Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Bartholomaeus, Lecturer, University of Adelaide

The outcome of the referendum has been chalked up to deepening political polarisation, Australian’s entrenched racial prejudice and the rise of populism.

In short, opposition to the Voice to Parliament has been characterised as a conservative populist backlash with racist undertones. In the wake of a 60/40 “no” vote majority, this message only serves to deepen the post-referendum divide.

However, new research indicates the story is a little more complex. Findings show it was fundamentally the esteem of authority, the desire for an ordered society, and perceptions of justice and fairness that dictated how people engaged with this emotionally charged political issue, and ultimately how they voted.

It is only by a greater understanding of people’s attitudes towards the referendum (even if we disagree with them) that Australians can move forward and have a more productive bipartisan conversation.

Hierarchical status quo

We collected survey data from 253 people before and after the referendum. We wanted to get an idea of the way people’s worldviews would influence their vote and opinions about the outcome of the referendum.

In June 2023 (roughly 16 weeks before the vote) we asked about people’s attitudes towards authority, their opinion about social hierarchy, and their perceptions of justice in society. In October (immediately after the vote) we asked how people voted and whether they thought the outcome of the referendum would be good for Australia.

Our findings show people who voted “no” and who were pleased with the outcome were more willing to submit to authority. They also preferred a hierarchical society where the social status of different groups is maintained.

These attitudes were more important in predicting voting behaviour than a person’s age, gender, ethnicity, income, education, religion or even their political orientation.

Whereas social hierarchy beliefs are broad and refer to a person’s general view that it’s a “dog-eat-dog” world, racism relates more narrowly to discrimination against people based on their ethnicity. While there’s often a complicated relationship between preference for social hierarchy and racism, these findings counter the widespread claims that those who voted “no” were entirely racially motivated or were simply voting along political lines.

In understanding why some people voted “no”, these findings can promote a more open discussion.

For example, in the future when discussing profound and potentially momentous changes to the country (the current debate around nuclear energy, for example), it will be helpful to remember that people differ drastically in their willingness to follow along with authority.

Some will be quick to cotton on to messages from leaders and may act passionately (even aggressively) on these convictions. Others will be slower and more cautious in their support for ideas expressed by authority.

It will also be helpful to remember people have different ideas about how society should be structured. Some people will prefer a society with a clear pecking order, perhaps fearing the chaos of a disordered society. Others are less concerned with a clear structure in favour of things like social mobility.

Our findings show we shouldn’t reduce support for complex issues simply to one’s political orientation or demographic characteristics. We need to seek first to understand a person’s worldview and attitude towards societal change. Only then can we have a productive conversation about what is best for the country.

Perceived (in)justice

Populism is the idea that a small group of elite people are trying to force change on society. A populist backlash occurs when ordinary people rebel against the powerful minority and exert the popular will of the people. Voting down the referendum has been characterised in such terms.

Our data show people who voted “no” view society as a just place in which people are generally treated fairly. They didn’t accept the fundamental premise on which the referendum was sold: that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are, and have been, unjustly treated. This finding provides a helpful insight into the populist explanation for the referendum outcome.

At its heart, the populist narrative is a story of justice. The idea that the elite are pursuing their own agenda to the detriment of the people strikes us all as unjust.

But it is people who already see society as a just and fair place who are especially sensitive to this perceived injustice. These people can act out in sometimes extreme ways. Consider, for example, the January 6 storming of the US capitol.

By understanding the populist account in terms of justice, we can clearly see how the post-referendum divide in society has formed: those who voted “no” feel vindicated at having avoided an unjust change to society, while those who voted “yes” become wary of these people for their extreme and seemingly unwarranted reaction. Understanding not only the important role that justice plays in people’s lives, but also that people can have differing views of what justice is, is crucial to keep in mind.

In a world where political polarisation is increasing and where we are confronted with news (some real, some fake) that continually seems to deepen this divide, taking the time to understand the complexity of people’s worldviews and political opinions – even those you might disagree with – is more important than ever.

Jonathan Bartholomaeus 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 wasn’t just race and politics that motivated Voice to Parliament ‘no’ voters. Here’s what we found when we dug deeper – https://theconversation.com/it-wasnt-just-race-and-politics-that-motivated-voice-to-parliament-no-voters-heres-what-we-found-when-we-dug-deeper-228006

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Miranda Forsyth, Professor in the School of Regulation and Global Governance, Australian National University

Papua New Guinea has had a difficult year, beginning with serious rioting and looting in the capital, Port Moresby, and several other towns.

After a payroll glitch led to a stop-work action by police, the so-called Black Wednesday riots on January 10 resulted in burned-out stores and at least 20 deaths.

In February, an inter-group conflict in the troubled Highlands province of Enga led to around 70 killings.

And late last month, a marauding gang of young men calling themselves “I don’t care” terrorised rural villagers in East Sepik province. According to reports, at least 26 were killed, unconfirmed numbers of women and girls were raped and several homes were torched.

It’s time for a fresh look at how and why these issues are boiling over, and why a different approach is needed.

A spotlight on policing

While sparse data makes accurate measurement difficult, most would agree violence and lawlessness are increasing in many parts of PNG.

The broader context for this violence includes:

• rural decay
• lack of economic opportunities
• exploitative resource extraction
• a debilitating cost of living crisis, and
• frustrations with a political system that has failed to deliver services or development to a youthful and rapidly growing population.

Yet despite the multiple factors contributing to PNG’s “law and order” problems, it is common to focus on just one: the shortcomings of the country’s law enforcement agencies.

As a result, the solution is often simplistic: more robust policing.

Typically, this involves the deployment of heavily armed mobile squads, often long after events on the ground have got out of control.

This is usually followed by the abrupt withdrawal of these squads when the fighting ends.

This year, again, national leaders were calling for reactive and militarised policing, including the use of lethal force. In February, police were warning, “We will shoot to kill anyone brandishing a weapon.”

There is a superficial appeal to the logic of violent policing responses. After all, rather than bows and arrows, today’s warriors are armed with high-powered firearms.

As seen in conflicts around the world, the temptation to respond to violence with more violence is incredibly strong. Yet we also have decades of experience indicating such approaches in PNG simply do not bring about positive change.

Worse, such responses often exacerbate trauma and undermine ongoing local peace-building efforts.

A different approach

Perhaps we should instead turn for inspiration to Bougainville. This autonomous region of PNG, wracked by conflict in the 1980s and 90s, has since become a poster-child for post-conflict peacebuilding.

Bougainville’s peace process was driven by local actors – traditional leaders, women’s organisations, church groups and others – who creatively adapted older forms of peacemaking and reconciliation to new circumstances.

This approach is working in numerous micro-experiments around the country, including informal regulation in urban settlements.

For example, Gerehu, a sprawling suburb of Port Moresby, was once characterised by carjackings, burglaries, drugs and violence. It has turned into a relative oasis in recent years. This is due to work by motivated individuals driving local transformation, linking together scattered state resources and civil society energy.

It’s time for PNG as a whole to adopt such an approach, with policing seen as part of a shared governance agenda that involves civil society as active partners.

Changing the framing of violence

An important first step is to change the way violence is framed in PNG.

Portraying it as the preserve of unruly tribes, lawless individuals or criminal gangs disconnected from society and state is inaccurate and unhelpful.

It suggests these groups are “out there” needing to be “civilised” by the state.

However, some reports suggest PNG’s political and business elites may be implicated in resourcing such violence.

They may perceive electoral advantage from violence and insecurity, or economic gain such as land-grabbing.

State failures are also a major contributor to violence. The erosion of services such as health, education and justice have accentuated societal frustration across the board, not least among disenfranchised youth who are often blamed for violence and disorder.

This frustration has been fuelled by the sheer lack of economic opportunities for the growing youth population.

It has also been reported that protagonists of contemporary criminality in PNG come from outside its borders, with growing issues of drug and arms trafficking.

The problem of violence needs to be seen as one driven by both state and society. The responsibility for finding a peaceful way forward must also be shared.

This requires genuine work with local leaders, including women leaders, to address existing and new security threats.

There is hope investment in such long-term partnerships will be supported by at least some of PNG’s most senior leaders. Encouragingly, the PNG police commissioner, David Manning, said in January this year that “police needed to start empowering community-based leaders.”

Another high priority is bringing courts and other justice services into areas where they often have a limited and fleeting presence. Local leaders often need state back-up to resolve small disputes before they escalate into warfare.

If violent forms of self-help are to be avoided, people need to see perpetrators of violent crime face the consequences. This includes the entrepreneurs and beneficiaries of conflict, and not just the fighters on the ground.

Bringing peace to PNG requires so much more than simply demanding it through the barrel of a gun.

Miranda Forsyth receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Sinclair Dinnen receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. PNG has had a horror year of conflict – but peace rarely comes through the barrel of a gun – https://theconversation.com/png-has-had-a-horror-year-of-conflict-but-peace-rarely-comes-through-the-barrel-of-a-gun-236239

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Janine Swail, Senior lecturer, Department of Management and International Business, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

This year Aotearoa New Zealand saw the highest rate of business closures since 2015, with 10,662 companies removed from the Company’s Office quarterly register.

During the second quarter of 2024, company removals increased by 2,786 (a 35.6% increase) compared to the same period last year. But the closures have not been felt equally.

Female entrepreneurs have been particularly hard hit. High-profile women-owned businesses such as Supy, Sunfed and Mina have all closed their doors.

According to one global report, family commitments, as well as the pandemic, posed bigger hurdles for women entrepreneurs than their male counterparts. In the survey spanning 49 countries, 18% of female entrepreneurs who quit or exited a business did so for personal and family reasons, compared to just 12.6% of men.

Our research examined the personal and family reasons behind women entrepreneurs’ decision to exit their businesses. While the respondents we interviewed were based in the United Kingdom, the responses reflected experiences seen in New Zealand and elsewhere.

We found women entrepreneurs were often felt they had no option other than to exit or close their business if they wanted to preserve a viable home life.

Household demands

We interviewed 16 women founders in the UK who exited their startups for personal reasons largely unrelated to financial or performance issues.

These reasons typically involved balancing household and business demands, and often included gendered responsibilities for child and eldercare.

Frequently, men’s careers came first in partner households. For instance, one beauty therapist closed her growing business to look after her children because her husband’s medical career was so demanding. As she explained:

If we had both tried to focus on careers, we would have clashed, and the children and family life would have suffered.

Another woman who had established an Irish dance school franchise, running across seven cities, reluctantly chose to sell. She explained travel demands with two young children meant continuing her successful business was no longer feasible.

Having one, I can travel around the world with him. I used to bring him in his little baby bucket to the dance studio and keep him with me some days. I hated doing that because I felt it was very unprofessional. But sometimes, you’ve just got to do it, right? But with two, it was like, okay, this is not feasible anymore. When I got pregnant with [my second child], I was starting to consider what was my next step.

Even women who were childless often cited gendered personal reasons. One woman’s harrowing experience of IVF forced her to rethink whether entrepreneurship was the right career for her.

Another had diverted time to support her sister, to whom she had been egg donor, through the loss of premature twins. Her absence from the business resulted in gradual income decline. She explained grief and emotional toil left her depleted and unable to drive new business:

It was like somebody had taken my batteries out. I just did not work anymore.

Delving into such emotions and how women made sense of their exit decisions was explored and put further flesh and blood into their “personal” reasons. Within the combined 16 interview transcripts, we documented 47 different negative emotions, versus 17 different positive emotions.

This imbalance demonstrates the involuntary nature of business exits. But more concerningly, we draw attention to the potential damaging effects these emotions have on women’s wellbeing and confidence, as well as the broader reconstruction of their career and work identities.

Having it all

The women we spoke with rationalised their exit decisions by pointing to the expectations on them to prioritise family. They blamed themselves for failing to see through this supposed opportunity to “have it all”.

Time and time again our societies pedal the myth that entrepreneurship is the panacea for work/life imbalance, and the secret to unlocking that much desired career goal of flexibility over one’s work.

As Uma, an ex-entrepreneur, explained:

I was told that [business ownership] would be flexible. I wanted something where I wouldn’t have to work full time, but I was completely wrong about that – especially with setting up your own business. It takes over your life and just becomes another baby.

There needs to be a new conversation, recognising business and personal expectations on female founders are often incompatible.

Business comes with costs

Policies and media should stop presenting self-employment as a cost-free solution for women.

At times, it is a poor career choice, particularly when talented women could potentially be adding economic and social value in organisations with family-inclusive practices and policies that can support them.

Of course, women should still be encouraged and helped if they do want to build a business. Many, particularly those with high levels of human and entrepreneurial capital, do create successful and sustainable ventures. But the evidence indicates the universal “more (startups) is better” thesis is the wrong approach.

Too often advocates argue governments should focus on creating “cheaper, faster, simpler” ways to set up in business. A more nuanced approach would benefit from firstly understanding the kinds of people who become entrepreneurs, and how peer networks and the financing environment can help.

Entrepreneurship continues to be presented to women as a way to build work-life balance. But this must be balanced with a “reality check” regarding the poor prospects for those entering crowded, volatile sectors, operating part-time, or who are sole household earners without the benefit of an additional secure income.

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. Having it all is a myth: family and personal commitments are pushing women out of their own businesses – https://theconversation.com/having-it-all-is-a-myth-family-and-personal-commitments-are-pushing-women-out-of-their-own-businesses-236501

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephanie Wescott, Lecturer in Humanities and Social Sciences, Monash University

The UK government has recently announced a review into their counter-terrorism strategy, focussing on responses to “extremist ideologies”. This announcement named misogyny as one of its extremist ideological trends of interest.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said:

For too long, governments have failed to address the rise in extremism, both online and on our streets, and we’ve seen the number of young people radicalised online grow.

Calls for action on the effects of extremist ideologies propagated by online masculinity influencers have recently increased. Last month, The UK National Police Chiefs’ Council described the radicalisation of boys into misogyny as a “national emergency”. They noted that online extremist influencers such as Andrew Tate recruit and radicalise boys in ways similar to how followers are drawn into other extremist ideologies. This has profoundly dangerous implications for women and girls.

Reframing how violent crimes are conceptualised has an impact on how seriously they are taken by police and how they are resourced.

At a time when misogynistic attitudes are on the rise, and the crisis of violence against women continues, understanding misogyny as an extremist ideology is key to shaping appropriate responses.

Read more:
We research online ‘misogynist radicalisation’. Here’s what parents of boys should know

What’s happening in Australia?

There have been concerted efforts to improve markers of gender equity in Australia. But backlash to the project of gender equity and efforts to eradicate gender-based violence continues.

Our recent research has found misogynist ideology is increasingly present among boys and young men in Australian schools. This problem is amplified by extremist content infiltrating boys’ and young men’s social media feeds.

Our interviews with women teaching in schools has uncovered the presence of misogynist beliefs among boys in schools across the country. These include beliefs about women’s inherent inferiority, commitments to regressive gender roles, and a brazen entitlement to treat women and girls in sexist and derogatory ways.

We have argued that a process of misogynistic radicalisation seems to have occurred. By this we mean that sustained exposure to misogynistic content, delivered by social media, has reshaped how boys and young men understand women’s roles and their relationships with them.

Online communities, certain social circles, and media content can act as echo chambers that reinforce and deepen misogynistic beliefs. This in turn can lead to progressive exposure to increasingly extreme views on gender roles.

There are similarities here with radicalisation into far-right extremism. This typically involves individuals being exposed to more mainstream or even seemingly benign nationalist or anti-immigrant sentiment, and then more extremist ideologies.

Misogyny and gender-based violence

The rise of misogynist attitudes among Australian boys occurs alongside an existing crisis — endemic levels of gender-based violence and murder perpetrated against women. Researchers have long argued that gendered violence and violence informed by extremist ideology, such as terrorism or mass casualty attacks, are inextricably connected.

Increased exposure to misogynist content is a concern not only for its potential to harm, but also for its connection to other forms of extremism. Recent research on violent extremism in Australia found that individuals who hold misogynist attitudes are more likely to support other types of violent extremism. This report also noted that gendered biases are overlooked as pathways to radicalisation and violent extremism.

Conversation about how to categorise misogynistic violence increased following the Bondi stabbings earlier this year. There was some resistance to naming the attack as an act of terrorism, with definitional limitations preventing it from being categorised in that way. This is despite police stating it was “obvious” the attacker targeted women.

Failing to recognise these acts of violence as informed by misogyny as an extremist ideology prevents us from fully understanding its radicalising influence and how it propels violence against women.

What difference would labelling misogyny as extremism make?

Despite their different focuses, misogynistic extremism has much in common with other forms of extremism such as far-right nationalism. They are each characterised by rigid ideologies, violence, and systemic oppression. They also challenge principles of equality and justice.

The rigid belief in the superiority of men over women that is the cornerstone of misogyny is akin to the far right beliefs in the racial superiority of white people over other racial and ethnic groups. At their core is the systemic oppression of the group to which they position themselves as superior.

Misogynist ideology, including the belief in men’s innate role in the protection of women and in the rightness of women’s subordination, are a feature of many other extremist and far-right ideologies, including neo-Nazism. Research has established this connection between gender ideology, extremism and terrorism, and also how these ideas spread across online platforms and channels.

Recognising misogyny as a form of extremism enables governments to approach it with the seriousness it deserves. It supports the development of targeted policies and legal frameworks to combat gender-based violence, systemic discrimination, and societal division. Recognising the gendered components of extremist ideology is essential to accurately responding to their risk and understanding their transmission.

For example, in Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner Micaela Cronin’s inaugural yearly report card delivered to the Press Club in August, she noted that if the same intelligence resources were devoted to domestic violence as to terrorism, some women might be saved.

Not all people who hold extremist beliefs will end up committing acts of violence, and extremism exists on a continuum of beliefs and ideas. However, the focus of the definition should not be on the outcome of the belief or the consequence. It’s important to identify that misogynistic beliefs are extremist, and should not be accepted and tolerated.

Australian governments need to act

It has been widely recommended that federal and state governments should make extremist ideologies a national security priority. This should include ideologies that perpetuate violence against women. As recent research recommendations attest, prevention should attend to the gendered elements of the radicalisation process.

Education is a crucial part of primary prevention work. Part of that work will be accurately categorising and naming misogyny for what it is. While there is some attention in curriculums to preventing violent extremism, this rarely goes beyond a broad consideration of social cohesion.

If we are committed to the eradication of gender-based violence in Australia, we must accurately categorise misogyny as its underlying extremist ideology.

Stephanie Wescott receives funding from Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS).

Steven Roberts receives funding from the Australian Research Council, ANROWS and the Australian Government. Steven is a Board Director at Respect Victoria. This article is written entirely independently from that role.

– ref. Should misogyny be treated as a form of extremism? – https://theconversation.com/should-misogyny-be-treated-as-a-form-of-extremism-237229

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

The weight-loss drug Wegovy is now available in Australia.

Wegovy is administered as a once-weekly injection and is approved specifically for weight management. It’s intended to be used in combination with a reduced-energy diet and increased physical activity.

So how does Wegovy work and how much weight can you expect to lose while taking it? And what are the potential risks – and costs – for those who use it?

Let’s look at what the science says.

What is Wegovy?

Wegovy is a brand name for the medication semaglutide. Semaglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA). This means it makes your body’s own glucagon-like peptide-1 hormone, called GLP-1 for short, work better.

Normally when you eat, the body releases the GLP-1 hormone which helps signal to your brain that you are full. Semaglutides enhance this effect, leading to a feeling of fullness, even when you haven’t eaten.

Another role of GLP-1 is to stimulate the body to produce more insulin, a hormone which helps lower the level of glucose (sugar) in the blood. That’s why semaglutides have been used for several years to treat type 2 diabetes.

How does Wegovy differ from Ozempic?

Like Wegovy, Ozempic is a semaglutide. The way Wegovy and Ozempic work in the body are essentially the same. They’re made by the same pharmaceutical company, Novo Nordisk.

But there are two differences:

1) They are approved for two different (but related) reasons.

In Australia (and the United States), Ozempic is approved for use to improve blood glucose levels in adults with type 2 diabetes. By managing blood glucose levels effectively, the medication aims to reduce the risk of major complications, such as heart disease.

Wegovy is approved for use alongside diet and exercise for people with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or greater, or 27 or greater but with other conditions such as high blood pressure.

Wegovy can also be used in people aged 12 years and older. Like Ozempic, Wegovy aims to reduce the risk of future health complications, including heart disease.

2) They are both injected but come in different strengths.

Ozempic is available in pre-loaded single-dose pens with varying dosages of 0.25 mg, 0.5 mg, 1 mg, or 2 mg per injection. The dose can be slowly increased, up to a maximum of 2 mg per week, if needed.

Wegovy is available in prefilled single-dose pens with doses of 0.25 mg, 0.5 mg, 1 mg, 1.7 mg, or 2.4 mg. The treatment starts with a dose of 0.25 mg once weekly for four weeks, after which the dose is gradually increased until reaching a maintenance dose of 2.4 mg weekly.

While it’s unknown what the impact of Wegovy’s introduction will be on Ozempic’s availability, Ozempic is still anticipated to be in low supply for the remainder of 2024.

Is Wegovy effective for weight loss?

Given Wegovy is a semaglutide, there is very strong evidence it can help people lose weight and maintain this weight loss.

A recent study found that over four years, participants taking Wevovy as indicated experienced an average weight loss of 10.2% body weight and a reduction in waist circumference of 7.7cm.

For those who stop taking the medication, analyses have shown that about two-thirds of weight lost is regained.

What are the side effects of Wegovy?

The most common side effects are nausea and vomiting.

However, other serious side effects are also possible because of the whole-of-body impact of the medication. Thyroid tumours and cancer have been detected as a risk in animal studies, yet are rarely seen in human scientific literature.

In the four-year Wegovy trial, 16.6% of participants who received Wegovy (1,461 people) experienced an adverse event that led to them permanently discontinuing their use of the medication. This was higher than the 8.2% of participants (718 people) who received the placebo (with no active ingredient).

Side effects included gastrointestinal disorders (including nausea and vomiting), which affected 10% of people who used Wegovy compared to 2% of people who used the placebo.

Gallbladder-related disorders occurred in 2.8% of people who used Wegovy, and 2.3% of people who received the placebo.

Recently, concerns about suicidal thoughts and behaviours have been raised, after a global analysis reviewed more than 36 million reports of adverse events from semaglutide (Ozempic or Wegovy) since 2000.

There were 107 reports of suicidal thoughts and self-harm among people taking semaglutide, sadly including six actual deaths. When people stopped the medication, 62.5% found the thoughts went away. What we don’t know is whether dose, weight loss, or previous mental health status or use of antidepressants had a role to play.

Finally, concerns are growing about the negative effect of semaglutides on our social and emotional connection with food. Anecdotal and scientific evidence suggests people who use semaglutides significantly reduce their daily dietary intake (as anticipated) by skipping meals and avoiding social occasions – not very enjoyable for people and their loved ones.

How can people access Wegovy?

Wegovy is available for purchase at pharmacists with a prescription from a doctor.

But there is a hefty price tag. Wegovy is not currently subsidised through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, leaving patients to cover the cost. The current cost is estimated at around A$460 per month dose.

If you’re considering Wegovy, make an appointment with your doctor for individual advice.

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

Emily Burch 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. Considering taking Wegovy to lose weight? Here are the risks and benefits – and how it differs from Ozempic – https://theconversation.com/considering-taking-wegovy-to-lose-weight-here-are-the-risks-and-benefits-and-how-it-differs-from-ozempic-237308

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alan Brent, Professor and Chair in Sustainable Energy Systems, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

The prime minister has called it an “energy security crisis” and signalled a review of New Zealand’s electricity market as wholesale prices spike and industries suffer.

And he’s right – this year has seen pricing turmoil. August saw daily averages ranging between NZ$164.52 and $853.57 per megawatt hour (MWh). By comparison, August 2023 saw a maximum daily average price of $168.43 per MWh.

The Electricity Authority attributes this to a shortage of gas combined with low rain and inflows into our hydro lakes. The latter is a major concern. Storage levels are now around 800 gigawatt hours (GWh) less than the minimum levels in 2023, and more than 1,000GWh less than the historical mean for this time of year.

This is happening in the face of climate change, higher risk of dry years, and high projected growth in electricity demand. Electricity demand and generation scenarios released recently by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment show this growth could be up to 82%, with a peak demand of between 9.1 and 12.5 gigawatts by 2050.

However, with greater electrification needed to decarbonise the economy, and aspirations to phase out all fossil fuels by 2030, some scenarios indicate the demand will be at least two to three times more. Of course, this means more generation capacity will be needed – 20 to 30 gigawatts above the current ten. The question is, can New Zealand do it?

Doubled capacity by 2030

The energy industry has been responding to these market signals, as highlighted in the government’s latest generation investment survey.

Committed and actively pursued projects will double generation capacity by the end of the decade. This will come largely from solar (6.4GW) and onshore wind (2.9GW), with smaller contributions from geothermal (0.6GW) and grid-scale batteries (0.6GW).

The first 35-megawatt battery facility was commissioned at Huntly this year. And battery capacity is important for stablising the grid and meeting peak demands. However, batteries will not address long-term storage of weeks and months, which is the focus of the NZ Battery Project.

The projected lesser investment in battery technology indicates a greater need to use hydropower capacity to compensate for the variability of solar and wind generation.

This “firming” of supply is based on the percentage of the year that a generation facility will provide power. For utility-scale solar it ranges between 19% and 26%, and for onshore wind between 33% and 55%.

Modelling by the Electricity Authority provides further insight on the firming that will be required. The analysis shows solar generation may be below 10% of the total capacity for 60% of the time. It will be above 50% of the overall capacity for 14% of the time.

Wind generation may be below 10% of the total capacity for 5% of the time, and above 50% of the capacity for 9% of the time over the entire country.

Renewables can meet future demand

Still, by 2030 we can expect around 11.5 terrawatt hours (TWh) a year from the new solar projects, and around 10.1TWh from the onshore wind projects. In total, this is about half the current yearly electricity demand.

Over the past decade, the country’s hydropower assets generated between 24 and 26TWh per year. So, to reach 100% renewable supply by 2030 (assuming biomass replaces coal at Huntley) will mean replacing between 3.5 and 5.6TWh of gas generation.

The battery capacity being developed won’t offset all of the gas generators currently used to respond to peak demands. If all of the batteries being developed participated in the market for four hours a day, they could provide around 1TWh over a year.

On a yearly basis, then, New Zealand can generate more than 47TWh from solar, wind and hydro, with some firming from the grid-scale batteries. That excludes the other baseload generators – geothermal, co-generation (where electricity is generated alongside heat production at industrial sites such as paper mills) and biomass.

In short, we should be able to meet our aspirations and the projected growth in energy demand by 2030.

Winter price spikes still likely

The challenge will be seasonal and daily power variations. The Electricity Authority analysis indicates wind generation should be reasonably consistent over the year. But there is an overall tendency to generate more during the day, typically peaking in the afternoons.

Solar generation, of course, will also peak in the early afternoons. But in winter it will generate a third less than in summer. This is important, given the risk of
depleting hydro lake storage and running out of sufficient generation capacity in the grid.

The electricity system will need to cater for the lower solar generation in winter when hydro storage is at its lowest.

Morning and evening demand can be addressed, to some extent, with the rollout of rooftop solar, with batteries to store the solar electricity generated, augmented by the grid to charge the batteries if the sun doesn’t shine.

If the solar systems are managed collectively as a virtual power plant, it has been shown winter peak events can be addressed by feeding electricity back into the grid when needed.

Nevertheless, with solar and wind offering lower market prices, we can probably expect wholesale prices to stabilise at reasonably low levels from the end of September to early May in a year without drought spells.

But winter may well still see price spikes if we don’t address seasonal storage. Scrapping most of the NZ Battery Project, as others have observed, may well prove shortsighted.

Alan Brent 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. NZ energy crisis: electricity demand will jump as NZ decarbonises – can renewable generation keep up? – https://theconversation.com/nz-energy-crisis-electricity-demand-will-jump-as-nz-decarbonises-can-renewable-generation-keep-up-237320

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Martin, Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

Just three weeks ago, Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock declared interest rate cuts unlikely in the next six months. But if there was any doubt about what’s going to happen to global interest rates, the US Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell removed it on Saturday.

Before an audience of central bankers from around the world (including the deputy governor of Australia’s Reserve Bank Andrew Hauser), Powell declared the long-awaited US rate cuts were about to begin.

“The time has come for policy to adjust,” Powell said, with a refreshing clarity that left no room for ambiguity.

“The direction of travel is clear, and the timing and pace of rate cuts will depend on incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks.”

Rate cuts by the US Fed and other central banks will create a near-irresistible pressure for Australia’s Reserve Bank to follow.

My tip? Australians are likely to get a rate cut as soon as Melbourne Cup Day, Tuesday November 5. Here’s why.

What happens in the US will happen in Australia

When the US Fed’s rate-setting committee next meets on September 17 and 18, it looks certain to cut the US Federal Funds rate for the first time since it began lifting it in 2022.

The US would join the United Kingdom, China, Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, Denmark, the European Union, and a host of other jurisdictions in cutting rates – some of them repeatedly – to shore up their economies.

Financial markets are pricing in the equivalent of four ordinary-size rate cuts in the US by the end of the year. Given the US Fed has only three meetings left this year, this implies they are expecting at least one cut to be a double.

Australia and the US aren’t that different

The US story, as Powell told it over the weekend, is also the Australian story.

Describing what he called the rise and fall of inflation in his speech, Powell explained inflation took off when consumer spending surged after the end of COVID restrictions.

The supply of goods was unable to keep pace at first, and consumers switched their spending to services.

Then Russia invaded Ukraine, ramping up energy and food prices and making high inflation a truly “global phenomenon”.

What brought inflation down from late 2022 was a return to normal in the supply of goods and food and energy, and restraint in consumer spending brought about by a series of aggressive interest rate hikes.

‘Anchored’ expectations of inflation

What has kept inflation falling without (so far) much damage to employment in the US has been surprisingly restrained inflation expectations.

If workers’ expectations about future inflation remain “anchored” to a figure that’s low, rather than soaring with actual inflation, they are likely to be modest in their wage demands and be more likely to keep their jobs.

But Powell said it had been “far from assured that the inflation anchor would hold”.

In Australia – as in the US, the UK, Canada and most of the rest of the world – inflation has trended down since late 2022. So just as in the US, our expectations have remained anchored.

Australians expect further falls

Each month, the Melbourne Institute surveys Australians about the inflation they expect in the year ahead. On two of the measures, the expectations are ultra-low.

One is the so-called weighted mean, which ignores answers of greater than 5% and less than zero (on the grounds they are unrealistic) and averages the rest.

It suggests we expect an inflation rate of 2.6%: right in the middle of the Reserve Bank’s target band and not outsized in any way whatsoever.

Another measure is called the non-rounded inflation expectation. This excludes round numbers greater than 10 on the theory that if someone gives an answer of 15% they are not serious, but if someone gives an answer of 14.9% they are.

This measure suggests an inflation rate of 3.1%: almost exactly at the top of the bank’s 2-3% target band, and again nothing to get alarmed about.

Room to cut rates

With US inflation well-anchored, Powell said the US Fed can safely cut interest rates to support the labour market, which is beginning to weaken, as ours is here in Australia, although more slowly.

Those are the parallels, and they are strong. So the arguments for cutting interest rates in the US apply here as well, even if the timing is different. Australia moved later than the US on the way up and will move later on the way down.

And there’s another reason to believe that the cuts about to be unleashed in the US will flow through to cuts here, probably quickly.

The Australian dollar jumped after Powell’s speech. When Powell actually cuts rates, the Australian dollar is likely to climb further.

This is because cuts in the US make the US a relatively less attractive place to hold money and Australia a relatively more attractive place.

Cuts in one country flow through to cuts in another

The more the Australian dollar climbs relative to the US dollar, the cheaper the imports that are priced in US dollars become – which is another way of saying the lower Australian inflation becomes.

It’s the same for other countries. Merely by cutting their own rates, the US and other countries will be easing inflation in Australia. The more they do it, the more Australian inflation will ease, building up a stronger and stronger case for our Reserve Bank to cut rates.

It’s why central banks tend to move rates together (albeit with delays). It’s why on Monday, Australian financial markets were pricing one interest rate cut by Christmas and a total of three by May.

Traders don’t believe Australia’s Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock when she said interest rate cuts were unlikely in the coming months. They think what happens overseas will happen here too.

Peter Martin is Economics Editor of The Conversation.

– ref. Stand by for interest rate cuts: the US is about to start, so expect Australia to follow – https://theconversation.com/stand-by-for-interest-rate-cuts-the-us-is-about-to-start-so-expect-australia-to-follow-237545

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Norton, Professor in the Practice of Higher Education Policy, Australian National University

After months of speculation, the federal government has announced what the cap will be for international students in Australia.

In 2025, the number of international students starting a course will be set at 270,000. This includes both higher education and vocational education courses.

This still requires parliamentary approval. The Senate needs to pass legislation to allow the government to set enforceable enrolment caps.

The government has jumped ahead of its legal authority here because the process of recruiting and enrolling international students for next year is already well underway. Education providers need to know how many students they can take.

With the caps coming on top of major changes to visa and migration rules for international students – there have been nine over the past year – the cumulative consequences are hard to predict.

While caps will force some universities to reject students they would otherwise have enrolled, other universities may not be able to fully use their international student quota.

Which students are capped?

The government says the overall cap – which it calls a “national planning level” – will bring new student numbers “back to pre-pandemic levels”. However not all student categories are capped.

As previously announced, school students, postgraduate research students, some English language students, and students in “non-award courses” (a category that includes exchange students), will not be counted towards the cap.

We also have some new exemptions. These include students with Australian government or “key partner” foreign government scholarships, students who are part of “twinning” arrangements (where they do some of their course offshore and then come to Australia), and students from the Pacific and Timor-Leste.

In 2025 only new international student commencements will be capped. A student will be considered “new” the first time they start at each education provider. If they start another course at the same provider they will not be counted as new. In 2026 and in later years, the government will have the power to cap all students.

Unfortunately, accurate comparisons between the 2025 caps and previous enrolments are not possible using publicly available data. The definition of a “new” student is different and there is no published data on foreign scholarship holders or students who start at offshore campuses before coming to Australia.

What does it mean for unis?

The government says public universities will have a combined cap of around 145,000 new international students.

The caps have been calculated with 2019 pre-pandemic enrolments at each public university as their base. For universities who increased their enrolments of international students between 2019 and 2023 a formula applies, depending on their “international concentration”. This is based on the percentage of their enrolments in Australian campuses who are international students.

Universities with low concentrations of international student can have all their growth to 2023 included in their 2025 cap. However universities with concentrations above 37% will get to keep only 50% of their growth.

This is likely to affect the more prestigious universities the most. This includes Group of Eight universities, such as the University of Sydney, the University of Melbourne, the University of Queensland and the Australian National University. They will have to cut their commencing student intakes in 2025 compared with 2023 and 2024.

Private universities and non-university higher education providers, which are mostly small specialist colleges, will only have around 30,000 new international students between them.

What about vocational education?

The vocational education sector, which includes TAFEs, will have an overall cap of 95,000 new commencing international students.

The government says vocational education providers with a “higher ratio of international students” will receive lower allocations to encourage them to diversify.

This will have a significant impact on vocational colleges that primarily serve the international student market.

Will the caps be reached?

What the government has announced for caps – which allows for some growth since 2019 and a longer list of exemptions – could be seen by some in the public university sector as better than their worst-case scenarios.

Despite this, the number of new international students in 2025 could easily be much lower than 270,000.

Migration policy change

As I have previously explained, between late 2023 and July 1 2024, the government implemented nine migration changes that made Australia less attractive to international students. A tenth change expected later this year will make permanent migration more difficult for international students.

By June 2024 these changes had already severely affected offshore demand for vocational education. Demand for higher education still looked normal as of June 2024, but this was before the non-refundable visa application fee more than doubled to A$1,600.

On the positive side, the government says if its capping legislation passes the Senate it will reverse one of the nine changes – a ministerial direction on visa processing priorities. This has seriously disadvantaged less prestigious universities and other education providers through slower visa processing.

Blocking student choice

While fairer visa processing will help some education providers increase their enrolments, capping popular universities below student demand won’t necessarily help other universities in Australia.

Few students who want to attend high-prestige universities or want to live in large cities will go to lower prestige or regional universities instead. They just won’t come to Australia.

At the end of 2024 we are likely to find many universities and other education providers have not reached their cap, pushing the total number of new students well below 270,000.

The Senate will decide

Two days of public hearings for the Senate inquiry into the capping bill raised many concerns about caps. This includes worries the caps will lead to university job cuts. The inquiry will release its report on September 6.

Unfortunately for the international education sector, the Coalition supports the idea of education-provider level caps. If the Coalition and Labor can agree on how to set provider caps, this part of the legislation will pass in some form. So the ongoing debate will just be about the detail of caps in 2025 and beyond.

Andrew Norton works for the Australian National University, which has said that the caps will reduce its international student enrolments.

– ref. The government will cap new international students at 270,000 in 2025. But this number may not be reached – https://theconversation.com/the-government-will-cap-new-international-students-at-270-000-in-2025-but-this-number-may-not-be-reached-237558

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

The Albanese government faces a likely High Court challenge to its installation of an administrator into the construction division of the CFMEU.

As thousands of the union’s members held rallies in cities across the country, its former Queensland secretary Michael Ravbar – who’s been dismissed together with almost all other officials – said he would launch a challenge against the legislation passed last week to put the union into administration. An administrator was immediately installed.

Ravbar told the Brisbane rally: “This is going to be the biggest challenge and the biggest fight that we’ve ever had, but we’re all up for it. You’ve got to get control of our union back.”

Ravbar urged members to vote against Labor at the October state election and next year’s federal election, and attacked Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who he said had “always been anti-union”.

The High Court action is likely to argue the Commonwealth lacked the authority to take over a democratically organised union and sack nearly 300 officials, who had not been convicted of any offence. No court was involved in the action. Earlier court proceedings that were underway, brought by the Fair Work Commission’s general manager, are set to be discontinued after the government’s action.

The government said late Tuesday it was not aware of any CFMEU challenge.

On Tuesday Prime Minister Anthony Albanese denied the claim by the union’s former Victorian secretary John Setka that the government had made “a deal” with the union that there would be no move for an administrator if he resigned his position.

Setka claimed on Channel 7 at the weekend that after Nine sent allegations of malfeasance to the union, he had offered to “pull the pin today” so the union would avoid administrators being sent into the Victorian branch. He had conveyed this to the union’s national secretary Zach Smith.

He claimed there had been talks between Smith, then Workplace Relations minister Tony Burke and ACTU national secretary Sally McManus.

“At twenty to six the call came through, [saying] yes, there’s a deal. Now when you do a deal with the government you expect them to honour it,” Setka said.

“I think Tony Burke has betrayed construction workers in Australia.”

Nine published a series of devastating allegations of criminal infiltration of the union, bullying and bribery. The government immediately made it clear publicly Setka’s resignation and other actions by the union to try to ward off intervention were not enough.

Albanese told a news conference: “Obviously we didn’t make a deal. The evidence is in what’s happened”. The PM said he “not quite sure why people gave [Setka] some more oxygen. But John Setka is someone who will always look for publicity.”

Greens MP Max Chandler-Mather, addressing the Brisbane rally, said: “Labor has used these untested allegations to attack an entire union”.

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. Government faces likely High Court challenge to its CFMEU legislation – https://theconversation.com/government-faces-likely-high-court-challenge-to-its-cfmeu-legislation-237561

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Lindsey, Malcolm Smith Professor of Asian Law and Director of the Centre for Indonesian Law, Islam and Society, The University of Melbourne

Indonesian President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, whose final term in office ends on October 20, has presided over ten years of democratic regression in Indonesia.

This has been marked by attacks on – and direct interventions in – the Anti-corruption Commission and the Constitutional Court. Both were formerly key government watchdog institutions. It has also involved intimidating and weakening the civil society organisations that helped deliver democratisation to Indonesia after the fall of former dictator Soeharto in 1998.

Despite this, Jokowi’s popularity has remained at over 70%. In recent years, supporters have even proposed constitutional amendments to allow him to run for a third term. While these did not go anywhere, Jokowi remains determined to maintain power and influence after he leaves office.

This has led to the building of a new alliance with his former rival and the incoming president, Prabowo Subianto, and attempts to create a family political dynasty by helping his sons win office.

Jokowi’s son, the new vice president

These efforts started earlier this year in the lead-up to Indonesia’s presidential election.

Abandoning the party that had backed his rise to power, the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), Jokowi threw his weight behind Prabowo by offering up his son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, as Prabowo’s vice presidential candidate.

To achieve this, Jokowi had to rely on his brother-in-law, Anwar Usman, who was chief justice of the Constitutional Court. In a blatantly nepotistic decision, a majority of the court helped Gibran bypass the 40-year minimum age limit for vice presidential candidates.

Usman was removed as chief justice for unethical conduct, but the decision stood. Prabowo and Gibran won in a landslide.

Jokowi and Prabowo’s new alliance, the Advance Indonesia Coalition or KIM, soon became known as KIM-Plus as former political opponents quickly moved to secure a place in the new administration.

Jokowi also seems to have secured a new political base to replace PDI-P. In what some have likened to a “coup”, Airlangga Hartarto, leader of the second-biggest party, Golkar, was accused of corruption and resigned last week. He was swiftly replaced by a Jokowi loyalist, Bahlil Lahadalia.

Another son and ally running for governor

In recent weeks, Jokowi’s ambitions to maintain influence have focused on the regional elections on November 27 and the opportunity to install two KIM-Plus candidates in key gubernatorial positions.

The first is Jokowi ally Ridwan Kamil, former governor of West Java. Jokowi backed him to become Jakarta’s next governor, anticipating this would prevent the re-election of Anies Baswaden, one of Jokowi’s political enemies and critics.

The second is Jokowi’s youngest son, Kaesang Pangarep, who Jokowi was backing to be the next governor of Central Java.

Like his brother Gibran, however, the 29-year-old Kaesang faced an age-based roadblock. Kaeseng was barred from running due to an election law that requires gubernatorial candidates to be at least 30.

But once again, a favourable (but questionable) judicial decision – this time from the Supreme Court – seemed to clear the path for him.

The Supreme Court decided in May that candidates must be 30 at the time of inauguration. This enabled Kaesang to run, given that, if elected, his inauguration would occur after his 30th birthday.

The Constitutional Court weighs in

And then things suddenly came unstuck. The Constitutional Court, which many feel has become cowed and compliant under Jokowi’s rule, handed down two decisions on August 20 that blew up his plans.

In a unanimous decision, the court emphasised the minimum age for gubernatorial candidates applied at the time of nomination as candidate, not the time of inauguration. The court also suggested it might invalidate an election in which an underage candidate ran for office.

In another decision, the court drastically reduced the so-called nomination threshold parties require to put forward candidates for gubernatorial elections.

Under the current electoral law, a political party – whether itself or in coalition with other parties – needed to have either 20% of seats or 25% of total votes in a provincial parliament to field a candidate for governor.

The court reduced this threshold for parties to that of independent candidates. The result is that a party will only need 7.5% of the votes to nominate in Jakarta.

This change matters a lot. It will allow the PDI-P, headed by former President Megawati Soekarnoputri, to nominate a candidate for governor of Jakarta to run against Jokowi’s pick, Ridwan.

And she had been expected to back Jokowi’s rival, Anies.

A proposed law sparks street protests

These decisions led to a quick response. The national legislature (DPR), dominated by Jokowi’s coalition and led by a Jokowi loyalist, Deputy Speaker Sufmi Dasco Ahmad, defiantly announced last week it would immediately pass a new electoral law.

This would have reversed the effect of the Constitutional Court decisions in two ways:

• it would reset the nomination threshold to 20% (which would have blocked PDI-P from nominating a candidate against Ridwan)
• it would set a new age limit of 25 for gubernatorial candidates (which would have enabled Kaesang to run).

The legislature planned to do this, even though Constitutional Court decisions are, by law, “final and binding”.

This contemptuous treatment of the court and Jokowi’s blatant dynastic ambitions triggered a massive response from civil society, which, like the court, had seemed weakened in recent years.

Protesters in Jakarta besieged the DPR, eventually tearing off gates to the legislative complex. Demonstrators holding banners that read “Emergency Warning” and “Democratic Emergency” soon erupted in other cities.

There have certainly been bigger demonstrations in the past against the Jokowi administration’s policies, but, critically, these were enough to stop lawmakers from entering the DPR and forming a quorum.

Dasco eventually announced the new law would be abandoned (for now). Kaesang then announced he would not run for governor of Central Java.

As expected, it was soon reported the PDI-P would nominate a candidate for governor of Jakarta. It still unclear at the time of writing if Megawati will choose Anies or a member of her own party, but either way, Jokowi now can’t be sure his candidate, Ridwan, will win.

What happens next?

Jokowi has suffered a setback in his efforts to consolidate his power – and public humiliation, as well. But he remains a formidable political force and, when the time is right, he will want to respond to these challenges.

A likely target is the Constitutional Court itself. It acted with integrity and courage last week to defy the dominant political elite. But for years, it has been the target of an incremental campaign to undermine its independence through pressure on judges and legislative amendments.

The DPR now has before it a bill to amend the Constitutional Court law. It would not be surprising if this bill makes it easier for the government to remove judges, undermining its independence even further.

Moreover, while civil society groups rallied so effectively last week to stymie Jokowi’s dynastic ambitions, past experience suggests they are unlikely to maintain the momentum necessary to prevent the bill’s passage.

If that happens, last week’s dramatic decisions may well be the court’s last gasp.

Tim Lindsey receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Simon Butt receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Jokowi wants to build a political dynasty in Indonesia. A once-pliant court and angry public are standing in the way – https://theconversation.com/jokowi-wants-to-build-a-political-dynasty-in-indonesia-a-once-pliant-court-and-angry-public-are-standing-in-the-way-237555

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jadey O’Regan, Lecturer in Contemporary Music, Sydney Conservatorium of Music. Co-author of "Hooks in Popular Music" (2022), University of Sydney

The internet has been buzzing with rumours of a possible Oasis reunion, with the release of a cryptic post on the band’s X account that features only the date of of August 27 2024 at 8am, in the band’s iconic logo font.

It was announced today the band will be reuniting for performances throughout the United Kingdom and Ireland in 2025.

Oasis were one of the biggest English rock bands in the 1990s and into the 2000s, essential to the Britpop movement, alongside bands such as Blur, Pulp, Supergrass and Suede. England’s answer to the grunge scene coming out of America at the time, Britpop was a brighter take on the rock genre, with catchy tunes and lyrics that often critiqued British culture.

Oasis were known for hit singles, with 1995’s Wonderwall perhaps their most enduring. The band has sold more than 70 million records, had 22 top 10 hits in the United Kingdom, and were one of the only Britpop bands to crack the United States.

But alongside their music, they were just as well known for drama between the two brothers, lead singer Liam Gallagher and lead guitarist Noel Gallagher.

The band haven’t played together since 2009. Like many moments in the band’s history, their last performance – or lack of one – was particularly dramatic.

The band was scheduled to play at V Festival, in the English city of Chelmsford, which was cancelled due to Liam’s bout of laryngitis.

Later, Noel claimed Liam was actually just hungover, prompting a defamation lawsuit between the brothers that was eventually dropped.

Their final show was to be at the 2009 Rock en Seine festival in Paris. But before the band played, they cancelled the performance.

Noel then made the infamous post on the band’s website that confirmed the breakup of the group:

It’s with some sadness and great relief to tell you that I quit Oasis tonight. People will write and say what they like but I simply could not go on working with Liam a day longer.

The two brothers then pursued other projects – Liam’s band Beady Eye, and Noel’s High-Flying Birds – and there has been a long-running, very public animosity between the pair, who have repeatedly said the band was never getting back together.

But fans still held out hope the brothers would find a way to reconcile and reform Oasis. Now, 15 years after they broke up, fans will get the chance to see them perform together again.

If you’ve only heard Wonderwall and are curious what the fuss is all about, here are a few Oasis singles (and B-sides) from their discography that Definitely Maybe might make you a fan, in no particular order.

Supersonic

Supersonic, Oasis’ first single, peaked at 33 on the UK singles chart. Technically only supposed to be a demo and apparently written by Noel in around half an hour, Supersonic shows the band’s ability to rock from the first buzzy guitar slide.

Roll With It

Roll With It was an important song not just for the band, but for Britpop.

Blur and Oasis released singles on the same day in 1995. Dubbed “the battle of Britpop” by the press, Oasis lost the number-one spot to Blur’s Country House. But Roll With It is still a really catchy song that combines glam with the melodic and harmonic influence of the Beatles.

Don’t Look Back in Anger

A UK number-one single, Don’t Look Back in Anger is one of Oasis’ most beautiful songs. They wear their love of the Beatles on their sleeve here with the opening chords sounding like John Lennon’s Imagine and the video clip with their mop tops and coloured glasses.

It’s not just a pastiche. Oasis put their own spin on classic 1960s pop, with chiming guitars, a winding chord progression, a classic, melodic guitar solo, and some surprisingly charming lyrics.

Whatever

Whatever was a stopgap single to tide the band over between albums. It is an overlooked gem, and one of their very best Beatles-esque tunes, with a gorgeous string quartet and a lyric insisting we should all be free to be ourselves.

The Masterplan

A B-side to Wonderwall – a tough act to follow! – The Masterplan really showed what the band was capable of, both instrumentally and harmonically.

The use of dynamics works so well in this song. It starts out very small, and becomes a swell of textures with big horns, lush strings, keyboards, guitars and more.

Stop Crying Your Heart Out

Stop Crying your Heart Out is a surprisingly sweet ballad about resilience and hope for the future.

Oasis lyrics could be abstract, or at other times incredibly simple, succinct and clear. This is an example of the latter. The grain of Liam’s voice and the grandeur of the lush arrangement makes for a beautiful track.

Half the World Away

Half the World Away was a B-side to Whatever, and is in contrast with the lush arrangement of strings and keys on the A-side. Sung by Noel, the song is quiet, acoustic and surprisingly poignant.

Lyla

Lyla is a later-era single. It combines the pop catchiness of a love song with psychedelic touches that really work.

Perhaps the cleverest moment is the changing of time signature during the chorus – it might make it hard to dance in time, but it really works as a fun musical moment that doesn’t happen often in Oasis songs.

Who Feels Love

Who Feels Love is Oasis at their dreamy and psychedelic best – a groovy half-time beat, lots of backwards swirling guitars, and a drone that really makes you want to sway. A modern take on 1960s rock.

Live Forever

The early single Live Forever has become one of Oasis’ most iconic songs.

Written in contrast to the grunge and alternative movements in the US at the time, the song acknowledges the bad times (“Did you ever feel the pain, in the morning rain, as it soaks you to the bone?”), but also has a sense of hope: “We see things they’ll never see – you and I are gonna live forever”.

Jadey O’Regan 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 band is getting back together: 10 Oasis songs you should know, beyond Wonderwall – https://theconversation.com/the-band-is-getting-back-together-10-oasis-songs-you-should-know-beyond-wonderwall-237557

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dee Ninis, Earthquake Scientist, Monash University

On Friday 23 August, a magnitude 4.8 earthquake near Muswellbrook, New South Wales, shook the state. The earthquake caused local damage and Geoscience Australia received more than 3,600 felt reports, including from Sydney and Canberra, up to 360 kilometres away.

Since then, there have been numerous aftershocks, including one of magnitude 4.6 at the weekend. The earthquake sequence is directly under the operational Mount Arthur coal mine, so at face value these earthquakes appear to be associated with local mining. But correlation does not imply causation. Let’s take a look at what we know.

What causes earthquakes?

Earthquakes typically happen when stress builds up in the planet’s crust as a result of tectonic forces. Once sufficient stress has built up, pre-existing weak zones or “faults” in the crust will slide – this is an earthquake. The stress is released as seismic energy waves.

Human activities that produce changes to the stress in Earth’s crust can also cause earthquakes. These are called “induced” earthquakes: without human activity, they wouldn’t have occurred.

“Triggered” earthquakes happen on existing fault structures, but have been brought forward in time by human activity: they would have happened anyway, but the introduced stress made them happen a little sooner.

Human activities that can produce induced and triggered earthquakes include fracking, wastewater injection, the filling of human-made reservoirs, and mining.

In open-cut coal mining, removing large volumes of rock from the surface may change the stresses locally and potentially result in earthquakes.

At the Mount Arthur Coal mine, earthquake monitoring has been ongoing since the 1990s. While a smaller mine was operational prior to that time, satellite images on Google Earth show a significant expansion – more than double the original mine size – began in 2002.

Seismic activity in the region increased from about 2014. This appears to indicate that the crust has been responding to stress changes due to mining at the site.

What has been happening recently at Muswellbrook?

Since Friday’s magnitude 4.8 earthquake, there have been a further 20 events larger than magnitude 2.5. All of these earthquakes have been within 5km of the surface. This is considered “shallow” and may indicate the quakes happened because the removal of coal at the surface changed the stress in the crust.

So, the shallow depth and the possible seismic activity increase since the mine was expanded may indicate these recent Muswellbrook earthquakes were mining-related. But there’s also evidence to suggest otherwise.

A recent study indicates that even large open pit mines do not appreciably change the stress along faults in the near-surface (within 5km depth) to trigger moderate-sized earthquakes. Calculations show faults would need to be already tectonically stressed almost to the point of failure for mining to affect the timing of earthquakes.

However, shallow induced earthquakes are possible. These generally are very small events – less than magnitude 2 – and most occur within a few hundred metres of the mining.

The region had earthquakes before mining

Some earthquakes in the Muswellbrook region may be occurring simply because of the local geology.

Muswellbrook is on the eastern margin of the Sydney Basin, which holds sediments from 200 million to 300 million years ago. These include the organic matter that turned into the coal now being mined. The eastern margin of this basin is the Hunter-Mooki Fault, a complex fault system that spans more than 400km.

North of Muswellbrook, a related fault appears to show evidence of earthquakes in the recent geological past, long before any mining in the area.

The southern extent of the Hunter-Mooki Fault is near Newcastle. Australia’s most damaging known earthquake happened here in 1989, claiming 13 lives. It had a magnitude of 5.4.

If some segments of this fault system have produced earthquakes previously, it’s feasible other faults along this boundary could produce earthquakes too, without any associated mining.

Earthquake clusters are not uncommon in Australia. Between 1886 and 1949, four moderate earthquakes between magnitude 5.3 and 5.6 happened at Dalton-Gunning, NSW, as part of a lengthy seismic sequence. The region still hosts earthquakes to this day. This and many other earthquake sequences are not near mining sites.

Overall, the available evidence for the recent earthquakes near Muswellbrook does not allow us to say unequivocally whether they are related to mining.

Earthquakes can and do happen anywhere in Australia. While mining can induce seismic activity locally, most of these earthquakes will be minor, and are rarely felt. Tectonic forces are still the main cause of moderate earthquakes in Australia.

Dee Ninis works at the Seismology Research Centre, is Vice President of the Australian Earthquake Engineering Society, and a Committee Member for the Geological Society of Australia – Victoria Division.

Dion Weatherley has previously received Australian Research Council (ARC) funding under the Discovery Projects scheme, as well as an ARC Linkage Project co-funded by the Queensland Government Department of Main Roads. Both were concluded at least ten years ago and relevant to this article. None of Dion’s current funding is relevant to seismology or the topic of this article.

– ref. Could the Muswellbrook earthquakes be caused by coal mining? Geoscientists explain – https://theconversation.com/could-the-muswellbrook-earthquakes-be-caused-by-coal-mining-geoscientists-explain-237481

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

Is the Albanese government trying to cast Opposition Leader Peter Dutton as Australia’s Donald Trump? And if so, what’s the thinking and why is Treasurer Jim Chalmers in the vanguard of the charge?

Delivering the Curtin Oration this week, Chalmers said Dutton was “the most divisive leader of a major political party in Australia’s modern history – and not by accident, by choice”.

“He divides deliberately, almost pathologically. This is worse than disappointing, it is dangerous. His divisiveness should be disqualifying.”

On any reading, this is extreme language – especially coming from Chalmers. In question time, the treasurer doesn’t mind launching cutting barbs against opponents, but he usually refrains from going over the top.

As Chalmers’ attack appears to spray-paint Dutton with a coating of Trumpism, is this the politics of defence from a government feeling embattled, as much as it is the politics of offence?

In the past couple of parliamentary weeks, Dutton was criticised by some commentators for concentrating on the issue of visas for Gazans. Surely, the argument ran, he should have been talking about the cost of living, which is what most Australians primarily care about at the moment.

Chalmers said in his speech: “Every question in question time last week was about the Middle East, and not one about middle Australia”.

But if the Coalition had themed the cost of living in question time, it would actually have given the government more chance to talk about its tax cuts and other budget relief (which, incidentally, it is promoting shamelessly in government-authorised, taxpayer-funded TV advertisements – Labor in opposition once criticised that sort of spending).

An important clue to Dutton’s thinking came in Tuesday’s Essential poll, published in the Guardian. It showed that 44% agreed with the opposition leader’s call for a pause in the intake of Gazans. Just 30% opposed it and 26% were undecided. Whatever one might think of the Dutton stand – which lacked nuance and compassion – it clearly hit a political nerve.

On another front, Saturday’s sweeping Country Liberal Party victory in the Northern Territory election doesn’t have direct federal implications, but Dutton would take some heart from it in relation to his own strategy. The new NT government won on law and order, an issue that’s a first cousin to the national security and visa concerns Dutton is seeking to exploit.

In casting Dutton as apparently Trumpian, the government might also be noting the current mood change in United States politics.

Kamala Harris’ presidential candidacy has swung the emphasis on to unity, positivity and “joy”. It has not just left Trump floundering (at least for the moment), but re-emphasised his divisiveness and the potential risks he poses.

At present, two things are happening simultaneously between the government and opposition. There’s more deal-making on substantive policy (notably on the NDIS and aged care) than at any time since the election of the Albanese government. At the same time, the attacks on Dutton are intensifying.

Chalmers is working to clinch an agreement with shadow treasurer Angus Taylor on more reform of the Reserve Bank. Meanwhile he is amping up the assault on the opposition leader to number 11.

The positive side of Chalmers’s speech was overshadowed by the barrage against Dutton, yet Chalmers is at his best when he is constructive.

When he’s in full attack mode, he sounds more than a little like Paul Keating. (From a distance, he even looks like him.) Chalmers has studied, forensically, the man who was treasurer and then PM. His PhD thesis at the Australian National University was titled “Brawler Statesman: Paul Keating and Prime Ministerial Leadership in Australia”.

In it Chalmers wrote: “Keating employed numerous strategies in parliament. He sought to differentiate Labor from the Liberals and discredit the Opposition with slick put-downs and by listing the achievements of the Keating (and Hawke) Government. […] He sought to paint the Liberals and Nationals as out of touch and not up to the task, highlighted internal dissension in the Opposition and pointed out the limited capacity of senior shadow ministers.

“His tone varied from sarcasm to contempt to enthusiasm for new initiatives, but the intensity of the attacks and the disdain for what he saw as an Opposition incapable of leading the country was consistently evident throughout.”

It was a style Keating displayed both as treasurer and prime minister.

In an interview with The Australian’s Troy Bramston, published last weekend, Keating described how he saw himself: “In politics, I was in the blood and gore business, fundamentally. But with big ideas always running it.”

As Anthony Albanese loses the shine he had before and immediately after the 2022 election, and anyway lacks razor sharpness, Chalmers as attack dog may be useful for a government on the back foot. But if this becomes his longer-term image, how good that will be for the man aspiring to be prime minister might be questioned.

In government, attack dogs can be popular with the journalists, who love the sport. But often not so much with the public. In 1993 Keating won an unwinnable election as attack dog par excellence but by 1996 it was another story.

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. View from The Hill: Jim Chalmers switches to attack dog but the style could bite him later – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-jim-chalmers-switches-to-attack-dog-but-the-style-could-bite-him-later-237559

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Greg Austin, Adjunct Professor, Australia-China Relations Institute, University of Technology Sydney

The selection of Abigail Bradshaw as the new head of Australia’s cyber spy agency, the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD), sends a strong message.

It confirms the government’s increasing intelligence focus on domestic cybersecurity, both to disrupt foreign influence operations and to promote better protection of our national cyber systems.

The ASD is so far succeeding in its monitoring of foreign influence operations, but struggling when it comes to domestic cybersecurity.

ASD’s evolving mission

The initial remit of the ASD’s predecessor agencies was to operate as an arm of the Department of Defence by collecting intelligence through the interception of international communications (or “signals” in traditional military parlance).

The aim was to collect information relevant to the national defence of Australia, its diplomacy and foreign military activities.

As early as 2010, however, the distinction between the agency’s foreign and domestic operations started to blur.

Today, foreign intelligence collection and support of the armed forces are only two of ASD’s five missions. Domestic cybersecurity is now a chief priority – and a starkly ambitious one at that. As the agency frames it in its strategic objectives:

Make Australia the safest place to connect to the online world. Foster national cybersecurity resilience.

This is a substantial mission for the ASD, and in large part justifies the massive new spending for the agency announced by the Coalition government in March 2022 under Project Redspice – an additional A$10 billion over ten years. The government described it as the biggest investment plan for the agency in its history.

The agency also has two other domestic missions oriented towards threats inside Australia – countering cyber-enabled crime (including terrorist use of the internet) and supporting law enforcement.

Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil made clear this new focus on domestic threats during a speech in parliament in June 2023:

About a year before our election, our national security agencies informed the Australian people that, for the first time, the biggest national security challenges that we face as a country are espionage and foreign interference.

It is largely for this reason that when Labor came into power in 2022, O’Neil, the new home affairs minister, was given a secondary role as a sworn minister for defence. This practice has continued with the ministerial reshuffle last month when Tony Burke was named the new minister for home affairs and cybersecurity – and sworn in as a minister for defence.

Bradshaw’s domestic security background

Like her predecessors, Rachel Noble and Mike Burgess, Bradshaw brings a more diverse range of domestic security experience outside the defence world than would have been the case for a leader of the ASD a decade or two ago.

She previously served as the deputy commander of the Maritime Border Command, deputy coordinator of the National Bushfire Recovery Agency, and head of the ASD’s domestically focused Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC). She held the role as deputy director of the ASD itself beginning in 2020.

Bradshaw’s fellow deputy director appointed to ASD at the time was the government’s former counter-terrorism coordinator, Linda Geddes. These two appointments confirmed the direction the agency was moving, with a very strong emphasis on domestic security.

Challenges ahead

Recent speeches by Burgess, now director-general of ASIO, confirm that both ASIO and ASD have
largely succeeded in their domestic and international monitoring of foreign influence operations in recent years.

However, improving our domestic cybersecurity presents a much bigger challenge.

Australia is arguably one of the ten safest countries when it comes to cybersecurity. And as a cyber power, the International Institute for Strategic Studies assessed that Australia sits in the same tier as the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Israel, China and Russia – behind the United States, and ahead of Japan and India.

On the other hand, there has been a string of sensational cyber breaches in the country since 2022 in which the personal details of millions of Australians have been revealed. This includes the attacks on Medibank Private, Optus and Latitude.

Australia is only gradually expanding its cybersecurity workforce and bringing private sector firms and even its own government departments into conformity with modest, mid-level indicators of security readiness. The new investments under Project Redspice will improve this.

But Bradshaw will have to be even more enterprising than her predecessors to bring Australia close to being the most cyber-secure country in the world – and the most resilient.

Greg Austin is a director of the non-profit Social Cyber Institute and a director of the Social Cyber Group, a business providing educational and advisory services in the field.

– ref. Australia’s new chief cyber spy inherits a massive $10 billion war chest – and an urgent mission – https://theconversation.com/australias-new-chief-cyber-spy-inherits-a-massive-10-billion-war-chest-and-an-urgent-mission-237551

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alannah McKay, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Sports Nutrition, Australian Catholic University

Iron deficiency is common and can be debilitating. It mainly affects women. One in three premenopausal women are low in iron compared to just 5% of Australian men. Iron deficiency particularly affects teenage girls, women who do a lot of exercise and those who are pregnant.

The body needs iron to make new red blood cells, and to support energy production, the immune system and cognitive function. If you’re low, you may experience a range of symptoms including fatigue, weakness, shortness of breath, headache, irregular heartbeat and reduced concentration.

If a blood test shows you’re iron deficient, your doctor may recommend you start taking an oral iron supplement. But should you take a tablet or a liquid? With food or not? And when is the best time of day?

Here are some tips to help you work out how, when and what iron supplement to take.

How do I pick the right iron supplement?

The iron in your body is called “elemental iron”. Choosing the right oral supplement and dose will depend on how much elemental iron it has – your doctor will advise exactly how much you need.

The sweet spot is between 60-120 mg of elemental iron. Any less and the supplement won’t be effective in topping up your iron levels. Any higher and you risk gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhoea, cramping and stomach pain.

In Australia, iron salts are the most common oral supplements because they are cheap, effective and come in different delivery methods (tablets, capsules, liquid formulas). The iron salts you are most likely to find in your local chemist are ferrous sulfate (~20% elemental iron), ferrous gluconate (~12%) and ferrous fumarate (~33%).

These formulations all work similarly, so your choice should come down to dose and cost.

Many multivitamins may look like an iron supplement, but it’s important to note they usually have too little iron – usually less than 20 mg – to correct an iron deficiency.

Should I take tablets or liquid formulas?

Iron contained within a tablet is just as well absorbed as iron found in a liquid supplement. Choosing the right one usually comes down to personal preference.

The main difference is that liquid formulas tend to contain less iron than tablets. That means you might need to take more of the product to get the right dose, so using a liquid supplement could work out to be more expensive in the long term.

What should I eat with my iron supplement?

Research has shown you will absorb more of the iron in your supplement if you take it on an empty stomach. But this can cause more gastrointestinal issues, so might not be practical for everyone.

If you do take your supplement with meals, it’s important to think about what types of food will boost – rather than limit – iron absorption. For example, taking the supplement alongside vitamin C improves your body’s ability to absorb it.

Some supplements already contain vitamin C. Otherwise you could take the supplement along with a glass of orange juice, or other vitamin C-rich foods.

On the other hand, tea, coffee and calcium all decrease the body’s ability to absorb iron. So you should try to limit these close to the time you take your supplement.

Should I take my supplement in the morning or evening?

The best time of day to take your supplement is in the morning. The body can absorb significantly more iron earlier in the day, when concentrations of hepcidin (the main hormone that regulates iron) are at their lowest.

Exercise also affects the hormone that regulates iron. That means taking your iron supplement after exercising can limit your ability to absorb it. Taking your supplement in the hours following exercise will mean significantly poorer absorption, especially if you take it between two and five hours after you stop.

Our research has shown if you exercise every day, the best time to take your supplement is in the morning before training, or immediately after (within 30 minutes).

My supplements are upsetting my stomach. What should I do?

If you experience gastrointestinal side effects such as diarrhoea or cramps when you take iron supplements, you may want to consider taking your supplement every second day, rather than daily.

Taking a supplement every day is still the fastest way to restore your iron levels. But a recent study has shown taking the same total dose can be just as effective when it’s taken on alternate days. For example, taking a supplement every day for three months works as well as every second day for six months. This results in fewer side effects.

Oral iron supplements can be a cheap and easy way to correct an iron deficiency. But ensuring you are taking the right product, under the right conditions, is crucial for their success.

It’s also important to check your iron levels prior to commencing iron supplementation and do so only under medical advice. In large amounts, iron can be toxic, so you don’t want to be consuming additional iron if your body doesn’t need it.

If you think you may be low on iron, talk to your GP to find out your best options.

Alannah McKay has recieved funding from the Wu Tsai Human Performance Alliance and Amazentis Life Sciences to undertake research into iron metabolism.

– ref. I’m iron deficient. Which supplements will work best for me and how should I take them? – https://theconversation.com/im-iron-deficient-which-supplements-will-work-best-for-me-and-how-should-i-take-them-235315

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Upama Aich, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the School of Biological Sciences, Monash University

Antidepressants have helped millions of people worldwide since the 1950s. But have you ever wondered what happens to these drugs once they leave our bodies?

We wanted to study the effects of pharmaceutical pollution on freshwater fish.

Our new research shows even low levels of the antidepressant fluoxetine – sold under the brand name Prozac, among others – will harm male guppies over time. In laboratory experiments, males exposed to fluoxetine at levels they would likely encounter in the wild suffered wide-ranging consequences.

As our reliance on medication grows, so too does the burden we place on natural systems. If we fail to understand the effects of pollution on wildlife, we risk compromising the health of our ecosystems and the services they provide.

Drugs in our waterways

When we take our medicine, only some is absorbed by our bodies. Most passes through largely unchanged, in urine.

Wastewater treatment plants were not designed to remove these residues. So vast quantities of drugs are released into the environment, along with treated wastewater, worldwide.

This means organisms in waterways downstream from wastewater treatment plants are likely to be bathed in a cocktail of human medicines.

Over time, exposure to these contaminants can potentially disturb animal behaviour, physiology and reproduction. Of particular concern are drugs such as antidepressants, which have been specifically designed to alter brain chemistry in humans.

In recent decades, antidepressants such as Prozac (fluoxetine) have been detected in rivers, lakes and streams across the globe.

Fluoxetine has become one of the most common pharmaceuticals found in our waterways worldwide, including here in Australia.

Fish on chill pills

Despite the obvious differences between humans and fish, we share remarkable similarities.

Pharmaceuticals designed for humans can affect fish and other species because they target receptors we have in common.

Prozac and other brands of fluoxetine increases levels of serotonin in the brain, which increases feelings of wellbeing and happiness. In fish, serotonin is also involved in reproduction, food intake and growth, stress and multiple behaviours.

So it’s not surprising fluoxetine can affect fish. Evidence suggests the effects can be specific to the life stages or even the sex of the fish.

What is surprising is most studies focus on short-term exposure, even though drugs such as fluoxetine can be highly persistent in the environment and affect fish over long periods.

We collected 3,600 wild guppies (Poecilia reticulata) from Alligator Creek in North Queensland. Water samples from the fish collection site showed no contamination with fluoxetine.

Back at the lab, we exposed 15 successive generations of these fish to fluoxetine over five years.

Fish were randomly assigned to one of three levels of exposure, no fluoxetine (control), “low” or “high”. The “low” treatment level represents common surface water concentrations. “High” represents levels typically found in bodies of water heavily dominated by human effluent.

Sex in contaminated water

We found male guppies exposed to low fluoxetine levels were in poor condition, using a measurement similar to body mass index (BMI) in humans. The modified fin male guppies use to inseminate females (gonopodium) was also larger in these males.

Having longer gonopodia helps with mating. So exposure to fluoxetine seemed to trigger a trade-off between physical and reproductive health. When the maintenance of body condition became too costly, the fish put more energy into growing a larger gonopodium.

Low levels of fluoxetine also decreased sperm motility. This means the sperm of exposed males were poor swimmers compared to the sperm of unexposed males.

Female guppies are capable of mating with multiple males. So sperm from different males can compete within the female to fertilise the eggs. Lower sperm motility can therefore reduce the reproductive success of males exposed to fluoxetine.

Strangely, the low-fluoxetine treatment had stronger effects than the high-fluoxetine treatment. But this type of dose-dependent relationship is often found for such drugs and various mechanisms may be at play, such as desensitisation towards higher doses.

Under the influence

Aside from the effects on reproduction, we also studied how fluoxetine exposure affects the activity and hiding behaviour of guppies. Both behaviours are crucial to survival in the wild.

Male guppies exposed to fluoxetine became less capable of adjusting their behaviour in different contexts. They were repeatedly more consistent in their behaviour. In the wild, this can reduce an individual’s ability to respond to environmental changes. For example, consistent behaviour can make a fish an easy target for predators, while unpredictable behaviours can reduce their vulnerability.

Our findings add to a growing body of evidence showing similar behavioural disturbances in exposed wildlife. For example, other studies found antidepressants such as fluoxetine can make fish less active. This could disrupt their ability to compete for food and mates.

Why this matters

Antidepressants can be life-saving for people but pose problems when they find their way into the environment.

Our research has uncovered effects on fish that were largely underappreciated and overlooked, until now. The effects of prolonged exposure to such pollutants demands further investigation.

This will be crucial if we are to develop effective strategies for protecting and managing sensitive aquatic ecosystems, such as better wastewater treatment processes.

Upama Aich is employed under funding received by Bob Wong from the Australian Research Council.

Bob Wong receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Giovanni Polverino works for the University of Tuscia. He receives funding from The Italian Ministry of Education, Universities and Research. He is affiliated with Monash University.

– ref. Fish on Prozac: chemical residues in wastewater mess with bodies, behaviour and sperm – https://theconversation.com/fish-on-prozac-chemical-residues-in-wastewater-mess-with-bodies-behaviour-and-sperm-236234

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Douglas, Honorary Senior Lecturer, UNSW Aviation, UNSW Sydney

When it comes to consumer protections for airline passengers, Australia has long been dragging its feet.

The limited protections we do have rely heavily on the general Australian Consumer Law. The “consumer guarantees” provided in this law only require services to be delivered in the arguably vague framework of a “reasonable time”.

That might be okay if we’re just getting a sofa delivered from a furniture retailer. The cost of a late delivery is low.

But these guarantees were not tailored to the unique impacts delayed or cancelled flights can have on travellers. Australia’s lack of aviation-specific protections has long been a severe pain point for flyers, only heightened by pandemic disruption.

The government’s much-awaited Aviation White Paper, released in full on Monday, promised to address this issue. At the heart of the reforms, Australia will get a new aviation ombud scheme, and a new charter of customer rights for passengers.

The recognition that new protections are needed is a step in the right direction. But this once-in-a-generation white paper missed the chance to achieve far more, by moving Australia to the style of consumer protection that have now been offered for 20 years in Europe.

Why is air travel unique?

Airline customers have a reasonable expectation of arriving at their destination, at (or close to) the time published by the airline in its schedule at the time the reservation was paid and ticketed.

If this can’t be achieved, they should at least arrive at some amended time that was advised far enough in advance to allow related reservations and bookings to be adjusted.

Air travel has to be punctual because it doesn’t have any substitutes. On even a modest deadline, driving from Perth or even Sydney to Melbourne, for example, is not a comparable option.

And a passenger’s options to adapt their travel plans diminish as the departure date approaches. In the final days before travel, hotel cancellation deadlines pass and alternative connecting flight options sell out or spike in price.

In some cases, travelling to a specific event can become pointless for a passenger if a delay is lengthy enough.

Australia is playing catch-up

In contrast with Australia, aviation-specific protections have long existed in many other developed economies.

In the European Union (EU), for example, regulations make clear that airlines have specific obligations and responsibilities in the event of delays, cancellations and denied boardings. This includes the right to compensation of up to €600 (A$988).

These protections and the levels of compensation payable for failure to meet specified requirements for different kinds of flights are comprehensively legislated.

Canada has a slightly different approach – smaller regional carriers have different obligations to mainline operators. But as with the European regulation, it imposes an obligation to get the passenger to the ticketed destination, or to refund the ticket if the journey has become pointless.

The absence of such legislated protections in Australia means we typically have to rely on the goodwill of the airline when things go wrong.

Real action has been delayed

The centrepiece proposal of the white paper is to create a new ombud scheme with “the power to direct airlines and airports to provide remedies to consumers and investigate customer complaints about airlines’ and airports’ conduct”. This will replace the existing Airline Customer Advocate.

A new charter of customer rights, to be produced by the scheme, will aim to give flyers “greater certainty about what they can expect when flights are cancelled and delayed” and require airlines to be more transparent about their performance.

Read more:
Airline ‘customer rights charter’ to specify when cash refunds required

The white paper noted the poor on-time performance of Australian carriers. It also pointed out that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission identified problems with consumer protections for air travel in Australia as far back as 2017. But its proposals offer no real quantifiable or enforceable improvements to consumer rights.

Despite the well-established models in comparable countries – many of which have followed the EU’s lead – Australians will need to wait for yet another discussion process to be complete before they see what protections may eventually be introduced.

The government’s white paper has largely just kicked the can down the road.

At a minimum, passengers on Australian carriers deserve the assurances given to those travelling in and from Europe: in the event of a cancellation or long delay, that they will be transported to their destination on an alternative flight as quickly as possible.

They should also be given appropriate meals and accommodation until they can make this onward journey, receive compensation for lengthy delays, and have the option to return home with a full refund if their travel has become pointless.

During and following my time as Chair of the International Air Services Commission I offered commentary on the Australian aviation market to the ACCC.

– ref. Even after the government’s crackdown, Australia will lag behind on flyers’ rights – https://theconversation.com/even-after-the-governments-crackdown-australia-will-lag-behind-on-flyers-rights-237469

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tony Wood, Program Director, Energy, Grattan Institute

This week, outgoing Senex Energy chief executive Ian Davies made headlines when he warned within a few short years, Australia won’t have enough gas to meet our demand, due largely to government inaction and intervention.

This is both true and not true. Australia-wide, there is no shortage of gas. We’re the world’s second largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG), after all. Critics see the purported supply crisis as a move by the industry to open up new gas fields.

But in gas-dependent Victoria, the risk of shortages is very real. That’s because the state’s offshore gas wells are running out, and governments and industry haven’t acted to boost supplies until renewables can cover the gap.

Since 2010, production from offshore gas wells in Victoria has fallen by 70% and there’s not been enough new gas to replace it. The state government has banned fracking. And while New South Wales will soon have a gas import terminal (Australia’s first), Victoria knocked back a similar proposal on environmental grounds three years ago, and another, proposed for Geelong, is yet to secure environmental approval.

Victorian leaders will be relieved winter is ending and the gas heaters will be turned off. But the problem will not go away without concerted action.

What’s the shape of the problem?

Australia’s energy market operator has issued increasingly direct calls for more investment in Victoria’s straining gas system. Early this year, the operator warned:

Investment uncertainty in gas supply and infrastructure projects remains high, and many [potential projects] have not materially progressed.

Since the late 1960s, Victoria has relied on its wealth of offshore gas in Bass Strait, extracting enough for its own needs and exporting to South Australia and NSW. Its abundance and affordability led to more homes and small businesses taking up gas than in any other Australian jurisdiction. More than two million Victorian homes still use gas.

Change is coming slowly – last year, the state used about 177 petajoules of gas, the lowest demand this century. Annual output from Bass Strait’s gas fields is now around 300 petajoules and falling steadily. But this is an annual figure – it’s hard to ramp up production to meet sudden increases in demand.

The problem came to a head this cold, still winter. Wind and hydro power production fell. People fired up gas heaters, and gas power plants had to cover more electricity demand. Stored gas rapidly ran low.

At winter’s end, demand for gas falls off sharply. But this seasonal problem will soon become continuous as production keeps falling.

The state government is belatedly planning to phase out gas. These plans are welcome, but too late to solve the immediate problem. Getting Victoria off gas means 200 households have to quit gas every day for the next 20 years.

In 1998, an explosion at the Longford gas plant in Gippsland left households and businesses without gas for weeks. A gas shortage would be less immediate but still bring disruption and financial pain for businesses.

What should be done?

Australia has a lot of gas, but it is unevenly distributed.

Most large current or future gas fields are in Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. To send it thousands of kilometres south would require major upgrades to existing pipelines or new, bigger pipelines. Investors have shown limited interest.

The NSW import terminal under construction at Port Kembla, near Wollongong, could deliver gas to Victoria via existing pipelines. But so far, energy retailers have not committed to use it, likely because potential seasonal shortfalls are not yet severe enough to cover the cost of its use.

That leaves shipping it directly to Victoria from overseas or from northern ports. It sounds odd for a major producer to import gas – but it could be the cheapest solution.

Our major gas buyers – Japan, Korea and China – have built large LNG import terminals, with giant tanks and lots of infrastructure. A Victorian import terminal would look very different, as it would be a temporary measure to ensure gas keeps flowing until demand ceases.

To do it, the terminal operator would build a wharf and lease a special type of ship – a floating storage and regasification unit, able to boil LNG back into gas and store it. While it would cost, say, A$100-200,000 a day to rent, that could still be cheaper than building new pipelines. When demand falls, the operator could stop leasing the ship.

Three years ago, AGL’s proposed import terminal in Westernport Bay was knocked back on environmental grounds.

Now there are plans for an import terminal in a less ecologically sensitive location in Geelong. Oil refinery owner Viva Energy wants to build a new wharf next to its existing one in Corio Bay, and then hire a regasification unit. Environmentalists have taken aim at this proposal too. If Viva is knocked back, it would leave Victoria dependent on the Port Kembla terminal.

Environmentalists do not like the idea of gas. They point out that burning methane is far from green. Environmentally minded voters are likely one reason why Victoria’s long serving Labor government has struggled to shore up gas supplies. In May, state energy minister Lily D’Ambrosio had to admit Victoria would need new gas supplies.

The harsh reality is we must get off gas – but we can’t erase Victoria’s long reliance overnight. Doing nothing means gas shortages will be inevitable, acting as an economic, social, and political disruption to tackling climate change.

Read more:
Cold snap, low on gas: the possible gas shortage in Victoria is a warning

Tony Wood may have financial interests in companies related to the topic of this article through his superannuation fund.

– ref. Does Australia face a gas shortage? No – just Victoria, where empty wells meet a lack of planning – https://theconversation.com/does-australia-face-a-gas-shortage-no-just-victoria-where-empty-wells-meet-a-lack-of-planning-237460

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sam Doecke, Research Fellow, Centre for Automotive Safety Research, University of Adelaide

The spotlight is back on speed limits, as the Western Australian government prepares to host a road safety summit in early September. Ahead of the meeting, at least one expert has called for the WA government to lower default speed limits on rural roads in WA to 100 kilometres per hour, down from 110 kilometres per hour.

While every other state and territory in Australia has a rural road default speed limit of 100 kilometres per hour, the default limit on rural WA and Northern Territory roads is 110 kilometres per hour.

So, would dropping the default limit by just ten kilometres on country roads in WA and NT make a difference? And how might it be enforced? Here’s what the evidence says.

Would it make a difference, and how do we know?

Theory tells us that the faster the speed at which a vehicle crashes, the more likely it will result in serious or fatal injuries. There is a limit to what the human body can withstand.

Now let’s look at what has been found in practice.

Research we conducted at the Centre for Automotive Safety Research showed the risk of serious and fatal injury in all impact types reduced from 4.6% at a travel speed of 110 kilometres per hour to 3.3% at 100 kilometres per hour. That’s a reduction of about 28%.

For head-on impacts, the risk of serious and fatal injury fell from 20.9% to 12.2% – a 41% reduction.

But will reducing speed limits actually reduce the speed at which people travel?

In 2019, a group of researchers reviewed studies that reported on 26 changes in average travel speeds due to changes in speed limits. This included results from three Australian studies.

The review found cutting the speed limit by ten kilometres per hour may be expected to reduce the average actual travel speed by three kilometres per hour.

In other words, even if people didn’t slow down a lot, they still slowed down a bit, which helps reduce risk.

And over time, as drivers get used to the new lower speed limit, they may slow down even more.

But do crashes actually go down?

Yes. Studies from around the world have shown that, generally, when speed limits go down, crashes go down. This is true for both injury crashes and fatal crashes.

The same pattern holds true in Australia, too.

Australian studies looking at the effect of reductions from 110 kilometres per hour to 100 kilometres per hour found injury crashes were reduced by:

• 19% in Victoria
• 27% in South Australia, and
• 27% in New South Wales.

Would a speed limit change really help, given how much rural roads vary in quality anyway?

The default rural speed limit applies to all roads outside of towns and cities (except where a different speed limit has been posted).

And remember: just because the default rural limit is lowered to 100 kilometres per hour, it doesn’t mean that will be the limit for all roads. Some roads may still have higher or lower speed limits.

A lower default speed limit on rural roads makes sense because it would make drivers safer on already poor quality rural roads.

Many rural roads are undivided, narrow, have no shoulder, or are unsealed. They may have hazards such as trees close to the edge of the road. Hazards such as livestock, wildlife, heavy vehicles, agricultural vehicles, or mining vehicles are common.

For these reasons, many rural roads are better suited to lower speed limits.

On the other hand, a high quality road – like a freeway or highway with divided traffic flows, sealed shoulders, dual lanes or passing lanes, few or no intersections, and roadside clear ways or barriers – may be better suited to a higher speed limit.

Could a lower default limit on rural roads even be enforced?

Setting safer speed limits is just one part of the picture.

While the majority of road users obey speed limits, enforcement is necessary. Police already enforce the current speed limits in rural areas, mostly by traffic patrols, and would continue to do so if they are reduced.

Technology can also play a part. Authorities often use safety cameras to monitor driver speed and other behaviours throughout Australia.

In particular, mobile point-to-point safety cameras (which can be moved to different locations to measure travel speed and enforce limits) are likely to enhance enforcement in rural areas and have been trialled in Western Australia.

Overall, the evidence is clear. Lowering the default rural road speed limit from 110 kilometres per hour to 100 kilometres per hour in WA and NT would be a positive for road safety.

It’s a change that could save lives.

Sam Doecke receives funding from the South Australian government. He is a member of the Australasian College of Road Safety.

The Centre for Automotive Safety Research receives funding from the government of South Australia.

– ref. Should WA and NT drop rural default speed limits to 100kph? Here’s what the evidence says – https://theconversation.com/should-wa-and-nt-drop-rural-default-speed-limits-to-100kph-heres-what-the-evidence-says-237479

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Jandt, Senior Lecturer in Ecology, University of Otago

What good are wasps? It’s a question we hear all the time. And, let’s face it, wasps are routinely demonised.

They interrupt picnics (they love beer and fruit as much as we do). Their sting can be painful or even cause an allergic reaction requiring medical treatment. And a swarm of them flying at you is genuinely terrifying.

The beech forests in the northern South Island of New Zealand are home to the world’s highest populations of ground-nesting Vespula wasps, also known as the German or common wasp. So it’s not surprising they get a lot of press, and hardly any of it is positive.

But this reputation is not entirely deserved. In fact, some types of wasp have been shown to be useful in crop pest control – something New Zealand’s horticultural industries may benefit from.

Wasps in New Zealand

Foreign wasps arrived in New Zealand around the middle of the 20th century, after queens stowed away in cargo ships from Europe. The new habitat suited their life cycle, and the wasps thrived.

Like honey bees and bumble bees, the two main “social wasp” groups – Polistes (paper wasps), and Vespula (ground-nesting wasps) – aren’t native. But unlike bees, they are active predators of other insects.

This means they compete for food with native birds and lizards, and can also affect the populations of some endemic insect populations (especially in beech forests). They may also periodically terrorise managed beehives. Consequently, there are nationwide efforts to eradicate social wasps in New Zealand.

But these wasps eat the insects that “bug” us too. Evidence has been mounting for more than 40 years that wasps – particularly Polistes, which are major predators of caterpillars – may be effective at controlling crop pests.

Beneficial predators

In our recent study in the Midwestern United States, we moved wasp colonies into a large, screened cage containing broccoli plants. We then added caterpillars and measured how the presence of wasps affected pest consumption of the plants.

The wasps ate all the caterpillars we set out within three hours. They were clever, too, eventually following us as we put the caterpillars on the crops. We also realised some wasps had worked out how to sneak onto our control plants (from which they were meant to be excluded).

We revised our controls and re-ran the study, this time using a different species of Polistes and a different crop, kale. By day six, all caterpillars from our plants were missing.

The results were clear. Not only can we move Polistes wasp colonies to a new location, but these paper wasps are active predators of crop pests. When wasps were excluded from the broccoli or kale that caterpillars had been added to, pest damage increased. When wasps were allowed to hunt, the crops prospered.

Like Vespula wasps, Polistes can sting if their nest is disturbed. But unlike Vespula, Polistes build small nests under the eaves of buildings. Their nests are relatively easy to remove and relocate to a better spot.

By relocating Polistes wasps into these boxes, we can move nests into small areas or distribute around a crop field. The boxes also act as a buffer to reduce the chances of disturbing the nest and being stung.

Pest control potential

If you watch wasps long enough, you can observe them carrying pests away from your home garden, local park or farm.

So, could Polistes be harnessed as a pest controller in New Zealand? Our research suggests they hold biocontrol potential for garden pests. But more research is needed to determine how effective that might be, and to ensure they are targeting pests and minimising their impact on native species.

Ours is also not the first study to highlight the benefits of social wasps. Beyond pest control, wasps are effective flower pollinators and help spread yeasts on grapes that improve wine quality. Wasp venoms are now being harnessed as medicines, including as a possible cancer treatment.

Overall, we argue wasps should not be uniformly demonised. They exhibit complex social behaviours to rival anything on Game of Thrones. And they were the original paper manufacturers, turning dry wood, cardboard or paper into pulp with their saliva to create the nest cells where their larvae will grow.

Perhaps one day we can harness them as biocontrol agents targeting crop pests, and reduce reliance on pesticides that can negatively affect beneficial insects such as bees. Like other wasp enthusiasts, we’d like to think their ability to help control pests on valuable crops might one day rehabilitate their reputation.

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. Wasps can be pests in NZ – but they have potential to be pest controllers too – https://theconversation.com/wasps-can-be-pests-in-nz-but-they-have-potential-to-be-pest-controllers-too-235877

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Parmeter, Research Scholar, Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies, Australian National University

For weeks, Israel had been anticipating a major attack from Hezbollah in retaliation for its killing of Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr in Lebanon at the end of July.

In the early hours of Sunday, that attack finally came – and Israel was apparently ready. The Israelis claim to have thwarted what could have been a large-scale Hezbollah assault. At the same time, Hezbollah also claimed success.

So, what can we make of the latest tit-for-tat between the two sides, and where does the region go from here?

How both sides are seeing things

Clearly, both Israel and Hezbollah have stepped back at this stage from any further action. Hezbollah has qualified this by saying this is only the first phase of its response to Shukr’s assassination, and that it reserves the right to strike further after evaluating the success of Sunday’s operation.

Israel claimed to have seen preparations for perhaps a thousand rockets to be launched across the border, and it preemptively sent around 100 aircraft into southern Lebanon and hit 270 targets, including rocket launchers. Hezbollah is believed to be capable of launching 3,000 missiles a day if a full-scale war were to break out.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed the operation as a success, but said it’s not the end of the story and Israel will strike further if need be.

Hezbollah denies Israel’s strikes did much damage, saying it merely fired into “empty valleys”.

At the same time, Hezbollah retaliated by sending a large number of Katyusha rockets into northern Israel. These are not the biggest rockets in its arsenal – they have a limited range of up to 40 kilometres – so they can only hit targets in northern Israel. Hezbollah said the rockets were meant to make way for a wave of drones to go into Israel. One Israeli Navy sailor was killed in the attack.

In his speech by video on Sunday, Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, seemed to be apologising to the Lebanese people for putting them in this position. And that’s possibly not surprising, because Hezbollah is both a political and military actor, and it needs to make sure it continues to win votes in the Lebanese political system.

But Nasrallah said Hezbollah had achieved its objectives and the group was encouraging Lebanese who had moved away from the border to go back. However, that may be a bit premature, because it is still unclear how this will all play out.

What is Iran thinking?

Most analysts had been assuming there might be a coordinated revenge attack for both the killing of Shukr in Beirut and the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in July. This may have included missiles and rockets from Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and possibly also the Houthi rebels in Yemen and Shi’a militant groups in Syria and Iraq.

But that didn’t happen. And that could mean a few things.

First, Iran at this stage is likely trying to work out the best way of responding to Haniyeh’s killing. In April, it sent over 300 missiles, drones and rockets into Israel in retaliation for the bombing of an Iranian diplomatic building in Damascus in which several Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) members were killed. But virtually all of them were shot down and there was no serious damage.

A repeat of that would indicate Iran really doesn’t have the capacity to take serious action against Israel.

At the same time, Iran would also not want to launch a bigger retaliatory strike because that could spark a wider war. And Tehran doesn’t want to give the Americans or Israelis an excuse to launch a concerted attack on its nuclear facilities.

So, Iran is likely trying to work out some mid-point between its April strike and a slightly stronger response. This is clearly taking time.

It may also indicate there’s a debate going inside Iran between those around the newly elected president, Masoud Pezeshkian, who is known to be something of a moderate (in Iranian terms ), and the IRGC, which has been threatening a very hard-line response to Israel for some time.

Iran may have simply decided it will only respond to Israel through its proxies – limited attacks by Hezbollah and the Houthis are all it is willing to do at this stage. But this doesn’t mean the danger is over because the scope for messages to be misunderstood between such hostile antagonists is always there.

Netanyahu under pressure

Netanyahu is also under continued pressure from the right wing of his cabinet, which has long advocated for taking out the Hezbollah threat on Israel’s northern border, even though this is a very difficult task. Israel tried it once before in 2006 and essentially failed.

In addition, about 60,000 Israelis have had to evacuate their homes in northern Israel and are living in temporary accommodation due to the Hezbollah threat. They want Netanyahu to make it safer for them to return.

Responding to military threats on two fronts is difficult for Israel to sustain. Israel’s military has now been been fighting Hamas in Gaza, and to some extent, protecting northern Israel from Hezbollah attacks for nearly 11 months.

The permanent Israeli army is also not that large. It only has about 169,000 regular troops, meaning it must rely on up to 300,000 reservists to meet its current needs.

And the problem with bringing reservists into service: this affects the economy because they leave their jobs. In just the last couple of weeks, the Fitch Ratings agency downgraded Israel’s rating from A to A minus, reflecting the fact the economy is not functioning as well as it should be, in addition to the heightened geopolitical risks. The country is on a perpetual war footing, and the military wants to have a break.

However, Netanyahu is wary of any sort of a pause in the fighting because that could upset his coalition and spark an election, which he would probably lose.

His entire strategy since the October 7 Hamas assault has been to reestablish his security credentials. He needs to be able to show he can counter any threat to Israel to restore the public’s faith in him. To do that, he must re-establish the confidence of those who live in northern Israel and stop the attacks from Hezbollah.

It seems this could go on for quite some time, but Hezbollah has also said it will halt its attacks if there’s a ceasefire in Gaza. So in that sense, we’re stuck in a loop that’s not going to stop until there’s a breakthrough in the ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas.

And given the obstacles that remain on both sides, it’s hard to see that happening any time soon.

Ian Parmeter 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. Israel and Hezbollah step back from war, but for how long? All eyes are now on Iran’s next move – https://theconversation.com/israel-and-hezbollah-step-back-from-war-but-for-how-long-all-eyes-are-now-on-irans-next-move-237463

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emily Burch, Accredited Practising Dietitian and Lecturer, Southern Cross University

While you’re likely familiar with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, you’ve probably heard less about type 1.5 diabetes.

Also known as latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA), type 1.5 diabetes has features of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

More people became aware of this condition after Lance Bass, best known for his role in the iconic American pop band NSYNC, recently revealed he has it.

So, what is type 1.5 diabetes? And how is it diagnosed and treated?

There are several types of diabetes

Diabetes mellitus is a group of conditions that arise when the levels of glucose (sugar) in our blood are higher than normal. There are actually more than ten types of diabetes, but the most common are type 1 and type 2.

Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune condition where the body’s immune system attacks and destroys the cells in the pancreas that make the hormone insulin. This leads to very little or no insulin production.

Insulin is important for moving glucose from the blood into our cells to be used for energy, which is why people with type 1 diabetes need insulin medication daily. Type 1 diabetes usually appears in children or young adults.

Type 2 diabetes is not an autoimmune condition. Rather, it happens when the body’s cells become resistant to insulin over time, and the pancreas is no longer able to make enough insulin to overcome this resistance. Unlike type 1 diabetes, people with type 2 diabetes still produce some insulin.

Type 2 is more common in adults but is increasingly seen in children and young people. Management can include behavioural changes such as nutrition and physical activity, as well as oral medications and insulin therapy.

How does type 1.5 diabetes differ from types 1 and 2?

Like type 1 diabetes, type 1.5 occurs when the immune system attacks the pancreas cells that make insulin. But people with type 1.5 often don’t need insulin immediately because their condition develops more slowly. Most people with type 1.5 diabetes will need to use insulin within five years of diagnosis, while those with type 1 typically require it from diagnosis.

Type 1.5 diabetes is usually diagnosed in people over 30, likely due to the slow progressing nature of the condition. This is older than the typical age for type 1 diabetes but younger than the usual diagnosis age for type 2.

Type 1.5 diabetes shares genetic and autoimmune risk factors with type 1 diabetes such as specific gene variants. However, evidence has also shown it may be influenced by lifestyle factors such as obesity and physical inactivity which are more commonly associated with type 2 diabetes.

What are the symptoms, and how is it treated?

The symptoms of type 1.5 diabetes are highly variable between people. Some have no symptoms at all. But generally, people may experience the following symptoms:

• increased thirst
• frequent urination
• fatigue
• blurred vision
• unintentional weight loss.

Typically, type 1.5 diabetes is initially treated with oral medications to keep blood glucose levels in normal range. Depending on their glucose control and the medication they are using, people with type 1.5 diabetes may need to monitor their blood glucose levels regularly throughout the day.

When average blood glucose levels increase beyond normal range even with oral medications, treatment may progress to insulin. However, there are no universally accepted management or treatment strategies for type 1.5 diabetes.

Type 1.5 diabetes is often misdiagnosed

Lance Bass said he was initially diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, but later learned he actually has type 1.5 diabetes. This is not entirely uncommon. Estimates suggest type 1.5 diabetes is misdiagnosed as type 2 diabetes 5–10% of the time.

There are a few possible reasons for this.

First, accurately diagnosing type 1.5 diabetes, and distinguishing it from other types of diabetes, requires special antibody tests (a type of blood test) to detect autoimmune markers. Not all health-care professionals necessarily order these tests routinely, either due to cost concerns or because they may not consider them.

Second, type 1.5 diabetes is commonly found in adults, so doctors might wrongly assume a person has developed type 2 diabetes, which is more common in this age group (whereas type 1 diabetes usually affects children and young adults).

Third, people with type 1.5 diabetes often initially make enough insulin in the body to manage their blood glucose levels without needing to start insulin medication. This can make their condition appear like type 2 diabetes, where people also produce some insulin.

Finally, because type 1.5 diabetes has symptoms that are similar to type 2 diabetes, it may initially be treated as type 2.

We’re still learning about type 1.5

Compared with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, there has been much less research on how common type 1.5 diabetes is, especially in non-European populations. In 2023, it was estimated type 1.5 diabetes represented 8.9% of all diabetes cases, which is similar to type 1. However, we need more research to get accurate numbers.

Overall, there has been a limited awareness of type 1.5 diabetes and unclear diagnostic criteria which have slowed down our understanding of this condition.

A misdiagnosis can be stressful and confusing. For people with type 1.5 diabetes, being misdiagnosed with type 2 diabetes might mean they don’t get the insulin they need in a timely manner. This can lead to worsening health and a greater likelihood of complications down the road.

Getting the right diagnosis helps people receive the most appropriate treatment, save money, and reduce diabetes distress. If you’re experiencing symptoms you think may indicate diabetes, or feel unsure about a diagnosis you’ve already received, monitor your symptoms and chat with your doctor.

Emily Burch 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.

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

– ref. What is type 1.5 diabetes? It’s a bit like type 1 and a bit like type 2 – but it’s often misdiagnosed – https://theconversation.com/what-is-type-1-5-diabetes-its-a-bit-like-type-1-and-a-bit-like-type-2-but-its-often-misdiagnosed-237041

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Janice Lord, Associate Professor in Botany, University of Otago

Mistletoes are the stuff of myth and legend, vilified for providing the arrow that shot Norse god Balder, but venerated in Celtic and Roman mythology as protection against dark forces.

It is no wonder – mistletoes are unlike any other plant. All species in the mistletoe family, Loranthaceae, are parasites.

The bird-dispersed seeds stick to branches with a special glue and tap into the host tree’s water-conducting vessels (xylem) to access nutrients from the sap.

Mistletoes are called hemi-parasites because they still photosynthesise to produce their own carbohydrates. Most are evergreen, remaining leafy in winter even when their deciduous host trees lose their leaves. This feat is possible because they can continue to draw sap by capillary action, even when the host tree is dormant.

Mistletoes are keystone species

This ability to remain leafy year round is one reason mistletoes are increasingly called keystone species – they play a key role in maintaining ecosystem function, just as a keystone at the top of a masonry arch holds the whole structure in place.

Mistletoe fruits, as well as the flowers of many species, feed birds. The shelter they provide could moderate the impacts of climate change on bird populations.

Our new study shows mistletoes also provide a critically important winter refuge for foliage-dwelling arthropods, especially when they grow in non-native deciduous trees which now dominate many landscapes in New Zealand.

Arthropods – which include insects, arachnids, crustaceans and myriapods – account for most species on the planet. They are not only an important food source for other animals but are crucial to maintaining ecosystems globally, with ecological contributions from pollination to the breakdown of organic matter.

Winter refuge

All of New Zealand’s six species of leafy mistletoes are native. In te reo Māori, they are known as pirita, pikirangi or roeroe. One is extinct and four are considered at risk, mainly due to habitat loss and damage from possums.

All New Zealand mistletoes are evergreen, as are almost all native trees. But deforestation and the widespread planting of non-native deciduous trees in urban and agricultural areas has drastically altered the types of host trees available for native mistletoes and native arthropods.

The green mistletoe Ileostylus micranthus is the most common throughout New Zealand because it is able to parasitise a wide range of hosts, including non-native deciduous trees.

Our study examined the arthropod communities on green mistletoes parasitising evergreen and deciduous host trees. The idea was specifically to see whether the host type (evergreen vs deciduous) and season (summer vs winter) affect the proportion of arthropods found on mistletoes themselves, compared with their host trees.

We found mistletoes harbour significantly more native arthropods overall than the host trees they parasitise. But most importantly, they shelter significantly more arthropods in winter when growing on deciduous hosts, suggesting they are acting as habitat refuges during the colder months.

The benefits of leafy mistletoes in winter may be that they shelter arthropods from weather extremes and hungry birds. They may also provide a more humid microclimate due to the “wasteful” water usage mistletoes engage in to draw sap from the host.

Humidity is important to small arthropods. They are vulnerable to desiccation as they have a much higher surface-to-volume ratio than vertebrates and many have external respiratory systems. Relocating to a humid refuge is a common way for arthropods to avoid desiccation.

Cherish, don’t chop!

One of the issues we faced was that several mistletoes we sampled in summer were deliberately cut off between seasons and could not be resampled in winter. Even mistletoes on native trees were removed from council-managed areas during our research despite our permission to study them.

Other research on the endangered white mistletoe, Tupeia antarctica, was also disrupted. A tree branch that had been banded, with council permission, to stop possums destroying one of the rare mistletoes, was completely removed by council contractors. This was all the more distressing as the at-risk endemic moth Zelleria sphenota was plentiful on that particular mistletoe.

It’s a myth that mistletoes kill trees. The effect on a healthy tree in a healthy forest ecosystem is negligible (although they can have an impact if the tree is isolated or stressed). Isolated trees can become burdened with a large number of mistletoes because there are few other trees around for birds to perch on.

But the removal of mistletoes can reduce bird species richness by more than 30%. Instead of blaming and removing the mistletoe we could do better by planting more trees.

Perhaps it is also time we moved away from a gardening attitude of absolute control when it comes to mistletoes. We could look to the example of Tāne Mahuta, Māori atua of the forests. When Tāne made the forests he made the mistletoe last. He saw his youngest child was small and weak, so he lifted the mistletoe from the forest floor and placed it in the arms of its larger siblings.

Janice Lord receives funding from the Department of Conservation and Ministry for Primary Industries. She is affiliated with the New Zealand Plant Conservation Network and the New Zealand Entomological Society.

James Crofts-Bennett is a member of the Kāti Māmoe and wider Kāi Tahu iwi. He is associated with the New Zealand Entomological Society.

– ref. NZ mistletoes are parasites but not villains – they’re vital for birds and insects during winter – https://theconversation.com/nz-mistletoes-are-parasites-but-not-villains-theyre-vital-for-birds-and-insects-during-winter-236846

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Taylor, Associate Professor in Demography, Northern Institute, Charles Darwin University

Right now, human population growth is doing something long thought impossible – it’s wavering. It’s now possible global population could peak much earlier than expected, topping 10 billion in the 2060s. Then, it would begin to fall.

In wealthier countries, it’s already happening. Japan’s population is falling sharply, with a net loss of 100 people every hour. In Europe, America and East Asia, fertility rates have fallen sharply. Many middle or lower income countries are about to drop too.

This is an extraordinary change. It was only ten years ago demographers were forecasting our numbers could reach as high as 12.3 billion, up from around 8 billion today.

For 50 years, some environmentalists have tried to save the environment by cutting global population growth. In 1968, The Population Bomb forecast massive famines and called for large-scale birth control.

Now we face a very different reality – population growth is slowing without population control, and wealthy country populations are falling, triggering frantic but largely ineffective efforts to encourage more children. What might a falling global population mean for the environment?

Depopulation is already happening

For much of Europe, North America, and some of Northern Asia, depopulation has been underway for decades. Fertility rates have fallen steadily over the past 70 years
and have stayed low, while longer life expectancies mean numbers of very old people (over 80) will double in these regions within 25 years.

China was until recently the world’s most populous nation, accounting for a sixth of the global population. But China, too, is now declining, with the fall expected to rapidly accelerate.

By the end of the century, China is projected to have two-thirds fewer people than today’s 1.4 billion. The sudden drop is due to the long tail of the One Child Policy, which ended in 2016, too late to avert the fall. Japan was once the world’s 11th most populated country, but is expected to halve before the end of the century.

What’s going on is known as demographic transition. As countries move from being largely rural and agrarian to industrial and service-based economies, fertility drops sharply. When low birth rates and low death rates combine, populations begin to fall.

Why? A major factor is choice for women. Women are increasingly having children later in life and having fewer children on average, due to improved choices and freedoms in relation to education and careers.

Why are we suddenly focused on depopulation, given birth rates in rich countries have been falling for decades? When the COVID pandemic hit in 2020, birth rates went into free fall for most countries before recovering a little, while death rates increased. That combination bought forward the onset of population decline more broadly.

A falling population poses real challenges economically. There are fewer workers available and more very old people needing support.

Countries in rapid decline may start to limit emigration to make sure they keep scarce workers at home and prevent further ageing and decline. The competition for skilled workers will intensify globally. Of course, migration doesn’t change how many people there are – just where they are located.

Are these just rich country problems? No. Population growth in Brazil, a large middle-income country, is now the slowest on record.

By 2100, the world is expected to have just six countries where births outweigh deaths – Samoa, Somalia, Tonga, Niger, Chad, and Tajikistan. The other 97% of nations are projected to have fertility rates below replacement levels (2.1 children per woman).

Bad for the economy – good for the environment?

Fewer of us means a reprieve for nature – right? No. It’s not that simple.

For instance, the per capita amount of energy we use peaks between ages 35 and 55, falls, and then rises again from age 70 onwards, as older people are more likely to stay indoors longer and live alone in larger homes. This century’s extraordinary growth in older populations could offset declines from falling populations.

Then there’s the huge disparity in resource use. If you live in the United States or Australia, your carbon footprint is nearly double that of a counterpart in China, the largest overall emitter.

Richer countries consume more. So as more countries get wealthier and healthier but with fewer children, it’s likely more of the global population will become higher emitters. Unless, of course, we decouple economic growth from more emissions and other environmental costs, as many countries are attempting – but very slowly.

Expect to see more liberal migration policies to boost the numbers of working-aged people. We’re already seeing this – migration has now passed projections for 2050.

When people migrate to a developed country, it can be economically advantageous to them and the adopted country. Environmentally, it can increase per capita emissions and environmental impact, given the link between income and emissions is very clear.

Then there’s the looming upheaval of climate change. As the world heats up, forced migration – where people have to leave home to escape drought, war or other climate-influenced disaster – is projected to soar to 216 million people within a quarter century. Forced migration may change emissions patterns, depending on where people find sanctuary.

These factors aside, it’s possible a falling global population could cut overall consumption and reduce pressure on the natural environment.

Environmentalists worried about overpopulation have long hoped for global population to fall. They may soon get their wish. Not through enforced birth control policies but largely through the choices of educated, wealthier women opting for smaller families.

It’s very much an open question whether falling populations will reduce pressure on the natural world. Unless we also cut emissions and change consumption patterns in developed countries, this is by no means guaranteed.

Andrew Taylor 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.

Supriya Mathew 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. Global population growth is now slowing rapidly. Will a falling population be better for the environment? – https://theconversation.com/global-population-growth-is-now-slowing-rapidly-will-a-falling-population-be-better-for-the-environment-235781

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lucie Newsome, Lecturer, Business School, University of New England

When we think of a farmer, we still often imagine a man. But in reality, women contribute 49% to real farm income.

This isn’t just by increasingly working as farmers themselves. Keeping a farm business going usually relies on women’s off-farm work as well, particularly in times of drought.

Despite this, women often do not have ownership of farmland. And when it comes to who gets the family farm in succession planning, daughters, mothers and daughters-in-law are all likely to miss out.

There are established legal protections that women can draw on to challenge this. But our recent research finds these are often seen as a threat to the continuity of the family farm, and attempts are made to deliberately lock women out.

Australian agriculture only suffers as a result. To fix the problem, some stubborn attitudes will need to change.

Passing down the family farm through the generations

The process of deciding who will take over the family farm is known as farm transition and succession. Passing down land through the generations is of upmost importance for farming families.

Farmers see themselves as custodians of land, building on the work of previous generations for the benefit of their descendants. Farm land ownership is tied to identity, social standing, culture and community.

Passing on a viable farm business often relies on keeping it intact, rather than dividing it among siblings. But agricultural land prices have skyrocketed, meaning that for many families, succession planning can be a multimillion-dollar issue.

Beyond the obvious emotional charge, this also makes it extremely difficult for a sibling who wants to take over the farm to buy out the others. It also can mean siblings who do not take over the farm are giving up more and more money.

As you’d expect, this has made farm succession planning big business. Lawyers, accountants and business advisors are all used to help farming families negotiate a way forward.

So, who gets the farm?

Sons, mostly. The most recent data suggests that daughters only take over the family farm in 10% of cases. But as this data is now quite old, a large upcoming survey will assess whether this remains the case.

The default position for most Australian farming families is that a farmer equals a man – their sons are seen as best placed to take over the farm. They are often socialised into this role from birth.

But this view is severely outdated. As farming becomes more professionalised, entrepreneurial and technology-driven, the myth that it requires brute physical male strength is losing power.

Fortunately, gender norms in agriculture are slowly shifting. While there is still a long way to go, daughters are increasingly considered as farmers and are less likely to be overlooked in the distribution of family assets.

The ‘dreaded’ farm daughter-in-law

Few are so mistrusted in the politics of farm succession as the daughter-in-law. Despite this, their on- and off-farm work and their roles as caregivers and community members are crucial to the reproduction of farming families, the family farm and rural communities.

Women have become less accepting of being locked out of land ownership as education levels, family law and gender norms have changed.

But for the landholding generation, they are still often seen as a threat to the continuity of the family farm.

A daughter-in-law’s attempts to start succession planning processes, to raise questions about the underpayment of her partner or herself, or attempts to seek a career outside of rural areas can all also be seen as challenges to the traditional farm family.

This is despite the fact she is often just attempting to secure a degree of certainty for her immediate family.

Deliberately locked out

For some time, Australian family law has extended to de facto partners as well as married partners.

In the case of a divorce or intimate partnership breakdown, the court has the power to decide on how property assets – such as farms – will be distributed between the partners.

In doing so, it aims to achieve an equitable distribution, rather than seeing assets as owned in a 50/50 split. It may take into account the needs of each partner and their financial and non-financial contributions, such as child care.

Despite this, our research found the landholding generation are using the farm succession processes to protect the continuity of the farm from a claim by the daughter-in-law.

This includes delaying transfer of the farm to their adult children, so that the daughter-in-law cannot make a claim on it in the case of divorce. Family business structures that quarantine the farm asset, such as binding financial agreements, are also being used.

But collectively marginalising the farm daughter-in-law and excluding daughters from succession is only hurting the industry. In their attempts to preserve the status quo of gender relations, many family farms are failing to prepare for a changing business and social environment.

Women have been graduating from agricultural degrees in equal numbers as men for more than two decades. Females farmers have been found to have high levels of entrepreneurship, innovation and strong sustainability values.

How can farming families do better succession planning?

Australia’s food security and agricultural industry depend on succession being done well. It needs to be a continuous conversation with the whole family, aided by professionals with a range of skills.

That means women can no longer be deliberately excluded. As one professional in our study commented:

A lot of these girls have sacrificed a lot and … [they] are whip-smart and actually could contribute enormously to these businesses being more successful if [the older generation would] just put fear aside, be clear about what they’re frightened of, deal with it, and move on.

If the industry wants to thrive in the 21st century, attitudes will have to change.

Lucie Newsome receives funding from the UNE Foundation to support this research.

Andrew Lawson receives funding from the UNE Foundation to support this research

Alison Sheridan 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. Women play a crucial role in agriculture – so why are they often locked out of owning land? – https://theconversation.com/women-play-a-crucial-role-in-agriculture-so-why-are-they-often-locked-out-of-owning-land-236311

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Theresa Fruth, Lecturer in Physics, University of Sydney

Most of the matter in the universe is missing. Scientists believe around 85% of the matter in the cosmos is made of invisible dark matter, which has only been detected indirectly by its gravitational effects on its surroundings.

My colleagues and I – a team of some 250 scientists from around the world working on a dark matter experiment called LUX-ZEPLIN (or LZ) – today report our latest findings from the long quest to discover exactly what this dark matter is made of.

We have not yet found the elusive particles we believe dark matter consists of, but we have set the tightest limits yet on their properties. We have also shown our detector is working as expected – and should produce even better results in the future.

Our results are reported today at the TeV Particle Astrophysics 2024 conference in Chicago and the LIDINE 2024 conference in São Paulo, Brazil. A journal paper will be submitted for peer review in the coming weeks.

What is dark matter?

When astronomers look at the universe, they see evidence that the visible matter of stars, gas and galaxies is not all there is. Many phenomena, such as how fast galaxies spin and the pattern of the residual glow of the Big Bang, can only be explained by the presence of large amounts of some invisible substance – dark matter.

So what is this dark matter made of? We currently don’t know of any kind of particle that could explain these astronomical observations.

There are dozens of theories that aim to explain dark matter observations, ranging from exotic unknown particles to tiny black holes or fundamental changes to our theory of gravity. However, none of them has yet been proven correct.

One of the most popular theories suggests dark matter is made up of so-called “weakly interacting massive particles” (or WIMPs). These relatively heavy particles could cause the observed gravitational effects and also – very rarely – interact with ordinary matter.

How would we know if this theory is correct? Well, we think these particles must be streaming through Earth all the time. For the most part, they will pass through without interacting with anything, but every so often a WIMP might crash directly into the nucleus of an atom – and these collisions are what we are trying to spot.

A big cold tank of liquid xenon

The LZ experiment is located in an old goldmine about 1,500 metres below ground in South Dakota in the US. Placing the experiment deep underground helps to cut out as much background radiation as possible.

The experiment consists of a large double-walled tank filled with seven tonnes of liquid xenon, a noble gas chilled down to a temperature of 175 kelvin (–98°C).

If a dark matter particle smacks into a xenon nucleus, it should give off a tiny flash of light. Our detector has 494 light sensors to detect these flashes.

Of course, dark matter particles aren’t the only things that can create these flashes. There is still some background radiation from the surroundings and even the materials of the tank and detectors themselves.

A big part of figuring out whether we are seeing signs of dark matter is disentangling this background radiation from anything more exotic. To do this, we make detailed simulations of the results we would expect to see with and without dark matter.

These simulations have been the focus of much of my part in the experiment, which began when I started my PhD in 2015. I also developed detector monitoring sensors and was responsible for the integration and commissioning of the central detector underground, which began collecting data in 2021.

Drawing the net tighter

Our latest results show no signs of dark matter. However, they let us rule out a lot of possibilities.

We found no traces of particles with masses above 1.6 × 10^–26 kilograms, which is about ten times as heavy as a proton.

These results are based on 280 days’ worth of observations from the detector. Eventually, we aim to collect 1,000 days’ worth – which will let us search for even more elusive potential dark matter particles.

If we’re lucky, we might find dark matter turns up in the new data. If not, we have already begun to make plans for a next generation dark matter experiment. The XLZD (XENON-LUX-ZEPLIN-DARWIN) consortium is aiming to build a detector almost ten times bigger that would allow us to trawl through even more of the space where these ubiquitous yet elusive particles may be hiding.

Theresa Fruth works for the University of Sydney.

– ref. 85% of the matter in the universe is missing. But we’re getting closer to finding it – https://theconversation.com/85-of-the-matter-in-the-universe-is-missing-but-were-getting-closer-to-finding-it-237459

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

If you’ve ever opened the door to your child’s room only to be greeted by a sea of clothes, toys and who knows what else, you’re not alone.

Among countless reminders, pleading and threats, parents often find themselves in battle with their children when it comes to tidying up. For so many of us, it is an endless cycle of “try and let it go” and then “triggered and explode”. The ongoing conflict this creates can be stressful for everyone.

But you are not doomed to live with piles of Lego, collected sticks and stones – or rooms full of old food and unwashed dishes until your children leave home. There is a different way to approach this.

Why are children and teens messy?

There are developmental reasons for children being messy.

Children and teens don’t fully develop the part of their brain needed for high-level organisation until adulthood, and can be easily overwhelmed by a tidying job.

This should not get them off the hook, though. Practising organisation skills is great for the brain. Research shows helping with tidying up from as early as 18 months is associated with improved prosocial skills (the ability to work with others).

It can also be hard to keep a room tidy if children have too many toys in their room. This means they have to riffle through things or tip out toy baskets to find a toy. Too much choice can also lead children to quickly move from one toy or activity to the next.

Why you shouldn’t just clear it up yourself

As a parent we can get caught in a cycle of feeling overwhelmed and frustrated and become disconnected from our child’s perspective. For younger children, play is work – much of their learning happens as they play.

When we interrupt their play and tidy up their masterpiece, or throw out a special object, it can break trust and feel devastating for them.

For teenagers (and even younger children), having personal space is important to develop a healthy identity and sense of control in their world.

So when parents barge into their room and move their things, this can feel like a violation.

How can make tidying up easier?

• Make time to talk to your child about tidying up at a calm moment (when you’re not asking them to clean anything). Don’t make it a lecture – acknowledge how hard it is to keep their room tidy, ask for their ideas on what might help and decide together on a regular routine (perhaps they always give their room a quick tidy before TV, or it’s a job on a certain day). Discuss what could get in the way and how you will work together.

• Have fewer toys in your child’s room and a special place for these. This can make the room more appealing and organised, inspire play and creativity, and make tidying up easier.

• Notice moments when your children are doing any kind of cleaning up and acknowledge their efforts. Children love to feel noticed – we all do!

• Break the task down into smaller parts for older kids. For example, you could suggest, “what about packing all the Lego into that box” rather than just saying “clean up your room”.

• Be playful with younger children. Cleaning up can be a time for connection. Get them to find all the red toys first, then see how fast they can bring you any socks that need washing.

• Notice the emotions your child feels when you are asking them to tidy up. See these emotions as an opportunity for connection and guidance. For example, “It’s hard to clean up this amazing fort, you worked so hard on this. I love how cosy it is”. And name emotions as you go. For example, “It’s overwhelming when there is so much to clean. Are you worried about where to start?” Or problem solve together: “What could we clean up first?”

• With teenagers, use single word reminders, starting with just one thing that needs cleaning (for example, “washing?” Or “plates?”). Single word reminders allow a teen to save face and prevent battles. Watch your tone of voice and body language – try to stay warm, firm and kind.

Elizabeth Westrupp receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Christiane Kehoe is co-author of the Tuning in to Toddlers, Tuning in to Kids, and Tuning in to Teens parenting programs which teach Emotion Coaching. She works as Tuning in to Kids specialist, Research Manager, and Senior Training co-ordinator at Mindful, Centre for Training and Research in Developmental Health, Department Psychiatry, University of Melbourne and receives royalties from the sale of program manuals.

Gabriella King previously received funding from Deakin University to support their PhD candidature (Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship).

– ref. How can you help your child tidy up their room (without having a massive fight every time)? – https://theconversation.com/how-can-you-help-your-child-tidy-up-their-room-without-having-a-massive-fight-every-time-235517

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katharine Kemp, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law & Justice; Lead, UNSW Public Interest Law & Tech Initiative, UNSW Sydney

Many businesses are trapping Australian consumers in paid subscriptions by making them hard to cancel, hiding important details and offering “free” trials that auto-renew with hefty charges. We need law reform to tackle this continuing problem.

A new report shows 75% of Australian consumers have had negative experiences when trying to cancel a subscription, according to the Consumer Policy Research Centre (CPRC).

It shows businesses use “dark patterns”, which are designs that hinder consumers who try to act in their own best interests. Subscription traps are often called “Hotel California” techniques, referring to The Eagles’ famous lyric: “you can check out any time you want, but you can never leave”.

In some of these cases, consumers may have remedies under our existing consumer law, including for misleading conduct. But we need law reform to capture other unfair practices.

In the meantime, the CPRC’s research also gives examples of businesses with fair, consumer-friendly subscription practices. These also benefit the business.

Examples of unfair subscription traps

Subscription business models have become common – many products are now provided in the form of software, an app or access to a website. Some of these would once have been a physical book, newspaper, CD or exercise class.

Most people who use online services have experienced the frustration of finding a credit card charge for an unwanted, unused subscription or spending excessive time trying to cancel a subscription.

Businesses can make it difficult for consumers to stop paying for unwanted subscriptions. Some do this by allowing consumers to start a subscription with a single click, but creating multiple obstacles if you want to end the subscription.

This can include obscuring cancellation options in the app, requiring consumers to phone during business hours or making them navigate through multiple steps and offers before terminating. The report points out many of the last-ditch discounts offered in this process are only short term. One survey respondent said:

I wasn’t able to cancel without having to call up and speak to someone. Their business hours meant I had to call up during my work day and it took some time to action.

Other businesses badger consumers with frequent emails or messages after they cancel. One respondent said a business made “the cancellation process impossible by making you call and then judging your reason for cancellation”.

What does consumer law say?

Some subscription traps already fall foul of the Australian Consumer Law and warrant investigation by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC). Consumers may have remedies where the business has engaged in misleading conduct or imposes an unfair contract term.

For example, the ACCC is suing dating site eHarmony for its allegedly misleading subscription practices.

In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission has filed a complaint against software company Adobe for allegedly using dark patterns in its subscription practices.

The Federal Trade Commission has alleged that “Adobe pushed consumers toward the ‘annual paid monthly’ subscription without adequately disclosing that cancelling the plan in the first year could cost hundreds of dollars”.

Adobe issued a statement arguing the commission’s complaint “mischaracterises” its business. The litigation is ongoing.

We need an unfair practices prohibition

Some subscription traps would fall outside the existing consumer law. This is because they don’t meet the test for misleading conduct or unfair contract terms, but make it practically very difficult to cancel.

The ACCC has advocated for Australia to follow other countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States to enact an unfair practices prohibition to capture conduct like this.

Better practices benefit businesses too

The CPRC report also revealed that 90% of Australians would likely purchase from the same organisation if cancelling a subscription process was quick and simple.

Businesses focused on a short-sighted cash grab fail to realise that consumers might cancel but later return if treated well.

The CPRC highlights businesses that are doing a good job. For instance, the habit change app Atoms (based on James Clear’s book Atomic Habits) has a genuinely free trial. It doesn’t require credit card details, doesn’t auto-renew, and lets consumers know how many trial days remain.

The CPRC says the charity World Vision doesn’t auto-renew annual sponsorships, but reminds supporters about when the sponsorship will lapse.

Importantly, some businesses – such as Netflix – use their data for good in this context. They notice when users are paying for the service without using it and help them unsubscribe.

These practices should be applauded. But we need an unfair practices prohibition for businesses who don’t follow suit and recognise the long-term benefits of treating customers fairly.

Katharine Kemp is a Member of the Expert Panel of the Consumer Policy Research Centre.

– ref. Why is it so hard to cancel subscriptions or end ‘free’ trials? Report shows how companies trap you into paying – https://theconversation.com/why-is-it-so-hard-to-cancel-subscriptions-or-end-free-trials-report-shows-how-companies-trap-you-into-paying-237236

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Parmeter, Research Scholar, Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies, Australian National University

For weeks, Israel had been anticipating a major attack from Hezbollah in retaliation for its killing of Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr in Lebanon at the end of July.

In the early hours of Sunday, that attack finally came – and Israel was apparently ready. The Israelis claim to have thwarted what could have been a large-scale Hezbollah assault. At the same time, Hezbollah also claimed success.

So, what can we make of the latest tit-for-tat between the two sides, and where does the region go from here?

How both sides are seeing things

Clearly, both Israel and Hezbollah have stepped back at this stage from any further action. Hezbollah has qualified this by saying this is only the first phase of its response to Shukr’s assassination, and that it reserves the right to strike further after evaluating the success of Sunday’s operation.

Israel claimed to have seen preparations for perhaps a thousand rockets to be launched across the border, and it preemptively sent around 100 aircraft into southern Lebanon and hit 270 targets, including rocket launchers. Hezbollah is believed to be capable of launching 3,000 missiles a day if a full-scale war were to break out.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed the operation as a success, but said it’s not the end of the story and Israel will strike further if need be.

Hezbollah denies Israel’s strikes did much damage, saying it merely fired into “empty valleys”.

At the same time, Hezbollah retaliated by sending a large number of Katyusha rockets into northern Israel. These are not the biggest rockets in its arsenal – they have a limited range of up to 40 kilometres – so they can only hit targets in northern Israel. Hezbollah said the rockets were meant to make way for a wave of drones to go into Israel. One Israeli Navy sailor was killed in the attack.

In his speech by video on Sunday, Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, seemed to be apologising to the Lebanese people for putting them in this position. And that’s possibly not surprising, because Hezbollah is both a political and military actor, and it needs to make sure it continues to win votes in the Lebanese political system.

But Nasrallah said Hezbollah had achieved its objectives and the group was encouraging Lebanese who had moved away from the border to go back. However, that may be a bit premature, because it is still unclear how this will all play out.

What is Iran thinking?

Most analysts had been assuming there might be a coordinated revenge attack for both the killing of Shukr in Beirut and the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in July. This may have included missiles and rockets from Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and possibly also the Houthi rebels in Yemen and Shi’a militant groups in Syria and Iraq.

But that didn’t happen. And that could mean a few things.

First, Iran at this stage is likely trying to work out the best way of responding to Haniyeh’s killing. In April, it sent over 300 missiles, drones and rockets into Israel in retaliation for the bombing of an Iranian diplomatic building in Damascus in which several Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) members were killed. But virtually all of them were shot down and there was no serious damage.

A repeat of that would indicate Iran really doesn’t have the capacity to take serious action against Israel.

At the same time, Iran would also not want to launch a bigger retaliatory strike because that could spark a wider war. And Tehran doesn’t want to give the Americans or Israelis an excuse to launch a concerted attack on its nuclear facilities.

So, Iran is likely trying to work out some mid-point between its April strike and a slightly stronger response. This is clearly taking time.

It may also indicate there’s a debate going inside Iran between those around the newly elected president, Masoud Pezeshkian, who is known to be something of a moderate (in Iranian terms ), and the IRGC, which has been threatening a very hard-line response to Israel for some time.

Iran may have simply decided it will only respond to Israel through its proxies – limited attacks by Hezbollah and the Houthis are all it is willing to do at this stage. But this doesn’t mean the danger is over because the scope for messages to be misunderstood between such hostile antagonists is always there.

Netanyahu under pressure

Netanyahu is also under continued pressure from the right wing of his cabinet, which has long advocated for taking out the Hezbollah threat on Israel’s northern border, even though this is a very difficult task. Israel tried it once before in 2006 and essentially failed.

In addition, about 60,000 Israelis have had to evacuate their homes in northern Israel and are living in temporary accommodation due to the Hezbollah threat. They want Netanyahu to make it safer for them to return.

Responding to military threats on two fronts is difficult for Israel to sustain. Israel’s military has now been been fighting Hamas in Gaza, and to some extent, protecting northern Israel from Hezbollah attacks for nearly 11 months.

The permanent Israeli army is also not that large. It only has about 169,000 regular troops, meaning it must rely on up to 300,000 reservists to meet its current needs.

And the problem with bringing reservists into service: this affects the economy because they leave their jobs. In just the last couple of weeks, the Fitch Ratings agency downgraded Israel’s rating from A to A minus, reflecting the fact the economy is not functioning as well as it should be, in addition to the heightened geopolitical risks. The country is on a perpetual war footing, and the military wants to have a break.

However, Netanyahu is wary of any sort of a pause in the fighting because that could upset his coalition and spark an election, which he would probably lose.

His entire strategy since the October 7 Hamas assault has been to reestablish his security credentials. He needs to be able to show he can counter any threat to Israel to restore the public’s faith in him. To do that, he must re-establish the confidence of those who live in northern Israel and stop the attacks from Hezbollah.

It seems this could go on for quite some time, but Hezbollah has also said it will halt its attacks if there’s a ceasefire in Gaza. So in that sense, we’re stuck in a loop that’s not going to stop until there’s a breakthrough in the ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas.

And given the obstacles that remain on both sides, it’s hard to see that happening any time soon.

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

– ref. Can Israel and Hezbollah both claim success after weekend strikes? And what could happen next? – https://theconversation.com/can-israel-and-hezbollah-both-claim-success-after-weekend-strikes-and-what-could-happen-next-237463

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland

Almost 35 years have passed since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its first assessment report. It found human activities were substantially increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other gases ion the atmosphere, which was warming the global climate.

Since then, countries around the world have introduced a slew of policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But what actually worked?

This question is at the heart of a landmark new paper by German researchers. They analysed 1,500 climate policies implemented around the world over the past two decades, and found only a small fraction were effective.

Importantly, they found most emissions reduction relied on a mix of policies. The results point to a way forward for Australia, where an economy-wide carbon price is currently politically impossible.

Untangling the policy labyrinth

At a global level, emissions-reduction policies have yet to produce the sustained reduction in CO₂ emissions needed to hold global heating below 2°C.

So it’s important to understand how well, or badly, emissions-reduction policies in various countries have worked.

A few ad hoc observations can be made. For example, Australia’s carbon emissions fell during the brief period of the Gillard Labor government’s carbon price, then rose when the Abbott government removed the policy. It is not hard to identify causality here.

Rarely is the cause for success or failure so clear-cut. Globally, in the past few decades, various policies have been introduced, modified, and in some cases, abandoned. It can be seemingly impossible to disentangle their effects.

But a new paper attempts this task.

‘Difference in difference’

The research was led by Annika Stechemesser from Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. It employs a standard technique for determining the effects of a policy intervention, known as the “differences in differences” approach.

This approach compares changes in outcomes over time between two groups. If a policy was ineffective, the differences between the groups should stay the same over time. If the gap changes in the expected direction, the policy is assumed to be effective.

The method was applied most famously in a 1994 study in the United States by economists David Card and Alan Kreuger. They compared fast-food restaurants in New Jersey, where minimum wages were increased, with those in Pennsylvania, where wages were unchanged.

They found the rise in the minimum wage had no effect on the number of people employed by restaurants. The analysis led to a radical change in thinking about minimum wages.

But that analysis involved a single change. The Potsdam team sought to distinguish the effects of more than 1,500 climate policy interventions, implemented across 41 countries over two decades.

It required sorting through a huge volume of data, while applying the “differences in differences” approach. The researchers did this using artificial intelligence.

They analysed four sectors: buildings, electricity, industry and transport. They examined eight kinds of policy interventions, primarily focused on:

• pricing policies, such as carbon taxes and permits that can be bought and sold

• regulation, such as bans, building codes and energy efficiency rules

• applying or removing subsidies, such as governments paying property owners to install rooftop solar, or removing tax breaks for the fossil fuel industry.

What the research found

The researchers identified 63 cases where climate policies had led to large emissions reduction.

Unsurprisingly, though a little disappointingly, no “silver bullet” policy emerged. Rather, most successful cases – at least in developed economies – were the result of two or more policies working together.

This might mean, for example, a fuel efficiency mandate for vehicles, combined with subsidies to help develop a network of charging stations for electric vehicles.

The study also found successful policy mixes vary across sectors. For example in developed countries, pricing was particularly effective policy in sectors dominated by profit-oriented companies, such as electricity and industry. But a mix of incentives and regulations worked best in the buildings and transport sectors.

And countries have different needs, depending on income. In developing countries, for example, pricing interventions did not lead to large emission reductions in the electricity sector. This may change, however, as China gradually develops carbon markets.

The researchers have made the data available to the public in a handy tool. It is easily searchable by sector and country.

The strength of this approach is the ability to integrate analysis across many different countries. However, this global approach precludes a fine-grained analysis for each country.

For example, because Australia’s carbon pricing scheme was so short-lived, and its effects rapidly reversed, the differences-in-differences analysis did not capture its significance.

What can Australia learn?

The research is an impressive effort to distil lessons from the mass of confusing data surrounding climate policy.

The findings would once have been unwelcome news to the economics profession, which in the past has largely advocated for one stand-alone policy applied across the economy – most commonly, putting a price on carbon.

Carbon prices are not a complete solution, but they are important. Research in 2020 showed countries with carbon prices, on average, had annual carbon emissions growth rates two percentage points lower than countries without a carbon price.

Unfortunately in Australia, the federal Coalition is resolutely opposed to any kind of price-based measure to cut emissions. And following the Gillard government’s politically bruising experience over the carbon price, the Albanese government is allergic to any mention of such policies.

So while price-based mechanisms are, theoretically, the ideal way to cut emissions, most economists now accept there’s no point holding out for it. If a combination of measures in different parts of the economy is the best we can do, it’s better than nothing. The important task is to reduce emissions.

The political constraints on price-based policy mean Australia must push harder on other policy approaches – namely regulations and subsidies – to reach net-zero by 2050.

John Quiggin is a former member of the Climate Change Authority

– ref. Researchers analysed 1,500 climate policies to find what works. These are the lessons for Australia – https://theconversation.com/researchers-analysed-1-500-climate-policies-to-find-what-works-these-are-the-lessons-for-australia-237307

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karen Canfell, Adjunct professor, cancer epidemiology, University of Sydney

Cervical screening in Australia has changed over the past seven years. The test has changed, and women (and people with a cervix) now have much more choice and control. Here’s why – and what you can expect if you’re aged 25 to 74 and are due for a test.

When and why did the test change?

In 2017, Australia became one of the first two countries to transition from Pap smears to tests for the presence of the human papillomavirus (HPV).

HPV causes virtually all cervical cancers, so testing for the presence of this virus is a very good indicator of a person’s current and future risk of the disease.

This contrasts with the older Pap smear technology, which involved inspection of cells every two years for the changes resulting from HPV infection.

The change to screening was supported by a very large body of international and Australian data showing primary testing for HPV is more accurate than Pap smears.

Women and people with a cervix who do not have HPV detected on their test are at a very low risk of developing cervical cancer over the next five years, or even longer. This was the basis for lengthening the screening interval when HPV screening was introduced.

Australia now recommends five-yearly HPV screening, starting at age 25 up to the age of 74 for eligible people, whether or not they have been vaccinated against HPV. Many other countries are following suit to transition to HPV screening.

All established screening tests – which are conducted in people without any symptoms – are associated with health benefits but also with some harms. These can include the psychological and clinical consequences of receiving a “positive” screening result, which needs to be investigated further.

However, recent World Health Organization (WHO) reviews of the evidence have found:

• HPV is a more effective screening test than Pap smears or any other method
• it substantially reduces incidence and death rates from cervical cancer
• it is the method of cervical screening that has the best balance of benefits to harms.

As a consequence, the WHO now unequivocally recommends HPV screening as the best-practice method.

Now you can collect your own sample

One of the major benefits of switching to HPV screening is it opened the door for a person being able to collect their own sample (which was impossible with the Pap smear). If HPV is present, it can be detected in the vagina rather than having to directly sample the cervix.

In 2022, Australia became one of the first countries in the world to introduce a universal option to choose self-collection within a major national-level screening program. This means people eligible for screening, under the guidance of a primary care practitioner, can now choose to collect their own vaginal sample, in privacy, using a simple swab.

By the end of 2023, 27% of people were choosing to take the test this way, but this is on an upward trajectory and is likely to increase further, with an awareness campaign due to start next month.

So what happens when I have a test?

You’ll receive an invitation from the National Cancer Screening Register to attend your first screen when you turn 25. If you’re older, you’ll receive reminders when you are due for your next test. You will be invited to visit your GP or community health service for the test.

You should be asked whether you would prefer to have a clinician collect the test or whether you would prefer to take the sample yourself.

There’s no right or wrong way. The accuracy of testing has been shown to be equivalent for clinician or self-collected sampling. This is a matter of choice.

If the clinician does the test, they will undertake a pelvic examination with a speculum inserted into the vagina. This enables the doctor or nurse to view the cervix and take a sample.

If you are interested in the self-collection option, check whether the practice is offering it when making an appointment.

If you opt for self-collection, you’ll be able to do so in private. You’ll be given a swab (which looks like a COVID test swab with a longer stem), and you’ll be given instructions about how to insert and rotate the swab in the vagina to take the sample. It takes only a few minutes.

What does it mean if my test detects HPV?

If your test detects HPV, this means you have an HPV infection. These are very common and by itself doesn’t mean you have cancer, or even pre-cancer (which involves changes to cervical cells that make them more likely to develop into cancer over time).

It does mean, however, that you are at higher risk of having a pre-cancer, or developing one in future, and that you will benefit from further follow-up or diagnostic testing. Your doctor or nurse will guide you on the next steps in line with national guidelines.

If you require a diagnostic examination, this will involve a procedure called colposcopy, where the cervix is closely examined by a gynaecologist or other specially trained healthcare practitioner, and a small sample may be taken for detailed examination of the cells.

If you have a pre-cancer, you can be treated simply and quickly, usually without needing to be admitted to hospital. Treatment involves ablating or removing a small area of the cervix. This treatment will drastically reduce your risk of ever developing cervical cancer.

What does this mean for cervical cancer rates?

Cervical screening for HPV is a very effective method of preventing cervical cancer. Because of Australia’s HPV screening, combined with HPV vaccination in younger people, Australia is expected to achieve such low rates of cervical cancer by 2035 that it will be considered eliminated.

Last year, the government launched a national strategy for cervical cancer elimination which provides key recommendations for eliminating cervical cancer, and for doing so equitably in all groups of women and people with a cervix.

One of the best things you can do to protect yourself is to have your cervical screening test when you become eligible, whether or not you have been vaccinated against HPV.

Marion Saville, a pathologist and Executive Director at the Australian Centre for the Prevention of Cervical Cancer, co-authored this article.

Karen Canfell receives funding from a range of government and non-government sources. She is co-principal investigator of an investigator-initiated trial of cervical screening, Compass, run by the Australian Centre for Prevention of Cervical Cancer (ACPCC), which is a government-funded not-for-profit charity; the ACPCC has received equipment and a funding contribution from Roche Molecular Diagnostics, and operational support from the Australian Government. She is also co-principal investigator on a major investigator-initiated implementation program Elimination of Cervical Cancer in the Western Pacific (ECCWP) and an extension of this work, the Elimination Partnership in the Indo-Pacific for Cervical Cancer (EPICC). This receives support from the Australian Government’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Minderoo Foundation and equipment donations from Cepheid.

Deborah Bateson Deborah Bateson is a co-investigator on the implementation program Elimination of Cervical Cancer in the Western Pacific, which has received support from the Minderoo Foundation and equipment donations from Cepheid Inc.

Megan Smith receives funding for research from the Commonwealth Department of Health, and has previously received support from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Cancer Institute NSW and the Australian Centre for the Prevention of Cervical Cancer.

– ref. I’m due for a cervical cancer screening. What can I expect? Can I do it myself? And what happened to Pap smears? – https://theconversation.com/im-due-for-a-cervical-cancer-screening-what-can-i-expect-can-i-do-it-myself-and-what-happened-to-pap-smears-229495