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

The federal government released its National AI Strategy this week, confirming it has dropped its earlier proposal for mandatory guardrails for high-risk artificial intelligence (AI).

In responding to AI, the government has found itself caught between the unions, which have pushed for stricter regulation to protect workers and their jobs, and business wanting a “light-touch” approach to AI.

To talk about how the government will keep up with effectively managing AI, as well as a long-overdue response to a “jobs for mates” review, we’re joined by the minister for industry, innovation and science, Tim Ayres.

On the government’s decision not to introduce AI-specific laws, Ayres denies the Albanese government ended up going with a “light-touch” approach.

It’s a pragmatic Australian approach that’s about the circumstances that Australia is in, in strategic terms and economic terms. We’ve got an existing regulatory framework now. Australian law applies now.

The [new] AI Safety Institute is about making sure that we support our regulators. Advised, of course, by the best advice, whether it’s in the intelligence communities or security agencies, engaging with the trade union movement and civil society, getting the best advice to make sure that we’re uplifting government capability to analyse threats, to get into the new AI models and make sure that we’ve tested them properly, and supporting government capability across the board.

On whether the rollout of AI will lead to some mistakes as Australian workers and industry get used to the technology, Ayers acknowledges there will be some “bumps”:

I don’t want to be glib about that, but I do think that’s true […] that of course big social and technological changes are rarely free of bumps and glitches. We’re really keenly aware in the government of the human challenges here.

And that’s why I just keep emphasising getting people together and having Australians and Australian institutions working together for a better deal is much better than standing back and letting these developments flow without us rolling our sleeves up and getting involved.

Drawing on examples he’s seen in his role as minister for science, Ayres says AI had could deliver real benefits for Australians over the next five to ten years.

[For example], the capacity of artificial intelligence to dramatically speed up pharmaceutical design so that we get more drugs, more targeted design developed in Australia into pharmacies to support Australians’ health, cancer treatment designs, composite material design. And in the energy sector, being able to […] smartly manage the energy grid so that we can expand renewables and expand electricity capability. There there is almost no area of technological improvement that won’t be touched by artificial intelligence.

But with that rapid expansion comes real costs, including the vast amounts of electricity and water data centres consume.

Ayres said he’ll resume working with state and territory governments on developing “data centre principles” very early next year. The Sydney Morning Herald and others have reported that the government is weighing up making new data centres invest in big wind and solar projects or else build their own batteries on-site.

Ayres says if data centres and new digital infrastructure end up paying for new generation and transmission capability, “that’s a net addition to the electricity system, not a drain on resources”.

Microsoft’s […] recent investment in Australia has been has underpinned and underwritten the development of a massive 300 megawatt solar farm north of Albury at Walla Walla. There are opportunities here if we have a planned approach to make sure that this supports development in the electricity system.

Following week’s release of the review into “jobs for mates” – which the government held onto for two years and now declines to accept all recommendations – Ayres argues Labor “done has a lot to restore integrity” since being elected in 2022.

I think what we saw was the previous government so debauched the process that Australians lost confidence in the appointments process. Now we’ve done a lot to restore integrity and a sense of purpose to these appointments.

[…] The rules that [finance minister] Katy Gallagher’s announced and that the government’s adopted today go a long way towards restoring public confidence. But of course, as every as every day goes on, we will continue to demonstrate that we actually take our responsibility in this area seriously and that our appointments reflect the public interest.

Read more:
Albanese government shies away from tougher recommendations from ‘jobs for mates’ inquiry

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Tim Ayres on the AI rollout’s looming ‘bumps and glitches’ – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-tim-ayres-on-the-ai-rollouts-looming-bumps-and-glitches-271092

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Masters, Adjunct Professor in Agriculture and Environment, The University of Western Australia

You might know Australia’s dietary guidelines from the famous infographics showing the types and quantities of foods we should eat to have a healthy diet.

Last updated 12 years ago, the National Health and Medical Research Council is now revising them to consider not only how food affects our health but also how sustainable our foods are. At least 37 other countries have already added sustainability to their dietary guidelines.

Many countries use global load indicators to assess the environmental impact of specific foods, based on the planetary boundaries within which humanity can safely operate. While useful to compare between countries, these indicators don’t match Australia’s environmental risks and priorities.

Unlike many other countries, locally produced food represents around 90% of what Australians eat. The environmental footprint of these foods is shaped almost entirely by the country’s unique landscapes, climates and farming systems.

Our recent research suggests forthcoming guidelines need to take local conditions into account. If global load indicators are the sole way to measure impact, the guidelines won’t capture Australia’s specific environmental challenges in producing food.

Local indicators matter

Global load indicators include greenhouse gas emissions, how much land is used per kilo of food, water use, land and water pollution and biodiversity loss.

This is how we get common figures such as the statistic that it takes 1,670 litres of water to produce 1 kilogram of rice.

While global measures are useful in comparing between countries and products, they don’t always match local environmental risks and priorities.

For example, using 1,670L of water to produce a kilo of rice in the contested and controlled Murray Darling Basin will have a different impact compared to using the same volume in Western Australia’s Kununurra irrigation system, where water is more abundant and has fewer alternative uses. Growing a kilo of rice in Italy will differ again.

If we want dietary guidelines to encourage real improvements on farm and in rural landscapes, environmental indicators must reflect the challenges rural stakeholders actually face.

Consumer preferences have already shifted several food production systems. Rising demand for free-range eggs and grass-fed beef has changed how farmers operate. It’s important to get this right.

One size does not fit all

Australia’s agricultural lands are diverse.

By area, more than 80% of our farmland falls in the rangelands. Here, cattle and sheep graze with minimal human intervention on vast tropical savannas, woodlands, shrublands and grasslands. Low rainfall and poor soils mean livestock are kept at low densities. Other food production options haven’t proved viable.

If we used global load indicators, food from rangelands would be assessed as having a high environmental impact due to large land use, lots of potentially polluting nutrients (dung and urine) and use of rainfall to grow forage vegetation.

But the main environmental issues for Australia’s rangelands are different, including methane emissions from livestock, land degradation, invasive weeds such as buffel grass and biodiversity loss.

Australia’s next largest area of agriculture is mixed crop and livestock, found in regions such as the Mallee in Victoria and Western Australia’s Wheatbelt. Most crops and 40% of livestock are produced in these areas, characterised by reliable rainfall patterns and low to medium rainfall of around 250–450 millimetres a year.

Farming here can make soils more acid due to high levels of nitrogen from fertilisers, alongside issues such as dryland salinity, erosion, biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions. These issues have degraded some land so much it can’t sustain farming.

For these two types of agriculture, local indicators work better.

By contrast, the intensive and productive irrigated farms of the Murray–Darling Basin have environmental impacts more aligned to global indicators. Environmental issues here include greenhouse gases, competition for land and water use, nutrient pollution (primarily fertilisers) and biodiversity loss.

Good for your health – and the environment?

While previous Australian studies have assessed the environmental footprint of different foods or focused on a narrow description of environmental impact derived from overseas studies, these haven’t accounted for local environmental priorities or trade-offs.

Trade-offs are common. For instance, plant-based diets may result in lower greenhouse gas emissions but can increase pressure on soil health and biodiversity, as crops are commonly grown as monocultures with high fertiliser and pesticide use.

Common Australian diets mixing plant and animal foods can have a lower impact on biodiversity and soil health but higher greenhouse gas emissions, as mixed diets entail a more diverse range of cultivated plants and animals but rely more on methane-producing livestock.

Recognising and balancing these trade-offs will be essential if Australia’s updated dietary guidelines are to support healthy people and a healthy environment.

What’s next?

Ideally, Australia’s updated dietary guidelines will capture the unique pressures and challenges of producing food locally. This won’t be easy, given impacts will vary across different foods, regions and production systems. But the tools are already available.

Farm software can track every aspect of the production in a local environmental context, making it possible to predict impacts on the natural capital of individual farms – if agreements to share and aggregate data can be negotiated.

Gathering these data will allow local environmental indicators to be embedded in dietary guidelines. If this is done, it will become possible to link recommended diets to sustainability reporting. Farms, retailers and banks are increasingly required to report sustainability metrics, which can be linked to foods.

That means Australians could see the environmental credentials of their food on the labels, based not on global averages – but on how the specific farm is doing.

David Masters has previously received research funding from research and development corporations including Meat and Livestock Australia. He is a member of the National Health and Medical Research Council’s Sustainability Working Group. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors alone and do not represent the views of NHMRC or the working group.

David Lemon receives funding from the National Farmers’ Federation.

Dianne Mayberry has received funding from research and development corporations including Meat and Livestock Australia and the Grains Research and Development Corporation.

Sonja Dominik works for CSIRO Agriculture and Food. She has previously received funding from the National Farmers’ Federation and research and development corporations.

– ref. The way Australia produces food is unique. Our updated dietary guidelines have to recognise this – https://theconversation.com/the-way-australia-produces-food-is-unique-our-updated-dietary-guidelines-have-to-recognise-this-265734

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martin B. Richards, Research Professor in Archaeogenetics, Department of Physical and Life Sciences, University of Huddersfield

The question of when people first arrived in the land mass that now comprises much of Australasia has long been a source of scientific debate.

Many Aboriginal people believe they have lived on the land since time immemorial. But until the advent of radiocarbon dating techniques, many western scholars thought they had arrived not long before European contact 250 years ago.

Now a new study by an international collaboration of geneticists and archaeologists, including myself, suggests that humans first arrived in Sahul – the “super-continent” that encompassed New Guinea and Australia during the last ice age – by two different routes around 60,000 years ago.

The research, led by archaeologist Helen Farr at the University of Southampton, also points to the earliest uncontested example of travel by boat – probably simple watercraft such as paddled bamboo rafts or canoes. The first people to arrive would have migrated into the region following a rapid dispersal from Africa around 10,000 years earlier.

The key to the work of our genetics team, based at the University of Huddersfield, is mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). People only inherit mtDNA from their mothers, so we were able to track an unbroken maternal line of descent down many generations, during which the mtDNA gradually accumulates small mutations.

We sequenced mtDNA genomes in almost 1,000 samples, mainly from New Guineans and Aboriginal people – collected by colleagues at La Trobe University in Melbourne and the University of Oxford, in close collaboration with the communities.

The samples were all collected with the help of Aboriginal elders. The principal elder, Lesley Williams from Brisbane, arranged invitations for the researchers to address Aboriginal groups to explain the purpose of the study and answer any questions before signed consent was given. The results of the analysis of each sample were returned in person whenever possible.

These genealogical trees were then combined with another 1,500 sequences that were already available. By counting the number of mutations from ancestors in these trees, we could use a “molecular clock” to date lineages that were unique to New Guineans, Aboriginal people or both.

After correcting for natural selection (which makes the mutation rate non-linear) and checking the results against well-known colonisation events in the Pacific, we concluded that the deepest lineages were 60,000 years old. Reanalysing previously published male-lineage and genome-wide data found that this also fitted with our results.

Clashing chronologies

The debate about when and how people first arrived in modern-day Australasia was transformed during the 20th century, especially by the introduction and gradual refinement of radiocarbon dating techniques.

This pushed the time of people’s first arrival back to around 45,000 years – ironically, now known as the “short chronology”. However, some archaeologists argued they may have arrived even earlier.

In 2017, newer scientific dating methods – such as optical luminescence dating, which estimates the time quartz grains in the sediments embedding human remains were last exposed to sunlight – supported the so-called “long chronology” of people first arriving in northern Australia at least 60,000 years ago. But this view remained contentious.

The pendulum swung again in 2024, as geneticists weighed in with a genetic clock based on the recombination that takes place between pairs of chromosomes with every generation. New results using this clock suggested that interbreeding between early modern humans and Neanderthals, shortly after modern humans left their African homeland, took place less than 50,000 years ago – more recently than had previously been proposed.

All present-day non-Africans carry around 2% Neanderthal DNA, suggesting they must all be descended from that small group. This research therefore supported the short chronology view.

The genetic and archaeological evidence could apparently only be squared if there had been a first wave of early arrivals in Sahul at least 60,000 years ago, that was entirely replaced by a second wave of modern humans around 40,000 years ago. For some experts this seemed implausible, since people were already widespread in Sahul by that time.

Our genetic dates suggest a simpler solution. There was only one wave 60,000 years ago, and these earliest arrivals were the ancestors of today’s New Guineans and Aboriginal people in Australia.

The earliest seafarers

Our results suggest there were two distinct migrations into Sahul – both around the same time about 60,000 years ago. This is because the most ancient lineages fell into two groups.

The major set, with ancestry in the Philippines, was distributed throughout New Guineans and Aboriginal people in Australia. But we also identified another minor set, with ancestry in South Asia or Indochina, only in Aboriginal people. The simplest explanation for these patterns is that there were two dispersals into Sahul: a major northern pathway and a minor southern route.

Both groups of migrating people met more archaic species of human along the way. As well as the 2% Neanderthal DNA that all non-Africans carry, the genomes of modern New Guineans and Aboriginal people in Australia carry a further 5% of archaic human DNA with more local origins – the results of interbreeding in Southeast Asia and perhaps even in Sahul itself.

Even with the lower sea levels 60,000 years ago, that second group must have crossed at least 60 miles (100km) of open sea to reach Sahul – some of the earliest evidence we have for human seafaring. An increasing amount of research suggests maritime technology played a role in early humans’ rapid dispersal from Africa some 10,000 years earlier, taking a coastal route via Arabia to Southeast Asia and beyond.

But the debate about precise timings of these earliest journeys doesn’t end here. We are now analysing whole human genome sequences – each consisting of 3 billion base units, compared with 16,500 for mtDNA – to further test our results. But both kinds of genetic clock – the mutation clock we use, and the recombination clock advocated by others – are indirect evidence. If ancient DNA can eventually be recovered from key remains, we can test these models more directly.

It may happen. Recovering ancient DNA from the tropics is challenging, but in the rapidly evolving world of archaeogenetics, almost anything now seems possible.

Martin B. Richards received funding from the European Research Council’s ACROSS (Australian Colonisation Research: Origins of Seafaring to Sahul) grant to Professor Helen Farr under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.

– ref. When did people first arrive in Australasia? New archaeogenetics study dates it to 60,000 years ago – https://theconversation.com/when-did-people-first-arrive-in-australasia-new-archaeogenetics-study-dates-it-to-60-000-years-ago-270959

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrea Piovesan, Lecturer in Psychology, Edge Hill University

Have you ever thought a font looked “friendly” or “elegant”? Or felt that Comic
Sans was somehow unserious? You’re not imagining it.

Typefaces carry personalities, and we react to them more than we realise. My work explores how the shapes of letters can subtly influence our feelings.

When we read, we are not just processing the words. We are also taking in the typeface, which can shape how we interpret a message and even what we think of the person who wrote it.

Researchers demonstrated this in a 2018 study using simulated text conversations. They presented participants with an ambiguous message (for example, “That’s what I do”) and altered the typeface. A cheerful-looking font seemed to encourage readers to interpret the message positively, while a harsher one pushed them toward a more negative reading.

A similar pattern appears in email communication. In a 2014 study, the same email sent in Times New Roman made the sender seem formal and professional, whereas the more playful Kristen ITC made them appear more polite and even more attractive. Just as a voice sets the mood of a conversation, a typeface sets the mood of the page.

Research also shows that we process words more quickly when the typeface matches the meaning we expect. In one experiment, published in 1989, people recognised the word “slow” more quickly when it appeared in Cooper Black, a typeface associated with heaviness and slowness, but took longer when the same word was shown in Palatino Italic, which conveys lightness and speed.

A 2021 study found a similar priming effect in brand logos. After seeing a logo set in a particular typeface, participants were quicker to identify words that matched the qualities suggested by that design. When the style of the lettering aligns with the message, our brains seem to work more efficiently.

But how is that possible?

The answer is a mix of factors. Some qualities are built into the physical features of the typeface. Thick, straight lines signal sturdiness, while curves tend to feel softer or more approachable. Some associations may even have evolutionary roots.

Across a range of studies, people reliably link curved shapes with positivity and angular ones with threat or negativity. A 2016 review of this research traces the pattern back to survival mechanisms.

Sharp, angular forms in the environment can indicate danger, so our visual system has evolved to detect and prioritise them quickly. This bias appears to spill over into our perception of typefaces too, making angular fonts feel harsher or more alarming, while curved ones seem warmer and more pleasant.

Other typeface personalities have been shaped by history and use. Take Times New Roman, originally designed in the 1930s for the British newspaper the Times. Over time, its connection with journalism has become ingrained, making Times New Roman synonymous with professionalism and formality today.

The influence of typefaces becomes even clearer when the wrong choice is made. An example comes from the European organisation for nuclear research, Cern, in 2012 when researchers used Comic Sans to announce the discovery of the Higgs boson (also called the “God particle”).

The decision sparked widespread criticism because Comic Sans is widely seen as playful and informal, hardly befitting one of the most important scientific discoveries of our time.

People who work in design, communication and marketing know this phenomenon well and use it deliberately. Think about the last time you bought a product you couldn’t see inside the box. What persuaded you if the product itself wasn’t visible? Most likely the packaging.

Designers choose typefaces as well as images that communicate the qualities they think you’re looking for.

If you’re searching for screws for a DIY project, you’re more likely to trust packaging set in bold, heavy lettering that signals strength and sturdiness. If you’re choosing a perfume as a gift, a delicate, flourished typeface might suggest elegance and femininity before you’ve even smelled it.

In one 2006 study, people were shown a range of fonts and asked where they would feel appropriate.

Serif typefaces such as Times New Roman and Cambria, which are recognisable by the small finishing strokes at the ends of their letters, were judged most suitable for business documents. Monospaced fonts like Courier New, in which every character takes up the same amount of space, were seen as better suited to technical materials and computer code.

This very article is set in Baskerville, and that’s no accident. Baskerville, like Goudy Old Style and other classic typefaces, tends to be seen as professional, trustworthy and high-quality. Those are the qualities The Conversation aims to convey to its readers. The same principle applies to any professionally designed website. Every typeface has been chosen to create the right impression.

Typefaces can also shape our experience of music. An album cover with rounded letters, for example, can make the music feel more pleasant. Designers also match typefaces to the genre: curvy, playful fonts appear on hippy music covers, conveying joy and peace, while sharp, angular lettering is common on punk albums, signalling anger and aggression.

Sometimes we don’t know exactly why a font feels a certain way. In a 2023 article, I reviewed studies from the past century that asked people to rate how they perceived different typefaces.

This large collection of data revealed some surprising patterns. For example, condensed typefaces, which have letters packed closely together, tend to convey a sense of sadness more than other fonts.

Thick lines reliably signalled strength, but the opposite was not true: thin lines were not consistently judged as weak. Instead, perceptions of weakness were more strongly associated with irregular strokes and high contrast, features common in typefaces that resemble handwriting. Why do they do that? I am afraid I don’t have an answer.

Next time you pick up a book, scroll through a website or glance at a label, take a moment to notice the font. Those subtle lines and curves are doing more than you might think, shaping your experience in subtle ways.

Andrea Piovesan 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. It’s not you – some typefaces feel different – https://theconversation.com/its-not-you-some-typefaces-feel-different-270192

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ricky Spencer, Professor, Western Sydney University

If someone mentions criminal gangs, you might think of drug trafficking or financial crime. But one of the most persistent illegal trades in the world flies largely under the radar: wildlife smuggling.

The illegal wildlife trade drains plants and animals from their ecosystems and fuels organised crime. Australia is now considered a global hotspot for reptile smuggling. Enforcement agencies scramble to answer the most basic question — has an animal been taken from the wild? In courtrooms, that question often determines whether a prosecution succeeds or falls apart.

Our latest research suggests there might be a way to determine where an animal came from with scientific confidence. By examining the chemical traces inside a turtle’s claw, we can tell whether the animal grew up in the wild or in captivity. The claw is a small piece of tissue, but it carries an environmental signature that’s surprisingly difficult to fake. And this is potentially transformative for smuggling law enforcement.

A claw is a chemical diary

Stable isotope analysis is a technique used across fields as varied as archaeology, climate science and forensic anthropology.

It allows us to measure the ratios of different isotopes (atoms with the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons) in bones or teeth. Using scientific knowledge about how these isotopes occur in nature, we can trace them to their source. Animals absorb those chemical markers through what they eat and drink.

Keratin — the material that forms hair, nails, feathers and claws — preserves this chemical history especially well. Because it grows slowly, it records the conditions an animal has lived in over many months. For turtles, claws are an ideal window into their past. This technique could be used in other animals too.

Wild turtles forage widely, eating insects, plants and crustaceans. They move through landscapes like wetlands and billabongs, which have their own chemical imprint. In comparison, captive turtles are generally fed a narrow diet of pellets or farmed fish, and drink treated water. Those differences show up in the isotopes of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and other elements in their claw keratin.

so for other animals could we use their claws too?

Admissible in court?

Any forensic method has to be reliable. Courts expect a sound scientific method, reproducible results, and a clear chain of custody — proof that the sample tested is the same one taken from the seized turtle.

Stable isotope analysis already meets the first two requirements. It’s a mature field grounded in decades of peer-reviewed research. The equipment used — isotope-ratio mass spectrometers — is standard in many research and forensic labs. Our testing methods have been documented in detail so the test can be reproduced anywhere the right equipment exists.

The legal side is equally important. A claw trimming is easy for wildlife officers to collect, label and preserve without harming the animal. In a courtroom, isotope results could sit alongside DNA evidence, seizure records and expert testimony, providing a clearer picture of where an animal actually came from.

A problem for Australia

Australians tend to think of wildlife trafficking as something that happens elsewhere — African ivory, South-East Asian pangolins, South American parrots. But Australia is now considered a global hotspot for reptile smuggling.

Official data show the number of live animals seized by the Australian government has tripled since 2017. And researchers emphasise that seizure records capture only a small fraction of the real trade. Global analyses suggest seizures may represent less than 10% of all illegal wildlife trafficking, meaning most animals smuggled from Australia are never detected at the border.

Australian reptiles – including freshwater turtles – are highly sought in the international pet trade. A recent analysis found 170 Australian reptile and amphibian species for sale overseas, particularly in Asian markets. Australian authorities note native reptiles are highly prized in the Hong Kong illicit pet trade, and attract far higher prices than locally.

Prosecutions are rare

Hong Kong is a major destination and transit hub for smuggled wildlife. One case involved 658 pig-nosed turtle hatchlings (a species native to northern Australia and New Guinea) worth about HK$500,000 (A$100,000) seized from a traveller’s luggage.

Despite this, prosecutions in Australia are rare. Globally, smugglers often insist their animals were legally bred — a claim that is almost impossible to challenge without scientific evidence. This is precisely the gap isotope forensics can fill. A claw sample that reveals a wild origin undermines the “captive-bred” defence and gives prosecutors a stronger case.

This matters for another reason. Australia invests heavily in turtle conservation, such as nest protection, wetland restoration and community science networks like 1 Million Turtles. When breeding adults are poached from rehabilitated habitats, these efforts are undermined. A tool that can trace animals back to the wild strengthens enforcement and conservation.

Where to next?

Australia’s laws are strong, and permits are required for any movement of native reptiles. The problem is proving origin once animals leave the country. A stable-isotope database would let authorities overseas show that animals sold as “captive-bred” were actually removed from Australian environments. Funding could come from the federal environment portfolio, ideally in partnership with forensic laboratories and academic institutions that already have the equipment.

What has been missing is the link between field ecology and courtroom evidence. A turtle’s claw, it turns out, may provide this. In a trade that has depended on secrecy and false paperwork, a chemical signature that cannot easily be altered may give authorities a fighting chance.

Wildlife crime is notoriously difficult to prove. For species that take decades to reach maturity, losing even a few adults to illegal trade can erase years of conservation gains. But a technique that reveals an animal’s true provenance has the potential to reshape enforcement in Australia and beyond.

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

– ref. The tiny clue that reveals if an animal has been illegally smuggled – https://theconversation.com/the-tiny-clue-that-reveals-if-an-animal-has-been-illegally-smuggled-269818

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kelly Simpson, Associate Lecturer in Education , Southern Cross University

Starting school is a time of great anticipation and excitement for young children and families. The buildup can last for months as children go to orientation days, and families prepare with new uniforms, bags and lunch boxes. Significant adults in the child’s life are eager to celebrate this time.

As anticipation builds, excited adults often ask children questions about starting or going to “big school” next year, and remind them of the changes that being a “big school kid” will bring.

Though well-meaning and aimed at building excitement and preparation, these statements can actually make the move to school feel big and scary for children. How can you talk about school instead?

A big change is coming

It is natural for children to have some anxieties about starting school. This is a significant milestone and time of change. There are new teachers, peers, routines, classrooms, playgrounds and rules to learn.

For children who have gone to long day care or preschool, there is a a shift from play-based learning to a more formal, teacher-led model. For children coming from family care, starting school may be their first extended time away from home.

Research shows children starting school may feel anxious for varied reasons, including separation from parents, uncertainty about what will happen, or not knowing their teacher or where to put belongings.

While specific data on the number of children who experience school-entry anxiety is not available, the most recent Australian Child and Adolescent Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing reported 6.9% of Australian children aged four to eleven experience an anxiety disorder.

So, while many children will be excited about starting school, eager to meet new friends and learn new things, others will be worried. And talking about school as “big” may exacerbate these concerns.

Adults like to talk about ‘big school’

Before children start school there is inevitably a lot of interest from others around them. Parents, other relatives and educators will often talk about
what “big school” will bring. They may use this term to emphasise how children are growing up and are about to embark on an exciting new chapter.

Statements such as “at big school you won’t be able to wear your Bluey t-shirt” or “you’re a big school kid now, you need to open your own lunchbox” are commonly heard as adults seek to make children aware of the changes the transition to school will bring.

While these comments are typically well-meaning, they often inadvertently frame changes associated with starting school as negative by focusing children’s attention on challenges. For example, what they will no longer be allowed to do, will need to learn to do, and will not have their adult to help them do.

This is opposed to the positive experiences school will bring. For example, the new and interesting things they will learn, new equipment they will play on, or the delicious foods they will be able to order at the canteen.

What can parents do instead?

To build children’s confidence and strengthen their capacity to successfully manage this change, here are some suggestions:

• encourage children to share their thoughts, feelings and questions about starting school. For example, “what are you most excited about learning when you start school?”, “what do you think you will do on your first day at school?”, and “who do you think you could ask to help you open this at school?”

• keep in mind children’s perspectives may differ from adult concerns. “Will I need to wear shoes all day?”, “do the toilets have doors?”, “will the teacher know my name?” and “what if I don’t know what to do?” are common questions and important things to know!

• read books about starting school and talk about the characters, their experiences and feelings. Asking questions related to a book, such as “when the pigeon has to go to school, do you think he feels nervous or excited?” give children language to discuss their own feelings

• ask your school if they have any “social stories”. These are created by schools and use photos or images alongside simple language to describe what school will be like. For example, “this is where I put my bag in the morning. Then I go and meet my teacher here.” This information builds children’s familiarity with the school and its routines which is great for reducing anxiety caused by the unknown.

Parents may also be worried

You may have your own anxieties about your child starting school. Perhaps you are worried they may forget things, or that they’ll get upset or not behave as well as they should. Avoid discussing your own worries in front of your children.

Instead, use strengths-based language that highlights what the child can do.

For example, when we say to a child “You are going to have to remember where your bag goes at school”, we point out a challenge. When we say “It might be tricky to remember where your bag goes, you work on tricky puzzles all the time though! Let’s think about what you could do to solve the bag puzzle” we recognise the challenge, and the child’s capacity to address it on their own.

Kelly is a qualified early childhood teacher and early years practitioner. She works within the not-for profit community kindergarten sector, and is an active member of the Together4Lockyer community.

– ref. Adults like to talk about ‘big school’. This can make the change seem scary for some children – https://theconversation.com/adults-like-to-talk-about-big-school-this-can-make-the-change-seem-scary-for-some-children-270889

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zoe Staines, Senior Lecturer in Law and Social Policy, The University of Queensland

In the flurry of action in Parliament House in the final moments of the sitting year, the government passed a bill that escaped the attention of most.

New changes to social security law mean a person’s income support can now be cancelled because they are subject to an outstanding arrest warrant for a serious offence.

These are people merely accused of crimes, not found guilty of them.

The change raises fundamental questions about justice, human rights and the role of social security. It transforms welfare from a crucial safety net to a tool of law enforcement, with serious implications.

Flying under the radar

The changes were quietly added to Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment Bill in late October. The government did this without consultation or announcement, and bypassing parliamentary committee scrutiny on the grounds of urgency.

Less than a month later, the amended bill was passed into law. The change was effective immediately.

The legislation grants the minister for home affairs the power to authorise “Benefit Restriction Notices”. These cancel social security, family assistance and parental leave payments for anyone with an outstanding arrest warrant for serious, violent or sexual offences (within the meaning of the criminal code).

No conviction or even court appearance is required.

According to the bill’s explanatory memorandum:

the objective […] is to ensure people who are subject to an outstanding arrest warrant for a serious offence can no longer be supported through the social security and family payments systems.

But an arrest warrant is not proof of guilt. It is merely an allegation that someone may have committed an offence.

Yet curbing social security is a punishment, and not just for the suspect, but often also their family.

6 serious problems

1. Violation of the presumption of innocence

These laws would enable punishment before any judicial determination of guilt. A person could have their support payments cancelled even if they haven’t been charged, convicted or appeared before any court.

The parliament’s own human rights experts warn this may punish people who are legally innocent, directly contradicting the presumption of innocence.

This presumption is expressly protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a party. Its erosion under the measure sets a dangerous precedent.

It also cuts across the fundamental protection against double jeopardy: the principle that people will not be tried or punished twice for the same offence. This is because cancelling welfare is a form of punishment, after which a second punishment might also be enforced for those subsequently found guilty.

2. Ministerial power with few safeguards

The laws bypass normal checks and balances in Australia’s social security system. The minister can cancel payments based on police requests, with no independent review.

Ordinarily, decisions by Services Australia can be appealed to the Administrative Review Tribunal. But under this measure, only limited judicial review is available. Courts can check procedural issues, but not whether the decision was fair.

Payments may be cancelled without the person knowing a warrant exists and there is no obligation to reinstate benefits if the warrant is cleared or charges dropped. Back pay isn’t provided if the person is found innocent.

This concentration of power removes safeguards against error and abuse, creating a two-tier system that denies basic procedural protections.

Constitutionally, it blurs the separation of powers designed to ensure courts, not politicians, decide guilt and punishment.

3. First Nations peoples will be hardest hit

First Nations peoples make up 3.8% of the population, but 36% of all prisoners, with this overrepresentation continuing to grow. This measure will hit First Nations communities hardest.

The experience of similar powers in Aotearoa/New Zealand since 2013 has shown Māori peoples have their social security payments cancelled at twice the rate of others.

As a result, the nation’s Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommended removing the powers in 2019.

By 2019-2020, 71% of warrant to arrest sanction recipients were Māori.

And while the Australian police say its use of this power will be rare, the similar laws in NZ were used around 700 times in 2019, according to the latest available data.

4. Harmful impacts for domestic violence victims

Domestic violence victims are also at significant risk from the measure. Victims fleeing abuse – especially First Nations victims – are increasingly wrongly identified as perpetrators.

If an arrest warrant is issued while they are in hiding, their support payments could be cancelled, cutting off their income at the most dangerous moment in their lives with no chance to explain or present evidence.

This potentially forces them back into violent situations, with the alternative “choice” being dire poverty.

Read more:
Indigenous women are most affected by domestic violence but have struggled to be heard. It’s time we listened

5. Serious doubt about proportionality and effectiveness

These laws could only comply with international law if the measure is proportionate, and actually effective in its objective of stopping payments to people with outstanding arrest warrants “which might be assisting them in evading the authorities”.

The government has provided no evidence that cutting off payments would prevent people from evading the law or encourage their surrender.

That the measure cancels, rather than suspends, payments is also arguably in contradiction with international law, given this less restrictive alternative is available.

6. Another legal problem in the making?

Australia should have learned from its Robodebt Royal Commission. Welfare cancellations without proper safeguards can be found unlawful and cause devastating harm.

Yet, the Benefit Restrictions Notice regime risks creating conditions for another scandal.

When the United States introduced similar “fugitive felon” provisions in 1996, they proved disastrous, with many elderly and vulnerable people losing benefits without knowing warrants existed.

By 2002, around 110,000 people had their benefits removed under these provisions.

Following legal challenges and a class action settlement, the US severely restricted these measures and compensated millions of dollars to people whose benefits were wrongly cancelled.

What needs to happen

While these laws are now active, their real-world consequences will take time to unfold.

It remains to be seen whether they will facilitate arrests. In the meantime, there must be rigorous public reporting, independent scrutiny, and formal review of how these powers are used, to ensure the serious risks outlined here do not materialise unchecked.

Zoe Staines has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council.

Francis Markham receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Department of Home Affairs.

Hannah McGlade is affiliated with the Noongar Family Safety and Wellbeing Council.

Thalia Anthony receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. With a sneaky tweak, the government has made welfare recipients guilty until proven innocent – https://theconversation.com/with-a-sneaky-tweak-the-government-has-made-welfare-recipients-guilty-until-proven-innocent-270670

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jan Kabatek, Research Fellow, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne

Working from home has become a fixture of Australian work culture, but its effect on mental health is still widely debated.

Can working from home boost your mental health? If so, how many days a week are best? Whose wellbeing benefits the most? And is that because there’s no commute?

These are among questions we answered in our new study, based on long-term survey data from more than 16,000 Australian workers.

We found working from home boosts women’s mental health more than men’s.

What we did

We analysed 20 years of data from the national Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey, which allowed us to track the work and mental health of more than 16,000 employees.

We didn’t include two years of the COVID pandemic (2020 and 2021), because people’s mental health then could have been shaped by factors unrelated to working from home.

The data allowed us to track people over time and examine how their mental health changed alongside their commuting patterns and working from home arrangements.

Our statistical models removed any changes driven by major life events (for example, job moves or the arrival of children).

We focused on two things to see if there was any effect on mental health: commuting time and working from home.

We also examined whether these effects differed between people with good and poor mental health, a novel feature of our study.

Commuting affects men and women differently

For women, commuting time had no detectable effect on mental health. But for men, longer commutes were tied to poorer mental health for those who already had strained mental health.

The effect was modest. For a man near the middle of the mental health distribution (close to the median), adding half an hour to his one-way commute reduced reported mental health by roughly the same amount as a 2% drop in household income.

Hybrid working was best for women

Working from home had a strong positive effect on women’s mental health, but only in certain circumstances.

The biggest gains were recorded when women worked mainly from home while still spending some time (one to two days) in the office or on-site each week.

For women with poor mental health, this arrangement led to better mental health than working exclusively on-site. Gains were comparable to those from a 15% rise in household income.

This finding echoes an earlier study, which found the same type of hybrid work arrangements led to improved job satisfaction and productivity.

The mental health benefits for women were not just a result of saving time on commuting. Because our analysis accounted for commuting separately, these benefits reflected other positive aspects of working from home. These include less work stress
or helping them to juggle work and family life.

Light or occasional working from home had no clear effect on women’s mental health. The evidence for full-time home working from home was less definitive, largely because we saw relatively few women doing this.

For men, working from home had no statistically reliable effect on mental health, either positive or negative, regardless of how many days they worked from home or on-site.

This may reflect the gendered distribution of tasks in Australian households, as well as the fact that men’s social and friendship networks tend to be more work-based.

What’s the key message?

Workers with poorer mental health are the most sensitive to long commutes and the most likely to benefit from substantial working from home arrangements. This is partly because people with poor mental health already have more limited capacity to deal with stressful events.

For women with poor mental health, working from home can represent a major boost to wellbeing. For men with poor mental health, the resulting reduction of commute times can help too.

However, workers with strong mental health appear less sensitive to both commuting and working-from-home patterns. They may still value flexibility, but the mental health implications of their work arrangements are smaller.

What next?

Here are our recommendations based on our findings.

If you’re a worker, monitor how commuting and different work-from-home patterns affect your own wellbeing rather than assuming there is a single best approach. If you struggle with mental health, plan your most demanding tasks for days when you are working in the environment where you feel most comfortable.

If you’re an employer, offer flexible working-from-home arrangements, especially for employees who struggle with mental health. Consider hybrid models that include both home and office time, since these appear most beneficial. Treat commuting time as a factor in workload and wellbeing discussions. Avoid one-size-fits-all return-to-office policies.

If you make public policy, invest in reducing congestion and improving public transport capacity. Strengthen frameworks that encourage flexible work arrangements. Support access to mental health services.

Jordy Meekes and Roger Wilkins also co-authored the research study mentioned in this article.

Jan Kabatek receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Children and Families over the Life Course.

Ferdi Botha receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Children and Families over the Life Course.

– ref. What’s working from home doing to your mental health? We tracked 16,000 Australians to find out – https://theconversation.com/whats-working-from-home-doing-to-your-mental-health-we-tracked-16-000-australians-to-find-out-270356