The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Manning, Adjunct Professor of Journalism, University of Technology Sydney

Michelle Guthrie has been badly treated – not by being sacked, but by being hired in the first place. As a former Head of ABC TV News and Current Affairs, I met Guthrie several times at functions in the ABC, and once at a social dinner party. We discussed the state of ABC News and other editorial matters. She was well aware she was on a steep learning curve.

Dubbed early in the gossip mill as Rupert Murdoch’s and Malcolm Turnbull’s candidate for the job, I found her intentions good and her background at Google a major plus for leading the ABC in a digital era.

Read more: Michelle Guthrie’s stint at ABC helm had a key weakness: she failed to back the journalists

If there were worries, they were two: her lack of political smarts in the complicated and potentially volcanic relationship with the federal government; and her lack of experience in journalism, radio or television production, and the myriad other forms of content creation that ABC employees specialise in.

Her first federal Budget saw a $20 million a year “Enhanced Newsgathering Program” from the previous year cut by a third to $13.5m. I wrote in The Conversation in May 2016:

If she was Malcolm Turnbull’s preferred candidate…it hasn’t helped her in the Budget…Her failure to hold the line on ABC funding will not go down well.

Job cuts followed.

It is one of the top KPI’s for a managing director of the ABC: hold and build the budget.

I think it’s true to say that most ABC staff hoped this was a minor blip and would be corrected in coming years. There was a determination to embrace the old Aussie “give her a go” mindset, and staff were willing to listen to what Guthrie proposed as her signature policies.

But what they heard in a series of staff meetings was nothing new: that the new digital era required changes in demographics, skills and programming; that the organisation need to be downsized; that new executive reporting lines would be created and simplified; and that the ABC had to ignore its very young and very old rusted-on viewers and concentrate on the 15-30 and 30-50 year-olds, who had left it in droves.

They had heard all this from the previous managing director, Mark Scott, for many years. In fact, the drive to enter the digital world had begun under the leadership of Brian Johns in the early 1990s. He appointed me to head up a multimedia unit in 1994. The task: put the ABC on the internet. Quickly, the ABC’s new home site – www.abc.net.au – became the top media site in Australia and remains one of the top sites today. But it was Scott who made digitisation his defining contribution.

Read more: Media Files: ABC boss Michelle Guthrie sacked, but the board won’t say why

For all the talk of “content”, it became clear that comparisons between Guthrie and Scott inside the ABC found her wanting. Scott, the former editorial director of Fairfax’s newspaper and magazine division, might have lacked radio and television skills, but he knew a good story when he heard one. He made a good fist of claiming the title of editor-in-chief.

Guthrie, a lawyer by trade, spoke about content and platforms, but was all at sea about how to bring these two concepts together. It was a major hole in her armoury. (Even in News Limited, many admire Rupert Murdoch’s intimate knowledge of the trade of journalism. It runs in the family. It used to be the same with the Packer empire at Channel Nine until Jamie Packer fell in love with casinos and gambling as sources of wealth. The Fairfax barons also enjoyed newspaper production.)

Very soon Guthrie lost the staff she was leading. In a time of constant change, morale fell and the honeymoon ended. The rolling series of federal Budget cuts under the Abbott and then Turnbull governments ensured series after series of expensive payouts to highly-skilled program-makers who were supposedly there to produce the “content” for the new platforms Guthrie envisaged.

Many meetings were called to save various sections of the ABC and keep their identities. I attended one, a group of former general managers of ABC Radio National appealing to chairman Justin Milne and Guthrie to not incorporate the station and its staff into various “content streams”, thereby ensuring the end of what was called (the old) “appointment radio”.

The meeting was run by Milne, politely listening to each person and then assuring them it would all be alright. Guthrie was left to comment at the end:

Changes will need to go through me. Trust me, I’m a fan of RN.

The changes proceeded apace.

The casualisation of the new working arrangements has now left many staff not just demoralised but angry. Working crews have left on big packages only to return as freelancers on insecure tenure.

The anger has manifested itself in the “Proud to be Public” campaign by the formerly dominant union at the ABC, the Community and Public Sector Union. This group is more militant than the old Friends of the ABC lobby group, which is full of Liberal voters who care passionately about cuts to the ABC. And finally, the anger of staff is shown in another new group, Alumni Ltd. – former ABC staff willing to join the struggle to save the ABC from Liberals who want to destroy it.

In my view, Guthrie came at the wrong moment to be the “change agent” for the ABC. Mark Scott had already been that figure, and had all the necessary qualities to connect with staff and carry them through the digital revolution.

Guthrie’s performances in Canberra (especially before Senate Estimates) were too amateur and insecure. Her own credibility as a content-maker was not up to scratch in a highly critical creative environment like the ABC. Finally, her seeming inability to bring her senior managers and staff with her proved crucial – especially in an environment where a hostile government half-captured by the ideological right, not to mention News Limited, was snapping at her heels on a constant basis.

The choice of Guthrie was wrong from the start. It did no service to her, nor to the ABC. The then Board did her no service in throwing her in the deep end of the ABC at a time of great change.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mitchell Cunningham, PhD Candidate + Casual Academic (USyd); Senior Behavioural Scientist (ARRB Group), University of Sydney

Few people pay close attention to the traffic situation unfolding around them when they’re travelling as a passenger in a car, even if they’re in the front seat. And that could make partially automated vehicles, which are operating on our roads right now, problematic.

Also known as Level 2 automated vehicles, partially automated vehicles are capable of controlling steering, acceleration and deceleration. The Tesla AutoPilot system is a good example. (Cadillac, Volvo, Audi and Nissan also offer partial automation).

Read more: What are these ‘levels’ of autonomous vehicles?

These kinds of automated vehicles require a human driver to remain on standby when the vehicle is in autonomous mode. That means paying close attention to the driving environment, and taking back control of the vehicle if required.

This may sound straightforward, but it’s not.

Passive fatigue and distraction

There are two main reasons why people find it difficult to pay close attention to the driving environment, especially for extended periods of time, when a vehicle is driving itself.

Firstly, people are prone to passive fatigue. Driving conditions that don’t require frequent use of vehicle controls, but do require constant vigilance for hazards, may paradoxically reduce driver alertness – even after only 10 minutes on the road. Such conditions may even put drivers to sleep.

Secondly, prolonged periods of automated driving may become outright boring for some drivers left on standby. Bored drivers tend to engage spontaneously in distracting activities that stimulate them, such as using a phone, reading a magazine or watching a movie. This may be especially true if the driver feels a high level of trust in the automation.

These by-products of automation have been demonstrated in both simulated and real-world driving studies.

Safety concerns

Drivers who are inattentive to the driving environment when a partially automated vehicle is operating in autonomous mode may pose a significant safety risk to themselves and others. They may be less likely to anticipate critical events that spark a takeover request, and be ill-prepared to safely take back control if required.

The tragic fatality in 2016 of a driver of one of Tesla’s partially automated vehicles bears on this issue. The US National Transportation Safety Board’s accident report notes that:

the probable cause of the Williston, Florida, crash was the truck driver’s failure to yield the right of way to the car, combined with the car driver’s inattention due to overreliance on vehicle automation, which resulted in the car driver’s lack of reaction to the presence of the truck.

Helping people remain vigilant

Autonomous vehicle manufacturers seem to be aware of this problem. To compensate, they require drivers to keep a hand on the wheel when the vehicle is driving itself, or to periodically touch the steering wheel to signal that they remain vigilant.

But it’s unclear whether this is an effective strategy to keep drivers attentive.

Some drivers have devised some creative ways of circumventing the requirement to touch the steering wheel. For example, by placing a bottle of water on the steering wheel in lieu of their hand.

Even if a driver touches the wheel when requested, their eyes may be focused elsewhere, such as on a mobile phone display. And if their eyes are focused on the roadway at times when they touch the steering wheel, their minds may not be. There is evidence periods of prolonged automation can cause drivers’ minds to wander. Indeed, drivers may fail to attend to things on the roadway, even if they are physically looking at them.

Read more: Preliminary report on Uber’s driverless car fatality shows the need for tougher regulatory controls

This calls into question whether partially automated vehicles can keep drivers attentive to the driving task during periods of autonomous driving. Researchers are actively trying to work out ways of improving this.

A recent paper proposes a set of design principles for the human-machine interface – the technology built into the vehicle that allows it to communicate messages to the driver, and vice versa.

But, in our view, until vehicles become automated to the point there is no longer a requirement for drivers to pay attention to the driving environment, driver inattention is likely to remain a road safety problem.

What about the vehicle itself?

While humans may become inattentive to driving due to mechanisms such as distraction or misprioritised attention, could vehicles operating autonomously become inattentive through similar mechanisms? For example, could they focus their attention, or computational resources, on one aspect of driving to the exclusion of another that is more time critical to safety?

Read more: Why driverless vehicles should not be given unchecked access to our cities

The safe operation of these vehicles will be determined largely by the software algorithms that drive them. Just like a human driver, a vehicle driven by these algorithms will need to prioritise its attention on activities critical for safe driving.

But how do we design algorithms that define what a vehicle should pay attention to from moment-to-moment when we don’t yet fully understand what human drivers should pay attention to at any moment in time? Poorly designed automation could make vehicles as vulnerable to inattention as humans.

Driver inattention is currently a problem in partially automated vehicles. In the future, this may morph into “vehicle inattention” unless we can design vehicles capable of reliably attending to all activities critical for safe driving. Until then, inattention as a road safety problem may not be going anywhere.

The authors would like to thank Dr Bill Horrey, Dr Steve Most and Associate Professor Vinayak Dixit for reviewing an earlier version of this article.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Boffa, Adjunct Associate Professor, Curtin University

From October 1, 2018, one standard drink in the Northern Territory will cost a minimum of A$1.30. This is known as floor price, which is used to calculate the minimum cost at which a product can be sold, depending on how many standard drinks the product contains.

People in the Northern Territory consume alcohol at much higher levels and have the highest rate of risky alcohol consumption in Australia. In 2014, around 44% of people in the NT were drinking alcohol at a level that put them at risk of injury or other harms at least once in the past month. This was compared to 26% of people nationally.

The implementation of the minimum floor price is the result of legislation, recently passed to minimise alcohol-related harms in the NT. From October, the NT will become one of the first places in the world to introduce a minimum price for alcohol.

Read more: Three charts on: Australia’s changing drug and alcohol habits

A history of alcohol restrictions

The NT government introducted trial restrictions on the availability of alcohol in Alice Springs in 2002. This came after many years of campaigning for restrictions on alcohol sales by Aboriginal community organisations and the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition (an Alice Springs-based alcohol reform group).

The trial restrictions limited the hours during which take-away alcohol could be sold on weekdays to 2-9pm. They also attempted to address the sale of cheap 4L or 5L casks of wine by prohibiting the sale of take-away alcohol in containers larger than 2L. This super cheap alcohol was most implicated in the town’s social and health problems.

The trial had some positive effects but was substantially undermined by drinkers switching from cask-wine to other cheap forms of alcohol – in particular fortified wine sold in flagons and casks.

Read more: How mandatory treatment for public drunkenness is failing Aboriginal people

This led to renewed advocacy for more effective approaches to alcohol–related harm. In 2006, the NT government implemented the Alice Springs Liquor Supply Plan (LSP). This continued the earlier restrictions on the hours of sale for take-away alcohol. But it also extended the ban on the sale of cheap alcohol to include both wine in containers larger than two litres and fortified wine in containers larger than one litre.

What the liquor supply plan achieved

A 2011 government commissioned study found removing the two cheapest forms of alcohol (cask wine and fortified wine in casks and large bottles) from the market increased the price of alcohol in Central Australia. Before the introduction of the liquor supply plan, the average wholesale price per standard drink was around A$0.80. Under the plan, this increased to about A$1.10 per standard drink.

This increase was primarily achieved by the bans on cheap alcohol, effectively doubling the minimum unit price from about A$0.25 per standard drink to A$0.50 per standard drink. As the figure below shows, the introduction of the liquor supply plan in Alice Springs led to a significant decrease in alcohol consumption (estimated by using wholesale sales data) – from around 24 standard drinks per week for every person aged 15 years and over to around 20 standard drinks per week.

As expected, the ban on cheap cask and fortified wine led some drinkers to turn to other types of alcohol. But while there was a 70% increase in the consumption of more expensive full-strength beer, the decline in the consumption of cheap alcohol more than offset this. This led to the overall 20% decline in consumption.

The reductions in alcohol consumption were accompanied by a significant decrease in social harms and adverse health impacts. Treatments for alcohol-related harms at Alice Springs Hospital, which had been rising steeply, levelled off. Though they continued to rise, they did so at a much reduced rate.

This included reductions in those who were admitted to hospital because of assaults. In particular, the liquor supply plan led to around 120 fewer than projected Aboriginal women being hospitalised per year for assault. A similar pattern was seen for emergency department presentations, with a significant decrease in people presenting as a result of assault.

The LSP also saw significant reductions in the proportion of alcohol-related anti-social behaviour incidents recorded in Alice Springs.

Read more: Minimum price on alcohol in the NT will likely reduce harm

A minimum floor price works

It’s clear restrictions on the sale of cheap alcohol are effective in reducing alcohol-related harm. And while the causes of family and community violence are complex, bans on cheap alcohol are especially effective in reducing the number of Aboriginal women subjected to assault.

Some have argued Aboriginal drinking is not affected by price as these drinkers will simply increase their expenditure on alcohol to maintain their consumption. But the liquor supply plan provides powerful evidence this assumption is incorrect. The reduction in assaults of Aboriginal women strongly suggests the increases in price were accompanied by a reduction in consumption.

The implementation of the minimum floor price shows the importance of local advocacy by Aboriginal organisations and community groups in moving policy and practice in alcohol control forward.

This article was co-authored by Donna Ah Chee, CEO of the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress and Mr Edward Tilton, Health Policy Consultant at the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Ong ViforJ, Professor of Economics, School of Economics, Finance and Property, Curtin University

Until now, the majority of older people in Australia have achieved the goal of owning their own home outright. Hence, policymakers have typically shown little concern about the size and budget costs of rental housing assistance programs for seniors. However, two major societal shifts are set to propel such programs into the spotlight as a prominent government subsidy for older Australians.

The first trend is population ageing. We anticipate that baby boomers will place growing pressure on housing assistance programs as they age.

This is simply because of their larger numbers compared to earlier generations. Applying ABS population projections to data from the 2011 Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey, we project the population of Australians aged 55 years and over will increase from 5.1 million to 7.9 million between 2011 and 2031 – a 55% increase.

A second shift – falling rates of home ownership – could further increase the demands on the housing system. The HILDA Survey reveals rates of home ownership have fallen from 72% in 2001 to 66% in 2016.

This decline is in part due to younger Australians finding it more difficult to become owner-occupiers. It is also due to growing numbers of Australians dropping out of home ownership.

Estimates from the ABS Surveys of Income and Housing show that from 1982 to 2013 the home ownership rate fell 7.3 percentage points among the 45-54 age group. It fell by 5.1 percentage points for the 55-64 age group.

These trends are likely to continue.

A growing divide among older Australians

To analyse the implications of these shifts, we forecast the changing profile of Australians aged 55 and over by housing tenure. We apply demographic projections to the 2011 HILDA Survey and describe tenure profiles based on hypothetical declines of 5 and 15 percentage points in home ownership rates by 2031, as well as a stagnant stock of public housing.

Our findings point to a growing divide among older Australians. For older Australians, home ownership will increasingly become the preserve of higher-income married couples (see table 1). Older people on lower incomes – especially women and those affected by marital breakdown or bereavement – will rent.

The divide is especially stark if the home ownership rate falls by 15 percentage points. In this scenario, 27.4% of people aged 55 and over will be private renters by 2031.

Budget impacts of housing assistance

Older Australians’ demand for housing assistance could spike as a result of population ageing and falling home ownership rates.

Even demographic change on its own would lift real government spending on housing assistance for Australians aged 55 and over by 64% by 2031 (see table 2).

If home ownership rates also decline by 5 percentage points, then real government spending is projected to blow out to three times its 2011 level.

A steep fall in the home ownership rate of 15 percentage points would send real government spending on housing assistance soaring to around six times the 2011 level. That would increase real spending on housing assistance for older Australians from a tiny 0.043% of real GDP in 2011 to 0.16% of forecast real GDP in 2031.

The implications of demographic change coupled with falling home ownership rates are obvious for the housing sector:

• the private rental tenure is set to expand
• demand for housing assistance will grow
• spending on housing assistance programs will increase the strain on government budgets.

Challenges beyond housing policy

There are also important ramifications for retirement incomes policy. The age pension system assumes most Australians will retire as outright home owners with no mortgage payments to meet. They can therefore get by on low age pensions. But growing numbers of older renters struggling to meet rental payments will call into question the adequacy of our age pension benefits.

There is an alternative scenario. By 2031, the superannuation system will have matured. Growing numbers of older renters – especially those with steady employment records – could accumulate big enough balances in defined contribution schemes to become home buyers in later life.

Dipping into superannuation savings to finance a home purchase is attractive on various fronts:

1. it offers the prospect of secure and affordable housing in old age
2. it helps with access to the age pension as owner-occupied housing assets are exempt from the age pension assets test and are not deemed to generate an income return under the income test
3. under aged care assets test rules, the equity stored in what was an aged care client’s family home is either exempt from the assets test (if a spouse or dependent children is still living in the home), or subject to a cap ($165,271.20 as at March 20 2018), and is not assessed for age care deeming purposes.

On the other hand, superannuation balances are an assessable asset under age pension and aged care assets test provisions, as well as for age pension and aged care deeming purposes.

Should growing numbers of Australians approach retirement as renters these anomalies offer them potentially powerful motives to substitute assets away from superannuation and into owner-occupied housing in later life. But, in doing so, they could undermine a key objective of Australia’s superannuation guarantee – that of promoting financial independence and reducing reliance on public pensions in old age.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher Standen, Transport Analyst, University of Sydney

The NSW government has confirmed it will sell 51% of WestConnex — the nation’s biggest road infrastructure project — to a consortium led by Transurban, the nation’s biggest toll road corporation.

NSW treasurer Dominic Perrottet described the A$9.3 billion sale to one of his party’s more generous donors as a “very strong result”.

I would describe it differently: the biggest misuse of public funds for corporate gain in Australia’s history.

Let’s examine how much public funding has been or will be sunk into WestConnex, a 33km toll road linking western Sydney with southwestern Sydney via the inner west.

To date, the NSW and federal governments have provided grants of about $6 billion. Much of this was raised through selling revenue-generating public assets, including NSW’s electricity network.

Hiding privatisation by stealth

As well, the NSW government is bundling three publicly owned motorways into the sale: the M4 (between Parramatta and Homebush), the M5 East and the M5 Southwest (from 2026). Together, Credit Suisse values these public assets at A$9.2 billion. The government is privatising them by stealth. Leaked NSW cabinet documents suggest the Sydney Harbour Bridge will be next.

Then there is the A$1.5 billion bill for property acquisitions and the millions spent on planning, advertising, consultants, lawyers and bankers.

The government is funding extra road works to help prop up WestConnex toll revenue. It will increase the capacity of road corridors feeding into the interchanges. But it will reduce the number of traffic lanes on roads competing with WestConnex, such as Parramatta Road.

Read more: Modelling for major road projects is at odds with driver behaviour

It will also pick up the bill for building a A$2.6 billion airport connection and the complex underground interchange at Rozelle. It will even pay compensation if the latter is not completed on schedule.

To further bolster toll revenue, NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian introduced a vehicle registration cashback scheme for toll-road users.

Her government has also committed to continuing the M5 Southwest toll cashback scheme. The cost of these incentives to the public purse is likely to exceed A$2 billion every ten years.

In total, I estimate the NSW government is pumping more than A$23 billion worth of cash, public assets, enabling works and incentives into WestConnex — though efforts to shield the scheme from public scrutiny mean the figure could be much higher.

Finally, as part of the deal with Transurban, the government has agreed to plough A$5.3 billion of the sale proceeds back into WestConnex. It’s recouping just A$4 billion by selling majority ownership.

This translates to a financial return of 34 cents for every dollar spent.

Of course, governments don’t always spend our money with the intention of making a profit. Usually there are broader social benefits that justify the expenditure. However, past experience shows inner-city motorways do more harm than good — which is why many cities around the world are demolishing them.

Given its proximity to residential areas, WestConnex will have serious impacts on Sydney’s population. Construction is already destroying communities, harming people’s health and disrupting sleep and travel — with years more to come.

Motorists who cannot afford the new tolls on the M4 ($2,300 a year) and M5 East ($3,100 a year) will have to switch to congested suburban roads. This will mean longer journey times — especially with the removal of traffic lanes on Parramatta Road.

Those who do opt to pay the new tolls may enjoy faster journeys for a few years — until the motorways fill up again.

Costs outweigh the benefits

But this benefit will be largely cancelled out by the tolls they have to pay — with low-income households in western Sydney bearing much of the pain. As such, the ultimate beneficiary will be a corporation that pays no company tax and employs very few people.

Traffic and congestion on roads around the interchanges will increase significantly. Moreover, with tolls for trucks three times those for cars, we can expect to see them switching to suburban and residential streets — especially between peak hours and at night.

The extra traffic created by WestConnex will lead to more road trauma, traffic noise and air pollution across the Sydney metropolitan area. With unfiltered smokestacks being built next to homes and schools, more people may be at risk of heart disease, lung disease and cancer in years to come.

Read more: Big road projects don’t really save time or boost productivity

On any measure, the WestConnex sale is not in the public interest. The billions of dollars ploughed into the scheme would have been better spent on worthwhile infrastructure or services that improve people’s lives.

Is the WestConnex acquisition a good deal for Transurban? A$9.3 billion may sound like a high price, given the past financial collapses of other Australian toll roads.

However, with the Berejiklian government agreeing to fund most of the remaining construction, giving away the M4 and M5, guaranteeing annual toll increases of at least 4%, and bending over backwards to force motorists under the toll gantries, it can only be described as a “very strong result” for the consortium, though not for taxpayers.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julie Shiels, Lecturer – School of Art, RMIT University

Review: Perfection, Science Gallery Melbourne.

It would be easy to assume that art and science occupy separate worlds. Art invites us to encounter “things as they are perceived and not as they are known” and relies on subjective experience to confirm value. Science strives to establish knowledge as fact through testing and peer review. Yet sitting at the core of both disciplines is the desire to employ curiosity, creativity, innovation and discovery to examine the world we live in. These intellectual frameworks create bridges between the two disciplines.

The intersection between art and science is the focus of Perfection, the latest pop-up show for the Science Gallery Melbourne. Part exhibition, part experiment it asks: “What does it mean to be perfect?”

Curated by a panel that includes a particle physicist, a computer scientist, a plastic surgeon and a musicologist, Perfection offers a set of reflections, calculations and speculations that engage with ideas about the perfect body, mathematical precision, quantum physics and a post-human world. We are invited to consider the current state of things and to contemplate what might constitute an ideal future.

Read more: Spilling blood in art, a tale of tampons, Trump and taboos

The slippages between art and science, and experiment and exhibition, are an active component of Perfection. Questions that straddle technology and art history are explored by XORXOR’s question: “Is it possible to draw a perfect circle?”

Marcus Volz’s digital animations, Lorenz Attractor and Natalina Cafra, employ complex 3D sculptural forms to visualise mathematical equations relating to atmospheric weather patterns and fractal diversity in molluscs. Reminiscent of late modernism and the idea of a perfect closed self-referencing system, these drawings ask whether art can be maths and maths can be art.

The lab-like conditions of Andy Gracie’s Fish, Plant, Rack v.2 speculate on a future post-human condition where the world goes on without us. In this experiment three systems interact: a blind fish emitting electrical impulses, a robot powered by the fish, and plants living in a hydroponic system. Other works that deal with non-human concerns explore ideas about a “perfect sound” and question whether light has consciousness.

The most prominent experiments in the exhibition, though, relate to the human body, identity and the self.

Throughout history, the body has been an abiding interest for artists — from the earliest forms of bodily adornment through Da Vinci’s concern with anatomy, to contemporary explorations of race, gender and sexuality. Technology takes things to a new level, enabling us to hack, modify and transform our bodies, and to use social media as a platform to manage our identity and present it to the world. As a potential extension of the body, the digital realm provides fertile ground for creative critique and exploration.

Ant Hamlyn’s The Boost Project and Tyler Payne’s Womanhours both address the pressures of social media.

Hamlyn’s six-metre-tall inflatable is a proxy for the body and the ego. Suspended from the ceiling, this giant orb gives form to the flux and fragility of an online presence. Each time it is liked via its hashtag, The Boost Project gets a 30-second burst of air. On a good day it has a substantial presence at the entrance of the gallery, but when it is ignored the orb slowly deflates, its firmness diminishes, and the suspended form takes on a droopy and dejected demeanour.

Payne’s Womanhours demonstrates the oppression of Instagram. In a series of videos, the artist employs her own body to reveal the level of self-correction needed to achieve the perfect self-portrait. She appears to endure an extreme physical and psychological makeover through female cosmetic rituals such as waxing, tanning, bleaching, plucking and shaving. The perfected self is captured for a fleeting moment in the virtual realm and the ritual is repeated all over again.

Self-correction is also the subject of ORLAN’s performance practice and her body is the canvas for experimentation. No need to repeat these rituals; the interventions are permanent. For decades, ORLAN has undergone plastic surgery in order to shape her face to reflect a version of beauty expressed in the Renaissance paintings. Her new brow resembles the Mona Lisa and her chin belongs to Botticelli’s Venus.

In Genetics Gym, Adam Peacock speculates on how genetic technologies could allow us to design our bodies and cognitive dispositions, ramping up the prospects of self-improvement beyond internal and external modification.

Similarly, in Demiurge, Jaden Hastings has accessed her entire gene sequence and used artificial intelligence to analyse potential risks and provide information about what needs to be fixed to achieve a perfect state. In doing so, the artist inserts the machine into the process of human evolution.

Most artists in this exhibition speculate on self-improvement with respect to health, function and beauty, but we might also be driven to modify ourselves through fear. What if the desire to survive a cataclysmic event was the catalyst for reshaping the human form?

Patricia Piccini’s Graham has the perfect body to walk away unscathed from a car crash. Created in collaboration with trauma surgeon Christian Kenfield and the Monash University Accident Research Centre, Graham’s honed and sculpted anatomy will withstand the impact of a 30kph collision. Paradoxically, the unintended consequences of Graham’s modified feet and ankles would appear to make walking very difficult.

Few of us would choose to look like Graham, but he is a metaphor for the lengths we will go to be safe. How far might we go to protect ourselves or our children from threats like terrorism or global warming?

The prospect of hacking, modifying and transforming our bodies presents an unexpected conundrum. Scientific and technological advances inevitably open up an unfettered realm of personal choice when innovations hit the marketplace. But in The Paradox of Choice, economist Barry Schwartz shows that having too many options generates anxiety. It’s hard enough to choose a toothbrush today, let alone make an informed decision about the potential range of future body modifications.

Perfection raises questions about what constitutes a utopian or dystopian future, ethical or unethical practices, a perfect or an imperfect human. The exhibition provides no easy answers but invites us to shift our perception and engage with the world as it is now, and as it might one day become. Be careful what you wish for.

Perfection is showing at Science Gallery Melbourne until November 11 2018.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Dodd, Director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, University of Melbourne

The major question following the sacking of ABC managing director Michelle Guthrie is why? Why did the ABC board move so decisively and why now?

Was it just about tension between her and the corporation chair, Justin Milne, or was it about strategic direction for the national broadcaster?

In this special edition of Media Files, Monash University’s Margaret Simons and former ABC staff-elected director Matt Peacock talk to Matthew Ricketson and Andrew Dodd about what it might mean for the ABC – particularly in the lead up to a federal election.

Read more: Constant attacks on the ABC will come back to haunt the Coalition government

Media Files is produced by a team of journalists and academics who have spent decades working in and reporting on the media industry. It’s about how journalists operate, how media policy is changing, and how commercial manoeuvres and digital disruption are affecting the kinds of media and journalism we consume.

Media Files will be out every month, with occasional off-schedule episodes released when we’ve got fresh analysis we can’t wait to share with you. To make sure you don’t miss an episode, find us and subscribe on Apple Podcasts, in Pocket Casts or wherever you find your podcasts. And while you’re there, please rate and review us – it really helps others to find us.

You can find more podcast episodes from The Conversation here.

Producer: Andy Hazel.

Additional audio

Theme music by Susie Wilkins.

Read more: Media Files: What does the Nine Fairfax merger mean for diversity and quality journalism?

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rick Sarre, Adjunct Professor of Law and Criminal Justice, University of South Australia

The fruit contamination crisis has delivered a devastating blow to the growers of Australia. The crisis is now so big it seems to have reached New Zealand as well.

Producers and consumers have been justifiably outraged that someone, for reasons no one knows or understands, has decided to place sewing needles into packaged strawberries. The question for authorities is how to prevent this.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison was quick off the mark, foreshadowing amendments to legislation to create new offences and to change proof requirements. He also announced plans to increase the penalties for this type of crime: imprisonment for up to 15 years. Morrison said:

That’s how seriously I take this; that’s how seriously our government takes it. That will be an increased penalty for those who engage in this sort of thing.

Two matters arise from these announcements. One requires a legal explanation; the other involves some criminological and political speculation.

The legal issue is the role of the federal government in dealing with criminal laws and setting criminal penalties, matters that are usually the preserve of the states and territories. The power of the federal parliament to legislate is brought about by the fact that goods are bought and sold in trade and commerce, a key plank of the federal parliament’s lawmaking authority.

Read more: Grattan on Friday: Morrison aims to make agility his prime ministerial trademark

To that end, section 380 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act makes illegal any activity that involves the contamination of goods, including food, where there is an intention to cause anxiety, harm or loss.

Attorney-General Christian Porter has foreshadowed a change to the mental element for this crime. No longer will it require proof of a specific intention to cause harm. It will be sufficient for prosecutors to prove reckless indifference that harm might be caused.

Also before the federal parliament is the Espionage and Foreign Interference Bill, which contains new “sabotage” offences that make it a crime to cause damage to Australia’s critical infrastructure.

In light of the fruit contamination crisis, the definitions of “sabotage” and “infrastructure” will be amended to include tampering with goods intended for human consumption, where that tampering is deemed prejudicial to national security.

It is now time for some speculation. Leaving to one side the new offences and the alteration to the intention threshold, which may or may not increase the number of future arrests and conviction rates, can we confidently assume we will all be safer as a result of the increased penalties? The answer is no.

We have known for a long time that deterrence theory is highly speculative. There is little hard evidence that punitive approaches have a consistent deterrent effect.

Indeed, how does one ever know what conduct, and how much conduct, has been deterred by a rise in a penalty? And how do we know whether it was that specific legislative change that caused any recorded drop in crime?

Sentencing specifically for deterrent purposes is equally problematic. Magistrates and judges must sentence a myriad of personalities, in circumstances that change from case to case, to achieve a broad range of often inconsistent sentencing goals (not just deterrence), using a limited range of penalties, and guided by case law and legislation that is often contradictory. It is a tough ask to expect that this exercise alone will achieve a specific deterrent outcome.

Indeed, deterrence theory is premised upon a “free will” view of human motivation. That is, the theory assumes all offenders are rational decision-makers who weigh up the pros and cons of their actions. It is a brave assumption.

Moreover, for the deterrent penalty to be effective, a close relationship has to exist between the severity of the sanction and an offender’s perceived risk of being apprehended and convicted. That relationship rarely exists. So it is fanciful to think that a saboteur will think twice about his or her actions on the strength of penalties being increased from 10 to 15 years.

Read more: Strawberry sabotage: what are copycat crimes and who commits them?

It is also unrealistic to suggest that it is in the public interest to sentence to, say, a dozen years behind bars someone who, for reasons unknown, engages in a “copycat” crime and presents to a police station or media outlet with a contaminated package that they themselves have tampered with.

So there must be something more behind the government’s announcement. There is. It is caught up in what we refer to as “desert” theory. This is the idea that any penalty structure should reflect a relationship between the seriousness of a particular crime and the harshness of the punishment. Desert theory, moreover, demands the imposition of sanctions that are of a nature and sufficient degree of severity to express the public’s abhorrence of the crime for which the penalty was imposed.

Viewed in this light, the government’s announcements make complete sense. But we need to remember that the changes the government has foreshadowed have a far greater likelihood of making political mileage by expressing our collective outrage than of altering the behaviour of an unknown person’s twisted mind.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wayne Petherick, Associate professor of criminology, Bond University

It’s a full Moon on September 25.

If past months have been anything to go by, this will be accompanied by a round of public chat about how this affects human behaviour – claims of more hospital admissions and arrests, to crazy antics in children.

Beliefs in the Moon’s behavioural effects are not new and date back to ancient times. But what evidence is there that the Moon has an impact on behaviour?

As a criminologist, I look at evidence related to arrests and behaviour linked with criminal activity.

The only explanation I can see that links criminology with Moon phases is just about the practicalities of being a criminal: when it’s a full Moon, there’s more light.

Read more: Five reasons India, China and other nations plan to travel to the Moon

While somewhat dated, one of the most significant studies looking at Moon phases and linking this with behaviour is a 1985 meta-analysis – a study of the findings of 37 published and unpublished studies. The paper concludes it is not sound to infer that people behave any more – or less – strangely between Moon phases. The authors write:

Alleged relations between phases of the moon and behavior can be traced to inappropriate analyses […] and a willingness to accept any departure from chance as evidence of a lunar effect.

Two more recent studies have looked at links between criminal activity and phases of the Moon.

A study published in 2009 looked at more than 23,000 cases of aggravated assaults that took place in Germany between 1999 and 2005. The authors found no correlation between battery and the various lunar phases.

A study reported in 2016 was careful to make a distinction between indoor and outdoor crime committed in 13 US states and the District of Columbia in 2014.

The authors found no link between lunar phases and total crime or indoor crime.

But they did find the intensity of moonlight to have a substantive positive effect on outdoor criminal activity. As moon illumination increased, they saw an escalation in criminal activity.

One explanation for this finding is what is referred to as the “illumination hypothesis” – suggesting that criminals like enough light to ply their trade, but not so much as to increase their chance of apprehension.

It may also be that there is greater movement of people during lighter nights, thus providing a bigger pool of victims.

Read more: Confirmation bias: A psychological phenomenon that helps explain why pundits got it wrong

Why do some people still cling to the belief that the Moon causes criminal or other antisocial behaviour? The answer most likely lies in human cognition and our tendency to focus on that which we expect or predict to be true.

During an expected lunar event – such as a full or super Moon – we expect that there will be a change in behaviour so we pay more attention when we see it. In the area of cognitive psychology this is known as confirmation bias.

But other questions remain, including why any behavioural effects must be inherently negative? Even if there was a direct effect, explanations as to why acts of kindness and altruism do not increase or decrease during Moon phases are conspicuously absent.

It is likely that we just assume the folklore is true, and believe that we become the werewolf and not the sheep.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Advancing Journalism, University of Melbourne

Michelle Guthrie’s departure as managing director of the ABC, while a shock, is not surprising.

In the face of sustained pressure from the government and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, she has seemed incapable of mounting a sustained and effective response.

And in this environment of hostility, ABC journalists have felt under siege.

As editor-in-chief – which comes with the managing director’s job – Guthrie was unable to give the kind of robust editorial leadership that journalists need if they are to report fearlessly and independently.

It was clear by the middle of this year that whatever qualities Guthrie brought to the job, editorial leadership was not one of them. Thus the ABC was at a crossroads. It had as its managing director and editor-in-chief a person with no journalistic background who had shown scant signs of understanding the impact of the federal government’s relentless bullying on the ABC’s editorial independence.

Read more: Constant attacks on the ABC will come back to haunt the Coalition government

Then in June, Guthrie gave a speech at the Melbourne Press Club in which she said Australians regard the ABC as a great national institution and deeply resent its being used as “a punching bag by narrow political, commercial or ideological interests”.

It was strong but it came late in the day. By then, the weakness in editorial leadership had filtered down the ranks, so that journalists making everyday decisions on news desks were looking over their shoulders.

One first-hand example makes the point. In May, when Barnaby Joyce accepted money – reportedly $150,000 – to go on Channel Nine with his partner Vikki Campion and talk about their affair, the ABC invited me to write a commentary on the ethics involved.

I wrote that by agreeing to take the money, Joyce had called into question his fitness for public office.

This was too strong for the ABC, and the article did not run. I was told that it was a sensitive time for the ABC’s relations with the government. Instead the article was published by The Conversation and then by The Age and an online newspaper, The Mandarin.

It showed the effect of the water-torture approach the government has taken to the ABC, cheered on by News Corp’s The Australian: grizzles about the work of Emma Alberici as economics editor, most of which turned out to be baseless; grievances about Triple J’s changing the date of its Hottest 100 from Australia Day; more grizzles about Yassmin Abdel-Magied’s comments about Anzac Day.

Strong editors do not sit back and let this happen. Unless there are clear and substantial errors of fact, strong editors stand by their journalists and hit back hard and publicly at unwarranted criticism.

Strong editors also stand up for their journalists’ right to express opinions, when those opinions are based on facts that are substantially true.

And they do this personally, not through bureaucratic complaints processes that dilute the authority of the editor’s voice.

There were signs early on in Guthrie’s tenure that she did not grasp the editorial side of the job.

Having given a keynote address at the New News Conference in Melbourne in October 2016, she took questions from the audience. A man asked her about some ABC story or another, to which she replied that she was not responsible for every story that appeared on the ABC. Well, the fact is that the editor-in-chief is indeed responsible for every story that appears. The journalists in the audience were stunned.

Later, when Guthrie showed up at Senate estimates committee hearings, she would take along Alan Sunderland, who is in charge of editorial policies, to answer questions on the ABC’s journalism. This was simply not good enough. Guthrie was the editor-in-chief. She should have taken the questions – and the heat.

This state of affairs revealed a serious structural weakness in the ABC’s editorial leadership under her control. Sunderland had seemingly become de facto editor-in-chief, but without the ultimate authority. He is a Walkley Award-winning journalist with a strong news background, but highly qualified though he is, it is an untenable position.

Looking ahead, unless the ABC can find someone to combine the functions of managing director and editor-in-chief, as Guthrie’s predecessor Mark Scott did, it would be better to split the jobs.

This is the way good media outlets work. The editor-in-chief answers to the board through the managing director. The board and managing director answer to the shareholders – in the ABC’s case, the government.

The editor-in-chief is thus shielded in a way that enables him or her to make news decisions independent of corporate interests. It is called editorial independence and is the cornerstone of good journalism.

Read more: Why the ABC, and the public that trusts it, must stand firm against threats to its editorial independence

When the editor-in-chief is independent, the spirit of independence filters down to that small army of journalists making everyday decisions. They don’t look over their shoulder.

All that matters is that the stories are worth telling, that the reporting is accurate and fair, that commentaries are based on facts, and that stories are treated on the basis of their news value, and not on other considerations.

The ABC has announced that the acting managing director is David Anderson, who is currently Director, Entertainment and Specialist. This covers “broadcast television networks and associated services, radio music networks, podcasts and specialist radio content”.

Although he has nearly 30 years’ experience with the ABC, he has no background in journalism either, so it looks as if Sunderland will just have to soldier on.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca English, Lecturer in Education, Queensland University of Technology

For most parents, the phrase “I don’t want to brush my teeth” is rather familiar. While it may seem easiest to pry their mouth open and force them to brush, research suggests there are better ways that may positively influence children’s future dental health.

So, what does the literature say you should do to help children brush their teeth?

What is gentle parenting?

Gentle parenting centres around respect for the child. Parents who practise this approach generally avoid artificial or extrinsic rewards or punishments.

These parents try to help their children habituate appropriate, or what we would call “good”, behaviours. The idea is the child should want to do the “right” thing for its own sake, not because it’s accompanied by a reward or because of the threat of a punishment.

Studies suggest this method is effective because children will go on to have superior social skills and fewer behavioural problems. The effect is believed to continue into adulthood.

Contrary to popular belief, this style of parenting does not eschew “consequences”. Rather, consequences are allowed to flow naturally from behaviour. Although, in the case of dental hygiene, we can’t let the natural consequence of not brushing lead to caries. So, what can you do?

Read more: ‘Gentle parenting’ explainer: no rewards, no punishments, no misbehaving kids

When should you start encouraging dental hygiene?

One of the ways to ensure children brush their teeth, without resorting to bribes or punishments, is to start early. Dentists suggest brushing baby’s first teeth when they appear, even wiping gums, may help establish good dental hygiene early.

By starting early with dental care, it will become an established part of life and may cause fewer power struggles.

Does routine help?

Routine is said to be essential in children’s lives. Studies suggest routine can positively impact on children habituating positive behaviours because of the repeated exposure.

Families who provide a loving and consistent structure are more likely to have children who brush their teeth. Studies suggest taking a gamification approach creates an environment of fun around the routine of toothbrushing, creating better long-term oral hygiene.

Read more: How to discipline your children without rewards or punishment

Common areas that cause problems with brushing

One common issue is toothpaste. Children report not liking the taste or it making them feel funny. If your child won’t use toothpaste, but is otherwise OK with brushing, dentists recommend making the paste optional.

There are also many other flavours on the market besides mint, which some children may prefer to use and which may reduce the issue with refusal to brush their teeth.

But changing the toothpaste may not be enough. Studies suggest children’s refusal to brush teeth can create major family dramas, and parents report tooth brushing as a major site of power struggles. But effective behaviour management leads to children with fewer caries and healthy mouths.

Read more: Children’s toothpaste: the facts

Practical measures

When children refuse to brush their teeth, we can employ respectful methods to encourage them to develop good dental hygiene. Dentists report positive parent-child interactions and the use of positive discipline can result in good teeth brushing behaviour.

One example is having a special song that is sung only when the child allows their parent to brush their teeth.

Another strategy is reading stories about teeth brushing so children understand the importance of good dental hygiene.

Some suggest allowing your child to carefully brush your teeth, and then you can have a turn at theirs. This approach gives the child power and allows them to explore their feelings about having their teeth brushed.

Making it a game is another strategy. Perhaps you and your child can have a competition to see who can make the most spit at the end or whether you can count all your teeth as you go. Another option is to let the child start by brushing their toy’s teeth.

Having our children learn to brush their teeth in a calm and gentle way, without threats or rewards, is essential, with one dentist suggesting dental phobia is a problem when children have negative experiences at the dentist because of early childhood caries. Dental phobia is a fear of the dentist that prevents people with dental issues seeking help from a dentist.

These strategies can help children who are resistant to brushing to engage positively with dental hygiene. This approach takes longer than prying their mouths open and forcing them to have their teeth brushed, because you’re asking your child to engage with something they’re resisting. But the value is they will habituate good dental hygiene practices and you can end power struggles over teeth brushing.