the-research-say-183619

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cassandra Cross, Associate Dean (Learning & Teaching) Faculty of Creative Industries, Education and Social Justice, Queensland University of Technology

Australian consumers and businesses lost more than A$2 billion to scams in 2021, according to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) annual Targeting Scams report released on Monday. This figure should sounds alarm bells – it’s more than double the $851 million reported lost in 2020.

The increase in losses was primarily driven by a doubling of investment fraud losses, from $328 million to $701 million, and a substantial increase in payment redirection fraud, from $128 million to $227 million. Scamwatch alone received more than 286,000 reports.

So what does the latest report tell us about the current state of play for fraud in Australia? And perhaps more importantly, what can be done?

The rise of crypto scams

Cryptocurrencies have played a major role in fraud losses this year. They’re largely responsible for the surge in investment fraud losses, with many victims being persuaded to invest their funds in fake or non-existent crypto schemes.

The request to invest funds in a crypto scheme raises fewer red flags than a request to directly send money to someone. In the former, the victim believes they’re potentially making genuine returns.

Cryptocurrencies have become the most popular payment method across all fraud types. This is likely due to the difficulty of tracking crypto payments.

Cryptocurrency is also having a significant impact on romance fraud. Romance fraud itself appears steady – with victims reporting $142 million lost in 2021, compared to $131 million in 2020.

However, offenders are increasingly using these fake online relationships as a recruitment mechanism for attracting investments in fraudulent crypto schemes. This is known as “romance baiting” or “cryptorom”.

Who are the victims?

Research indicates all demographics are vulnerable to fraud, but not all are equally vulnerable. 2021 saw increased losses for older people, Indigenous Australians, people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities and those with a disability.

For example, people aged 65 and older reported $82 million lost, up from $38 million the year before. It’s clear the most vulnerable in society are being hugely impacted.

Businesses are also being decimated through payment redirection schemes, or “business email compromise fraud”. In these cases, offenders infiltrate businesses and intercept payments and invoices from customers and suppliers. This can result in severe financial losses, as seen in the real estate industry.

The ongoing impacts of COVID

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a significant disruptor since March 2020. Lockdowns and isolation requirements have driven a global shift towards online activity. Cybercrime has flourished – and fraud is no exception.

The pandemic impacted fraud in several ways. There are COVID-themed frauds targeting Australians, with a focus on vaccines, personal protective equipment and contact tracing. There are also pet scams trying to capitalise on people’s desire to purchase furry, four-legged companions.

Read more:
Fake COVID-19 testing kits and lockdown puppy scams: how to protect yourself from fraud in a pandemic

The pandemic also shifted the fraud profile of the Australian population. The continual state of anxiety that has characterised the past two-and-a-half years, coupled with financial and relational strain, has people worn-down.

This means fraud approaches that may not have worked prior to the pandemic are now more likely to succeed. And this provides a context to understanding the massive losses in 2021.

What can we expect now?

Despite the magnitude of losses reported, the sad reality is very few of these reports will result in consumers getting their money back. Even fewer will result in a criminal justice outcome. This will leave most victims frustrated and angry with the legal system having not met their expectations.

Fraud poses distinct challenges for police and other agencies. Offenders don’t use their real identities and will often commit offences across multiple jurisdictions, making it difficult to catch and prosecute them.

Disruption and prevention are the key to making any inroads in reducing fraud losses. This is challenging work, and arguably more must be done given the recent escalation in losses.

A collective responsibility

It’s important to remember that behind the statistics are individuals who have lost money and, in many cases, suffered considerably. The impact of fraud isn’t restricted to financial loss; it reverberates across the physical, emotional and relational aspects of our lives.

Prevention advice for individuals is to remain vigilant, ask questions and do their own research. Having strong passwords and up-to-date software are important, but will do little to deter a motivated offender.

Fraud is largely a human problem. So we need to better understand the psychological techniques used by offenders and develop targeted ways to fight back.

It’s also time the government took fraud more seriously and invested resources and expertise into reducing losses to individuals, businesses and society at large. Australia currently has no current co-ordinated fraud strategy to mitigate, prevent or respond to losses.

There is a clear need to develop better education and prevention materials that account for the diversity in victimisation. Knowing that certain demographics are more likely to be victimised highlights the need to create resources tailored to these individuals.

The latest ACCC report should be an unmissable warning sign. On its current path, Australia is headed for even greater losses than the $2 billion mentioned above. At what point will we finally act?

Read more:
Beware of bushfire scams: how fraudsters take advantage of those in need

Cassandra Cross has previously received funding from a variety of government and non-government organisations.

– ref. Australians lost $2b to fraud in 2021. This figure should sound alarm bells for the future – https://theconversation.com/australians-lost-2b-to-fraud-in-2021-this-figure-should-sound-alarm-bells-for-the-future-186459

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julie Andrews, Professor Indigenous Research & Convenor of Aboriginal Studies, La Trobe University

There are now almost one million Indigenous people in Australia, according to the 2021 Census.

The estimated Indigenous population of 983,300 people in August 2021 has increased from 798,000 in 2016. This translates into population growth of around 4.6% per year, accelerating from 3.5% between 2011 and 2016.

This rapid increase is much faster than can be accounted for by births alone. It also reflects changes to how people answer the question on “Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin” in the census.

What does this mean for Indigenous identity? The census defines Indigenous people as those of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin, not according to skin colour or Indigenous community recognition.

However, there is a strong case for the census to better recognise Indigenous identities according to the structures meaningful to Indigenous peoples in Australia today.

Read more:
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population has increased, but the census lacks detail in other facets of Indigenous lives

A rapidly growing population

Between 2016 and 2021, the number of people directly recorded in the census as being of “Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin” increased from 649,200 to 812,700. However, this is an undercount of the Indigenous population, as it doesn’t include the Indigenous people who are among the 1.2 million Australians who either didn’t answer the Indigenous status question on the census form or didn’t return a form at all. After adjusting for this, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) estimates the Indigenous population is more like 983,000. However, we will focus on the census count, for which more data is currently available.

The increase in the census count of 163,500 Indigenous people can only partly be accounted for by the 85,900 Indigenous babies born between 2016 and 2021 and counted in the census. Further, according to life expectancy statistics, we expect around 14,700 Indigenous people who were counted in 2016 to have since passed away.

Adding these two together, we calculate that if the Indigenous population had changed only because of births and deaths between 2016 and 2021, the census count would have reached only 720,400 in 2021, not 812,700. This leaves an “unexplained” increase of 92,300.

Understanding the population increase

Three different factors contribute to this “unexplained” population increase.
The first is that census coverage changes. If Indigenous households are becoming more willing to participate in the census, or the ABS is reaching more Indigenous households, this could contribute to the “unexplained” increase. But according to the ABS’s report, this does not seem to be the case.

The second factor is migration: if more Indigenous people returned to Australia from overseas than left between 2016 and 2021, this could contribute to the increase.

The third is net identification change, whereby people who previously did not state they are of “Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin” in the census now choose to do so.

Of these three factors, net identification change appears to be the largest contributor.

The increase in the number of Indigenous people aged 65 or older from 31,000 in 2016 to 47,700 in 2021 has been widely remarked upon. Around 71% of this increase can be accounted for by Indigenous population ageing and mortality, with 29% remaining unexplained by demographic factors.

In other age groups, identification change is a larger contributor to population increase. High levels of identification change among children continues a trend from previous censuses, possibly due to the form being filled out on children’s behalf by different adults in different years.

Population growth is most significant in New South Wales and Queensland, with 68.9% of total Indigenous population increase and 71% of unexplained population increase occurring in these two states. In the Northern Territory, the Indigenous population is actually smaller than expected based on the 2016 Census.

How do people identify as First Nations?

The question here is, why do Indigenous people identify in the census when it is a voluntary process? In my research on Aboriginal Melbourne, Aboriginal people were very thoughtful when they chose whether or not to identify as Aboriginal in the Census — or even whether to complete the Census at all.

Many Indigenous people identify in the census because they feel there are few negative consequences from doing so and they’re not being forced to. For them, the census is a safe place to “tick the box” and identify privately. Others feel it is their duty to represent their community through a population count and consider that participating will not impact on their claims to sovereignty. Some feel that times have changed, and where once perhaps they may have felt embarrassed to identify as Indigenous, this is no longer the case — this could be contributing to the increase in the population.

There is also resistance from First Nations people to participate in the census, which stems from early government policies and life experiences, such as child removal and incarceration. Some Aboriginal people from Melbourne consider the census to be another form of government surveillance.

First Nations identity has become subject to a public debate. First Nations scholar Bronwyn Carlson argues increasing census counts aren’t necessarily evidence of a population increase, but rather just statistical methods catching up with reality. She has also highlighted the fact the census doesn’t capture Indigenous ways of living.

This can result in a mismatch between what the census measures and different views of what it means to be Indigenous or First Nations. The census defines Indigeneity in terms of self-reported “origin” or ancestry. This is a very different criterion to the government-preferred “working definition”, which states an Indigenous person is someone accepted as an Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander person by Indigenous community members.

Indigenous identity is made of many things today: pride, kinship knowledge, language revival, history, music, art, connection to Country, caring for Country, and the cultural responsibilities of educating our people and, for some, the wider population too. These things are not measured in the Census.

Social media has been a great reinforcer of identity and kinship connections. This has made it easier for younger generations to identify with each other and Elders, and to find out if they are related.

First Nations Elders are proud of the achievements of their community, such as rapper Briggs, actress Leah Purcell, and sportspeople like Ashleigh Barty and Paddy Mills. Whatever the Census has to say, identity is something First Nations people understand and define for themselves.

Julie Andrews receives funding from Australian Research Council.

Francis Markham 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. What it means to identify as Indigenous in Australia, and how this might have contributed to the increase in the census – https://theconversation.com/what-it-means-to-identify-as-indigenous-in-australia-and-how-this-might-have-contributed-to-the-increase-in-the-census-185954

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James C. Murphy, Lecturer & Tutor (Teaching Intensive) in Politics and Public Policy, The University of Melbourne

Federal infrastructure policy has been rife with controversy for years: from the sports rorts scandal and dubious commuter car parks to overpriced land for the second Sydney airport. So notorious did the excesses become that they convinced the Morrison government’s critics to campaign for a strong anti-corruption commission during the May election.

Little wonder, then, that the Albanese government has brought in a new broom to head its infrastructure department.

Jim Betts replaces Simon Atkinson, a Morrison-appointed career bureaucrat who held the job through all those recent scandals. Like Atkinson, Betts is a long-time public servant, but he comes to the job straight from the state rather than federal bureaucracy.

Betts served first in Victoria’s Transport Department, where he was eventually secretary, then took the helm of Infrastructure New South Wales, and more recently headed the NSW Planning Department. So he takes on his new job with decades of experience in state infrastructure policymaking.

Where the action is

It is significant that Betts brings state rather than federal experience: infrastructure is a different kettle of fish at the state level. It is state governments that usually design, prioritise and build infrastructure projects. The federal government’s main role is to decide which projects to bankroll (the exceptions to this, like the National Broadband Network, don’t exactly shower the feds in glory).

Because of Australia’s chronic vertical fiscal imbalance, the states can rarely pay for the projects themselves: they are hopelessly reliant on the feds to turn their infrastructure fantasies into concrete reality, and compete desperately against one another for funds.

Read more:
Shovel-ready but not shovel-worthy: how COVID-19 infrastructure projects missed the opportunity to transform the way we live

Still, the infrastructure initiative normally lies with the states, and so that’s where much of the lobbying by vested interests and pressure groups takes place – and where the jockeying plays out between departments for their pet project to become the state’s submission for federal cash.

As my new study of Melbourne’s notorious East-West Link shows, this is the kind of politics Jim Betts knows intimately. At the helm of Victoria’s Transport Department for much of that saga, he saw how intense the politics of infrastructure can become.

Indeed, I suspect Betts’s long experience of state infrastructure policy might even incline him to accept the key finding of my book: that infrastructure is not afflicted by politics but is inherently and inescapably political.

Infrastructure necessarily involves public money, public space and visions of the public good. It is one of the more concrete ways citizens encounter public policy and one of the go-to yardsticks by which they judge the competence of a government. It is not something that can be administered scientifically or apolitically; there are no objectively right or wrong answers about what to build, just trade-offs and contested values.

When governments choose infrastructure priorities and build things, there are always winners and losers, there are always disputes, there are always votes on the line, and there are always competing visions being endorsed or crushed.

This means the mission of many reform enthusiasts – to “take the politics out of infrastructure” – is misguided. No independent authority or auditor has the power to do that, no matter how many priority lists they publish and no matter how much they name and shame governments for spending money in their own political interests.

Indeed, Betts would have seen during his time at Infrastructure New South Wales that such hopes are foolish. When the politics are compelling, governments will always ignore advisory bodies.

Behind closed doors

Betts’s experience across Victoria and NSW might help reform in another direction. When he worked in Victoria – from the 1990s until mid-2013 – the state had no long-term infrastructure plan, save for the Brumby Labor government’s attempt at a transport plan in 2009, which was quashed a year later by the Baillieu Coalition government.

Victoria still doesn’t have a proper long-term plan. Instead, it has ad-hocery writ large: billions upon billions spent on a “Big Build” program with no guiding logic. Projects frequently seem to come out of nowhere in surprise announcements, with all the lobbying and jockeying having occurred behind closed doors. The public tends to find out only once the sods are about to be turned.

Read more:
Victoria needs a big-picture transport plan that isn’t about winners v losers

By contrast, NSW did have long-term plans when Betts worked there. Plenty of things in those plans were and still are bitterly contested, and many aspects of the state’s infrastructure governance have been deeply problematic. But at least plans have been out there for people to see and contest.

Public, long-term plans change things. The lobbying and pressuring and organising can’t hide in the shadows. The politicking is out in the public arena; the next project (and the next and the next) is at least out there in outline for all to see and debate.

Betts would have seen up-close the difference plans can make. And he could, in his new position, urge the federal government to make long-term plans a prerequisite for federal infrastructure dollars.

Transparency over denial

Requiring that states have good-quality, public, long-term infrastructure plans before they can expect federal funds would be a game-changer. Plans can’t cure all that ails Australian infrastructure policymaking – there are good plans and bad plans, democratic plans and plans that serve narrow interests. But they would be a good start.

Read more:
Will the population freeze allow our big cities to catch up on infrastructure?

Plans force governments to build a rationale not for this or that project but for a whole vision; they force governments to explain their trade-offs and assumptions; and they force governments to think beyond the next election. They articulate the goals being pursued and defend the choice of winners and losers. If they’re done well, they generate buy-in and legitimacy — things desperately lacking in many infrastructure undertakings these days.

Far from taking the politics out of infrastructure, good plans lay the politics of infrastructure bare.

That is the kind of change to infrastructure policy-as-usual we need to see in Australia: not attempts to deny or hide the politics, but an effort to be honest about it instead, and deal with it head-on.

James C. Murphy 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. Can a new department head get the politics out of infrastructure? (And is that a good idea anyway?) – https://theconversation.com/can-a-new-department-head-get-the-politics-out-of-infrastructure-and-is-that-a-good-idea-anyway-185876

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Ong ViforJ, ARC Future Fellow & Professor of Economics, Curtin University

On the surface, the latest census tells us home ownership has changed little over the past five years. Between the 2016 census and this census in 2021, the share of Australians owning their homes remained steady at about 66%.

The proportion renting also changed little, climbing from 30% to 30.6%.

But a closer look reveals bigger long-term changes.

Read more:
More of us are retiring with mortgage debts. The implications are huge

While the proportion owning has slipped only two percentage points from 68% to 66% between 1996 and 2021, the proportion owning outright (without a mortgage) has plummeted from 42% to 31%.

The proportion mortgaged is nine percentage points higher. The proportion renting is four percentage points higher.

Most of the shift occurred between 2001 and 2006, which were the early years of the sustained home price boom.

As prices climbed, more Australians rented, and owner occupiers took on larger mortgages that took longer to pay off.

It’s the under 40s for whom things have changed the most

In younger age groups, the proportion owning a home has dived.

Between 1996 and 2021, the share of owners in households headed by 25-34 year olds sank from 50% to 43%.

This is part of a long-term decline that began in 1981.

Home ownership rates have also dived among Australians aged 35-44 and 45-54 too, but at a slower pace than for Australians aged 25-34.

A customised data report prepared by the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows home ownership rates among Australians aged 65+ ticked up from 78.4% to 79.4% between 2016 and 2021 after sliding in the previous two censuses.

The downward trend in home ownership among the young and the upward trend in mortgaged rather than outright ownership show no signs of reversing, despite significant spending on first homebuyer subsidies and guarantees.

It depends on where you live

The changes have not been uniform throughout the country.

In South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania the proportion of households renting has barely changed since 1996. In the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory it has slipped.

But in Victoria the proportion of households renting has jumped 3%, in NSW it has jumped 4%, and in Queensland 3%.

The proportion of households owning outright unmortgaged has fallen 10-12% in Queensland, Victoria and NSW, 8% in South Australia and Western Australia, 6% in Tasmania, 3% in the ACT, and is unchanged in the Northern Territory.

Back in 1996, Victoria had the highest share of outright ownership at 44%. It is now below 32%, less than Tasmania (37%) and South Australia (33%).

A shift towards apartments

The proportion of households occupying freestanding houses fell from 82% to 72% between 1996 and 2021.

The proportion housed in apartments climbed from 8% to 14%

The shift has been more evident among owners than renters, suggesting buyers have to make greater sacrifices to obtain a home than they used to.

A shift towards agents

Not only are more of us renting (up from 28% in 2006 to 31% in 2021) but more of us are doing it through real estate agents.

Whereas in 2006 half of all rental properties were rented through agents, by 2021 it was two-thirds. Over the same 15 years, the share of rental homes rented from a state or territory housing authority slid from 15% to 10%.

The share of rental housing provided by the community sector changed little.

Much unknown

The census mainly provides population-wide snapshots, rather than tracing people through time.

This makes it hard to tell the extent to which people are moving out of home ownership and then back into it (and sometimes out of it again), along the lines suggested by my own research using data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey.

Read more:
No longer a one-way street, home ownership is becoming porous

Nor does it provide much insight into whether the growing numbers of Australians having to rent will eventually own (mortgaged) homes.

Research by myself and colleagues in Britain and United States points to a “catch-up” in which Americans and Australians denied home ownership when young attain it later in life.

One thing the census puts beyond doubt is that more of us are renting and more of us are mortgaged rather than owning outright compared with 20 years ago.

Rachel Ong ViforJ is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (project FT200100422). She also receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

– ref. More rented, more mortgaged, less owned: what the census tells us about housing – https://theconversation.com/more-rented-more-mortgaged-less-owned-what-the-census-tells-us-about-housing-185893

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Tuffley, Senior Lecturer in Applied Ethics & CyberSecurity, Griffith University

When English statesman Sir Francis Bacon famously said “knowledge is power”, he could hardly have foreseen the rise of ubiquitous social media some 500 years later.

Yet social media platforms are some of the world’s most powerful businesses – not least because they can collect massive amounts of user data, and use algorithms to turn the data into actionable knowledge.

Today, TikTok has some of the best algorithms in the business, and a suite of data-collection mechanisms.

This is how it manages to be so addictive, with some 1.2 billion users as of December 2021. This number is expected to rise to 1.8 billion by the end of the year.

It’s against the background of these huge numbers that the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) wrote a strongly worded letter to the chief executives of Apple and Google last Tuesday, urging them to remove TikTok from their app stores on the grounds that the company – or more precisely its Chinese parent ByteDance – can’t be trusted with US users’ data.

What are the concerns?

In his letter, FCC commissioner Brendan Carr says:

TikTok is owned by Beijing-based ByteDance — an organisation that is beholden to the Communist Party of China and required by the Chinese law to comply with the PCR’s [(People’s Republic of China)] surveillance demands.

TikTok’s privacy policy says it won’t sell personal information to third parties, but reserves the right to use information internally for business development purposes. That internal use may include use by its parent company, ByteDance.

TikTok US has repeatedly denied breaching US data privacy regulations. It says user data are stored on US servers and not shared with ByteDance. But Carr says these measures fall short of guaranteeing the privacy of US users:

TikTok’s statement that ‘100% of US user traffic is being routed to Oracle’ (in the US) says nothing about where that data can be accessed from.

Following robust questioning by US senators, TikTok has admitted its US-stored data are in fact accessible from China, subject to unspecified security protocols at the US end.

Australian users also have their data stored on US servers, with backups in Singapore. But it’s not known whether these data – which could include users’ browsing habits, images, biographical information and location – are subject to the same safeguards as the US data.

Leaked audio

The unusually blunt language from Carr may have been occasioned by leaked audio obtained by Buzzfeed from more than 80 internal TikTok meetings.

According to a Buzzfeed report from mid-June, China-based employees of ByteDance have repeatedly accessed non-public data about US TikTok users. The tapes overwhelmingly contradict TikTok’s earlier data privacy assurances.

For example, in a September 2021 meeting a senior US-based TikTok manager referred to a Beijing-based engineer as a “master admin” who “has access to everything”. That same month a US-based staffer in the Trust and Safety Department was heard saying “everything is seen in China”.

In short, the recordings corroborate the claim that China-based employees have often accessed US data, and more recently than earlier statements asserted.

Might it all be harmless?

On the one hand TikTok is in the business of entertaining users, with a goal to keep them on the platform and expose them to targeted advertising. On the other hand, TikTok can be used to spread misinformation and influence users to their detriment.

It has been shown to host COVID conspiracy theories and other medical misinformation, and was reportedly used with a goal to influence Kenya’s general elections coming up in August.

Seen in this weaponized context, the US government’s strenuous objections to TikTok come into clearer focus.

Moreover, past events have also raised good reason to suspect Chinese actors of mass data harvesting online.

In 2020, Australian media outlets reported on a data leak from Zhenhua Data, a Chinese company with clients including the Chinese government and the People’s Liberation Army.

Read more:
Keep calm, but don’t just carry on: how to deal with China’s mass surveillance of thousands of Australians

The leak was said to contain data on more than 35,000 Australians – including dates of birth, addresses, marital status, photographs, political associations, relatives and social media accounts. This information was gathered from a range of sources, including TikTok.

Would banning TikTok be effective?

Removing TikTok from Google’s and Apple’s app stores can only be done on a country-by-country basis. India banned the platform in June 2020.

If the Australian government were to make the TikTok domain inaccessible from Australia, it could still be accessed through a virtual private network (VPN). A VPN service allows users to create a secure private network within a public one, thus disguising their country of origin. It’s the same tool that allows file-sharing on Pirate Bay and access to other countries’ Netflix programs.

But even if TikTok was banned in Australia and had access removed, or if users mass-terminated their accounts, existing data on the company’s US and Singapore-based servers would remain there. And we now know these data are accessible to TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, in Beijing.

What should TikTok users do?

Like any technology, TikTok itself is neither good nor bad. But the way in which it’s used creates potential for both.

The best defence with any potentially dangerous technology is to approach it with healthy scepticism and share as little as possible. In the case of TikTok (and other social media) this may involve:

• not disclosing your full name
• not disclosing your age and birthday
• not disclosing your physical location (including through pictures or video)
• turning off the “suggest your account to others” setting.

You can also request an account deletion. But don’t expect TikTok to delete all the data associated with it. That’s TikTok’s data now, and you agreed to handing it over when you signed up.

Read more:
China could be using TikTok to spy on Australians, but banning it isn’t a simple fix

David Tuffley 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. Concerns over TikTok feeding user data to Beijing are back – and there’s good evidence to support them – https://theconversation.com/concerns-over-tiktok-feeding-user-data-to-beijing-are-back-and-theres-good-evidence-to-support-them-186211

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Camilla Nelson, EG Whitlam Research Fellow, Whitlam Institute within Western Sydney University, and Associate Professor, University of Notre Dame Australia

Nobody spoke to Donna* or her sister in the lead up to the family court decision that ordered the children to spend time alone with their father, who was violent. Donna was eight.

Later, after the children told the court’s Independent Children’s Lawyer their father had been “drinking a lot” when he was with them and made “threats to kill”, the judge appointed a supervisor to ensure the children would be physically “safe” from any further violence that might occur. Donna explains,

[…] so, they thought it was safe, but it wasn’t […] we were just terrified of him. Really, really scared …

Donna, now in her 30s, says the court’s disregard generated emotional harm that was “more traumatic” than the serious family violence leading up to court:

[…] when you come from a situation of family violence as a child, your mother is your place of safety – generally – and when mum [is] removed […] you know, those times I was made to spend time with him without her was terrifying. And that was probably more traumatic than the years and years of trauma leading up to that.

After about two years of court-enforced contact, Donna’s father physically assaulted the court-appointed supervisor in front of Donna and her sister, and the judge agreed to lift the orders.

But the psychological damage would resurface later in Donna’s adult life:

[…] when I was 20, 21, I think […] I started to have flashbacks, and that’s when I realised that I needed to get some help because I couldn’t sleep because I just kept having flashbacks.

I spoke to Donna as part of a project for the Whitlam Institute within Western Sydney University.

Based on the research for my book Broken: Children, Parents and Family Courts, the project combines a podcast and policy paper with 12 recommendations designed to create a family law environment able to learn from children’s experience – one based in children’s rights.

What the research found

In Australia, it’s a criminal offence to identify a party to a family law proceeding, including adults who went to court when they were children.

This means survivors of family violence who were subject to Federal Circuit or Family Court orders when they were children are unable to speak – online or in the media – unless they mount an expensive legal action seeking the court’s permission. If they are successful, they can only speak on the terms the court imposes.

As a consequence, successful applications usually involve cases where the media is willing to pay the legal costs.

Quite simply, the court cannot see the impact of its decisions on children’s lives. It is unable to learn from its mistakes. It has no mechanism through which children’s experiences can be used to inform structural change. And children are forced to live with the consequences.

During the writing of this report, I traced the cases of seven adults whose families went to court when they were children. All were child survivors of family violence, and two were survivors of child sexual abuse. The length of litigation varied from two to ten years, including one participant who reported she didn’t have a memory from her childhood that didn’t include the family courts.

While each survivor had difference experiences, they raised common themes. They told me they felt powerless, distressed at being disbelieved, ignored or “kept in the dark”. They said they felt traumatised by the way in which legal actors executed the court’s orders.

They told me about the long-term social, emotional and financial impacts of litigation on their families. They explained this trauma resurfaced in their adult lives.

The cases of the people I spoke to were litigated between 1990 and 2010. Similar themes emerged in the Australian Institute of Family Studies 2018 report, based on interviews with children between the ages of ten and 17 about legal matters that were mostly finalised between 2016 and 2017.

What I found suggests the issues raised by older survivors are also being raised by younger survivors. This suggests the silencing of children is deeply embedded in the adversarial practices of the courts, in the ideologies of the legal profession and in institutional culture.

Nikos*, in his 20s, spent seven years of his childhood in the Federal Circuit and Family Courts. He never got to speak to the Independent Children’s Lawyer:

[…] what I wanted, and what I thought would be better for me was completely irrelevant to the courts.

Ten years after litigation has ended, Nikos can still name the lawyer who refused to speak to him as a child. He said a central problem was that the court’s adversarial system created a forum through which family conflict could be escalated and extended.

Anna*, in her 30s, also says the court made everybody “fight all the time”. She says:

I honestly think that even though my dad was extremely violent, family court made it so much worse.

Anna explains:

Because mum was very angry and very inconsistent with me. But I think she would not have been like that if family court was not happening. If the court had just said in the first place, ‘Look, your dad’s really dangerous, don’t see him,’ she would have been a lot more settled and not under the same financial pressure. So, I think that we would have had a much better upbringing.

As the decade-long litigation escalated, Anna’s relationship with her mother became increasingly “difficult”:

I thought afterwards that probably the most unaddressed issue is how badly family court affected the relationship between my mum and I. [My mother] wasn’t the main perpetrator of family violence, and she did try to protect us from it, but because she couldn’t when the court ordered her to send us to dad’s house, it really has caused quite irreparable damage.

The litigation in Anna’s case lasted until she was 14. When the court handed down its final decision, she ran away from home.

The problem, Donna explains, is that:

Your fate is in the hands of these strangers […] I actually used to, you know, envision myself as a child just walking in there and screaming at them and telling them the truth, you know, and telling them that he is really dangerous. But, you know, not being heard. So what’s the point?

12 recommendations

My report makes 12 recommendations, including that:

• there must be a less hostile context in which to hear legal matters which affect children

• family law decision-making processes must be anchored in children’s rights

• adults who went to court when they were children should not be silenced.

They’re designed to create a simpler and more affordable family law system that reduces harm to children and young people.

This requires the court to provide a child safe environment in which it’s possible for children and young people to speak freely about their safety concerns and be taken seriously.

*Names have been changed and transcripts redacted to remove identifying details as required by law.

This policy project has been funded by the Whitlam Institute within Western Sydney University. This story is part of The Conversation’s Breaking the Cycle series, which is about escaping cycles of disadvantage. It is supported by a philanthropic grant from the Paul Ramsay Foundation.

– ref. ‘Quite irreparable damage’: child family violence survivors on how court silenced and retraumatised them – https://theconversation.com/quite-irreparable-damage-child-family-violence-survivors-on-how-court-silenced-and-retraumatised-them-185198

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sophie Yates, Research Fellow, UNSW Sydney

People with disability are over-represented in prison and some are criminalised because of behaviours related to their disability. But they are unlikely to have their disability recognised or adjusted for, and the connection between the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and the criminal justice system has long been problematic.

We wanted to understand some of the service gaps for people in prison with disability, and what can be done to improve supports. We interviewed 28 people who worked at the intersection of disability and the criminal justice system (such as disability service providers, lawyers and advocacy workers).

Our findings painted a picture of a group disadvantaged both inside prison and after release, who need much more support to avoid being criminalised again and again.

Read more:
Victoria’s prison health care system should match community health care

How many people in prison have disability?

People with disability – particularly intellectual disability – are overrepresented in prisons, but there are no reliable statistics on what percentage of people in prison have disability.

This is because disability definitions vary, prisons have not traditionally been good at identifying people with disability, and people may not recognise or be willing to admit they have a disability. In fact, not knowing about their disability and not being able to access supports can be the reason people end up in prison in the first place.

Prevalence of intellectual disability in prison is estimated as anywhere between 4.3% – using administrative data – to about 30%, when people are screened or anonymously surveyed. This compares to about 3% in the wider population.

People we spoke to said identification of people with disability in the criminal justice system is improving, but there is still a long way to go. Common disability types encountered included intellectual or cognitive disability, acquired brain injury, psychosocial disability (difficulties arising from mental illness), hearing loss, and combinations of all these.

Disability supports in prison

People with disability in prison may need support with physical or cognitive tasks just as they do in the community. This could include help with showering, reading documents, filling in forms, understanding rules, completing programs, participating in their criminal justice proceedings, or making complaints if something goes wrong.

Most interviewees agreed the best-case scenario for most people with disability was to be housed in disability-specific prison units with staff who have disability training or other relevant qualifications. However, they noted these units are not available at every prison and there is high demand for limited beds.

So, people with disability are typically housed in mainstream prison units or in segregation or protective custody. Both scenarios pose risks such as victimisation by other inmates or exacerbation of symptoms.

Interviewees reported that outside of disability-specific units, there is very little disability support available in prison, including lack of adjustment to prison programming to make it suitable for those with low literacy or intellectual disability. This means that people with disability sometimes have to rely on support from other people in prison for their daily needs, which can be problematic.

What about the NDIS?

Day-to-day disability support in custody is entirely the responsibility of corrective services. This means people who might be eligible for quite a lot of NDIS support in the community get a significantly reduced service in custody, which is inconsistent with Australia’s human rights obligations and has consequences for their ability to stay out of contact with the justice system after release.

The NDIS does allow some forms of support (mainly aimed at transition back into the community) to be delivered inside prisons. However, this is at the discretion of prisons. Our interviewees told us things are improving, but it’s still rare for people to get any kind of NDIS services while in custody.

There can also be funding disputes because the NDIS will only fund supports related to disability and not criminal offending, but those are tricky to untangle.

For most people, interviewees agreed, it’s more like a pause button gets hit on their plans until they are released.

Read more:
Life sentences – what creative writing by prisoners tells us about the inside

Problems continue after release

Once people with disability leave prison, they continue to face significant barriers in accessing NDIS services. Some people do get pre-release planning, but others will be released with no understanding of how to re-start or use their plans.

Many people in this situation have difficulty understanding, admitting or explaining their support needs.

Specialist support coordinators trained to work with these clients can help, but aren’t widely available.

Further, in a market-based system like the NDIS, service providers can choose who they work with. If providers don’t want to operate inside prisons, or with certain client groups who have challenging behaviours, they don’t have to.

Read more:
Art by Indigenous prisoners can forge links with culture and a future away from crime

Where to from here?

Prisons need better and more consistent identification of people with disability, more specialised disability units, and better support for those with disability housed in the mainstream population.

This includes a genuine effort to adjust all programs for the needs of people with cognitive disability or low literacy.

While NDIS rules and access for those in custody have been improving, significant work still needs to be done to ensure people in prisons get consistent and fair access to their NDIS entitlements. People need planning and support well before their release dates to prepare them adequately for re-entering the community.

More specialist support coordinators, more funding for advocacy services, and a provider of last resort would assist with making sure this complex needs group receives the care necessary to avoid the “revolving door” of the criminal justice system.

Caroline Doyle is the President of Prisoners Aid (ACT).

Shannon Dodd and Sophie Yates 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. Incarcerated people with disability don’t get the support they need – that makes them more likely to reoffend – https://theconversation.com/incarcerated-people-with-disability-dont-get-the-support-they-need-that-makes-them-more-likely-to-reoffend-185395

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anne Southall, Lecturer in Inclusive Education and Trauma, La Trobe University

Teachers are burning out and leaving the profession in unprecedented numbers. Classrooms and workloads are challenging, made worse by staff shortages, and teachers are stressed. Student welfare needs to be prioritised, but the educators supporting them need support too.

A model of peer support used by front-line health workers could provide a way forward. Results of a three-year trial in three regional Victorian primary and specialist schools are promising, our research shows. All 40 participants said it improved their mental health and workplace culture, and increased their ability to cope with the demands of working in challenging conditions.

Our model enables principals, teachers and support staff to take the time to reflect together on their work, which involves complex and often challenging relationships with students, parents and other members of the school community. As one teacher, Karen*, said:

“We put the personal side first. And we put our safety first and our emotional well-being first over the academic side and the teaching, which then filtered out because we were comfortable, and we felt safe and looked after. That filtered out into our roles and we were able to do our job.”

Read more:
Could more online learning help fix Australia’s teacher shortage?

Many teachers are at breaking point

The pandemic has caused more than two years of upheaval for educators through school closures and the return to work after remote learning. Burnout, staff turnover and extreme teacher shortages have followed.

But it may not be just the COVID-19 experience that accounts for this. A 2018 survey of 18,234 staff at public schools in New South Wales found 60% of teachers were already reporting unacceptably high work stress.

Read more:
Read the room, Premier. Performance pay for teachers will make the crisis worse

Teachers have long been required to draw on their emotional resources every day. But, as interviewee Sally, a primary school teacher, told us, they “can’t keep giving from an empty bucket”.

Darren told us they want time with their peers dedicated to “thinking more deeply about what is going on in the classroom and really going deeper into it”. They want “to be able to acknowledge how you actually really feel and not have to hide it”, Paul added.

The burdens of being a caring profession

During the pandemic, teachers who became critical front-line workers began to show signs of exhaustion and burnout.

While the focus has been on prioritising student well-being, an important consideration has been overlooked.

When students are anxious and depressed, their educators worry about them, our soon-to-be-published research shows. And there is a catch-22 at play here. The more an educator cares, the more intense the emotions they experience when students are disengaged, falling behind or not coming to school.

In turn, how teachers are feeling directly affects their students – the stress can be “contagious”. In this way teachers’ concerns can inadvertently contribute further to negative classroom experiences.

Read more:
Schools will now be required to support well-being, but the standards aren’t clear on what that means

So how do reflective circles help?

Teacher concerns and emotions can be processed in more effective ways using what we call the Reflective Circle Education Model (RCEM). It draws from similar forms of peer support in other professions.

Teachers analyse their professional experiences and personal reactions and, with small groups of colleagues, explore other ways of viewing them. This approach leads to personal and professional growth and better teaching practices, instead of a destructive cycle of exhaustion and deteriorating classroom climate.

Studies show that if teachers suppress their true emotions it leads to greater overall burnout. Despite this evidence, education systems are yet to provide embedded structures to support teachers’ needs.

What sets reflective circles apart is its more restorative approach. Members of the team can share different perspectives in a way that leads to personal growth and change. The focus is on building relationships and self-awareness rather than on content and curriculum, or accountability and performance.

Read more:
What does equity in schools look like? And how is it tied to growing teacher shortages?

Small groups with four to six members explore an experience they have had at school. Each member completes a personal reflection from a structured series of questions before they come together in the reflective circle. There, each person begins by sharing a summary of their reflection. The other members of the group then explore the experience, offering other insights or perspectives.

For example, one teacher was struggling with their anger towards a student who “had been riding one of our bikes and threw the bike into the shed, damaging several other bikes. I was furious with him. I thought he should be more grateful. When I went to do the online reflection, though, I realised something: his mother had died and when he went to live with his grandmother, she died shortly after and I thought – why should he be grateful for an hour on a bike? It was a real revelation to me. It has changed the way I think about him and certainly changed the way I react to him.”

The second phase of the circle is designed to integrate these other meanings into new ways of thinking. It involves more questions to help work out new approaches to try.

Each participant decides what they will share and the actions they want to take in future.

This pilot research is consistently reporting all participants find value in not only sharing their emotions but also realising others are feeling the same way.

As participant Priah said:

“We walk out that door after reflective circles on cloud nine. And it doesn’t matter how deep and serious the conversations are, I walk out feeling like something has lifted off my shoulders, we are not in this alone.”

* All names are pseudonyms to protect trial participants’ privacy.

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. ‘We are not in this alone’: stressed teachers find hope in peer-support model used by frontline health workers – https://theconversation.com/we-are-not-in-this-alone-stressed-teachers-find-hope-in-peer-support-model-used-by-frontline-health-workers-185683

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Greg Dolgopolov, Senior Lecturer in Film, UNSW Sydney

The war in Ukraine is as much a bloody conflict as it is a propaganda war.

The doublespeak in Russian media is that there is no war, that the Bucha massacre was staged by Ukrainians and that Russians and Ukrainians are united in liberating Ukraine from NATO and nationalists.

It is impossible to determine to what extent audiences are deceived. There are numerous individual protests on social media, but most Russian media consumers want to believe the authorities.

While many were caught off guard by the February 2022 invasion, if we had paid more attention last year, we would have noticed the fictional feature film Solntsepyok (directed by Maksim Brius and Mikhail Vasserbaum, 2021). Titled “Sunbaked” in English, this film set the propaganda machine in action to prepare Russian audiences for war.

After a very brief theatrical release and a massive promotional campaign, the film screened on the government run NTV channel in August 2021 and is now widely available on Russian streaming services.

Read more:
Putin’s brazen manipulation of language is a perfect example of Orwellian doublespeak

A brutal war film

The film begins on a hot sunny day in May 2014 in the self-proclaimed Luhansk People’s Republic. A couple of cars full of unshaven criminals senselessly murder a group of villagers, steal their watches, rape the women and brutally bash a baby into a wall.

The Novozhilov family, on their way to Russia, get caught up in this mayhem. The borders are closed. There is no way out. The father, Vlad Novozhilov (Aleksandr Bukharov), is an Afghan War veteran with no appetite to carry a gun again. He enlists as a paramedic driver to help with the fatalities.

For some strange reason, in Solntsepyok, the Ukrainian army shells its own villages indiscriminately. That absurd message is clearly important in the propaganda war.

Elsewhere, volunteers from all over Ukraine are heading into special training camps to learn combat techniques to fight the separatists. These Ukranians are shown as caricatures: right-wing skinheads and folk costume wearing psychopaths.

Young men, high on the success of the February Maidan protests in Kyiv – a protest against the government forging closer ties with Russia, rather than the European Union – are getting ready to take up arms, although it is not clear who they want to fight.

Read more:
Why Ukrainians are ready to fight for their democracy

A web of lies

Film critic Dmitri Sosnovski, from the government newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta, called Solntsepyok “a heartbreaking film” that

shows the war in all of its ugliness, without edits, without unnecessary sentimentality, with ruthless, simply unbearable frankness, as a reliable story about what happened to Russians at the very borders of the Russian Federation.

But the film is riddled with errors. Alexei Petrov, an officer with the Ukrainian Armed Force, calls the film “propaganda trash”. In a YouTube video he points out all the lies featured in the film.

The first lie comes up in the title credits, where an assertive voiceover narration says “the [Ukranian] government was overthrown” after the Maidan protests.

In fact, the Ukrainian parliament in 2014 called for early elections and the formation of an interim unity government. They granted full amnesty to protesters and sought to impeach then-President Yanukovych, who fled to Russia. For a government overthrow, this was rather orderly.

The film falsely claims Ukrainian nationalists were calling for genocide of Russian citizens. It links anti-Russian sentiment with the descendants of Hilter Youth. It features a cigar chomping American general who promises the US will turn Ukraine into a land without Russians. There were no US generals in Ukraine in 2014.

This is a brutal war film that is purposefully confusing, devised to prime Russian audiences for rationalising the invasion through a series of ethnic caricatures and lies.

Confusion reigns

It is hard to tell who are the good guys and who are the baddies in Solntsepyok. The film is about Vlad resisting before eventually taking up arms for the pro-Russian militia separatists.

The audience is positioned to be on the side of the separatists. We see the conflict from their perspective, but it is confusing: there are so many different belligerents.

Solntsepyok’s propaganda is designed to confuse the audience, entertain with action and dramatic moral choices and overwhelm. The audience is constantly emotionally manipulated.

One character, the bespectacled Gurevich (performed by the celebrated Vladimir Ilin) lovingly rehearses a song about a bright future with a children’s choir. Suddenly, a Ukrainian missile strikes the school. He is the only survivor.

Battered and shell shocked, he turns up at the pro-Russian militia office demanding to be enlisted. He is totally unsuited for war but he has a motivation: children were murdered indiscriminately.

In perhaps the most powerful scene of the film, Vlad has a heated exchange with his teenage son, Ilya (Gleb Borisov), who tells him he wants to stay and fight with the separatists. As he walks off, Vlad grabs him:

Do you know what war is? It is not romantic and it’s not heroic. War is fear. Fear is not thinking that you will be wounded or killed. If you are wounded, you’ll feel pain, but no fear! If you are killed, you’ll feel nothing. Fear is when, around you, your mates are being killed and you can’t do anything!

After his son and wife are killed in an indiscriminate bombing, Vlad finds salvation by picking up a gun and walking with his new comrades.

This imagery primed the Russian audience for the future war. Although Vlad resisted taking up arms he was forced to abandon his moral position when he had lost everything that he held sacred. He had no other choice.

Solntsepyok is a textbook example of propaganda. Connections to the truth are not as important as the ideology of shaping a motivation for war.

Read more:
Russia’s Ukraine invasion won’t be over soon – and Putin is counting on the West’s short attention span

Greg Dolgopolov previously organised the Russian Resurrection Film Festival.

– ref. How Solntsepyok, a brutal 2021 propaganda film, primed Russians for war with Ukraine – https://theconversation.com/how-solntsepyok-a-brutal-2021-propaganda-film-primed-russians-for-war-with-ukraine-185701

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Olli Hellmann, Senior Lecturer in Political Science and International Relations, University of Waikato

The ways in which New Zealand remembers European colonisation have changed markedly in recent years. Critics have been chipping away at the public image of Captain James Cook, the New Zealand Wars have been included in the new compulsory history curriculum, and streets honouring colonial figures have been renamed.

However, while New Zealand is slowly recognising the historical injustices suffered by Māori, the same reappraisal hasn’t extended to the natural environment. The dramatic transformation of “wild untamed nature” into “productive land” by European settlers in the 1800s continues to be widely celebrated as a testament to Kiwi ingenuity and hard work.

My soon-to-be published research, based on a survey of 1,100 people, suggests this narrative could be partly responsible for New Zealanders’ apparent complacency on climate change compared to other countries.

Essentially, it appears those who refuse the “taming of nature” narrative – and instead recognise the 19th century as a period of environmental destruction – are more likely to have what psychologists call an “environmental self-identity”.

The findings further suggest that changing individual behaviour as a strategy to tackle environmental threats (as recommended in the Climate Commission’s 2021 report) might mean addressing how we communicate the history of environmental change in schools, museums and at public heritage sites.

In particular, this might mean framing what happened in the 1800s as more about loss than achievement.

A story of progress or decline?

Prior to human settlement, Aotearoa New Zealand had been isolated from other landmasses for around 60 million years. The result was the evolution of a unique ecosystem that was highly vulnerable to disturbances.

Māori arrived around 1300 and brought with them invasive mammals: the Polynesian dog (kurī) and the Pacific rat (kiore). Through widespread burning, Māori – either intentionally or accidentally – destroyed large areas of forest in drier eastern parts of Te Wai Pounamu (South Island) and Te Ika a Māui (North Island).

Moreover, archaeological research suggests a number of bird species were hunted to extinction, including moa and adzebill.

Read more:
A new farming proposal to reduce carbon emissions involves a lot of trust – and a lot of uncertainty

European settlers began arriving in large numbers after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. On the back of (often dubious) purchase deals, the introduction of private property laws and forceful confiscation, vast areas of Māori land ended up in European hands.

What followed was a classic example of what’s been called “ecological imperialism”. Much of the remaining forest was transformed into grassland for sheep and cattle. Acclimatisation societies introduced other familiar animals and plants from Europe.

Purposefully and accidentally introduced species – such as stoats and ship rats – wreaked havoc on the native wildlife. Within a few decades of European colonisation, several birds went extinct, including the huia, the piopio and the laughing owl. European capitalism also had a devastating impact on seal and whale populations.

A “usable past”

Despite the long history of environmental change, it is the transformation of the landscape in the 1800s that occupies the most prominent place in New Zealand’s collective memory, relative to other periods. The reason is fairly simple: the era provides what memory scholars call a “usable past” – usable because it helps to construct a distinctive New Zealand identity in the present.

Similar to historical events such as the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi and the Gallipoli campaign, the “taming of nature” in the 1800s is remembered as an experience that forged the nation. European settlers – in particular the bushmen who cleared the forest to make way for farms and pastures – are portrayed as the prototypical New Zealander.

Read more:
Uncovering the stories my family forgot, about a past still haunting Aotearoa New Zealand

Their hard work and “number eight wire” ingenuity still define popular versions of the national character today. And media continue to portray the countryside as the “real” New Zealand, including in advertisements and television shows.

It should be stressed this is largely a narrative of the European settler majority. For Māori communities, the transformation of the landscape under European colonialism is more a story of decline than progress. Māori memories of environmental change in the 1800s are intertwined with memories of colonial violence and dispossession.

Memory shapes environmental attitudes

My survey sought to explore whether different interpretations of New Zealand’s environmental history shape people’s attitudes towards nature, and whether those interpretations make it more or less likely that people see themselves as someone who acts in an “environmentally friendly” way – the environmental self-identity mentioned earlier.

A key finding is that those respondents who pinpointed the 1800s – rather than Māori settlement or the second half of the 20th century – as the most destructive period of environmental change were most likely to describe themselves as environmentally friendly.

Read more:
Plastic Free July: recycling is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. It’s time to teach kids to demand real change from the worst plastic producers

For Māori respondents, this is perhaps not entirely surprising. An awareness of injustices suffered in the 1800s tends to go hand in hand with a strong spiritual connection with the land and a sense of responsibility towards nature.

More significant is that European New Zealanders who recognise the environmentally destructive role of 19th-century settlers were more likely to identify themselves as environmentally friendly than those who point to other periods in history.

It appears those European New Zealanders who acknowledge the environmental destruction caused by their ancestors feel a greater responsibility to fix these mistakes in the present.

Read more:
New Zealand should celebrate its remarkable prehistoric past with national fossil emblems – have your say!

How we remember the past matters

To encourage more pro-environmental behaviours, the survey results suggest New Zealand needs to move away from narratives that glorify environmental change of the early colonial era as an expression of national character.

Such interpretations of history reinforce ideas that get in the way of achieving a sustainable future. They promote a strongly utilitarian perspective on our relationship with the environment. Nature is reduced to a commodity to be exploited in the pursuit of human interests.

New Zealand has taken the first steps to work through its violent political past, but this process also needs to include colonialism’s devastating effects on the environment.

Rather than remembering the transformation of the landscape by European settlers as a nation-defining moment, public history should encourage an examination of human complicity in the destruction of nature. Hopefully, this can help transform such understanding into present-day environmental action.

Olli Hellmann 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. Nation-building or nature-destroying? Why it’s time NZ faced up to the environmental damage of its colonial past – https://theconversation.com/nation-building-or-nature-destroying-why-its-time-nz-faced-up-to-the-environmental-damage-of-its-colonial-past-185693

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isaac Gross, Lecturer in Economics, Monash University

There was no suprise in the board of the Reserve Bank of Australia lifting interest rates at its July meeting. The only question was by how much.

Would it be a “regular” increase of 25 basis points? Or a double-whammy of 50. The markets tipped the double, and were proved right. The central bank lifted its cash rate target from 0.85% to 1.35% – taking Australia’s official interest rate to its highest level since July 2019.

This is sign of how seriously governor Philip Lowe and his fellow board members regard the threat of domestic inflationary pressures and a hot labour market to economic stability. Expect more action to follow.

Not all inflation is international

The primary reason the decision is the surge in inflation across the Australian economy.

In part rising prices have been driven by events overseas – principally Russia’s war on Ukraine pushing up oil and food prices.

Read more:
1970s-style stagflation now playing on central bankers’ minds

But it’s not just a supply issue. Rising demand for goods and services in Australia are contributing just as much to the bank’s expectation that inflation, having surpassed 5% in the March quarter, will reach 7% by the end of 2022.

Evidence of this can be seen in the Australian Bureau of Statistics’s latest report on inflation. It shows that, even excluding food and fuel, prices across the economy rose by 4% over the past year.

My own analysis of these numbers suggests most of the current inflation surge is being driven by higher demand. This is something best solved by tighter monetary policy (to restrict spending) and thus higher interest rates.

On top of rising prices, Australia’s labour market is also running piping hot. The unemployment rate of 3.9% is the lowest level in 40 years.

The number of businesses looking to hire new workers is at an all-time high, with 27% having difficulties filling positions, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

This strong demand for labour is putting upwards pressure on wages, which will keep inflation high if not offset with higher interest rates.

Further hikes likely

A big challenge the Reserve Bank of Australia faces when setting interest rates is that inflation data from the Australian Bureau of Stastistics is only published every three months.

Overseas counterparts have the benefit of monthly inflation data. But at its July meeting the RBA board had to rely on inflation data published in late April. The RBA is flying somewhat blind until the next inflation report in June. What that report shows will be a key factor as to how high interest rates will rise over the rest of the year.

Last month the financial markets expected the cash rate would eventually peak at about 4% in 2023. They’ve since reduced this forecast to a high of 3.3%.

Still this would push the average interest rate that home buyers are paying on their mortgage to more than 5%.

The market predictions imply the RBA board will, over the five monthly meetings it has left in 2022, increase interest rates by an average 0.33 percentage points each time.

Read more:
Sky-high mortgages, 7.1% inflation, and a 20% chance of recession. How the Conversation’s panel sees the year ahead

Some doubt rates will rise that high that fast. But over the past year the markets have been much better at forecasting interest rates than economists and the Reserve Bank’s own guidance. We should ignore these market signals at our peril.

So expect – and plan for – interest rates to increase every month for the rest of the year.

Isaac Gross 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. Rates rise to 1.35% – and there’s no stopping now the RBA’s on a mission to whip inflation – https://theconversation.com/rates-rise-to-1-35-and-theres-no-stopping-now-the-rbas-on-a-mission-to-whip-inflation-186212

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

As well as her interviews with politicians and experts, Politics with Michelle Grattan includes “Word from The Hill”, where she discusses the news with members of The Conversation politics team.

Michelle and Peter Browne from the Politics + Society team discuss Anthony Albanese’s visit to Ukraine, and the desirability of Australia reopening its embassy there as soon as it can. More generally, Australia’s diplomatic presence has slipped and needs to be beefed up.

With the PM now home, he’s off to the flood affected areas of NSW. Labor has learned from the former government’s experience, and has acted quickly to get in resources, seeking to avoid the criticism Scott Morrison faced in the earlier floods.

Meanwhile the Reserve Bank has again increased interest rates, with the cash rate rising by half a percentage point. Also hitting people’s pockets – the latest floods will have some impact on fresh food prices.

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. Word from The Hill: People’s pockets hit again, with rate rise and floods set to boost veggie prices – https://theconversation.com/word-from-the-hill-peoples-pockets-hit-again-with-rate-rise-and-floods-set-to-boost-veggie-prices-186387

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vanessa Smith, Professor of English, University of Sydney

Review: The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, directed by Jessica Arthur for the Sydney Theatre Company

“You know when it’s the autumn of 1827, and you’re sitting in a church, having the wrong sort of existential crisis?” Gilbert Markham (Remy Hii) asks the audience at the beginning of Emme Hoy’s compelling theatrical adaptation of Anne Brontë’s The Tenant of Wildfell Hall (1848).

He is reminding us we are in a period drama – something easy to forget with this very modern-feeling tale of addiction, domestic abuse, child custody battles and female artistic self-reclamation.

Brontë’s novel marked the death throes of the Regency marriage plot, skewering those Byronic heroes (think Jane Eyre’s Rochester) beloved of Anne’s older sisters Charlotte and Emily Brontë.

At its centre is a disastrous union between a budding artist, Helen Lawrence (Tuuli Narkle) and a villainous, oddly infantile rake, Arthur Huntingdon (Ben O’Toole).

The novel’s grim account of alcoholic domestic entrapment did not impress early reviewers, who condemned it as “coarse”, “disgusting”, “brutal” and “revolting”.

Nonetheless, sales were strong enough for Anne Brontë (publishing under the pseudonym Acton Bell) to pen a preface for a second edition only a few weeks after its release.

In this preface, she defended the work as an exercise in “unpalatable truth”, and a warning. The preface’s rejection of the “delicate concealment of facts — this whispering ‘Peace, peace’ when there is no peace” is articulated directly by Helen towards the end of Hoy’s adaptation.

Read more:
Why Charlotte Brontë still speaks to us – 200 years after her birth

A radical novel

Brontë’s novel was formally as well as thematically radical: a composite of documents and discourses, from letters and journals to gossip and slander.

It is framed as a correspondence between two venerable “old boys”: Markham and his brother-in-law Halford, who, having grown apart, seek to resuscitate their friendship through an exchange of intimate confidences.

Gilbert’s letters take the reader “back with me to the autumn of 1827”, to the village of Linden-Car (the play’s Lindenhope), where the arrival of a mysterious widow, Helen Graham, has prompted intrusive interest from the local community.

The new tenant of Wildfell Hall, a dilapidated mansion on the outskirts of the village, is a gifted painter, supporting herself and her young son Arthur (Danielle Catanzariti) by the sale of her artworks.

Helen’s close relationship with her landlord Frederick Lawrence (Anthony Taufa) – who will eventually prove to be her brother – provokes a violent attack on Frederick by the increasingly infatuated Gilbert, as well as scurrilous speculation from the village gossips.

Eventually Helen, who is beginning to share Gilbert’s romantic feelings, hands him her journal. It reveals that her husband Arthur Huntingdon is still living, and details the abuse that has led her to abscond with her child to her deceased father’s home of Wildfell Hall.

Overlapping timelines, parallel characters

Brontë’s somewhat awkward structure requires readers to accept that Gilbert has transcribed Helen’s entire journal, with minor redactions, into the text of his exchange with Halford – effectively reducing her words to a prop for their homosocial exchange.

Hoy’s more dexterous handling of the novel’s shifting perspectives runs the two marriage plots together, alternating between Gilbert and Helen’s burgeoning romance and Helen and Huntingdon’s collapsing marriage, scene for scene.

Lindenhope and Huntingdon’s estate are represented by a single, morphing set, with the revolving stage physically transposing characters between settings. Elizabeth Gadsby’s responsive stage design accentuates the unsettling parallels between the behaviours of the two male leads, whose love languages seem equally underwritten by gendered power.

Doubled roles, including the dazzling Nikita Waldron as the coquettish, fortune-chasing Eliza Millward of Lindenhope and Annabella Willmont, Huntingdon’s mistress, and Steve Rodgers as both the village’s (here wonderfully comic) Reverend Millward and Huntingdon’s sleazy comrade Walter Hargrave (referred to, in one of Anne Brontë’s most brilliant put downs, as “a glow worm amongst worms”) underline this reciprocity.

Perhaps the most interesting pairing is Anthony Taufa’s combined portrayal of Frederick Lawrence and Huntingdon’s crony Lord Lowborough. Both are represented as men struggling with legacies of bullying.

As Hoy’s script emphasises, there’s a bit of each character in the other: heroes and villains are not so easily disentangled within a culture of toxic masculinity.

Happy endings

Hoy and director Jessica Arthur are gifted translators of the novel to the stage, and of its proto-feminist message to our post #metoo moment.

Frequent nods to Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s metatheatrical dark comedy Fleabag bring to light both the anachronistic directness of Anne Brontë’s original and its complex reflexivity.

Yet ultimately, Hoy is more optimistic than Brontë, handing out happier endings all round.

The coquettish Annabella, whom Brontë consigned to “penury, neglect, and utter wretchedness”, becomes one of Helen’s articulate proto-feminist posse, an indefatigable sexual adventurer.

Gilbert Markham is granted a capacity for explicit self-reflection and change. He, too, recognises a double, in Arthur Huntingdon, and vows to alter his narrative:

We tell ourselves we’re not like them. That men like him are monsters. Separate. Not like us. But – he was familiar. When I read your diaries, he was familiar. And I do not want him to be. I won’t.

Recast, redemptively, as feminist ally, Gilbert in the end seems to know when it’s the winter of 2022, and you’re on a theatre stage, having the right sort of existential crisis.

The Tenant of Wildfell Hall is at the Roslyn Packer Theatre until July 16.

Read more:
Fleabag’s feminist rethinking of tired screenwriting tools

Vanessa 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. With The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, the Sydney Theatre Company gives us a Brontë adaptation for our moment – https://theconversation.com/with-the-tenant-of-wildfell-hall-the-sydney-theatre-company-gives-us-a-bronte-adaptation-for-our-moment-186298