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

Political and news cycles often work in a certain and predictable way. Issues flare like bushfires, then rage for weeks or even months, until they are finally extinguished by action or fade by being overtaken by the next big thing.

On two very different fronts this week, we’re reminded how these cycles work.

During the last term, the opposition constantly hammered the government over its handling of the former immigration detainees released after the High Court found they couldn’t be held indefinitely. These included people who had committed murder, child sex offences and violent assaults.

On Sunday, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke admitted in a television interview that the legislation the government passed to re-detain some of these people was, in effect, impossible to use. Burke’s comments attracted only limited attention.

The other reminder of an old story came when the Federal Court ordered a militant Muslim preacher to remove inflammatory lectures from the internet. He had lost a case brought by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry under Section 18C for the Racial Discrimination Act. More than a decade ago, political passions ran high in conservative circles about the alleged evils of 18C.

First to the Burke admission. Burke told Sky he had “a lot of resources” dedicated to trying to get applications to court for preventative detention orders. But “no one has come close to reaching the threshold that is in that legislation”. Burke insisted he was “not giving up”, but there is little reason to believe things will change. The opposition has suggested amending the preventative detention legislation, but Burke says that would hit a constitutional obstacle.

For a long time, the government had kept saying it was working up cases to put to the court (and given the impression action was close). But, realising the difficulty, it also passed legislation facilitating the deportation of these people to third countries. There are now three former detainees due to be deported to Nauru, following a financial agreement with that country. But there’s a hitch: their deportations are tied up in court appeals. (They are, however, able to be held in detention while the cases proceed.)

The challenge still presented by the former detainees in the community is no small matter, despite the political storm having calmed and the media interest dissipating.

In evidence in Senate estimates in March, the Department of Home Affairs said 300 people had been released from immigration detention as at the end of February. Of these, 104 had offended since release, and 30 were incarcerated (including on remand). Some 83 had only a state or territory criminal charge; seven only a Migration Act charge; 14 people had both a Migration Act charge and a state or territory charge. In recent weeks, one former detainee is alleged to have murdered a photographer in Melbourne.

The political context can be very relevant to whether the embers of an old issue re-spark into something major.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s decision last year to put Burke into home affairs was something of a political masterstroke. If Clare O’Neil and Andrew Giles had still been in their former respective portfolios of home affairs and immigration, the present failure to deal more successfully with the former detainees would have been a much bigger issue. Burke is skilled at throwing a blanket over contentious areas.

On the other side of politics, James Paterson was moved out of home affairs to become shadow finance minister in Sussan Ley’s reshuffle. Paterson pursued the former immigration detainees relentlessly. The new spokesmen, Andrew Hastie (home affairs) and Paul Scarr (immigration) haven’t hit their strides yet, and what they have said on the issue hasn’t grabbed much attention.

The government would have been under more pressure on the issue if parliament were sitting. But the new parliament doesn’t meet until July 22.

When it does, one of the new arrivals will be a former face, Liberal MP Tim Wilson. Way back when, Wilson was a player in the story of 18C. For him, the way 18C resurfaced this week contains more than a little irony.

In February 2014, Wilson took up his post of Human Rights Commissioner, appointed by the Abbott government with the special brief of promoting freedom of speech. (He was even dubbed the “freedom commissioner”.)

The Abbott government was strongly opposed to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which made it unlawful to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” a person or group because of their race or ethnicity.

The assault on 18C ran into vigorous opposition from ethnic and other groups, including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. In the end, then prime minister Tony Abbott retreated. Wilson was disappointed, tweeting: “Disturbed to hear the government has backed down on 18c and will keep offensive speech illegal. Very disturbed.”

In his 2025 bid for election, Wilson – who had been member for Goldstein from 2016-2022 – was helped by the Jewish vote, after the rise of antisemitism.

The debate about free speech has moved on a great deal since the days of the Abbott government, when conservatives were particularly agitated about 18C following a court judgement against journalist Andrew Bolt relating what he has written about some fair-skinned Indigenous people.

Today’s debate is in the context of “hate speech” associated with the Middle East conflict. Hate-crime laws have provoked another fierce round of controversy about the appropriate limits to put on “free speech”.

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry brought its case under the 18C civil law against preacher William Haddad, from Western Sydney, after no action was taken by the authorities under the criminal law.

Haddad described Jews as “a treacherous people, a vile people”, among other offensive remarks, that included saying: “The majority of banks are owned by the Jews, who are happy to give people loans, knowing that it’s almost impossible to pay it back”. Haddad argued in his defence his lectures drew on religious writings, relating them to contemporary events, and were delivered for educational purposes.

Finding against Haddad, Judge Angus Stewart said the lectures conveyed “disparaging imputations about Jewish people and that in all the circumstances were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate Jews in Australia”.

Reflecting on this week’s decision, George Brandis – who was attorney-general during the 18C furore – says, “My view hasn’t changed. It should not in a free country be either criminally or civilly actionable to say something that merely offends. However, in this case the conduct went far beyond mere offence, to intimidation. It did not require 18C to get the redress that was sought in the case.”

Wilson does not wish to re-enter the debate. The new opposition industrial relations spokesman says his focus is “my portfolio responsibilities”.

It’s likely many of those who fought 18C years ago hold to their original view, while having to applaud the judgement made under it this week. That’s another irony.

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. Grattan on Friday: how two once hot-button issues this week barely sparked media and political interest – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-how-two-once-hot-button-issues-this-week-barely-sparked-media-and-political-interest-259686

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin Harper, Lecturer, School of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney

This week, a Melbourne childcare worker was charged over alleged sexual abuse of young children in his care. Families are justifiably appalled and furious – with 1,200 children urged to be tested for a sexually transmitted infection.

This is the latest in a string of serious safety concerns this year alone, exposing systemic issues in our early childhood sector.

Recent investigations have exposed reports of neglect, with inadequate food, unhygienic nappy changes, and physical and sexual abuse at daycare services.

Unfortunately, there are too many incidents to be seen as “one-offs”.

But how widespread are unsafe or abusive practices in Australian childcare centres? The short answer is, we don’t actually know.

The number of ‘serious incidents’ in childcare

The national childcare quality authority reports on the number of “serious incidents” in childcare services.

This includes the death of a child, and serious injury, illness, or trauma requiring urgent medical attention. It also includes a child going missing or unknowingly being locked in or out of the service. But it doesn’t technically include child abuse. Unless, for example, the abuse resulted in a situation where the child required urgent medical attention.

The national childcare quality authority’s data shows there has been a slow but steady increase in the rate of serious incidents in the eight years to 2023–24.

For example, the rate of reported serious incidents in 2023–24 was 148 per 100 approved services. This is higher than the 139 reported in 2022–23, and 124 in 2021–22.

Higher-quality services have been found to have higher rates of reporting for serious incidents. This may be because they have clearer processes, more experienced or qualified educators, or higher ratios of educators to children. We also know larger services tend to report more serious incidents than smaller ones.

For-profit services have been found to have higher breach rates than not-for-profits. A breach is any instance where a regulation or law was not followed.

What about under-reporting?

Some incidents may not even be reported in the first place. Under-reporting could occur unintentionally. For example, the service is unaware of an incident, or educators do not recognise what constitutes a reportable incident, or they are not sure how to report the different kinds of reportable incidents.

But unfortunately, under-reporting may happen intentionally. When a service reports an incident to their state or territory regulatory authority, they may be subject to an investigation and/or heightened scrutiny in future. This could be a deterrent for some services to report incidents.

What about child abuse?

At the moment, if physical or sexual abuse of a child is suspected at a service, incidents and allegations should be reported through a national online portal within seven days.

The federal government has just announced from September 1 this year, the window will come down to 24 hours.

The portal is provided by the national childcare quality authority, but it can be accessed by state and territory regulatory authorities.

But childcare services are also subject to state and territory child protection legislation. The definitions and reporting requirements for different child abuse situations vary across states and territories.

This makes the data messy and difficult to track.

There are other reporting requirements

Services also need to lodge other kinds of notifications relating to children’s health and safety. Examples might include incidents of broken glass in a centre, a severe infection outbreak, a damaged fence, or the presence of someone who was not authorised to be there.

Again, some of these incidents go through a national online portal, whereas others might go to state or territory child protection authorities, departments of education, or departments of health.

As the national quality authority noted in its 2023 report into childcare safety, this means different organisations are collecting information and may not always use the same terminology or reporting timeframes. They don’t necessarily share the information they have.

This lack of coordination also means we do not have consistent national data collection on child abuse and other aspects of child welfare in daycare centres.

What now?

We need a national, consistent approach to collecting and sharing data about safety in all childcare services. This would require a committed collaboration between state and federal agencies.

At the moment, crucial information about what is happening in services is not shared between jurisdictions. Just as we do not have good information about high-risk potential employees (in part, due to issues with the working with children checks system).

Read more:
What are working with children checks? Why aren’t they keeping kids safe at daycare?

But on top of fixing how data is collected and shared, we also need to look at how it is reported in the first place.

All early childhood educators should have child protection training, to increase understanding across the sector. We also need simpler and nationally consistent procedures for services, so it is easier for educators to recognise and report child safety incidents.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, you can call 1800 Respect on 1800 737 732, Lifeline on 131 114, Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800, or Bravehearts (counselling and support for survivors of child sexual abuse) on 1800 272 831.

Erin Harper 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 many serious incidents are happening in Australian childcare centres? We don’t really know – https://theconversation.com/how-many-serious-incidents-are-happening-in-australian-childcare-centres-we-dont-really-know-260410

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nial Wheate, Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University

Side effects from taking too much vitamin B6 – including nerve damage – may be more widespread than we think, Australia’s medicines regulator says.

In an ABC report earlier this week, a spokesperson for the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) says it may have underestimated the extent of the side effects from vitamin B6 supplements.

However, there are proposals to limit sales of high-dose versions due to safety concerns.

A pathologist who runs a clinic that tests vitamin B6 in blood samples from across Australia also appeared on the program. He told the ABC that data from May suggests 4.5% of samples tested had returned results “very likely” indicating nerve damage.

So what are vitamin B6 supplements? How can they be toxic? And which symptoms do you need to watch out for?

What is vitamin B6?

Vitamin B6, also known as pyridoxine, plays an important role in keeping the body healthy. It is involved in the metabolism of proteins, carbohydrates and fats in food. It is also important for the production of neurotransmitters – chemical messengers in the brain that maintain its function and regulate your mood.

Vitamin B6 also supports the immune system by helping to make antibodies, which fight off infections. And it is needed to produce haemoglobin, the protein in red blood cells that carries oxygen around the body.

Some women take a vitamin B6 supplement when pregnant. It is thought this helps reduce the nausea associated with the early stages of pregnancy. Some women also take it to help with premenstrual syndrome.

However, most people don’t need, and won’t benefit from, a vitamin B6 supplement. That’s because you get enough vitamin B6 from your diet through meat, breakfast cereal, fruit and vegetables.

You don’t need much. A dose of 1.3–1.7 milligrams a day is enough for most adults.

Currently, vitamin B6 supplements with a daily dose of 5–200mg can be sold over the counter at health food stores, supermarkets and pharmacies.

Because of safety concerns, the TGA is proposing limiting their sale to pharmacies, and only after consultation with a pharmacist.

Daily doses higher than 200mg already need a doctor’s prescription. So under the proposal that would stay the same.

What happens if you take too much?

If you take too much vitamin B6, in most cases the excess will be excreted in your urine and most people won’t experience side effects. But there is a growing concern about long-time, high-dose use.

A side effect the medical community is worried about is peripheral neuropathy – where there is damage to the nerves outside the brain and spinal cord. This results in pain, numbness or weakness, usually in your hands and feet. We don’t yet know exactly how this happens.

In most reported cases, these symptoms disappear once you stop taking the supplement. But for some people it may take three months to two years before they feel completely better.

There is growing, but sometimes contradictory, evidence that high doses (more than 50mg a day) for extended periods can result in serious side effects.

A study from the 1990s followed 70 patients for five years who took a dose of 100 to 150mg a day. There were no reported cases of neuropathy.

But more recent studies show high rates of side effects.

A 2023 case report provides details of a man who was taking multiple supplements. This resulted in a daily combined 95mg dose of vitamin B6, and he experienced neuropathy.

Another report describes seven cases of neuropathy linked to drinking energy drinks containing vitamin B6.

Reports to the TGA’s database of adverse events notifications (a record of reported side effects) shows 174 cases of neuropathy linked with vitamin B6 use since 2023.

What should I do if I take vitamin B6?

The current advice is that someone who takes a dose of 50mg a day or more, for more than six months, should be monitored by a health-care professional. So if you regularly take vitamin B6 supplements you should discuss continued use with your doctor or pharmacist.

There are three side effects to watch out for, the first two related to neuropathy:

1. numbness or pain in the feet and hands

2. difficulty with balance and coordination as a result of muscle weakness

3. heartburn and nausea.

If you have worrying side effects after taking vitamin B6 supplements, contact your state’s poison information centre on 13 11 26 for advice.

Nial Wheate in the past has received funding from the ACT Cancer Council, Tenovus Scotland, Medical Research Scotland, Scottish Crucible, and the Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance. He is a fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute. Nial is the chief scientific officer of Vaihea Skincare LLC, a director of SetDose Pty Ltd (a medical device company) and was previously a Standards Australia panel member for sunscreen agents. He is a member of the Haleon Australia Pty Ltd Pain Advisory Board. Nial regularly consults to industry on issues to do with medicine risk assessments, manufacturing, design and testing.

Slade Matthews provides scientific evaluations to the Therapeutic Goods Administration as a member of the Therapeutic Goods Assessment and Advisory Panel. Slade serves on the NSW Poisons Advisory Committee for NSW Health as the minister-nominated pharmacologist appointed by the Governor of NSW.

– ref. Too much vitamin B6 can be toxic. 3 symptoms to watch out for – https://theconversation.com/too-much-vitamin-b6-can-be-toxic-3-symptoms-to-watch-out-for-260400

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charlotte Gupta, Senior Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Appleton Institute, HealthWise Research Group, CQUniversity Australia

Have you heard people say eating cheese before bed will cause you to have vivid dreams or nightmares?

It’s a relatively common idea. And this week, a new study has landed this suggestion back in the spotlight.

But is it true? Let’s unpack the evidence.

A gouda night’s sleep?

Canadian researchers recently investigated this idea in a sample of 1,082 undergraduate psychology students. The students completed a survey, which included questions about how they perceived their diet influenced their sleep and dreams.

Some 40% of participants reported certain foods impacted their sleep, with 25% of the whole sample claiming certain foods worsened their sleep, and 20% reporting certain foods improved their sleep.

Only 5.5% of respondents believed what they ate affected the nature of their dreams. But many of these people thought sweets or dairy products (such as cheese) made their dreams more strange or disturbing and worsened their sleep.

In contrast, participants reported fruits, vegetables and herbal teas led to better sleep.

This study used self-reporting, meaning the results rely on the participants recalling and reporting information about their sleep and dreams accurately. This could have affected the results.

It’s also possible participants were already familiar with the notion that cheese causes nightmares, especially given they were psychology students, many of whom may have studied sleep and dreaming.

This awareness could have made them more likely to notice or perceive their sleep was disrupted after eating dairy. In other words, the idea cheese leads to nightmares may have acted like a self-fulfilling prophecy and results may overestimate the actual likelihood of strange dreams.

Nonetheless, these findings show some people perceive a connection between what they eat and how they dream.

While there’s no evidence to prove cheese causes nightmares, there is evidence that does explain a link.

The science behind cheese and nightmares

Humans are diurnal creatures, meaning our body is primed to be asleep at night and awake during the day. Eating cheese before bed means we’re challenging the body with food at a time when it really doesn’t want to be eating.

At night, our physiological systems are not primed to digest food. For example, it takes longer for food to move through our digestive tract at night compared with during the day.

If we eat close to going to sleep, our body has to process and digest the food while we’re sleeping. This is a bit like running through mud – we can do it, but it’s slow and inefficient.

Cheese can be particularly challenging to digest at night because of high concentrations of fat and protein, which slows down our digestion.

If your body is processing and digesting food instead of focusing all its resources on sleep, this can affect your shut-eye. Research has shown eating close to bedtime reduces our sleep quality, particularly our time spent in rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, which is the stage of sleep associated with vivid dreams.

People will have an even harder time digesting cheese at night if they’re lactose intolerant, which might mean they experience even greater impacts on their sleep. This follows what the Canadian researchers found in their study, with lactose intolerant participants reporting poorer sleep quality and more nightmares.

It’s important to note we might actually have vivid dreams or nightmares every night – what could change is whether we’re aware of the dreams and can remember them when we wake up.

Poor sleep quality often means we wake up more during the night. If we wake up during REM sleep, research shows we’re more likely to report vivid dreams or nightmares that we mightn’t even remember if we hadn’t woken up during them.

This is very relevant for the cheese and nightmares question. Put simply, eating before bed impacts our sleep quality, so we’re more likely to wake up during our nightmares and remember them.

Can I still have brie before bedtime?

Don’t panic – I’m not here to tell you to give up your cheesy evenings. But what we eat before bed can make a real difference to how well we sleep, so timing matters.

General sleep hygiene guidelines suggest avoiding meals at least two hours before bed. So even if you’re eating a very cheese-heavy meal, you have a window of time before bed to digest the meal and drift off to a nice peaceful sleep.

How about other dairy products?

Cheese isn’t the only dairy product which may influence our sleep. Most of us have heard about the benefits of having a warm glass of milk before bed.

Milk can be easier to digest than cheese. In fact, milk is a good choice in the evening, as it contains tryptophan, an amino acid that helps promote sleep.

Nonetheless, we still don’t want to be challenging our body with too much dairy before bed. Participants in the Canadian study did report nightmares after dairy, and milk close to bed might have contributed to this.

While it’s wise to steer clear of food (especially cheese) in the two hours before lights out, there’s no need to avoid cheese altogether. Enjoy that cheesy pasta or cheese board, just give your body time to digest before heading off to sleep. If you’re having a late night cheese craving, opt for something small. Your sleep (and your dreams) will thank you.

Charlotte Gupta 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. Does eating cheese before bed really give you nightmares? Here’s what the science says – https://theconversation.com/does-eating-cheese-before-bed-really-give-you-nightmares-heres-what-the-science-says-260205

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Omid Ghasemi, Research Associate in Behavioural Science at the Institute for Climate Risk & Response, UNSW Sydney

Climate change has made extreme weather events such as bushfires and floods more frequent and more likely in recent years, and the trend is expected to continue. These events have led to human and animal deaths, harmed physical and mental health, and damaged properties and infrastructure.

Will firsthand experience of these events change how people think and act about climate change, making it seem immediate and local rather than a distant or future problem?

Research so far has offered a mixed picture. Some studies suggest going through extreme weather can make people more likely to believe in climate change, worry about it, support climate policies, and vote for Green parties. But other studies have found no such effects on people’s beliefs, concern, or behaviour.

New research led by Viktoria Cologna at ETH Zurich in Switzerland may help to explain what’s going on. Using data from around the world, the study suggests simple exposure to extreme weather events does not affect people’s view of climate action – but linking those events to climate change can make a big difference.

Global opinion, global weather

The new study, published in Nature Climate Change, looked at the question of extreme weather and climate opinion using two global datasets.

The first is the Trust in Science and Science-related Populism (TISP) survey, which includes responses from more than 70,000 people in 68 countries. It measures public support for climate policies and the extent that people think climate change is behind increases in extreme weather.

The second dataset estimates how much of each country’s population has been affected each year by events such as droughts, floods, heatwaves and storms. These estimates are based on detailed models and historical climate records.

Public support for climate policies

The survey measured public support for climate policy by asking people how much they supported five specific actions to cut carbon emissions. These included raising carbon taxes, improving public transport, using more renewable energy, protecting forests and land, and taxing carbon-heavy foods.

Responses ranged from 1 (not at all) to 3 (very much). On average, support was fairly strong, with an average rating of 2.37 across the five policies. Support was especially high in parts of South Asia, Africa, the Americas and Oceania, but lower in countries such as Russia, Czechia and Ethiopia.

Exposure to extreme weather events

The study found most people around the world have experienced heatwaves and heavy rainfall in recent decades. Wildfires affected fewer people in many European and North American countries, but were more common in parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Cyclones mostly impacted North America and Asia, while droughts affected large populations in Asia, Latin America and Africa. River flooding was widespread across most regions, except Oceania.

Do people in countries with higher exposure to extreme weather events show greater support for climate policies? This study found they don’t.

In most cases, living in a country where more people are exposed to disasters was not reflected in stronger support for climate action.

Wildfires were the only exception. Countries with more wildfire exposure showed slightly higher support, but this link disappeared once factors such as land size and overall climate belief were considered.

In short, just experiencing more disasters does not seem to translate into increased support for mitigation efforts.

Seeing the link between weather and climate change

In the global survey, people were asked how much they think climate change has increased the impact of extreme weather over recent decades. On average, responses were moderately high (3.8 out of 5) suggesting that many people do link recent weather events to climate change.

Such an attribution was especially strong in Latin America, but lower in parts of Africa (such as Congo and Ethiopia) and Northern Europe (such as Finland and Norway).

Crucially, people who more strongly believed climate change had worsened these events were also more likely to support climate policies. In fact, this belief mattered more for policy support than whether they had actually experienced the events firsthand.

What does this study tell us?

While public support for climate policies is relatively high around the world, even more support is needed to introduce stronger, more ambitious measures. It might seem reasonable to expect that feeling the effects of climate change would push people to act, but this study suggests that doesn’t always happen.

Prior research shows less dramatic and chronic events like rainfall or temperature anomalies have less influence on public views than more acute hazards like floods or bushfires. Even then, the influence on beliefs and behaviour tends to be slow and limited.

This study shows climate impacts alone may not change minds. However, it also highlights what may affect public thinking: helping people recognise the link between climate change and extreme weather events.

In countries such as Australia, climate change makes up only about 1% of media coverage. What’s more, most of the coverage focuses on social or political aspects rather than scientific, ecological, or economic impacts.

Many stories about disasters linked to climate change also fail to mention the link, or indeed mention climate change at all. Making these connections clearer may encourage stronger public support for climate action.

Omid Ghasemi receives funding from the Australian Academy of Science. He was a member of the TISP consortium and a co-author of the dataset used in this study.

– ref. Experiencing extreme weather and disasters is not enough to change views on climate action, study shows – https://theconversation.com/experiencing-extreme-weather-and-disasters-is-not-enough-to-change-views-on-climate-action-study-shows-260308

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Kerry, Lecturer in Sociology, Charles Darwin University

Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, turns 90 this week – a milestone that’s reigniting speculation over his eventual successor.

While the Dalai Lama is the face of Buddhism to many people across the world, he is actually the head of just one tradition within Tibetan Buddhism known as the Gelug school.

Tibetans believe the Dalai Lama to be the manifestation of Avalokiteśvara, the bodhisattva of compassion, and the “one who hears the cries of the world”.

Read more:
What is a bodhisattva? A scholar of Buddhism explains

Avalokiteśvara is prayed to across Asia, and is known as Chenrezig in Tibet, Guanyin in China, and Kannon or Kanzeon in Japan.

In Buddhism, a bodhisattva is a person, or a mythic representation of a person, who denies themselves enlightenment until all beings can achieve enlightenment. Avalokiteśvara appears to living beings in whatever form could best save them.

Although Avalokiteśvara originated in India as a man, they can be depicted as either a man, woman, or non-binary being. This gender fluidity has led to them being revered as a trans icon in the West.

I have spent the past five years investigating the lives of queer Buddhists in Australia. As part of this research, I have surveyed and interviewed 109 LGBTQIA+ Buddhist Australians.

The words of these individuals, and my own experience as a genderqueer Buddhist person, reveal how the Dalai Lama emerges an an unlikely inspiration for individuals sharing a trans and Buddhist identity.

Letting go of binaries

Through my work I have found LGBTQIA+ Buddhist Australians are generally reluctant to disclose their queer identities to their Buddhist communities, and may be told to remain silent about their identities.

For some, Avalokiteśvara’s gender fluidity has been important for reaffirming both their queer and Buddhist selves.

One Buddhist trans woman, Annie*, told me Guanyin had special significance for her. Annie spoke about Avalokiteśvara travelling from India to China as a male, before “transitioning” to the mainly female presentation of Guanyin over centuries. Annie said:

I pray to her regularly and often find I get a response. Of course the enlightened state is beyond all manner of worldly binaries, including gender, and is immensely important in letting go of binaries in my journey towards enlightenment.

Walter* has had a long fascination with depictions of Avalokiteśvara that “showed ‘him’ looking effeminate and handsome, with a cute moustache […] A little bit homoerotic, a little bit provocatively gender fluid, as seen through my eyes”.

Walter adds:

A great many people in different cultures, across history, worship these figures. Clever how this figure can morph into a radical trans! We all want to feel comforted, safe and saved from suffering.

As queer Buddhists, we turn to to Avalokitesvara to feel “comforted, safe and saved”.

Another interviewee, Brian*, told me about a Tibetan invocation practice he did with a senior Tibetan monk, in which he encountered Guanyin:

[She] took my right hand and passed some sort of power into it. She never spoke to me but just returned the way she had come. I was given some sort of gift, that’s all I know.

Since this experience, Brian has “always felt a strong connection to the feminine through her”. He has a special Guanyin altar on his farm.

You can’t be what you can’t see

Some Buddhists deny Avalokiteśvara’s queerness.

Asher*, a genderqueer Buddhist I interviewed, told me about a teacher who said to them, “there was absolutely no way a gay person could be enlightened”.

Asher retorted:

What about Kanzeon, the bodhisattva of compassion, who has manifested as both male and female and, in the stories from Japan, has had erotic relationships with monks?

The teacher dismissed this, replying, “those are just stories”.

In her 1996 book Transgender Warriors, trans activist Leslie Feinberg writes: “I couldn’t find myself in history. No one like me seemed to have ever existed.”

Similarly, Annie evoked the statement: “You can’t be what you can’t see.”

I, too, experience this need to see myself as a genderqueer, non-binary practitioner of Zen Buddhism. It was only through doing these interviews with other queer Buddhists that I came to realise Guanyin, a trans icon, is a statuette which adorns the altar of the Buddhist group I belong to.

Knowing Avalokitesvara may be depicted as a man, woman, or non-binary being lets us queer Buddhists know we exist – and have always existed – within Buddhism.

Despite being a cisgender man who has been somewhat inconsistent in his support of queer people, the Dalai Lama, as the manifestation of the bodhisattva of compassion, is a possible spiritual link between today’s queer Buddhists and centuries-long traditions of gender transition and fluidity.

*Names have been changed.

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

– ref. The Dalai Lama is a cisgender man – yet he has an unexpected connection to the trans community – https://theconversation.com/the-dalai-lama-is-a-cisgender-man-yet-he-has-an-unexpected-connection-to-the-trans-community-260106

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Delanie Woodlock, Senior research fellow, UNSW Sydney

Australians are reeling from the news that Victorian childcare worker Joshua Dale Brown has been charged with more than 70 offences against children, including rape.

As 1,200 children await results for sexually transmitted infections, a horror no parent should ever face, media commentary has begun to focus on how this case might have implications for male childcare workers.

Early childhood education is a heavily female-dominated field, and past inquiries into child sexual abuse by male educators have found that, in efforts to avoid appearing discriminatory, male workers are often subject to less scrutiny. This dynamic is compounded by efforts for gender balance in childcare, particularly for the perceived benefits of male role models.

Ironically, this fear of seeming biased can create the very conditions that offenders exploit – grooming colleagues, parents and children to commit abuse while hidden in plain sight.

While it is an uncomfortable fact to confront, research shows men with a sexual interest in children are disproportionately more likely to work with children, including in early education and care. Recent data show that one in 20 men in the Australian community are motivated offenders (individuals who reported both sexual interest in and offending against children). However, they are almost three times more likely to work with children compared to other men.

Unfortunately, systematic data on child sexual abuse in childcare settings are limited. However, existing findings align with the only comprehensive study conducted on this issue, which followed the highly publicised McMartin Preschool trial in the United States.

This study examined cases from 1983 to 1985, and identified 270 daycare centres where 1,639 children were found to have experienced substantiated sexual abuse. Although men made up only about 5% of childcare staff, they were responsible for 60% of the offences. The abuse was often severe, with 93% of victims subjected to some form of penetrative sexual violence.

Those who deliberately pursue employment with children to abuse them are often referred to as “professional perpetrators”. These individuals typically have multiple victims and pose a high risk of repeated harm.

In our current research on serial child sex offenders in childcare settings in Australia and internationally, we identified six cases involving between seven and 87 confirmed victims under the age of five. Five of the offenders were male and one was female. Together, they sexually abused at least 245 children.

There were striking similarities across these cases. Offenders primarily targeted pre-verbal children, evaded detection for long periods, and were only exposed through external investigations, most often related to the possession and distribution of child sexual abuse material.

Much like the details emerging from the case of Joshua Dale Brown in Victoria, none of these offenders was uncovered through internal safeguarding systems.

As is also alleged in the case of Brown, the perpetrators in our case studies were not isolated offenders. They were operating within online communities that normalise and reinforce abusive behaviour and the sharing of child sex abuse material of children who were in their care.

If, as some suggest, male workers are subject to close and sometimes unfair scrutiny, these cases highlight a troubling contradiction. Despite this purported scrutiny, child sexual abuse by male staff can and does occur over extended periods without detection in childcare settings. In fact, evidence from another case suggests staff are often hesitant to raise concerns about male colleagues for fear of being perceived as discriminatory.

It is important to highlight that although women comprise a small minority of child sexual abuse offenders, the reluctance to view women, particularly mothers, as potential perpetrators can also contribute to such abuse going undetected.

There also needs to be greater awareness of how these offenders infiltrate and groom institutions. In the case studies we analysed, offenders were seen as kind and competent workers. They were often friendly with management or held senior positions themselves, and would socialise outside of work with families whose children they cared for. Even when whistleblowers raised an alarm about the offenders, these concerns were often dismissed, with some offenders even being promoted.

While most child sexual abuse occurs within families, institutional abuse is no less serious. Unlike families, institutions that work with children can be effectively regulated, making such abuse entirely preventable through robust and consistently enforced safeguarding measures.

Since children under five may not be developmentally capable of reporting abuse, safeguards must be proactive and preventative. Childcare centres should implement surveillance measures in most areas and observe the “four eyes” rule, requiring at least two adults to be present during nappy changes and other care tasks. A strict no-phone policy could also reduce the risk of image-based offences.

Moreover, we must confront the uncomfortable truth that some men are drawn to work with children because of a sexual interest in them. Truly centring child protection in early education means prioritising children’s safety above profit, reputational concerns, and fears of appearing biased against men. Preventing child sexual abuse in childcare is not only possible, it is a collective responsibility we must all uphold.

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. Childcare sexual abuse is mostly committed by men. Failing to recognise that puts children at risk – https://theconversation.com/childcare-sexual-abuse-is-mostly-committed-by-men-failing-to-recognise-that-puts-children-at-risk-260292

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Freya Higgins-Desbiolles, Adjunct professor and adjunct senior lecturer in tourism management, University of South Australia

A media frenzy erupted over the recent Jeff Bezos “wedding of the century” in Venice.

Also notable were the public protests that showed tensions around tourism, especially mass tourism, are increasing. Leading the action was the activist collective No space for Bezos, which declared:

[This wedding] is at the expense of those who live, work, and study in this city [and who are] already faced with countless difficulties after years of mass tourism.

They complained Venice had been turned into a “private amusement park” for the rich. Locals were fighting for what they describe as a “living Venice”, not a tourism playground.

The backlash against overtourism is sparking protests across several countries. It has even prompted the US State Department to urge travellers to be cautious when heading to Europe this summer.

Growth at all costs

Local residents feel their communities are being reshaped to cater for visitors, and are pushing back against what they call the “touristification” of place.

Touristification describes a situation where locals fear their home towns and cities are being developed, designed and managed to attract and accommodate tourists.

This touristification process benefits commerce and industries that profit from catering to visitors. Everyone else misses out, or is literally pushed out by rising housing costs.

At the heart of this polarising issue are some key questions. Are such places “tourism destinations” or do they belong to the local people who live there? Whose interests should prevail when tourism growth exacerbates tensions?

These issues are being thoroughly investigated, including through a project I am involved in – Chronic Emergencies and Ecosocial Transformations in Touristified Coastal Spaces. Such research is focused on understanding the problems of tourism and co-designing solutions with communities.

Continual growth in tourism is one of the guiding principles the industry promotes. It is this “growth fetish” that is catalysing overtourism and unsustainability. This is when tourism exceeds the local social and ecological carrying capacity of a place.

It means there are simply too many tourists, and the impact is poorly managed.

Aussie hotspots

The dynamics of overtourism are emerging in some Australian locations. This includes popular coastal destinations such as Byron Bay and small towns along the scenic Great Ocean Road.

Some places are overwhelmed by short-term overtourism. This may be the result of mega cruise ship visits or viral postings on social media, such as images of Western Australia’s popular pink lakes.

Byron Bay offers a telling example. It has evolved from a place attractive for alternative lifestyles, to a magnet for social media influencers and the location for the Netflix series Byron Baes.

As a result, Byron Bay is the epitome of overtourism in Australia. Local housing, for instance, is being sacrificed for holiday rentals, facilitated by agencies such as Airbnb.

Not surprisingly, there is growing local resistance to tourism overwhelming the sense of place.

Is Australia in danger of touristification?

If we aren’t careful, popular opposition to mass tourism will continue to grow here in Australia.

But whether we see the European phenomenon of touristification is harder to discern.

It may already be evident when environmental and social regulations are overturned to make development processes more friendly to the tourism industry.

Projects can be fast tracked if they are declared a high-priority “major development”, which allows governments to override restrictive regulations. Anti-red-tape rhetoric is clear in Queensland’s tourism strategy harnessing the growth power of the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Another example of touristification may be when taxpayer-funded events are run for branding presence on a national or international stage rather, than for the benefit of the surrounding community.

For example, the South Australian government found itself in hot water when its tourism commission held a marketing event featuring a Sam Smith concert at d’Arenberg winery. Social media influencers were invited to attend – many from interstate with all expenses paid – but locals weren’t welcome.

It also occurs when public commons are appropriated for tourism purposes, including national parks and protected areas, public spaces and beaches.

Another example – again from South Australia – involves the decision to move the annual LIV Golf tournament to the Adelaide Parklands from 2028. The state government is being accused of a public land grab. The Adelaide community loves these heritage listed parklands and has resisted attempts to co-opt their use for private interests for decades.

Reclaimining a sense of place

Ultimately, in places like Venice, Bali and even in Byron Bay, local communities do not feel heard or empowered by tourism models which are focused on growth.

Their protest actions are designed to ensure their quality of life is not undermined in the process of catering to tourists. It is a struggle for reclaiming places as local people’s homes, rather than as tourist destinations.

While locations can be shared, tourism must be better managed so locals don’t find their homes unrecognisable – or even worse, find themselves displaced.

Freya Higgins-Desbiolles is a collaborator on a project led by colleagues at the University of the Balearic Islands entitled ‘Chronic Emergencies and Ecosocial Transformations in Touristified Coastal Spaces’. This article is part of the R+D+i PID2022-137648OB-C21 financed by MICIU/AEI/ 10.13039/501100011033 and by “ERDF, EU”.

– ref. Overtourism is reshaping communities in Europe – could Australia be next? – https://theconversation.com/overtourism-is-reshaping-communities-in-europe-could-australia-be-next-260173

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elizabeth Westrupp, Associate Professor in Psychology, Deakin University

Hearing about child abuse in trusted places such as childcare centres is every parent’s worst nightmare.

So, how can we talk to our kids about it and help them stay safe?

While it’s not always possible to prevent abuse – and it’s never the victim’s responsibility – there are practical, age-appropriate ways to help children trust their instincts and feel confident to speak up.

These conversations don’t have to be frightening. They’re about teaching kids body safety, boundaries and trust in a calm, shame-free way.

Here’s what parents and carers can do right now and some resources that might help.

Use real names for body parts

Many of us grew up in families where private parts were given nicknames or not mentioned at all. Basic body functions were treated as embarrassing or joked about. But when we flinch or make jokes, we teach our children these topics shouldn’t be spoken about.

Instead, we need to speak about bodies in a clear, matter-of-fact way.

Research shows one of the simplest and most effective protective factors for children is teaching them correct names for their genitals – penis, vulva, vagina, anus, bottom – without shame or secrecy.

Using the right words gives children the language to ask questions and tell a trusted adult if something feels wrong.

We can use everyday moments, such as bath time or getting dressed, to weave these words in. While your child is in the bath you might say: “Have you cleaned your vulva/penis? This is your special area and it’s up to you to look after it.”

It’s also important to explain, in simple terms, that some things are just for adults. This isn’t about making the topic scary, but about setting safe boundaries: “Sex is for grown-ups. It’s not for children, and it’s never OK for an adult or another child to involve you in anything like that.”

If you’re unsure how to begin, children’s books about bodies and private parts can help start the conversation. Here are some of my favourites, for toddlers up to late primary school:

• My Underpants Rule (for toddlers and preschoolers)

• The Amazing True Story of How Babies Are Made (for toddlers and preschoolers)

• Respect, Consent, Boundaries and Being in Charge of You (for primary school children)

• Welcome to Consent (for primary school children)

• Let’s Talk About Body Boundaries Consent & Respect (for preschoolers and primary school children)

• Welcome to Your Period (for pre-adolescent children).

Respect their ‘no’

Children are often taught to be polite and do as they’re told. While manners matter, this can sometimes teach children not to trust their own instincts.

It’s vital for children to know they are in charge of their own bodies: they get to decide what happens to them.

This means they never have to hug, kiss or touch anyone if they don’t want to, not even close family members. As parents, this can feel socially awkward. But we can help by offering alternatives, such as high five, a wave or just saying hello.

When we respect children saying “no” to safe adults, we reinforce that their boundaries matter and they always have a right to speak up.

Trusting our children helps them learn to trust themselves.

Encourage them to listen to their in-built sense when something isn’t right – an “uh-oh” feeling in their tummy. Let them know: “If someone ever makes you feel weird or yucky inside, you can always tell me, even if someone tells you not to. I’ll always listen and believe you.”

This helps build the confidence to speak up if something doesn’t feel right, whether it’s with another child on a play date, an adult at school, or even a date when they’re older.

Most importantly, it sends the message that adults will listen, believe and protect them.

Secrets vs surprises

From a young age, children can understand safe grown-ups don’t ask them to keep secrets.

It’s helpful to explain the difference between a secret and a surprise.

Surprises are fun and temporary, like hiding a birthday present, and are always revealed.

Secrets are about hiding something for a long time, and can make people feel scared or sad. You might say: “You can tell me anything. You won’t get in trouble, even if an adult says it’s a secret.”

How to listen and what to look for

Sometimes children can’t find the words or feel too scared to speak up. They might not fully understand what happened until they’re older.

One of the most protective things you can do is remind your child it’s never too late to tell you if something’s worrying them. If they raise something from the past, stay calm, listen and thank them for trusting you.

If your child ever discloses something distressing:

• take a deep breath before you respond

• let them know you believe them

• avoid asking lots of detailed questions and just listen.

Seek professional help if needed. This might mean talking to your GP, calling a child protection helpline or speaking to a trusted mental health professional.

Not all children will disclose abuse directly. Look for sudden changes in behaviouror language that seems too mature, fear of certain people or places, regression such as bedwetting or nightmares.

These signs don’t automatically mean abuse has occurred. But they are cues to gently check in, ask open questions and get help if needed.

You don’t have to do this perfectly. Small conversations, repeated over time, help protect children and show them you’re always there to listen.

If this story has raised any issues for you, please contact one of the services below:

• 1800RESPECT, national counselling helpline: 1800 737 732
• Bravehearts, counselling and support for survivors of child sexual abuse: 1800 272 831
• Australian Childhood Foundation, counselling provider: 1800 991 099
• Lifeline, 24-hour crisis support and suicide prevention: 13 11 14
• Care Leavers Australia Network: 1800 008 774
• PartnerSPEAK, peer support for non-offending partners: (03) 9018 7872.

Elizabeth Westrupp receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council. She is affiliated with the Parenting and Family Research Alliance, Editor-in-Chief of Mental Health & Prevention, and is a registered clinical psychologist.

– ref. How should I talk to my kids about abuse and body safety? – https://theconversation.com/how-should-i-talk-to-my-kids-about-abuse-and-body-safety-260309

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samuel Cairnduff, Lecturer in Media and Communications, The University of Melbourne

The reinstatement of artist Khaled Sabsabi and curator Michael Dagostino as Australia’s representatives for the 2026 Venice Biennale closes a bruising recent cultural episode and exposes the fragility of the systems meant to protect artistic freedom in Australia.

An independent review released this week confirms this was not simply a communications misstep.

It was a full-scale institutional failure inside Australia’s peak cultural agency, Creative Australia, marked by poor risk management, inadequate escalation protocols, and a fundamental confusion about how to respond when artistic expression meets political controversy.

What triggered the collapse

The crisis began in February, just six days after Sabsabi and Dagostino were announced as Australia’s representatives.

In a sudden reversal, Creative Australia’s board rescinded their appointment.

At the centre of the backlash were two of Sabsabi’s earlier works – one referencing Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, the other depicting a view of the Twin Towers on 9/11.

Coalition senator Claire Chandler raised the issue in Parliament. That evening the board held an emergency meeting. The artists were removed, with Creative Australia citing concerns about “a prolonged and divisive debate” that posed “an unacceptable risk to public support for Australia’s artistic community”.

The decision triggered resignations, protests and widespread condemnation.

Mikala Tai, Head of Visual Arts, and program manager Tahmina Maskinyar both resigned. Artist and board member Lindy Lee stepped down. Major donor Simon Mordant withdrew support, calling the move “unprecedented”. More than 4,300 people signed petitions demanding reinstatement.

In May, chair Robert Morgan resigned from the board, after telling a February senate hearing he would not step down.

What the review found

This week’s review, conducted by governance consultancy Blackhall & Pearl, offers a damning but restrained post-mortem.

It finds no evidence of political interference but reveals Creative Australia lacked basic tools to respond to controversy.

The agency lacked formal risk assessment processes, a crisis plan, and a clear mechanism for escalating or containing reputational issues.

More troublingly, the report found the board and staff misunderstood risk itself, believing that identifying risks meant avoiding them.

In other words, Creative Australia treated controversy as something to flee, not manage. The result was paralysis and ultimately capitulation.

A fragile funding model

The episode also exposes the fragility of Australia’s arms-length funding model. As cultural policy expert Jo Caust has noted, this model relies on two key elements: peer review and operational independence from political direction. Both were tested by these events.

Read more:
Creative Australia’s decisions should be peer reviewed and at arm’s length. Where did things go wrong?

Arts Minister Tony Burke’s public expression of “shock” at Sabsabi’s appointment and his suggestion he should have been briefed sent a troubling signal about government oversight.

In a message released with the review, Creative Australia CEO Adrian Collette acknowledged the damage done:

The decision the Board took in February has weighed heavily on many people, most particularly the artistic team – and for that we are sorry […] We are also sorry that this has caused concern and uncertainty for many in the broader arts community and we are committed to rebuilding trust in our processes for the commissioning of the Venice Biennale.

What must change

The report makes nine recommendations, including clearer governance frameworks, stronger risk protocols and better board training. But the deeper issue is cultural.

Institutions must find the courage to support artists under pressure, not retreat.

This means rejecting the false binary between risk management and artistic freedom. Effective risk planning should equip institutions to defend challenging work, not discourage it.

It also requires cultural leaders to accept that controversy is not a failure to be avoided, but often a by-product of meaningful expression.

A global warning

The sector has been here before. The 2015 “Brandis affair”, when then-arts minister George Brandis redirected A$105 million from the Australia Council (predecessor to Creative Australia) into a minister-controlled fund, sparked similar alarm about political influence.

But this crisis is more revealing. The pressure came not through overt interference but through internal uncertainty and a lack of institutional resolve.

Globally, cultural institutions face similar strains. Book bans in the United States, museum purges in Hungary, and artistic blacklists in Russia all point to a global narrowing of space for free expression.

What happened here is not the same, but it warns that institutions can fail without censorship, simply by lacking the will to stand firm.

A turning point – or not?

Sabsabi and Dagostino’s reinstatement is not just a symbolic correction. It is a test.

Can Creative Australia rebuild trust with a community that saw it falter? Will future risk processes be used to support bold programming or suppress it? And will this moment mark the beginning of a stronger, more principled approach to cultural leadership, or a drift into safer, smaller territory?

As Sabsabi and Dagostino prepare for Venice, they carry more than artistic hopes. They carry a test of whether this moment marks a turning point in Australian cultural governance.

Their reinstatement is not simply a symbolic reversal. It is a chance to restore trust and demonstrate that institutions can learn from failure.

Whether this becomes a real shift or missed opportunity depends not only on Creative Australia, but on whether institutions across the country defend artistic integrity and rebuild the leadership culture this moment demands.

Samuel Cairnduff 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. Creative Australia’s backflip on Venice Biennale representatives exposes deep governance failures – https://theconversation.com/creative-australias-backflip-on-venice-biennale-representatives-exposes-deep-governance-failures-260402

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elizabeth Leane, Professor of Antarctic Studies, School of Humanities, University of Tasmania

Ice loss in Antarctica and its impact on the planet – sea level rise, changes to ocean currents and disturbance of wildlife and food webs – has been in the news a lot lately. All of these threats were likely on the minds of the delegates to the annual Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, which finishes up today in Milan, Italy.

This meeting is where decisions are made about the continent’s future. These decisions rely on evidence from scientific research. Moreover, only countries that produce significant Antarctic research – as well as being parties to the treaty – get to have a final say in these decisions.

Our new report – published as a preprint through the University of the Arctic – shows the rate of research on the Antarctic and Southern Ocean is falling at exactly the time when it should be increasing. Moreover, research leadership is changing, with China taking the lead for the first time.

This points to a dangerous disinvestment in Antarctic research just when it is needed, alongside a changing of the guard in national influence. Antarctica and the research done there are key to everyone’s future, so it’s vital to understand what this change might lead to.

Why is Antarctic research so important?

With the Antarctic region rapidly warming, its ice shelves destabilising and sea ice shrinking, understanding the South Polar environment is more crucial than ever.

Ice loss in Antarctica not only contributes to sea level rise, but impacts wildlife habitats and local food chains. It also changes the dynamics of ocean currents, which could interfere with global food webs, including international fisheries that supply a growing amount of food.

Research to understand these impacts is vital. First, knowing the impact of our actions – particularly carbon emissions – gives us an increased drive to make changes and lobby governments to do so.

Second, even when changes are already locked in, to prepare ourselves we need to know what these changes will look like.

And third, we need to understand the threats to the Antarctic and Southern Ocean environment to govern it properly. This is where the treaty comes in.

What is the Antarctic Treaty?

The region below 60 degrees south is governed by the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, along with subsequent agreements. Together they are known as the Antarctic Treaty System.

Fifty-eight countries are parties to the treaty, but only 29 of them – called consultative parties – can make binding decisions about the region. They comprise the 12 original signatories from 1959, along with 17 more recent signatory nations that produce substantial scientific research relating to Antarctica.

This makes research a key part of a nation’s influence over what happens in Antarctica.

For most of its history, the Antarctic Treaty System has functioned remarkably well. It maintained peace in the region during the Cold War, facilitated scientific cooperation, and put arguments about territorial claims on indefinite hold. It indefinitely forbade mining, and managed fisheries.

Lately, however, there has been growing dysfunction in the treaty system.

Environmental protections that might seem obvious – such as marine protected areas and special protections for threatened emperor penguins – have stalled.

Because decisions are made by consensus, any country can effectively block progress. Russia and China – both long-term actors in the system – have been at the centre of the impasse.

Read more:
Antarctic summer sea ice is at record lows. Here’s how it will harm the planet – and us

What did our report find?

Tracking the amount of Antarctic research being done tells us whether nations as a whole are investing enough in understanding the region and its global impact.

It also tells us which nations are investing the most and are therefore likely to have substantial influence.

Our new report examined the number of papers published on Antarctic and Southern Ocean topics from 2016 to 2024, using the Scopus database. We also looked at other factors, such as the countries affiliated with each paper.

The results show five significant changes are happening in the world of Antarctic research.

• The number of Antarctic and Southern Ocean publications peaked in 2021 and then fell slightly yearly through to 2024.
• While the United States has for decades been the leader in Antarctic research, China overtook them in 2022.
• If we look only at the high-quality publications (those published in the best 25% of journals) China still took over the US, in 2024.
• Of the top six countries in overall publications (China, the US, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany and Russia) all except China have declined in publication numbers since 2016.
• Although collaboration in publications is higher for Antarctic research than in non-Antarctic fields, Russia, India and China have anomalously low rates of co-authorship compared with many other signatory countries.

Why is this research decline a problem?

A recent parliamentary inquiry in Australia emphasised the need for funding certainty. In the UK, a House of Commons committee report considered it “imperative for the UK to significantly expand its research efforts in Antarctica”, in particular in relation to sea level rise.

US commentators have pointed to the inadequacy of the country’s icebreaker infrastructure. The Trump administration’s recent cuts to Antarctic funding are only likely to exacerbate the situation. Meanwhile China has built a fifth station in Antarctica and announced plans for a sixth.

Given the nation’s population and global influence, China’s leadership in Antarctic research is not surprising. If China were to take a lead in Antarctic environmental protection that matched its scientific heft, its move to lead position in the research ranks could be positive. Stronger multi-country collaboration in research could also strengthen overall cooperation.

But the overall drop in global Antarctic research investment is a problem however you look at it. We ignore it at our peril.

Elizabeth Leane receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Dutch Research Council, the Council on Australian and Latin American Relations DFAT and HX (Hurtigruten Expeditions). She has received in-kind support from Hurtigruten Expeditions in the recent past. The University of Tasmania is a member of the UArctic, which has provided support for this project.

Keith Larson is affiliated with the UArctic and European Polar Board. The UArctic paid for the development and publication of this report. The UArctic Thematic Network on Research Analytics and Bibliometrics conducted the analysis and developed the report. The Arctic Centre at Umeå University provided in-kind support for staff time on the report.

– ref. Antarctic research is in decline, and the timing couldn’t be worse – https://theconversation.com/antarctic-research-is-in-decline-and-the-timing-couldnt-be-worse-260197

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Giles Gunesekera, PhD Researcher, University of Technology Sydney

Australia is experiencing a housing crisis. But for many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the challenge runs deeper than high rents and limited supply. A major problem is that housing in Australia is rarely designed with Indigenous communities in mind.

In 2021, roughly 13% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander households faced unmet housing needs. This equated to around 45,700 low-income Indigenous households lacking suitable accommodation.

Overcrowding remains a significant issue, with only 81.4% of Indigenous Australians living in appropriately sized housing in 2021, falling short of the 88% target set for 2031 under Closing The Gap.

Cultural obligations, such as caring for extended family and accommodating kinship networks, are often at odds with standard tenancy agreements that limit guest numbers and occupancy terms.

These mismatches contribute to stress, overcrowding and, in some cases, eviction.

Housing that works

Housing is often described as a human right. In reality, housing policy is shaped by market forces, supply targets and regulatory compliance. While these may meet administrative goals, they frequently fail to reflect the cultural, social and emotional needs of First Nations people.

But there are programs that work.

Our research examines how community-led, culturally safe housing can support long-term improvements in health, stability and inclusion for Indigenous and marginalised communities

One compelling example is the Ngalang Moort Wangkiny project in Western Australia. Led by Aboriginal researchers, this project explored the experiences of Aboriginal families living in social housing. Through yarning circles, tenants shared how housing design and tenancy rules often work against their cultural needs.

Many homes are built for small families and do not accommodate extended kinship networks. Tenancy agreements may limit guests or require the names of all residents.

These arrangements create tension for Aboriginal families who have a strong cultural obligation to care for relatives and host kin. Policies that ignore these responsibilities are stressful and often produce in unsuitable results.

The research demonstrated many of these issues can be avoided through co-design. Aboriginal families who are involved in planning, decision-making and service delivery are more likely to experience positive housing outcomes. They feel a sense of safety, support and community ownership.

With models like these, housing can be a stable foundation, not a point of vulnerability.

The benefits of culturally safe housing extend beyond comfort or cultural fit. Evidence shows strong links between stable housing and improvements in education, employment and health.

People who feel respected and secure in their homes are more likely to access services, remain in school and sustain employment.

Planning with, not planning for

Across Australia, Aboriginal Community-Controlled Organisations (ACCOs) are at the forefront of culturally safe housing.

These organisations are governed by Aboriginal communities and grounded in local knowledge and values. In housing, they provide tenancy support, manage properties, and deliver wraparound services such as mental health care and employment programs.

Some receive government support.

Many of these organisations continue to operate under pressure. Funding is often short-term, rigid and inconsistent, with recent findings showing governments are leaving the financial heavy lifting to under-resourced Aboriginal groups.

But policies are designed remotely with little input from communities. Tenancy frameworks still reflect assumptions based on Western models of home life, which may not align with Indigenous ways of living.

Standard house layouts with separate, enclosed rooms may not support communal living or outdoor gathering spaces that are central to many Indigenous households.

Addressing these gaps requires national policy reform recognising housing as essential social infrastructure. Long-term funding, flexible tenancy arrangements and support for Indigenous-led organisations would all help.

A more inclusive planning system would ensure co-design becomes standard practice rather than the exception.

Doing more to meet goals

We can also draw valuable lessons from international models.

Globally, community land trusts have enabled low-income and racially marginalised communities to secure long-term control of housing and land.

These trusts work by holding land in a nonprofit trust while allowing residents to own or rent homes on it through long-term, renewable leases. This structure removes land from the speculative market, keeps housing costs stable and ensures decisions remain in the hands of the local community.

In Chile, the Half a House model gives families a solid, expandable foundation to grow their homes as their resources allow.

A growing number of Australian policymakers have acknowledged this need for change. The National Agreement on Closing the Gap includes targets for improved housing outcomes and increased community control.

The 2024 Implementation Plan outlines steps toward reducing overcrowding and strengthening Aboriginal-controlled service delivery.

Turning these goals into practice requires sustained effort. Indigenous communities must be seen as partners in decision-making, not simply as service recipients. Their insights and lived experiences should shape every stage of the housing process.

Uniform solutions will not meet diverse local needs. Place-based approaches, developed in collaboration with communities, are essential.

Housing is more than shelter. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, it is a space to practise culture, strengthen kinship, and pass on knowledge. It is where identity is lived and preserved.

Proven models already exist. Communities across Australia are leading the way. What is required now is a policy environment that listens, invests and follows their lead.

Giles Gunesekera OAM works for Global Impact Initiative, an organisation that constructs impact investments with the dual focus of sustainable financial return and measurable, actionable, social impact.

Dr Allan Teale receives funding from UTS.
In 2023, he received a Churchill Fellowship that enabled him to travel to Canada and the United States to study Indigenous community housing. My report can be found at this link: https://www.churchilltrust.com.au/fellow/allan-teale-nsw-2022/

– ref. Homes are more than walls and a roof, especially for Indigenous people. It’s time housing policy reflects that – https://theconversation.com/homes-are-more-than-walls-and-a-roof-especially-for-indigenous-people-its-time-housing-policy-reflects-that-259147

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darla Hatton MacDonald, Professor of Environmental Economics, University of Tasmania

The number of tourists heading to Antarctica has been skyrocketing. From fewer than 8,000 a year about three decades ago, nearly 125,000 tourists flocked to the icy continent in 2023–24. The trend is likely to continue in the long term.

Unchecked tourism growth in Antarctica risks undermining the very environment that draws visitors. This would be bad for operators and tourists. It would also be bad for Antarctica – and the planet.

Over the past two weeks, the nations that decide what human activities are permitted in Antarctica have convened in Italy. The meeting incorporates discussions by a special working group that aims to address tourism issues.

It’s not easy to manage tourist visitors to a continent beyond any one country’s control. So, how do we stop Antarctica being loved to death? The answer may lie in economics.

Future visitor trends

We recently modelled future visitor trends in Antarctica. A conservative scenario shows by 2033–34, visitor numbers could reach around 285,000. Under the least conservative scenario, numbers could reach 450,000 – however, this figure incorporates pent-up demand from COVID shutdowns that will likely diminish.

The vast majority of the Antarctic tourism industry comprises cruise-ship tourism in the Antarctic Peninsula. A small percentage of visitors travel to the Ross Sea region and parts of the continent’s interior.

Antarctic tourism is managed by an international set of agreements together known as the Antarctic Treaty System, as well as the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO).

The Treaty System is notoriously slow-moving and riven by geopolitics, and IAATO does not have the power to cap visitor numbers.

Pressure on a fragile continent

About two-thirds of Antarctic tourists land on the continent. The visitors can threaten fragile ecosystems by:

• compacting soils
• trampling fragile vegetation
• introducing non-native microbes and plant species
• disturbing breeding colonies of birds and seals.

Even when cruise ships don’t dock, they can cause problems such as air, water and noise pollution – as well as anchoring that can damage the seabed.

Then there’s carbon emissions. Each cruise ship traveller to Antarctica typically produces between 3.2 and 4.1 tonnes of carbon, not including travel to the port of departure. This is similar to the carbon emissions an average person produces in a year.

Global warming caused by carbon emissions is damaging Antarctica. At the Peninsula region, glaciers and ice shelves are retreating and sea ice is shrinking, affecting wildlife and vegetation.

Of course, Antarctic tourism represents only a tiny fraction of overall emissions. However, the industry has a moral obligation to protect the place that maintains it. And tourism in Antarctica can compound damage from climate change, tipping delicate ecosystems into decline.

Some operators use hybrid ships and less polluting fuels, and offset emissions to offer carbon-neutral travel.

IAATO has pledged to halve emissions by 2050 – a positive step, but far short of the net-zero targets set by the International Maritime Organization.

Can economics protect Antarctica?

Market-based tools – such as taxes, cap-and-trade schemes and certification – have been used in environmental management around the world. Research shows these tools could also prevent Antarctic tourist numbers from getting out of control.

One option is requiring visitors to pay a tourism tax. This would help raise revenue to support environmental monitoring and enforcement in Antarctica, as well as fund research.

Such a tax already exists in the small South Asian nation of Bhutan, where each tourist pays a tax of US$100 (A$152) a night. But while a tax might deter the budget-conscious, it probably wouldn’t deter high income, experience-driven tourists.

Alternatively, a cap-and-trade system would create a limited number of Antarctica visitor permits for a fixed period. The initial distribution of permits could be among tourism operators or countries, via negotiation, auction or lottery. Unused permits could then be sold, making them quite valuable.

Caps have been successful at managing tourism impacts elsewhere, such as Lord Howe Island, although there are no trades allowed in that system.

Any cap on tourist numbers in Antarctica, and rules for trading, must be based on evidence about what the environment can handle. But there is a lack of precise data on Antarctica’s carrying capacity. And permit allocations amongst the operators and nations would need to be fair and inclusive.

Alternatively, existing industry standards could be augmented with independent schemes certifying particular practices – for example, reducing carbon footprints. This could be backed by robust monitoring and enforcement to avoid greenwashing.

Looking ahead

Given the complexities of Antarctic governance, our research finds that the most workable solution is a combination of these market-based options, alongside other regulatory measures.

So far, parties to the Antarctic treaty have made very few binding rules for the tourism industry. And some market-based levers will be more acceptable to the parties than others. But doing nothing is not a solution.

The authors would like to acknowledge Valeria Senigaglia, Natalie Stoeckl and Jing Tian and the rest of the team for their contributions to the research upon which this article was based.

Darla Hatton MacDonald receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Forest and Wood Innovations Centre, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, and the Soils CRC. She has received in-kind support from Antarctic tour operator HX.

Elizabeth Leane receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Dutch Research Council, and DFAT. She also receives in-kind support and occasional funding from Antarctic tourism operator HX and in-kind support from other tour operators.

– ref. More and more tourists are flocking to Antarctica. Let’s stop it from being loved to death – https://theconversation.com/more-and-more-tourists-are-flocking-to-antarctica-lets-stop-it-from-being-loved-to-death-258294

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Melatos, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Sydney

Australia’s superannuation regulator has written to Australian superannuation funds raising concerns their spending might not be benefiting members.

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority is not just concerned with the type of expenses, but with the corporate governance around their approval, evaluation and reporting.

The letter refers to a “lack of robust governance and oversight of fund expenditure” and funds making “decisions not supported by an expenditure management framework”.

Concern about funds’ spending and governance has grown since construction industry super fund, CBUS, last year admitted it spent A$387,000 of members’ retirement savings on a 40th birthday bash attended by 750 guests.

At the same time the fund was being criticised for its links with the Construction, Forestry, Maritime Employees Union as three of its board members were members. The union was alleged to have been infiltrated by criminal elements.

Protecting members

Since July 1 2021, legislation requires regulated superannuation funds – industry and retail funds, but not self-managed funds – to act in the best financial interests of their members. This is referred to as their “best financial interest duty”.

In the superannuation industry, what economists call the principal-agent problem – in this case, ensuring super fund trustees (agents) protect the financial interests of members (principals) whose retirement savings they manage – is particularly acute.

Compared to public company shareholders, for example, super fund members have little opportunity to monitor and challenge management decisions. This includes spending decisions that affect their super balance. There is no annual general meeting at which members can vote or question their fund’s trustees.

Fund members also cannot rely to the same extent as shareholders on the market to optimise the performance of management. The threat of takeover and replacement of executives tends to be lower than for publicly listed companies. Apart from switching funds, the regulator’s oversight and enforcement are the main protection for members against trustee maladministration or malfeasance.

There is also a significant public interest in ensuring each super fund meets its financial duty obligations. The squandering of a member’s retirement savings increases the likelihood they will need to rely on the public pension, a cost for all taxpayers.

Can super fund expenses be justified?

It has been reported that spending under the regulator’s microscope includes “sports sponsorships, travel, conferences and other payments to affiliated unions or employer groups”.

Whether or not such expenses are compatible with members’ best financial interests is often difficult to judge. That is why funds are being asked to report and justify expenses more transparently.

For example, a fund’s spending on marketing and travel might be consistent with best financial interest duty if there is scope associated with increased membership and funds under management.

There are significant fixed administration and regulatory costs associated with running a super fund.

Core customer service functions, such as processing death benefit claims, require sensitive (and expensive) handling.

Spreading such costs over more members likely helps reduce fees charged to members and can encourage investment in improved customer service.

Large super funds are increasingly investing in alternative assets such as private equity and taking direct stakes in bespoke projects (such as airport ownership and apartment construction). While such investments can enhance returns, they usually require access to significant financial firepower.

Bigger may not always be better

In short, if size matters, and if, for example, sports sponsorship allows super funds to grow cost-effectively, then marketing and travel expenses may be compatible with best financial interest requirements. That might even include an executive’s travel to the AFL Grand Final to network with potential co-investors.

Neverthless, there may also be disadvantages associated with increased fund size. Larger funds are likely to find it harder to outperform the market and their peers, at least when investing in listed equities. So spending to grow membership may not always be in members’ interests.

Whether super fund payments to affiliated unions or employer groups are justifiable is complicated by legislative requirements. While a fund cannot give benefits to an employer or union, it can give benefits to a firm’s employees or a union’s members. This might include preferential death benefits or financial literacy seminars.

Questionable expenses

Some fund expenses might reflect the pursuit of “private benefits” by super fund executives or trustees. They might, for example, approve questionable investments that burnish their CVs for their next corporate gig. Or they might approve sponsorship of a football team so they can network with potential future employers or business partners at a game.

More innocently, but no less perniciously, the executive remuneration consultants super funds hire may define key performance indicators that are inappropriate for super fund executives (for example, membership growth at all costs).

What can the regulator do?

The superannuation regulator has broad powers to license and supervise superannuation funds to ensure they “keep the financial promises” made to their members.

Ultimately, a fund’s trustees are responsible for ensuring the fund is meeting its financial interests obligations.

One tool at the regulator’s disposal is to seek a court enforceable undertaking from an offending fund. This is a legal promise to address governance and legislative breaches. Failure to deliver can jeopardise a fund’s licence to operate.

Ultimately, the legal burden of proof in any civil legal action to show they have met their best financial interests responsibilities, now lies with the trustees.

Now the Prudential Regulation Authority has put super funds on notice to lift their game.

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

– ref. Australia’s superannuation regulator is worried about your fund’s spending. Should you be? – https://theconversation.com/australias-superannuation-regulator-is-worried-about-your-funds-spending-should-you-be-259881

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brittany Ferdinands, Lecturer in Digital Content Creation, Discipline of Media and Communications, University of Sydney

Emojis, as well as memes and other forms of short-form content, have become central to how we express ourselves and connect online. Yet as meanings shift across different contexts, so too does the potential for misunderstanding.

A senior colleague of mine recently encountered some commentary about the “slightly smiling” face emoji: 🙂

They approached me, asking whether it represented joy, as they had assumed, or if it had a more ominous meaning.

As a chronically-online millennial, who unironically identifies as a gen Z, I bore the news that I, along with most younger internet users, only ever use it sarcastically.

“It doesn’t actually signify happiness – more so fake happiness, or dry humour,” I explained.

I also told them how the thumbs up emoji is often interpreted as passive aggressive, and that the only time I’d use the laughing-crying (“face with tears of joy”) emoji is under duress.

Despite seeming like a universal language – and sometimes they do function that way – emojis can be at once more vague, and more specific, than words. That’s because you can’t separate the meaning of a smiley from the person who sent it, nor from the person receiving it.

Markers of age and identity

While emojis were originally developed in the late 1990s by Japanese artist Shigetaka Kurita to add emotional nuance to text-based messaging, their function has since evolved.

Today, emojis are not just emotional cues; they also operate as cultural symbols and markers of identity.

Research published last year highlights how these symbols can create subtle communication barriers across age groups. For instance, a study of Chinese-speaking WeChat users found younger and older people differed not only in how frequently they used emojis, but in how they interpreted and aesthetically preferred them.

One emoji that’s increasingly becoming a distinct marker of age is the previously mentioned laughing-crying emoji (😂). Despite being named Oxford Dictionary’s 2015 word of the year, and frequently topping the most-used emoji charts, this smiley is on the decline among gen Z – who decided in 2020 that it wasn’t cool anymore.

Instead, they prefer the skull emoji (💀), which is shorthand for the gen Z catch phrase “I’m dead”. This means something is funny (not that they’re literally deceased).

Such shifts may understandably be perplexing for older generations who are unfamiliar with evolving norms and slang.

A digital body language

Emojis can also take on distinct meanings on different platforms. They are embedded within “platform vernaculars”: the ever-evolving styles of communication that are unique to specific digital spaces.

For example, a thumbs up emoji (👍) from your boss at work is seemingly more acceptable, and less anxiety inducing, than from a romantic interest you’ve just sent a risky text to.

This dilemma was echoed in a recent viral TikTok by user @kaitlynghull, which prompted thousands to comment about their shared confusion over emoji use in the workplace.

This reaction highlights a deeper communication issue.

A survey of 10,000 workers across the US, France, Germany, India and Australia, conducted by YouGov and software company Atlassian, found 65% of workers used emojis to convey tone in the workplace. But while 88% of gen Z workers thought emojis were helpful, this dropped to 49% for baby boomers and gen X.

The survey concluded some emojis can be interpreted in multiple ways, and these double meanings aren’t always safe for work.

In with the ‘it’ crowd

Another example of platform-specific emoji use comes from social media content creators who deploy emojis to curate a certain aesthetic.

Under the Tiktok tag #emojicombo, you’ll find thousands of videos showcasing emoji combinations that provide aesthetic “inspo”. These combinations are used to represent different online identities or subcultures, such as “that girl”, “clean girl” or “old money”.

Users may include the combinations in their captions or videos to signal their personal style, or to express the mood or vibe of their online persona. In this way, the emojis help shape how they present themselves on the platform.

This example of emoji use is also a display of symbolic capital. It signals social alignment, in an environment where a user’s visibility (and popularity) is determined by their platform fluency.

Emojis, then, aren’t just tools for expression. They are badges of identity that index where a user stands in the online cultural hierarchy.

There’s a fragmentation in how we relate

A single emoji might communicate irony, sincerity or sarcasm, depending on who is using it, what platform they’re using it on, and what generation they belong to.

This gap points to deeper questions around online access and participation, and the systems that shape online cultures.

And when the meaning of an emoji is platform-dependent and socially stratified, it can become as much about fitting in with a cultural in-group than conveying emotion.

Brittany Ferdinands 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. Thumbs up: good or passive aggressive? How emojis became the most confusing kind of online language – https://theconversation.com/thumbs-up-good-or-passive-aggressive-how-emojis-became-the-most-confusing-kind-of-online-language-259151

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katy Bell, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney

There is much to commend about Australia’s lung cancer screening program, which started on July 1.

The program is based on gold-standard trial evidence showing this type of screening is likely to reduce lung cancer deaths.

Some people will have their life prolonged due to this screening, which involves taking low-dose CT scans to look for lung cancer in people with a significant smoking history.

In some of these people, cancer will be detected at an early stage, and they can be treated. Without screening, these people may have died of cancer because it would have been detected at a later, incurable stage.

However, for some people, screening could also harm.

How can screening harm?

Screening for disease, including cancer, can cause harm – during screening, diagnosis and treatment.

With lung cancer screening, a positive scan can prompt an invasive lung biopsy. This is where a sample of lung tissue is obtained with a special needle guided by imaging, or through surgery under anaesthesia.

If, after examination under the microscope, the pathologist thinks there is lung cancer, then more extensive surgery and other treatments will likely follow, all of which have a risk of side effects.

The diagnostic label “lung cancer” itself is distressing, and the stigma attached to the diagnosis may worsen this distress.

These harms and risks may be considered acceptable if the treatment prevents the person’s cancer from progressing.

However, as with other cancers, screening is likely to also cause overdiagnosis and overtreatment. That is, some of the lesions picked up through screening and diagnosed as cancer, would have never caused any trouble if they’d been left alone. If these lesions were left undetected (and untreated), they would never have caused symptoms or shortened the person’s life.

But all patients with a cancer diagnosis will be offered treatment – including surgery, radiotherapy and cancer drugs. Yet patients who really have an indolent (non-lethal) lesion have the same risk of harm from diagnosis and treatment as others, but without potentially benefiting from treatment.

A related issue is that of “incidental findings”. Reports from lung cancer screening programs overseas show there is a large potential to find things other than cancer on the CT scan.

For instance, some people have lung “nodules” (small spots on the scan) that fall short of being suspicious for cancer, but nonetheless need close monitoring with repeat scans for a while. For these people, we need to make sure health-care workers follow protocols that prevent unnecessary intervention in a nodule that is not growing.

The scans can also pick up other conditions. These include calcium in coronary arteries, small aneurysms of the aorta (bulges in the body’s largest artery), or abnormalities in abdominal organs such as the liver.

Some of these “incidental findings” may lead to early detection of disease that can be treated. However, in many cases the findings would not have caused any issues if they’d been left undetected, another example of overdiagnosis. These patients experience risks from further cascades of interventions triggered by the incidental finding, but without these interventions improving their health.

The potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment is greater if screening extends beyond the high-risk group with a history of heavy smoking. Some people who don’t meet the eligibility criteria may still want to be screened. For example, lung cancer awareness campaigns may lead to people who don’t smoke requesting screening. If screening staff decide to refer them for imaging, this may result in unofficial “leakage” of the screening program to include people at lower risk of cancer.

For example in the United States, an estimated 45% of scans done in its screening program are for people who do not meet eligibility criteria. In China, about 64% of those screened may be technically ineligible.

We see the results of this in a number of Asian countries with widespread, non-targeted screening, including of people who do not smoke. This has resulted in high rates of cancer diagnosis – much higher than we would expect in this low-risk group – and even higher rates of lung surgeries.

These surgeries, which involve cutting into the chest wall to remove lung tissue, carry significant operative risks. They may also cause longer-term impacts by removing normal lung tissue.

Regular independent evaluation needed

In Australia, for the eligible population with a significant smoking history, we anticipate net benefit, on balance, from the screening program.

However, if unintended consequences from screening are higher in real life than in the trials, then this could tip it the other way into net harm.

So, regular independent re-evaluation of the program is needed to ensure anticipated benefits are realised and harms are kept to a minimum.

This should include analysis of data across the population to look for signs of benefit, such as decreases in rates of advanced-stage lung cancer and deaths.

These data should also be scrutinised for signs of harm from overdiagnosis and overtreatment – including of both cancer and non-cancer conditions.

There is much excitement about the potential for lung cancer screening to prevent some Australians from dying from this devastating disease. We too have cautious optimism the program could make a real difference.

But we can’t let this optimism blind us to the potential for harm.

This is the next article in our ‘Finding lung cancer’ series, which explores Australia’s first new cancer screening program in almost 20 years. Read other articles in the series.

More information about the program is available. If you need support to quit smoking, call Quitline on 13 78 48.

Katy Bell receives funding from NHMRC. She co-leads the Wiser Healthcare Research Collaboration and is on the Board of the Preventing Overdiagnosis Conference.

Brooke Nickel receives fellowship funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). She is on the Scientific Committee of the Preventing Overdiagnosis Conference.

Professor Mark Morgan is chair of the RACGP Expert Committee for Quality Care and receives research support from the Medical Research Future Fund.

– ref. Lung cancer screening hopes to save lives. But we also need to watch for possible harms – https://theconversation.com/lung-cancer-screening-hopes-to-save-lives-but-we-also-need-to-watch-for-possible-harms-253625

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rich Mallett, Research Associate and Independent Researcher, ODI Global

Motorcycle-taxis are one of the fastest and most convenient ways to get around Uganda’s congested capital, Kampala. But they are also the most dangerous. Though they account for one-third of public transport trips taking place within the city, police reports suggest motorcycles were involved in 80% of all road-crash deaths registered in Kampala in 2023.

Promising to solve the safety problem while also improving the livelihoods of moto-taxi workers, digital ride-hail platforms emerged a decade ago on the city’s streets. It is no coincidence that Uganda’s ride-hailing pioneer and long-time market leader goes by the name of SafeBoda.

Conceived in 2014 as a “market-based approach to road safety”, the idea is to give riders a financial incentive to drive safely by making digital moto-taxi work pay better. SafeBoda claimed at the time that motorcyclists who signed up with it would increase their incomes by up to 50% relative to the traditional mode of operation, in which riders park at strategic locations called “stages” and wait for passengers.

In the years since, the efforts of SafeBoda and its ride-hail competitors to bring safety to the sector have largely been deemed a success. One study carried out in 2017 found that digital riders were more likely to wear a helmet and less likely to drive towards oncoming traffic. Early press coverage was particularly glowing, while recent academic studies continue to cite the Kampala case as evidence that ride-hailing platforms may hold the key to making African moto-taxi sectors a safer place to work and travel.

Read more:
Ride-hailing in Lagos: algorithmic impacts and driver resistance

Is it all as clear-cut as this? In a new paper based on PhD research, I suggest not. Because at its core the ride-hail model – in which riders are classified as independent contractors who do poorly paid “gig work” rather than as wage-earning employees – undermines its own safety ambitions.

Speed traps

In my study of Kampala’s vast moto-taxi industry – estimated to employ hundreds of thousands of people – I draw on 112 in-depth interviews and a survey of 370 moto-taxi riders to examine how livelihoods and working conditions have been affected by the arrival of the platforms.

To date, there has been only limited critical engagement with how this change has played out over the past decade. I wanted to get beneath the big corporate claims and alluring platform promises to understand how riders themselves had experienced the digital “transformation” of their industry, several years after it first began.

Read more:
Kenya’s ride-hailing drivers say their jobs offer dignity despite the challenges

One of the things I found was that, from a safety perspective, the ride-hail model represents a paradox. We can think of it as a kind of “speed trap”.

On one hand, ride-hail platforms try to moderate moto-taxi speeds and behaviours through managerial techniques. They make helmet use compulsory. They put riders through road safety training before letting them out onto the streets. And they enforce a professional “code of conduct” for riders.

In some cases, companies also deploy “field agents” to major road intersections around the city. Their task is to monitor the behaviour of riders in company uniform and, should they be spotted breaking the rules, discipline them.

On the other hand, however, the underlying economic structure of digital ride-hailing pulls transport workers in the opposite direction by systematically depressing trip fares and rewarding speed.

Under the “gig economy” model used by Uganda’s ride-hail platforms, the livelihood promise hangs not in the offer of a guaranteed wage but in the possibility of higher earnings. Crucially, it is a promise that only materialises if riders are able to reach and maintain a faster, harder work-rate throughout the day – completing enough jobs that pay “little money”, as one rider put it, to make the gig-work deal come good. Or, as summed up by another interviewee:

We are like stakeholders, I can say that. No basic salary, just commission. So it depends on your speed.

We already know from existing research that the gig economy places new pressures on transport workers to drive fast and take risky decisions. This is especially the case for workers on low, unsteady pay and without formal safety nets.

And yet, it is precisely these factors that routinely lead to road traffic accidents. Extensive research from across east Africa has shown that motorcycle crashes are strongly associated with financial pressure and the practices that lead directly from this, such as speeding, working long hours and performing high-risk manoeuvres. All are driven by the need to break even each day in a hyper-competitive informal labour market, with riders compelled to go fast by the raw economics of their work.

Deepening the pressure

Ride-hail platforms may not be the reason these circumstances exist in the first place. But the point is that they do not mark a departure from them.

If anything, my research suggests they may be making things worse. According to the survey data, riders working through the apps make on average 12% higher gross earnings each week relative to their analogue counterparts. This is because the online world gets them more jobs.

But to stay connected to that world they must shoulder higher operating costs, for: mobile data (to remain logged on); fuel (to perform more trips); the use of helmets and uniforms (which remain company property); and commissions extracted by the platform companies (as much as 15%-20% per trip).

As soon as these extras are factored in, the difference completely disappears. The digital rider works faster and harder – but for no extra reward.

Rethinking approaches to safety reform

Ride-hail platforms were welcomed onto the streets of Kampala as an exciting new solution to unsafe transport, boldly driven by technological innovation and “market-based” thinking.

Read more:
Uganda’s speedy motorbike taxis will slow down for cash – if incentives are cleverly designed

But it is important to remember that these are private enterprises with a clear bottom line: to one day turn a profit. As recent reports and my own thesis show, efforts to reach that point often alienate and ultimately repel the workers on whom these platforms depend – and whose livelihoods and safety standards they claim to be transforming.

A recent investment evaluation by one of SafeBoda’s first funders perhaps puts it best: it is time to reframe ride-hailing as a “risky vehicle” for safety reform in African cities, rather than a clear road to success.

Rich received funding for this research from the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).

– ref. Uganda’s ride-hailing motorbike service promised safety – but drivers are under pressure to speed – https://theconversation.com/ugandas-ride-hailing-motorbike-service-promised-safety-but-drivers-are-under-pressure-to-speed-259310

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jade Craig, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Mississippi

Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker’s Housing Opportunities Made Easy initiative, which was included in the city budget passed June 12, 2025, is an ambitious effort to address the city’s affordable housing challenges.

Parker has promised to create or preserve 30,000 affordable housing units throughout the city, at a cost of roughly US$2 billion.

To help fund the plan, the Parker administration says it will issue $800 million in housing bonds over the next three years.

In an April 2025 report on the housing plan, the Parker administration admits that, in light of declining federal investment in affordable housing, proceeds from municipal bonds issued by the local government “have taken on an outsized role” in Philadelphia’s housing programs.

Often, only city treasurers and the finance committees of city councils pay attention to the details behind these municipal bonds.

As a law professor who studies the social impact of municipal bonds, I believe it’s important that city residents understand how these bonds work as well.

While municipal bonds are integral to the city’s effort to increase access to affordable and market-rate housing, they can include hidden costs and requirements that raise prices in ways that make city services unaffordable for lower-income residents.

How municipal bonds work

Most people are aware that companies sell shares on the stock market to raise capital. State and local governments do the same thing in the form of municipal bonds, which help them raise money to cover their expenses and to finance infrastructure projects.

These bonds are a form of debt. Investors can purchase an interest in the bond and, in exchange, the local government promises to pay the money back with interest in a specified time period. The money from investors functions like a loan to the government.

Municipal bonds are often used so that one generation of taxpayers is not having to bear the full cost of a project that will benefit multiple generations of residents. The cost of building a bridge, for example, which will be in use for decades, can be spread out over 30 years so that residents pay back the loan slowly over time rather than saddle residents with huge tax increases one year to cover the cost.

However, the cost of borrowing pushes up the cost of projects by adding interest payments the same way a mortgage adds to the overall cost of buying a house. Overall, the market and state and local governments have historically viewed this cost as a worthy trade-off.

Some municipal bonds have limits

The Parker administration has several options when it comes to raising capital on the municipal market.

The most common method is through general obligation bonds, which are backed by the city’s authority to impose and collect taxes. Bondholders rely on the city’s “full faith and credit” to assure them that if the city has difficulty paying back the debt, the city will raise taxes on residents to secure the payment.

The city plans to use general obligation bonds to help fund its affordable housing plan, but there are limits on how much it can borrow this way. The state constitution limits Philadelphia’s ability to incur debt to a total of 13.5% of the value of its assessed taxable real estate, based on an average of this amount for the preceding 10 years.

Philly has another option

The city, however, also has the authority to take on another form of debt: revenue bonds. Revenue bonds rely on specific sources of revenue instead of the government’s taxing power. Jurisdictions issue revenue bonds to fund particular projects or services – usually ones that generate income from fees paid by users.

For example, a publicly owned water utility or electric company relies on water and sewage fees or electricity rates and charges to pay back their revenue bonds. Likewise, a transportation authority will rely on tolls to pay back revenue bonds issued to build a toll road, such as the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

Under state law, revenue bonds are “non-debt debts.” They are not debts owed by the city, because the city has not promised to repay the debt through the use of its own taxing powers. Instead, the people who pay the fees to use the service are paying back the debt.

Since states began to place stricter limits on debt in the wake of the Great Depression in the 1930s, cities across the U.S. have increasingly used revenue bonds to get around state debt limits and still fund valuable public services, including affordable housing projects.

When another government entity – rather than the city – issues the bond, and the city pays them a service fee for doing so, it’s a form of what’s called conduit debt. That obligation to pay the service fee to the other government entity is the conduit debt that the city pays out of its general fund.

In Philadelphia, conduit debt includes revenue bonds issued by the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development and Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority.

From fiscal years 2012 to 2021, the city’s outstanding debt from general obligation bonds paid for out of its general fund was between $1.3 billion to $1.7 billion per year. However, the city’s conduit debt outstripped that number every year, ranging from $1.8 billion to nearly $2.3 billion. In more recent years, conduit debt has been less than the city’s debt from general obligation bonds.

The city keeps conduit debt on its books – and is obligated to pay it back – even though it comes from bonds issued by the development authorities, because these debts loop back to the city. In the bonds issued by these agencies, the city actually becomes like a client of the agency. The city is typically obligated to pay the agency service fees as part of a contractual obligation that cannot be canceled.

The revenue on which the development agencies’ bonds rely, the money from which bondholders expect to be paid back, does not come from fees that residents pay out of their own pocket – for example through ticket sales from a sports stadium built with revenue bonds. The money instead comes out of the city’s treasury.

A loophole to affordable housing

Essentially this is a loophole for the city to bypass debt limits set for Philadelphia in the state constitution. Sometimes creativity in government requires using loopholes to get the job done – to get to yes instead of a stalemate.

Consider this analogy. Say your sister takes out a bank loan to buy a car for you because your credit limit is maxed out. She is relying on you to pay her back, and she uses your payment to pay the bank. But if you don’t pay her back, she’s not responsible by law for paying the bank herself. So, it’s your debt, but she is the conduit.

If the city holds itself accountable, it can use conduit debt responsibly to make affordable housing construction a reality.

The mayor’s office did not respond to my questions about whether they plan to use conduit debt issued by a development authority, whether that conduit debt would include service fees, and what funds would be used to pay those fees.

In its quest to increase access to affordable housing, the Parker administration should, in my view, be mindful of limiting the service fees it agrees to pay – which have no legally prescribed limits – and also account for where it will find income to cover these costs. For example, will it come from the sale of city-owned land? Fees charged to developers? Or some other source?

Otherwise, taxpayers may be left to foot a bill that is essentially unlimited.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia.

Jade Craig 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. Philadelphia’s $2B affordable housing plan relies heavily on municipal bonds, which can come with hidden costs for taxpayers – https://theconversation.com/philadelphias-2b-affordable-housing-plan-relies-heavily-on-municipal-bonds-which-can-come-with-hidden-costs-for-taxpayers-253522

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Merdith, DECRA Fellow, School of Earth Sciences, University of Adelaide

Some 252 million years ago, almost all life on Earth disappeared.

Known as the Permian–Triassic mass extinction – or the Great Dying – this was the most catastrophic of the five mass extinction events recognised in the past 539 million years of our planet’s history.

Up to 94% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate families were wiped out. Tropical forests – which served, as they do today, as important carbon sinks that helped regulate the planet’s temperature – also experienced massive declines.

Scientists have long agreed this event was triggered by a sudden surge in greenhouse gases which resulted in an intense and rapid warming of Earth. But what has remained a mystery is why these extremely hot conditions persisted for millions of years.

Our new paper, published today in Nature Communications, provides an answer. The decline of tropical forests locked Earth in a hothouse state, confirming scientists’ suspicion that when our planet’s climate crosses certain “tipping points”, truly catastrophic ecological collapse can follow.

A massive eruption

The trigger for the Permian–Triassic mass extinction event was the eruption of massive amounts of molten rock in modern day Siberia, named the Siberian Traps. This molten rock erupted in a sedimentary basin, rich in organic matter.

The molten rock was hot enough to melt the surrounding rocks and release massive amounts of carbon dioxide into Earth’s atmosphere over a period as short as 50,000 years but possibly as long as 500,000 years. This rapid increase in carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere and the resulting temperature increase is thought to be the primary kill mechanism for much of life at the time.

On land it is thought surface temperatures increased by as much as 6°C to 10°C – too rapid for many life forms to evolve and adapt. In other similar eruptions, the climate system usually returns to its previous state within 100,000 to a million years.

But these “super greenhouse” conditions, which resulted in equatorial average surface temperatures upwards of 34°C (roughly 8°C warmer than the current equatorial average temperature) persisted for roughly five million years. In our study we sought to answer why.

The forests die out

We looked at the fossil record of a wide range of land plant biomes, such as arid, tropical, subtropical, temperate and scrub. We analysed how the biomes changed from just before the mass extinction event, until about eight million years after.

We hypothesised that Earth warmed too rapidly, leading to the dying out of low- to mid-latitude vegetation, especially the rainforests. As a result the efficiency of the organic carbon cycle was greatly reduced immediately after the volcanic eruptions.

Plants, because they are unable to simply get up and move, were very strongly affected by the changing conditions.

Before the event, many peat bogs and tropical and subtropical forests existed around the equator and soaked up carbon

However, when we reconstructed plant fossils from fieldwork, records and databases around the event we saw that these biomes were completely wiped out from the tropical continents. This led to a multimillion year “coal gap” in the geological record.

These forests were replaced by tiny lycopods, only two to 20 centimetres in height.

Enclaves of larger plants remained towards the poles, in coastal and in slightly mountainous regions where the temperature was slightly cooler. After about five million years they had mostly recolonised Earth. However these types of plants were also less efficient at fixing carbon in the organic carbon cycle.

This is analogous in some ways to considering the impact of replacing all rainforests at present day with the mallee-scrub and spinifex flora that we might expect to see in the Australian outback.

Finally, the forests return

Using evidence from the present day, we estimated the rate at which plants take atmospheric carbon dioxide and store it as organic matter of each different biome (or its “net primary productivity”) that was suggested in the fossil record.

We then used a recently developed carbon cycle model called SCION to test our hypothesis numerically. When we analysed our model results we found that the initial increase in temperature from the Siberian Traps was preserved for five to six million years after the event because of the reduction in net primary productivity.

It was only as plants re-established themselves and the organic carbon cycle restarted that Earth slowly started to ease out of the super greenhouse conditions.

Maintaining a climate equilibrium

It’s always difficult to draw analogies between past climate change in the geological record and what we’re experiencing today. That’s because the extent of past changes is usually measured over tens to hundreds of thousands of years while at present day we are experiencing change over decades to centuries.

A key implication of our work, however, is that life on Earth, while resilient, is unable to respond to massive changes on short time scales without drastic rewirings of the biotic landscape.

In the case of the Permian–Triassic mass extinction, plants were unable to respond on as rapid a time scale as 1,000 to 10,000 years. This resulted in a large extinction event.

Overall, our results underline how important tropical and subtropical plant biomes and environments are to maintaining a climate equilibrium. In turn, they show how the loss of these biomes can contribute to additional climate warming – and serve as a devastating climate tipping point.

Zhen Xu was the lead author of the study, which was part of her PhD work.

Andrew Merdith receives funding from the Australian Research Council as part of the Discovery Early Career Researcher Award.

Benjamin J. W. Mills receives funding from UK Research and Innovation.

Zhen Xu receives funding from UK Research and Innovation and the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

– ref. Around 250 million years ago, Earth was near-lifeless and locked in a hothouse state. Now scientists know why – https://theconversation.com/around-250-million-years-ago-earth-was-near-lifeless-and-locked-in-a-hothouse-state-now-scientists-know-why-260203

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University

By the end of this year, the experience of using search engines in Australia won’t be as simple as it has always been.

That’s thanks to a new online safety code announced yesterday by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant. Among other measures, it will require all Australian users to provide assurance of their age when they sign into a search engine account.

So what’s the new code about? How will it work in practice? And how exactly will it affect kids – and adults – in Australia who use search engines such as Google?

What’s in the new code?

The code orders providers of internet search-engine services such as Google and Microsoft (which owns Bing) to “implement appropriate age assurance measures for account holders” within six months.

The code requires providers to review and mitigate “the risk that Australian children will access or be exposed to online pornography, high-impact violence material, and self-harm material” in search engine results.

While the code does not define the age of a “child” as being under 18, or another age, a search engine must apply tools and settings that “at a minimum” filter out online pornography and extremely violent material from search results. Providers must also ensure advertising in these content areas is not served up in search results to child account holders.

Currently, Google account holders must be at least 13 years old.

The code creates several other rules for search engine providers that will impact everyone.

For example, providers must “prevent autocomplete predictions that are sexually explicit or violent” and prominently display crisis-prevention information, such as helplines, in the results for queries relating to topics such as self-harm, suicide and eating disorders.

Search engine providers will also have to blur some images in search results by default to reduce the risk of kids inadvertently accessing or being exposed to pornographic or violent material. And they will have to provide parental controls to limit or alter children’s access to adult material.

On top of these measures, the code requires search-engine providers to report to eSafety, invest in safety and moderation teams, and engage with community organisations.

The new code has been in development since July 2024. It was co-drafted by the Digital Industry Group Inc, an industry association representing tech companies including Google, Meta and Microsoft. A single breach could result in a search engine provider copping a fine of up to A$49.5 million.

How will the code work in practice?

The code does not spell out the measures to be used to assure someone’s age.

They could including asking for government-issued ID or be similar to strategies currently being assessed for the Australian government’s under 16s social media ban, such as facial recognition technology.

Yet, the government’s recent age assurance trials highlighted concerns about the accuracy of age estimation tools, despite claims of their overall effectiveness.

Changing how people search

Once implemented, age assurance requirements will likely change how people engage with search engines and other applications.

Google is used by more than 90% of Australians and for more than just searching. The Google ecosystem includes Gmail, Google Drive, and Google Maps, providing seamless integration between search and other tools and tasks.

Repeated age assurance requests could disrupt the seamlessness of content-sharing across devices that users now experience.

Many people also opt to remain logged into their accounts on multiple devices, to quickly enable cross-device activities. This means within a family, users of multiple ages may access content on a single account, even when they don’t intend to do so.

Will search engines need to change this functionality, to more regularly log users off their accounts, and reconfirm the account holder’s age? And how will the code affect features such as Google’s “incognito mode”, which is used for private searching?

The code will apply to “any features integrated within the search functionality and the user interface” of the service, including results generated by artificial intelligence (AI). This means results generated by Google’s Gemini AI service fall under the code, alongside traditional search results.

However, the code doesn’t apply to “standalone applications or tools that are not integrated within the internet search engine service”. This means that while a browser extension such as ChatGPT for Google may fall under the code, as an integrated search engine service, the standalone ChatGPT app could be excluded.

This may make searching even more confusing for users, as many people may not understand the limitations of treating generative AI tools like search engines – but they are not.

Will the code work?

As with all age assurance checks, there may be ways people can get around these new search engine controls.

For example, they may use VPNs to trick the system into believing they are outside of Australia (and therefore not subject to age assurance checks). Or, children may access content on older people’s accounts and devices.

However, the code does preempt concerns that children might get around controls by simply not logging in to their accounts. And, the code’s insistence on reporting mechanisms means people of all ages will be able to report material and raise complaints about potential code violations.

In this way, the code seems to reflect the government’s previously proposed (but now, paused) “digital duty of care” legislation, which aimed to hold technology companies to account for the content they provide.

One crucial question remains: will the steps companies take to comply with the code meet Australians’ expectations for seamless, integrated search practices and personal privacy as they access information online?

Lisa M. Given receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia and the International Association for Information Science and Technology.

– ref. Australians will soon need their age checked to log into online search tools – here’s why – https://theconversation.com/australians-will-soon-need-their-age-checked-to-log-into-online-search-tools-heres-why-260199

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martyn Mills-Bayne, Senior Lecturer in Early Childhood Education, University of South Australia

Horrific allegations of child sexual abuse in childcare centres across Melbourne have put the role of men in early childhood education back in the spotlight.

Coming after other major media reports of child mistreatment in care, many parents are feeling very anxious about the safety of their children.

Some may be deeply suspicious of men working so closely with children. That caution is totally justified.

But there are many innocent, well-intentioned and caring men working in centres across the country. They’re playing a vital role in a sector already plagued by well-documented staff shortages.

Driving them out of the workforce would be a mistake for the sector, for parents and for children.

Read more:
Parents of kids in daycare are terrified following Melbourne abuse allegations. What can they do?

Hyper-viligant behaviour

Men are still a rarity in childcare centres nationally.

The latest workforce data show about 8% of early childhood educators are male, though that statistic could include men who don’t work with children directly.

We don’t know precisely how many early childhood educators are male, but best estimates are somewhere between 2–4% of the total workforce.

Given there are so few of them, male educators often report being hyper-vigilant about how they do their jobs.

I was once an early childhood teacher myself. Now in my academic research, I’ve spent almost 20 years mentoring men in the sector, including close to 100 male students coming through initial teacher education programs.

They are extremely aware of protecting children and themselves. They talk about trying to make sure they’re never alone with children and use distancing strategies to keep themselves safe and in full view of colleagues and parents.

If they’re changing nappies, they do so in open spaces, where others can see them. If a child is hurt or needs support, they often think twice about the most appropriate way to provide it.

The men I hear from feel they are surveilled and monitored more closely than their female colleagues. Male educators must use a heightened degree of caution in their day-to-day caring work due to broad (largely unspoken) suspicions of sexual misconduct. This is an inherent part of being a male early childhood educator.

There’s been no research done to determine whether men are watched more closely than women, but regardless, most don’t begrudge it. They fear ever harming a child, and would rather the extra supervision, perceived or real, to make everyone feel safer.

Leaving the sector

But early childhood education has an issue with worker attrition.

This is especially concerning as pre-school for three-year-olds is rolled out in South Australia, Victoria and the ACT, increasing the demand for staff and pressure on services to meet staff ratios and keep children safe.

Against this backdrop, it’s crucial we stem the tide of workers leaving the sector, including men.

Unfortunately, men are often the first to leave, especially after cases of sexual abuse at other centres.

In New Zealand, Peter Ellis was jailed in the 1990s for child sexual abuse in a creche, though his conviction was overturned posthumously in 2022.

Read more:
What are working with children checks? Why aren’t they keeping kids safe at daycare?

The high profile case had long lasting negative impacts. Less than 1% of the childcare workforce in the country are men – one of the lowest participation rates in the world.

Parental and societal concerns around the risk of abuse have a profound impact on retaining and attracting more male educators in early childhood education.

This is also true at the student level. Typically, I see very few men enrol to study early childhood education (about four in a cohort of 150), but only about half that graduate. Many of these potential early childhood teachers drop their studies or move into primary teaching programs after they experience a sense of distrust during their professional placements in childcare.

Keeping children safer

Children who are abused experience lifelong trauma. Keeping them safe at all times should be the number one priority of educators and society at large.

The Melbourne case has left many parents rightly cautious and feeling uncertain about leaving their children in the care of men. We may well see less interest from centres in employing men, as has happened after similar cases in the past.

This would build on existing suspicions parents have of male educators.

There’s no easy answer to this. But there are some things that may make early education safer.

The first is to strengthen working with children screening checks, something the Victorian government has already flagged it will do.

Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan has also announced a statewide register of childcare workers to introduce “an extra layer of checks and balances”.

Another is to ensure no educator, regardless of gender, is ever alone with a child. Though this may be challenging to achieve within tight staffing levels, it’s needed to prevent future abuse.

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse highlighted the need to make sure the physical environment minimises opportunity for abuse to occur. This includes glass walls around toilet and nappy change areas and no blind spots in centres.

And finally, for parents to be scared and angry about this is to be human. But it’s also important to remember many men are doing the right thing, and male educators in the sector are also angry and concerned about this.

Better processes and regulations would help restore confidence in parents that their children are safe in a man’s care. But it would also help male educators, who can do their work safe in the knowledge they’ve passed a robust set of requirements to get there.

The Victorian government has set up a dedicated website and advice line for parents whose children may have been involved in the alleged offences.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, you can call 1800 Respect on 1800 737 732, Lifeline on 131 114, Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800, or Bravehearts (counselling and support for survivors of child sexual abuse) on 1800 272 831.

Martyn Mills-Bayne 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. Parents are feeling anxious about men in childcare centres. Stronger rules would make everyone feel safer – https://theconversation.com/parents-are-feeling-anxious-about-men-in-childcare-centres-stronger-rules-would-make-everyone-feel-safer-260282

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thomas Jeffries, Senior Lecturer in Microbiology, Western Sydney University

Coles is recalling two of its homebrand peanut butter products, over concerns they have been contaminated with aflatoxin, a toxic chemical linked to liver cancer.

The supermarket chain has issued the recall notice for Coles Smooth Peanut Butter 1kg and Coles Crunchy Peanut Butter 1kg, with the best before date of February 5 2027. They were sold in supermarkets and online nationally between May 1 and June 30 this year.

Aflatoxin can cause injury or illness if eaten, according to Australia’s food safety authority.

But what is aflatoxin? How does it get into food? And what is the risk if you eat it?

What is aflatoxin? Where does it occur?

Aflatoxins are a toxic chemical (a mycotoxin) produced by fungi. The mould-like fungi that produce aflatoxins belong to a large group called Aspergillus.

These fungi are found in all environments, for example in soils, compost, building surfaces and on crops and other plants, and can cause infections or poisoning in humans and animals.

Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus, which produce aflatoxins, thrive mainly in agricultural crops but also in soils, rotting food and compost. The fungi emerge as spores and form networks of microscopic filaments that can grow on products such as grains and nuts.

As these fungi grow they release a range of chemicals, including aflatoxins, that can lead to contamination of produce before and after harvest, or after processing.

Aflatoxins are some of the most poisonous types of mycotoxin.

Different kinds of aflatoxins usually affect contaminated food (aflatoxins B1, B2, G1), crops (G2) and milk (M1).

Which foods are most risky?

Crops produced and stored in warm, humid or moist tropical locations are most at risk, as toxin-producing moulds thrive in these conditions.

High-risk foods include peanuts, corn and tree nuts (such as brazil, walnut and pistachio nuts). The toxin-producing fungi can also grow on wheat, rice, sorghum and spice crops such as turmeric, chilli, ginger and coriander.

If animals graze on contaminated crops, their milk and meat can also become contaminated.

Internationally, the Joint Food and Agriculture Administration and World Health Organization is responsible for setting guidelines and monitoring standards for mycotoxins via its expert committee on food additives.

In Australia, aflatoxin food contamination is not common. In the past decade, there have only been a handful of recalls.

Why are aflatoxins dangerous?

Aflatoxins can damage your liver and cause cancer.

Eating a lot of contaminated foods over a short period of time can lead to aflatoxicosis, acute poisoning that immediately damages the liver. Symptoms can include nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and convulsions, and may be life-threating.

Over a long period, smaller amounts of contaminated foods can lead to liver cancer, birth defects, kidney disease and immune system dysfunction.

There is no specific treatment for alfatoxins. Management after acute or long-term exposure focuses on addressing symptoms and monitoring liver health.

How can I stay safe?

There is not much individuals can do to control the presence of aflatoxin and other mycotoxins in foods, as contamination occurs during agriculture and processing.

You should store nuts and nut products in a way that stops mould growing. Use well-sealed containers kept in dry and cool conditions.

Freezing and cooking may kill the fungi, but the toxin can survive extreme temperatures.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to see the fungi with the naked eye. However you should avoid visibly mouldy foods and throw away nuts and grains that are shrivelled or discoloured.

What should I do if I’ve bought or eaten these products?

Coles has advised customers to return the products to stores and contact its hotline for more information (1800 061 562).

If you’re concerned you may have eaten contaminated peanut butter, speak to a health professional.

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. What is aflatoxin, the toxic chemical behind Coles’ peanut butter recall? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-aflatoxin-the-toxic-chemical-behind-coles-peanut-butter-recall-260194