Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Naomi Smith, Lecturer in Sociology, University of the Sunshine Coast

Paris 2024 might go down in history as the most meme-d sporting event ever. Traditionally, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has focused on broadcast media such as free-to-air television as its primary medium, with rights holders paying big bucks.

In Australia, Channel 9 reportedly paid A$305 million to secure the rights to broadcast the next five games, through to Brisbane 2032.

In previous games, the IOC has also taken a strict approach to sharing and resharing content across platforms. However, this is beginning to change, with the committee unveiling a new social media policy for athletes, coaches and other staff ahead of Paris 2024. Importantly, this new strategy allows athletes to post about their sponsors, which helps them build their brand and make money.

All signs point to the IOC leaning into and encouraging viral social media moments – giving viewers a glimpse of the softer side of the Olympics, including behind the scenes action and athlete life.

We first saw this shift in the Tokyo 2020 summer games (which took place in 2021), with athletes creating and sharing content for fans on social media. One such athlete was the popular TikToker Ilona Maher, a member of the US rugby sevens, who has amassed some 2.3 million followers on TikTok and 3.6 million on Instagram.

In the right hands, social media has massive reach – even if you’re not a world-famous athlete like Simone Biles (12.5 million Instagram followers) or Usain Bolt (14.1 million followers on Instagram). Paris 2024 has proven this yet again.

The breakdancer and the muffin man

Perhaps you’ve heard about the muffin man? No, not that muffin man. I mean the Norwegian Olympic swimmer, Henrik Christiansen who went viral for his extensively documented obsession with the chocolate muffins served in the dining hall at the Olympic village.

Other athletes have jumped in with their own variation on the muffin man meme, such as by filming themselves trying or sneaking off with the infamous muffins.

Viewers at home also got in on the action by creating and/or consuming their own muffins.

The muffin man was quickly eclipsed by Australian breakdancer Rachael Gunn (aka “Raygun”), whose performance produced what can only be described as a meme storm across social media. Raygun’s breaking performance quickly drew comparisons to scenes from the Simpsons and Kath and Kim.

Raygun herself seems to be in on the joke, filming a video with The Inspired Unemployed to the tune of Snoop Dogg’s Drop It Like It’s Hot.

Memes matter

But why do memes matter for the Olympics?

For starters, the Olympics and Paralympics have been suffering from a bit of an image problem. They are expensive, disruptive and cities are increasingly less likely to bid for them.

The IOC’s strict rules around broadcasting rights also limit the reach of footage from the actual games, which risks disengaging young people – especially Gen Z – who don’t tune into traditional TV and consume much of their media through social media platforms.

Social media allows the human side of the games to shine through and reminds viewers, as corny as it may seem, of the Olympic spirit and the collective joy we can experience through sport. Meme-making is also a creative and participatory process and engages people beyond a traditional audience model.

Even though the IOC might not be directly producing some of these viral moments, they’re definitely creating the conditions for them to occur. And viewing figures from Paris 2024 suggest this strategy is working. The IOC’s primary commercial partner, NBC, recorded 34.6 million viewers across its digital streaming platforms and traditional broadcast – a figure that has eclipsed the Tokyo 2020 games.

In the first week of the games alone, the official Olympic social media channels generated 8.5 billion engagements (that’s before we got to the memes).

It’s the D-O-double-G!

This ratings gold has been further helped by NBC’s focus on celebrities and enlisting Snoop Dogg’s as Team USA’s unofficial mascot.

Snoop appeared at various events, including the equestrian with Martha Stewart – where they both wore equestrian outfits to watch the dressage, fully reported on the official Olympics website. He also inspired many of the Paris 2024 memes – his big name, big personality and expressive face making him the ideal candidate for meme-making younger viewers.

When celebrities such as actor Mariska Hargitay appeared as spectators, the cameras cut to them in the crowd and their interactions with athletes were documented for social media, drawing more eyes to the games.

All these factors have contributed to the impression of a friendlier, more relaxed and engaging competition. It seems the IOC is more aware than ever that allowing people to meme and share footage from the Olympics is good for their broadcast partners and their bottom line.

Athletes benefit, too. Since they aren’t paid for competing in the games, social media is one way athletes can sustain their careers in what is often a difficult funding environment. It offers a way for them to build their brand, gain partnerships and continue to do what they (and we) love – giving it their all on the world stage.

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

– ref. How Paris 2024 became the most meme-d Olympics ever – https://theconversation.com/how-paris-2024-became-the-most-meme-d-olympics-ever-236684

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Clarke, PhD Student in Applied Geology, Curtin University

During the solstices, thousands gather at Stonehenge on the Salisbury Plain in England to celebrate the monument’s astronomical alignment. The focal point of these festivities is the Altar Stone – the six-tonne sandstone slab that lies flat at the centre of Stonehenge.

The ancient society that built this monument, from 3,100 to 1,600 BCE, left no written record. But Stonehenge’s building blocks themselves can help us understand it better. These blocks, or megaliths, are divided into two major categories: sarsen stones and bluestones. The Altar Stone is the largest bluestone.

Some bluestones were likely quarried from the Mynydd Preseli in Wales, over 220km away from Stonehenge, while the sarsen stones were locally sourced from the Salisbury Plain.

Meanwhile, the source of the Altar Stone has remained enigmatic. Recent work has raised doubts about the long-held belief that it, too, came from Wales.

So, where is the Altar Stone from? How was it transported to southern England? To answer this, we analysed the Altar Stone’s constituent mineral grains. Our results are now published in the journal Nature – and it looks like the Altar Stone came from Scotland.

The DNA of rocks

At midsummer dawn, the Altar Stone is set ablaze with sunlight. On the shortest day, the setting winter sun casts its dying rays on it. We can imagine a similar scene at Stonehenge in ancient times, when prehistoric Britons used it to welcome the promise of longer spring days and harvests ahead.

However, other than this in-built celestial calendar, how or why the monument was built remains largely unknown.

Humans are made from DNA, which reveals our heritage, ancestors, where our family lived, what we might have eaten, and events we went through.

Much like DNA, the Altar Stone contains a vast array of mineral grains that carry information on their birth (crystallisation) and subsequent history (transport and metamorphism).

In our study, we dated mineral grains called zircon, rutile and apatite in the Altar Stone. As no sampling of the Altar Stone is permitted today, we used thin slices of the stone collected during historical archaeological digs.

Like a DNA test can tell us where our ancestors are from, grains within the Altar Stone have specific ages and chemical characteristics that allow us to pinpoint their source rock. We do this by comparing these details to rocks elsewhere.

Matching characteristics tell us we have found the source of the grains in the Altar Stone: sedimentary rocks within the Orcadian Basin of northeast Scotland provided the closest match.

The Grampian Mountains and the Northern Highlands have shed tiny pieces of rock, or detrital grains, towards the Orcadian Basin since about 400 million years ago. These eroding rocks imparted their unique and traceable “DNA” into the sandstone, which was ultimately selected as the Altar Stone.

The Scottish heart of Stonehenge

Today, northeast Scotland and the Orkney Islands are sparsely populated but this was different in the past. Archaeological sites such as Skara Brae, Maeshowe, and the Ring of Brodgar atop a ritual landscape on Orkney suggest that northeast Scotland was a centre of Neolithic population, culture and trade.

A Scottish origin for the Altar Stone raises fascinating questions about prehistoric Britain’s connectivity and technological capabilities.

A quarried stone tools trade network is found throughout Britain, Ireland and continental Europe. For example, a saddle quern, a large prehistoric stone grinding tool, was discovered in Dorset and determined to be from Normandy, France.

How did the Altar Stone get to Stonehenge?

Although some believe the Welsh bluestones may have been carried by glaciers towards Stonehenge, this transport seems improbable for the Altar Stone.

During past ice ages, vast ice walls moved northwards from the mountains of Scotland towards the Orcadian Basin – transporting rock even farther away from the Salisbury Plain.

But Neolithic Britons were adept seafarers. They had to be, as prehistoric Britain was heavily forested and formidable mountains, valleys and estuaries would have posed major barriers for southward cargo haulage.

Given these obstacles, overland transport would have proved all but impossible to move the Altar Stone from Scotland to Salisbury Plain. We think it’s likely the builders of Stonehenge shipped the Altar Stone by boat.

It wouldn’t be without precedent. The remains of the Hanson Log Boat provide evidence of transporting shaped sandstone blocks by river as far back as 1500 BC.

The unanswerable question is, why did people pick the Altar Stone? Why transport a drab greenish-grey six-tonne sandstone block over 650km from Scotland?

Humans have long sought the perfect stone for construction. This desire continues today.

American socialite Kim Kardashian spent thousands on lavish Calacatta gold marble from Italy for her Los Angeles mansion. For us, this choice is undoubtedly extravagant, perhaps incomprehensible, given that local stone was available.

Maybe the average Neolithic Briton felt the same about the Altar Stone. Or maybe there was a more mundane reason. Perhaps the rock was suitably fractured, allowing easy quarrying and transport via nearby marine shipping routes.

Anthony Clarke receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Chris Kirkland receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Stijn Glorie receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. The Altar Stone of Stonehenge came from an unexpectedly distant place, new study reveals – https://theconversation.com/the-altar-stone-of-stonehenge-came-from-an-unexpectedly-distant-place-new-study-reveals-232391

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Diane Kraal, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, Business Law and Taxation Dept, Monash Business School, Monash University

Speaking on ABC’s Q&A on Monday night, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz claimed Australia was “giving away its natural resources”, something he found “mind boggling”.

He said that if Australia made the fossil fuel industry pay for the value of the resources it extracts and its fair share of taxes, “you wouldn’t have the problems that you have today”.

Stiglitz appeared to be referring to our profits-based petroleum resource rent tax, also known as the “gas tax”.

Having formally researched and advised specialist forums on this issue for many years, I agree with him that yes – we are giving away our wealth, both to foreign countries and companies owned overseas.

It’s great to see an international heavyweight like Stiglitz pointing out some of the glaring issues with our system. To fix it, the federal government needs to get rid of its profit-based offshore gas tax altogether and revert to the royalties-based system we used to have.

How do we tax gas?

Australia’s petroleum resource rent tax, or gas tax, is a secondary taxation on offshore gas resources. It’s a tax on profits, that is to say, it’s only collected when gas companies’ incomes exceed their expenditures.

Australia now consistently ranks among the top liquefied natural gas exporters in the world. But our tax take from the industry has long been too low.

So low, in fact, it triggered a federal government review in 2017. Former treasury official Michael Callaghan headed up the review as an independent expert.

I recall being quizzed by Callaghan in early 2017 at my Monash office in Melbourne over my submission to the review, which advocated for major reform of existing gas tax concessions.

But at the same time in Canberra, gas industry executives were lobbying hard, insisting there be no change to gas taxing due to “sovereign risk”.

Callaghan ultimately tendered a report recommending tax design reforms. But the changes later implemented by the government were little more than window-dressing, for as the revenue table below shows, gas tax revenues are still too low.

Figures from 2018 show a sizeable gap between Australia’s gas tax revenue of about A$1.1 billion, and that of our nearest competitors. Qatar collected gas royalties that same year of more than $50 billion, and Norway’s special gas tax netted the country $19.5 billion.

It is obvious, even to dispassionate observers like Stiglitz, that Australia’s lack-lustre gas tax legislation results in a gas industry that doesn’t pay its fair share for community-owned natural resources.

Why did we move away from royalties?

We used to tax the offshore gas industry under a system of federal royalties that were based on the market value of petroleum production.

The profits-based tax concept was developed by economists Ross Garnaut and Anthony Clunies Ross in the 1970s, for the oil industry in the newly independent Papua New Guinea.

Garnaut was economic advisor to the Hawke-Keating Government, and in 1983 advocated the repeal of federal royalties. The profits-based tax that replaced it was first applied to profits on Australian oil production in 1987, where it raised reasonable revenue.

But it was later applied to offshore gas production, which is less profitable than oil due to costly liquefaction, storage infrastructure, and specialised high-pressure gas transport requirements.

This characteristic low profitability of the gas industry delays the triggering of the gas tax. Companies can operate for years without paying it. In other words, Australia is not being paid for much of its “stock” of gas that is mainly sold for export.

A fair share of taxes

A return to federal royalties on offshore gas production would increase government revenues, and provide a fairer outcome for the community.

Some of us may recall the 2014 repeal of mining’s profits-based Minerals Resource Rent Tax, due to its low revenues. The government repealed the profits-based tax in 2019 for onshore gas, and could easily do the same for offshore gas.

Joseph Stiglitz’s observations on the way we tax our natural resources offer another opportunity for us to reflect. We are missing the opportunity to fairly tax things we can only extract once, to the detriment of our community.

Diane Kraal 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. Is Australia ‘giving away’ its natural resources? – https://theconversation.com/is-australia-giving-away-its-natural-resources-236784

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sally Larsen, Senior Lecturer in Education, University of New England

On Wednesday, Australia woke up to a barrage of reports about the latest NAPLAN results. Media coverage described an “epic fail”, “plummeting” performances and a “bleak picture”.

Education experts spoke of “grim reading”, and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the results “alarming”.

But many of these analyses are misguided and unhelpful.

Read more:
Are Australian students really falling behind? It depends which test you look at

What were the results?

NAPLAN tests Year 3, 5, 7 and 9 students each year in literacy and numeracy. There are four possible achievement bands: “needs additional support,” “developing,” “strong” and “exceeding”.

In 2024 about one in three school students were into the bottom two proficiency bands, with the remaining two thirds were in the top two. About one in ten students were rated as needing additional support.

These are very similar to last year’s results. The number of students identified as needing additional support also mirrors the proportions of students falling into the bottom band in the previous NAPLAN reporting system used from 2008 to 2022. Around 10% of students (or fewer) were categorised as below the national minimum standard in every NAPLAN test year to 2022.

If we look at average results, some 2024 results in some year groups are slightly above those reported in 2023, and others are slightly below. As the national report notes, differences from 2023 are “either not statistically significant or negligible in size”.

None of the differences were more than four points (on a 1,000-point scale), with the exception of Year 7 and Year 9 writing which both improved in 2024 (by 6.5 and 7.3 scale scores respectively).

These results reflect normal population variability and are what you would expect if you administered the same test to different groups of children from year to year, as NAPLAN does.

There’s no long-term decline

As I have written previously, we need to be cautious about narratives that Australian students’ performances in NAPLAN and other standardised tests are getting worse.

My study published earlier this year clearly shows no long-term decline in NAPLAN results from 2008 through to 2022. It even shows some considerable gains. In particular, Year 3 and Year 5 reading showed good progress at the population level over the 14 years of NAPLAN to 2022.

In 2023, some of the processes around NAPLAN changed. This included reporting results in four proficiency levels within each year, rather than the ten bands used from 2008 to 2022.

Because there are fewer categories in the new reporting of proficiency, there are now higher percentages of students in each category. As is clearly evident from the news reporting, categorising students into fewer proficiency levels can be misinterpreted.

What does this mean?

Do the 2024 results mean Australian students’ literacy and numeracy proficiency have precipitously declined in since 2022?

The answer is no – it means the test developers changed the way students are categorised. Importantly, in 2024 the proportions of students falling into the four proficiency levels for each test was no different from those reported for 2023.

There are, of course, enduring differences between different groups of the Australian population, for example students from Indigenous backgrounds and remote areas are much more likely to be in the lower categories on NAPLAN. These, unfortunately, are not new problems.

Fixation on NAPLAN, with the relentless annual reports of crises and catastrophes in our schools, and accompanying criticisms about teacher quality, is not healthy or helpful for our schools.

Of course, improvements can be made to students’ literacy and numeracy achievement and progression. However, this is unlikely to happen in a school system that is inequitably funded and struggling to retain experienced professionals.

If state and federal governments are serious about resolving the problems in Australian schooling, a first step will be to accurately interpret the evidence about students’ literacy and numeracy.

Sally Larsen 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. Are the latest NAPLAN results really an ‘epic fail’? – https://theconversation.com/are-the-latest-naplan-results-really-an-epic-fail-236782

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hunter Bennett, Lecturer in Exercise Science, University of South Australia

Exercise is excellent for kids.

Kids who exercise are fitter, stronger, and less likely to be overweight or obese. They have better physical and mental health, perform better in the classroom, and are more likely to exercise as an adult.

In short, the more exercise they do now, the better. But what about weight training? If you’ve ever spent much time in the comments section of social media posts featuring kids lifting weights, you’ll know debate rages about whether or not it’s safe for children.

Unfortunately, there are still many myths about weight training and kids. The research evidence suggests it’s safe, as long as a few common sense precautions are followed.

A common misconception

Lifting weights is an example of “resistance training”, which can include bodyweight exercises, weightlifting, jump training, and even sprinting.

A common misconception is that resistance training is bad for kids.

You may have heard it stunts their growth – but this rumour isn’t supported by the scientific evidence.

The concerns around stunting growth come from the potential for kids to experience what is known as a “growth plate injury.” A growth plate is a section of cartilage at the end of bone that allows the bone to grow. These plates turn into bone sometime during puberty when bone growth stops.

A growth plate injury can lead to early bone closure and a shorter limb length – or a stunting of bone growth.

These injuries can occur in kids, but they most often occur during impact related injuries, either during sport or because of a fall.

In fact, there is no evidence a supervised resistance training program stunts kids’ growth or damages growth plates.

The load placed on the body is similar for resistance training as it is for jumping and landing, something all kids do. Moreover, the risk of injury is much lower in resistance training than many other recreational and sport activities.

What are the positives of kids lifting weights?

Resistance training improves children’s physical fitness, including their strength, power, speed, agility, and endurance.

Resistance training may also be beneficial for overweight or obese kids who may be unwilling or unable to do aerobic activities such as running and swimming.

Resistance training can also benefit kids’ physical and mental health. For example, it can improve their metabolic health, help them manage weight, reduce symptoms of depression and anxiety, improve self-esteem, and help academically.

How young is too young to lift weights?

While there is no minimum age to start, participants should be able to follow directions and safety rules. Kids who are ready for sport are generally ready for some type of resistance training.

Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Australian government recommend kids aged five to 17 get 60 minutes of physical activity per day. They encourage kids to strengthen their muscles and bones at least three days per week.

Lots of exercises increase muscle and bone strength. These include high intensity sport, outside play like climbing, jumping, and running, and of course, resistance training.

This means kids don’t have to necessarily lift weights. If they are doing these other types of exercise, they’re fine.

However, very few kids are meeting these guidelines.

Australian data show that less than one-quarter (about 23%) of kids aged five to 14 get enough exercise.

That number shrinks to about 6% in older kids aged 15 to 17.

This suggests adding formal exercise to your kid’s routine is a good thing.

How should your kids start resistance exercise?

The key is to start slowly and make it fun.

The goal is to get kids to enjoy resistance training and set them up for lifelong success.

For young kids in early primary school, the focus should be on balance, coordination, agility and endurance.

This means playing games involving running and chasing, and activities that develop muscle endurance (like climbing, carrying and pushing things).

You might also want to introduce bodyweight exercises – such as push-ups, pull-ups, and planks – to teach kids how to move their body.

As they transition into upper primary school, kids can do more targeted training. This might include more bodyweight exercises, jump training like hurdling and skipping, and even light training with weights, like squats and bicep curls.

Finally, as they move into high school, they can try more formal weight training exercises, using moderate weights. They might like to try lunges, deadlifts, presses, and rows.

As they become more confident, they can try lifting heavier weights.

What do parents need to know?

Firstly, resistance training has a relatively low risk of injury when properly supervised.

Proper supervision means adults teach kids proper technique, and ensure children don’t fall into the trap of trying to impress their peers.

Secondly, start light. In beginners, lifting lighter weights for about ten or 15 repetitions (or “reps”) offers similar benefits to lifting heavier weights a few times, and is probably safer.

Lifting lighter weights but doing more reps has another benefit: it allows children to practise and improve their technique.

Lastly, don’t be afraid to get involved. Adults benefit greatly from resistance training, too.

So, why not make the most of it and join in?

Grant R. Tomkinson has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, National Institutes of Health, and Public Health Agency of Canada.

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

– ref. Is it OK for kids to lift weights? At what age and how heavy? Here’s what parents need to know – https://theconversation.com/is-it-ok-for-kids-to-lift-weights-at-what-age-and-how-heavy-heres-what-parents-need-to-know-235963

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By George Taleporos, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, Living with Disability Research Centre, La Trobe University

What should or shouldn’t be funded by the National Disability Insurance Scheme?

You might think having a list of things that are “in” or “out” seems like a pragmatic way to contain the costs of the NDIS. But a lengthy government proposed list of exclusions could force people with disability to use more costly services.

It might also exclude people from mainstream services and force them into institutionalised settings such as group homes and respite centres. This is contrary to the intent of the NDIS – to promote the participation and inclusion of people with disability in the community – and Australia’s Disability Strategy.

The government has released draft lists of what NDIS participants can and cannot spend their funding on and opened them for a brief period of public consultation. The interim lists form part of the NDIS reform bill currently before parliament.

While more clarity and guidance on supports may be helpful for NDIS participants, there are risks these lists will lead to worse outcomes. Prescriptive lists can also stymie independence and innovation.

‘Daily living’ items can be better value

Items currently on the “out list” include household appliances, hair salon appointments, rent and utilities. But banning mainstream items and services may lead to poorer outcomes, not just for the person with disability but for the sustainability of the NDIS.

Some of the ruled out items could offer better value for money and better outcomes than those ruled in. As NDIS expert Sam Paior recently told us in the Summer Foundation’s Reasonable & Necessary podcast:

[…] if you’re a participant that can’t wash their own hair but can wash your own body, do you really want a support worker in the shower with you to wash your hair? Why wouldn’t you go to your local hairdresser [where a shampoo might cost as little as $35] instead of having a support worker that costs $70 an hour, in your home looking at you naked in the shower.

There are also times when so-called “daily living” items can reduce downstream costs. For example, subsidising rent in a homeshare arrangement can enable a person to remain in their own home and reduce reliance on paid support.

Just like the government and the general public, most NDIS participants want to see NDIS funding well spent. As an NDIS participant we surveyed as part of our research said:

I had a lot of pressure to get cleaners rather than a robovac to let me do it when I wanted. Same with food prep […] a Thermomix changed my life and made me safe while cooking as the auto function shuts down at the end of each step rather than me forgetting the stovetop is on.

Do the lists tally with the NDIS review?

The NDIS review said the government needs to give clarity to participants about how they can use their funding. It also said operational procedures should be public and the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) accountable by including them in legislation.

But an extensive list of what can and cannot be funded was not recommended. Rather, the review recommended introducing a support needs assessment for a reasonable and necessary budget that could be spent flexibly, with minimal exceptions.

The recently released NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce advice emphasised the importance of NDIS participants having control over their purchases. This is critical to a human rights-based approach and upholds the rights of people with disabilities to autonomy and self-determination set down by the United Nations.

This advice is consistent with contemporary best practice in disability support, commonly described as “self-directed support” which aims to put people with disability in control of their own lives. It shifts decision-making power from government and service providers to the person with disability.

Read more:
Tiered NDIS provider registration and a say on supports. Are we finally listening to people with disability?

Where the NDIS bill is at and what happens next?

The bill to reform and get the NDIS “back on track” is being debated in the Senate this week and the government has put forward further amendments.

These include a process for participants to seek an exemption to purchase supports that are on the “out list” if they are of equal or lesser cost and can provide better outcomes for the participant.

While this is a step in the right direction, a requirement to seek approval for every purchase is likely to be administratively burdensome for participants and the NDIA. A better approach would be to broadly define what may constitute a disability-related support, and then have an “out” list of supports that are illegal, harmful or not beneficial.

There is a short window of time for the disability community to ensure their concerns are heard, with the public consultation process closing August 18.

The government needs to listen carefully to the disability community about the potential unintended consequences of a rigid approach to NDIS supports, and the potential for these lists to drive up costs for the scheme.

George Taleporos is a Strategic Advisor at the Summer Foundation, Director of the Self Manager Hub and InLife, as well as the Independent Chair of Every Australian Counts. While George is a member of the NDIS Independent Advisory Council, this contribution does not intend to reflect the views of the Council.

Di Winkler is the CEO and founder of the Summer Foundation and an Adjunct Research at La Trobe University. Di is also a volunteer director of Liverty Housing and the Housing Hub.

– ref. Lists of ‘eligible supports’ could be a backwards step for the NDIS and people with disability – https://theconversation.com/lists-of-eligible-supports-could-be-a-backwards-step-for-the-ndis-and-people-with-disability-236578

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ryan Heneghan, Lecturer in Environmental Modelling, Griffith University

The world’s oceans are home to microscopic organisms invisible to the human eye. The tiny creatures, known as “prokaryotes”, comprise 30% of life in the world’s oceans.

These organisms play an important role in keeping the oceans in balance. But new research by myself and colleagues shows this balance is at risk.

We found prokaryotes are remarkably resilient to climate change – and as a result, could increasingly dominate marine environments.

This could reduce the availability of fish humans rely on for food, and hamper the ocean’s ability to absorb carbon emissions.

A fine balance

Prokaryotes include both bacteria and “archaea”, another type of single-celled organism.

These organisms are thought to be the oldest cell-based lifeforms on Earth. They thrive across the entire planet – on land and in water, from the tropics to the poles.

What prokaryotes lack in size they make up in sheer abundance. Globally, about two tonnes of marine prokaryotes exist for every human on the planet.

They play a crucial role in the world’s food chains, helping support the nutrient needs of fish humans catch and eat.

Marine prokaryotes grow extremely fast – a process that emits a lot of carbon. In fact, prokaryotes to an ocean depth of 200 metres produce about 20 billion tonnes of carbon a year: double that of humans.

This massive carbon output is balanced by phytoplankton – another type of microscopic organism which turns sunlight and carbon dioxide into energy, through photosynthesis.

Phytoplankton and other ocean processes also absorb up to one-third of the carbon humans release into the atmosphere each year. This helps limit the pace of global warming.

How prokaryotes respond to warming is key to understanding how the fine balance of the world’s oceans may change in a warmer world. This was the focus of our research.

What we found

We wanted to predict how climate change would affect the “biomass”, or total global weight, of marine prokaryotes. We also wanted to examine how it would affect their carbon output.

To do this, we built computer models that integrated decades of observations from dozens of scientific surveys across the world’s oceans.

So what did we find? Prokaryotes are likely to be climate change winners, relative to other marine life.

For each degree of ocean warming, their biomass will decline by about 1.5%. This is less than half the projected 3–5% decline we predicted for larger plankton, fish and mammals.

It means future marine ecosystems will have lower overall biomass, and will increasingly be dominated by prokaryotes. This could divert a greater share of available nutrients and energy toward prokaryotes and away from fish, reducing the supply of fish humans eat.

We discovered another important change. For every degree of warming, we predict prokaryotes in the top 200 metres of the world’s oceans would produce an additional 800 million tonnes of carbon per year.

This is equivalent to the present-day emissions of the entire European Union (after converting CO₂ to carbon).

What does all this mean?

Due to human-caused climate change, Earth’s oceans are expected to warm by between 1°C and 3°C by the end of this century, unless humanity changes course.

If the amount of carbon produced by prokaryotes does increase as predicted, it could reduce the potential of oceans to absorb human emissions. This means achieving global net-zero emissions will become even more difficult.

What’s more, present projections of declines in global fish stocks under climate change generally do not consider how warming may restructure marine food webs by favouring prokaryotes. This means the predicted declines are likely to be underestimated.

Declines in fish populations present a major problem for global food supply, because the oceans are a major source of protein for about 3 billion people.

What should happen now

Our analysis is an important step in uncovering the changing role of marine prokaryotes. But significant uncertainties remain.

Our analysis is built with existing observations. Climate change is already changing conditions in marine ecosystems in ways our models may not have captured.

We also don’t know how quickly prokaryotes will adapt and evolve to new environments. But existing research shows that in a matter of weeks, bacteria can develop new traits that make it easier for them to survive.

Clearly, scientists must continue to improve their understanding of prokaryotes, and how they may be affected by climate change.

Ryan Heneghan 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. Earth’s oldest, tiniest creatures are poised to be climate change winners – and the repercussions could be huge – https://theconversation.com/earths-oldest-tiniest-creatures-are-poised-to-be-climate-change-winners-and-the-repercussions-could-be-huge-235115

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rita Matulionyte, Senior Lecturer in Law, Macquarie University

Around the world, governments are grappling with how best to manage the increasingly unruly beast that is artificial intelligence (AI).

This fast-growing technology promises to boost national economies and make completing menial tasks easier. But it also poses serious risks, such as AI-enabled crime and fraud, increased spread of misinformation and disinformation, increased public surveillance and further discrimination of already disadvantaged groups.

The European Union has taken a world-leading role in addressing these risks. In recent weeks, its Artificial Intelligence Act came into force.

This is the first law internationally designed to comprehensively manage AI risks – and Australia and other countries can learn much from it as they too try to ensure AI is safe and beneficial for everyone.

AI: a double edged sword

AI is already widespread in human society. It is the basis of the algorithms that recommend music, films and television shows on applications such as Spotify or Netflix. It is in cameras that identify people in airports and shopping malls. And it is increasingly used in hiring, education and healthcare services.

But AI is also being used for more troubling purposes. It can create deepfake images and videos, facilitate online scams, fuel massive surveillance and violate our privacy and human rights.

For example, in November 2021 the Australian Information and Privacy Commissioner, Angelene Falk, ruled a facial recognition tool, Clearview AI, breached privacy laws by scraping peoples photographs from social media sites for training purposes. However, a Crikey investigation earlier this year found the company is still collecting photos of Australians for its AI database.

Cases such as this underscore the urgent need for better regulation of AI technologies. Indeed, AI developers have even called for laws to help manage AI risks.

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act

The European Union’s new AI law came into force on August 1.

Crucially, it sets requirements for different AI systems based on the level of risk they pose. The more risk an AI system poses for health, safety or human rights of people, the stronger requirements it has to meet.

The act contains a list of prohibited high-risk systems. This list includes AI systems that use subliminal techniques to manipulate individual decisions. It also includes unrestricted and real-life facial recognition systems used by by law enforcement authorities, similar to those currently used in China.

Other AI systems, such as those used by government authorities or in education and healthcare, are also considered high risk. Although these aren’t prohibited, they must comply with many requirements.

For example, these systems must have their own risk management plan, be trained on quality data, meet accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity requirements and ensure a certain level of human oversight.

Lower risk AI systems, such as various chatbots, need to comply with only certain transparency requirements. For example, individuals must be told they are interacting with an AI bot and not an actual person. AI-generated images and text also need to contain an explanation they are generated by AI, and not by a human.

Designated EU and national authorities will monitor whether AI systems used in the EU market comply with these requirements and will issue fines for non-compliance.

Other countries are following suit

The EU is not alone in taking action to tame the AI revolution.

Earlier this year the Council of Europe, an international human rights organisation with 46 member states, adopted the first international treaty requiring AI to respect human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

Canada is also discussing the AI and Data Bill. Like the EU laws, this will set rules to various AI systems, depending on their risks.

Instead of a single law, the US government recently proposed a number of different laws addressing different AI systems in various sectors.

Australia can learn – and lead

In Australia, people are deeply concerned about AI, and steps are being taken to put necessary guardrails on the new technology.

Last year, the federal government ran a public consultation on safe and responsible AI in Australia. It then established an AI expert group which is currently working on the first proposed legislation on AI.

The government also plans to reform laws to address AI challenges in healthcare, consumer protection and creative industries.

The risk-based approach to AI regulation, used by the EU and other countries, is a good start when thinking about how to regulate diverse AI technologies.

However, a single law on AI will never be able to address the complexities of the technology in specific industries. For example, AI use in healthcare will raise complex ethical and legal issues that will need to be addressed in specialised healthcare laws. A generic AI Act will not suffice.

Regulating diverse AI applications in various sectors is not an easy task, and there is still a long way to go before all countries have comprehensive and enforceable laws in place. Policymakers will have to join forces with industry and communities around Australia to ensure AI brings the promised benefits to the Australian society – without the harms.

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

– ref. A world-first law in Europe is targeting artificial intelligence. Other countries can learn from it – https://theconversation.com/a-world-first-law-in-europe-is-targeting-artificial-intelligence-other-countries-can-learn-from-it-236587

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kathryn Schumaker, Senior Lecturer in American Studies, University of Sydney

In late July, former President Donald Trump told a room of Black journalists that Vice President Kamala Harris, his rival in the 2024 presidential election, “happened to turn Black” recently.

“She was Indian all the way, and then all of a sudden she made a turn […] she became a Black person,” Trump said, prompting surprised laughter from the audience. When asked about Trump’s comments, Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance demurred, saying Harris is a “fundamentally fake person”.

Trump’s comments implied that Harris, who is the daughter of a Jamaican father and an Indian mother, is a racial impostor who adapted her racial identity to score political points with Black voters.

While Trump seemed to think he made a novel jab, he inadvertently invoked the long history of how racial classifications have been used to control the lives of people of colour in the United States.

Indeed, the power to police racial classifications was foundational to white supremacy, and the refusal to acknowledge bi- or multiracial identities is a legacy of this history.

Racial identity in the era of slavery

Early laws defining race in the US focused on interracial sex and its relationship to slavery.

For example, a 1662 Virginia law seeking to resolve concerns about whether “children got by any Englishman upon a Negro woman should be slave or free” decreed that such children would follow “the condition of the mother”.

This meant children born to enslaved Black mothers and free English fathers would be enslaved. This also determined the child’s race: only Black people could be enslaved.

After emancipation, more states adopted laws prohibiting interracial marriage, and these laws defined race for all other legal purposes.

In 1890, for example, delegates to the Mississippi constitutional convention forbade a white person from marrying “a negro or mulatto” (an archaic and offensive term for persons of mixed white and Black ancestry) or any person having “one eighth or more” blood quantum of African ancestry.

In other words, a person with seven white grandparents and one Black grandparent was Black, regardless of his or her skin colour – or how that person identified themselves.

Nonetheless, some people challenged these racial classifications.

Homer Plessy, for example, was a member of the free people of colour in New Orleans. These were people of mixed descent whose ancestors were not enslaved and who held a status in Louisiana society that was elevated above that of formerly enslaved Black people.

He was arrested in 1890 for boarding a whites-only train car. In its infamous 1896 decision upholding segregation laws, Plessy v Ferguson, the US Supreme Court brushed away claims that Plessy’s heritage entitled him to special status. Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote:

It is claimed by the plaintiff in error that, in any mixed community, the reputation of belonging to the dominant race, in this instance the white race, is ‘property’.

In other words, Plessy’s African ancestry made him “coloured”. The state need not accommodate any other identities.

Racial identity defined by law

As immigration from Asia increased in the 19th century, many states also discriminated against people of Asian descent, reserving the full suite of civil and political rights for white people alone.

Central to segregation law was the concept that race was determined by others: policemen, judges, juries, county clerks and even bus drivers held the power to determine a person’s race, not the person him or herself.

Other rights were also determined following this legal concept:

• whether a person could register and vote
• which school their child could attend
• whom they could marry
• where they could sit on a bus.

The power to determine a person’s racial classification was therefore placed in the hands of authorities, almost always a white person. And this authority could define a person’s place in society.

These laws made people of mixed ancestry invisible, even as they did not always avoid acknowledging them.

The US census counted “mulattoes” for many decades, even though such people were subject to the same discriminatory Jim Crow laws as other Black people.

It was not until 1960 that the census allowed individuals to choose their own racial identity. And the census did not offer Americans the option to identify as multiracial until 2000.

A rebuke to this history

As segregation laws were repealed or declared invalid by a series of legislative and judicial acts in the 1960s, Americans finally had the power to publicly determine their own racial identities.

In its 1967 decision, Loving v Virginia, the Supreme Court declared laws prohibiting interracial marriage unconstitutional, leading to more intermarriages.

These legal transformations not only made it possible for interracial couples like Harris’s parents to marry, but they also allowed the children of such unions to embrace and articulate openly their own sense of identity.

More than 33 million Americans now identify as bi- or multiracial – something that white supremacists long sought to deny to anyone.

How such individuals identify is not only their prerogative, it is also a rebuke to the long history of white people policing race in the service of white supremacy.

Kathryn Schumaker works for the University of Sydney. She received funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities.

– ref. ‘Happened to turn Black’: how Donald Trump evoked a history of white authorities using their power to define race – https://theconversation.com/happened-to-turn-black-how-donald-trump-evoked-a-history-of-white-authorities-using-their-power-to-define-race-236497

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

The United States presidential election will be held on November 5. In analyst Nate Silver’s aggregate of national polls, Democrat Kamala Harris leads Republican Donald Trump by 46.8–43.7 with 3.9% for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In my previous US politics article on August 5, Harris led Trump by 45.5–44.1.

Joe Biden’s final position before his withdrawal as Democratic candidate on July 21 was a national poll deficit against Trump of 45.2–41.2. By the election, Biden will be almost 82, Trump will be 78 and Harris will be 60.

The US president isn’t elected by the national popular vote, but by the Electoral College, in which each state receives Electoral Votes based mostly on population. Almost all states award their Electoral Votes as winner takes all, and it takes 270 Electoral Votes to win (out of 538 total).

In the states narrowly won by Biden in 2020, Harris leads Trump by 4.1 points in Michigan, 3.8 points in Wisconsin, 2.1 points in Pennsylvania, two points in Nevada and one point in Arizona. Georgia is the only Biden-won state that still has Trump ahead, by 0.5 points. Trump is ahead by 1.1 points in North Carolina, a state he won in 2020.

There has been movement to Harris across all swing states in the past week. If Harris wins all the states she currently leads in, she would win the Electoral College by a 287–251 margin.

Silver’s model gives Harris a 56% chance to win the Electoral College and a 68.5% chance to win the national popular vote. Harris’ Electoral College chances have improved from 50.5% on August 5 and 37% when the Harris vs Trump model was launched on July 29. Trump had a 73% chance to win when his opponent was Biden.

Harris needs at least a two-point win in the national popular vote to be the Electoral College favourite, so the Electoral College is still relatively close. There’s also still plenty of time in which things could go wrong for Harris, or the polls could be understating Trump, as they did in 2020. But currently Harris is the slight favourite to win.

Harris’ net favourability in the FiveThirtyEight tracker of national polls is -4.1, with 48.0% unfavourable and 44.0% favourable, Her net favourablity has surged since Biden’s withdrawal, when it was -16.0. Trump’s net favourability has improved since the mid-July Republican convention, and is now -8.2 (it was -12.0 before the convention).

Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, has a -9.4 net favourable rating, down from -3.3 when he was announced at the Republican convention. Harris’ running mate Tim Walz is at about net +5 favourable. Biden’s net approval is still poor at -16.3.

The Democratic convention will take place from Monday to Thursday next week. Normally, major party presidential candidates are well known to voters by this stage, as they need to win the nominations by winning primaries that are held early in an election year.

In this case, Harris has only been the Democratic candidate for three weeks, and so the Democratic convention is a big opportunity for her to personally appeal to voters. Silver’s model will anticipate a bounce for Harris from the convention, and won’t move in her favour unless her bounce is bigger than expected.

Harris’ choice of running mate

Last week, Harris selected Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her vice presidential candidate. Media reports suggested the final two candidates for this position were Walz and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.

In Silver’s model, Pennsylvania is most likely to be the “tipping point” state. If either Trump or Harris win Pennsylvania, they win the Electoral College over 93% of the time.

The tipping point state is the state that puts the winning candidate over the magic 270 Electoral Votes. It is calculated after the election by ordering all states and their Electoral Votes from biggest Harris to Trump margins, then observing the state and margin that put the winner over 270 Electoral Votes.

The six states that are considered most likely to be won by either Trump or Harris are Nevada (six Electoral Votes), Wisconsin (ten), Arizona (11), Michigan (15), Georgia (16) and Pennsylvania (19). So Pennsylvania is the largest of the swing states.

At the 2022 Pennsylvania gubernatorial election, Shapiro defeated his Republican opponent by a 56.5–41.7 margin in a state that Biden won by just 1.2% in the 2020 presidential election. In a July Pennsylvania poll by Emerson College, Shapiro had a net +18 approval rating, with 49% approving while 31% disapproved.

From the point of view of maximising Harris’ chances of winning Pennsylvania and the election, Shapiro was the better choice. If Harris loses Pennsylvania but gets between 251 and 269 Electoral Votes, so that she would have won with Pennsylvania’s 19, she and Democrats will regret overlooking Shapiro.

In the Electoral College map above that was based on candidate leads in states, if Harris loses Pennsylvania while holding other states she leads in, she loses the Electoral College by 270–268. If she loses Arizona and Nevada but holds Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, she wins by 270–268.

Adrian Beaumont 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. Harris’ lead over Trump continues to increase in US national and swing state polls – https://theconversation.com/harris-lead-over-trump-continues-to-increase-in-us-national-and-swing-state-polls-236576

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Manuela Ferreira, Professor of Musculoskeletal Health, Head of Musculoskeletal Program, George Institute for Global Health

It’s cold and wet outside. As you get out of bed, you can feel it in your bones. Your right knee is flaring up again. That’ll make it harder for you to walk the dog or go to the gym. You think it must be because of the weather.

It’s a common idea, but a myth.

When we looked at the evidence, we found no direct link between most common aches and pains and the weather. In the first study of its kind, we found no direct link between the temperature or humidity with most joint or muscle aches and pains.

So why are so many of us convinced the weather’s to blame? Here’s what we think is really going on.

Weather can be linked to your health

The weather is often associated with the risk of new and ongoing health conditions. For example, cold temperatures may worsen asthma symptoms. Hot temperatures increase the risk of heart problems, such as arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat), cardiac arrest and coronary heart disease.

Many people are also convinced the weather is linked to their aches and pains. For example, two in every three people with knee, hip or hand osteoarthritis say cold temperatures trigger their symptoms.

Musculoskeletal conditions affect more than seven million Australians. So we set out to find out whether weather is really the culprit behind winter flare-ups.

What we did

Very few studies have been specifically and appropriately designed to look for any direct link between weather changes and joint or muscle pain. And ours is the first to evaluate data from these particular studies.

We looked at data from more than 15,000 people from around the world. Together, these people reported more than 28,000 episodes of pain, mostly back pain, knee or hip osteoarthritis. People with rheumatoid arthritis and gout were also included.

We then compared the frequency of those pain reports between different types of weather: hot or cold, humid or dry, rainy, windy, as well as some combinations (for example, hot and humid versus cold and dry).

What we found

We found changes in air temperature, humidity, air pressure and rainfall do not increase the risk of knee, hip or lower back pain symptoms and are not associated with people seeking care for a new episode of arthritis.

The results of this study suggest we do not experience joint or muscle pain flare-ups as a result of changes in the weather, and a cold day will not increase our risk of having knee or back pain.

In order words, there is no direct link between the weather and back, knee or hip pain, nor will it give you arthritis.

It is important to note, though, that very cold air temperatures (under 10°C) were rarely studied so we cannot make conclusions about worsening symptoms in more extreme changes in the weather.

The only exception to our findings was for gout, an inflammatory type of arthritis that can come and go. Here, pain increased in warmer, dry conditions.

Gout has a very different underlying biological mechanism to back pain or knee and hip osteoarthritis, which may explain our results. The combination of warm and dry weather may lead to increased dehydration and consequently increased concentration of uric acid in the blood, and deposition of uric acid crystals in the joint in people with gout, resulting in a flare-up.

Why do people blame the weather?

The weather can influence other factors and behaviours that consequently shape how we perceive and manage pain.

For example, some people may change their physical activity routine during winter, choosing the couch over the gym. And we know prolonged sitting, for instance, is directly linked to worse back pain. Others may change their sleep routine or sleep less well when it is either too cold or too warm. Once again, a bad night’s sleep can trigger your back and knee pain.

Likewise, changes in mood, often experienced in cold weather, trigger increases in both back and knee pain.

So these changes in behaviour over winter may contribute to more aches and pains, and not the weather itself.

Believing our pain will feel worse in winter (even if this is not the case) may also make us feel worse in winter. This is known as the nocebo effect.

What to do about winter aches and pains?

It’s best to focus on risk factors for pain you can control and modify, rather than ones you can’t (such as the weather).

You can:

• become more physically active. This winter, and throughout the year, aim to walk more, or talk to your health-care provider about gentle exercises you can safely do at home, with a physiotherapist, personal trainer or at the pool

• lose weight if obese or overweight, as this is linked to lower levels of joint pain and better physical function

• keep your body warm in winter if you feel some muscle tension in uncomfortably cold conditions. Also ensure your bedroom is nice and warm as we tend to sleep less well in cold rooms

• maintain a healthy diet and avoid smoking or drinking high levels of alcohol. These are among key lifestyle recommendations to better manage many types of arthritis and musculoskeletal conditions. For people with back pain, for example, a healthy lifestyle is linked with higher levels of physical function.

Manuela Ferreira receives funding from multiple research foundations and Australian and international government research councils. None of it related to this article.

Manuela Ferreira has provided expert consultation to the Advisory Board of VIATRIS Medical Affairs to guide the appropriate use of celecoxib.

Leticia Deveza is affiliated with Rheumatology Department, Royal North Shore Hospital and Kolling Institute, University of Sydney.

– ref. No, your aches and pains don’t get worse in the cold. So why do we think they do? – https://theconversation.com/no-your-aches-and-pains-dont-get-worse-in-the-cold-so-why-do-we-think-they-do-235117

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tristan Kennedy, Professor & Pro Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous), Monash University

Australia has committed to elevating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge as one of five national priorities in science and research.

This comes as part of the National Science Statement released on Monday by the Minister for Industry and Science, Ed Husic. The statement signals the national priorities that will shape investment and policy across research and development over the next decade.

Australian research already punches above its weight. The statement notes we produce 3.4% of the world’s research with just 0.33% of the world’s population. So how can we accelerate our impact?

Indigenous knowledge systems are a national strength. The history of science on this continent is extraordinary, yet we often fail to recognise the sophisticated knowledges held by our First Nations peoples. Indigenous voices must be at the table.

The first peoples, the first scientists

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were the first astronomers, physicists, biologists and pharmacists on this continent. From as far back as 65,000 years Indigenous people have been integrating knowledge systems with and for people and Country.

There are many examples of Indigenous knowledge contributing to contemporary problems. Traditional Aboriginal burning takes into account local weather conditions, plants, environments and animals. It is showing how plants react to fire, how to reduce the risk of major fire events, and support regeneration and biodiversity.

Indigenous-led approaches to urban water are pointing towards more sustainable water management practices that also regenerate ecological and cultural environments.

Beyond this, Indigenous approaches to research can challenge Western science models in important ways that can bring about new leaps of innovation.

The stakes are high

The new national statement comes at a time when we face existential threats in climate change, artificial intelligence, new pandemics, social unrest and beyond. Research remains crucial to finding solutions for our survival.

But we must approach the task of elevating these knowledge systems in the right way and be mindful of the ongoing legacies of colonisation.

Eminent Māori scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith has noted: Indigenous people are considered the most researched in the world, and yet have seen the least amount of benefit. The legacy of these past practices continues to foster uncertainty and distrust of research (and researchers) by many in Indigenous communities.

This observation, based on engagement and conversations with communities, highlights an imbalance in research benefit between those who are studied and those who do the research. It is tied to centuries of colonisation.

Science has long adhered to the principle of “do no harm”. However, Western science has sometimes done harm. This was recently highlighted in Melbourne University’s book Dhoombak Goobgoowana, or truth-telling in the Woi Wurrung language, which described some of the terrible outcomes of colonial biases in science.

At the same time Western institutions and industries have extracted an extraordinary amount of knowledge from Indigenous peoples. According to the World Health Organization

around 40% of pharmaceutical products today draw from nature and traditional knowledge, including landmark drugs: aspirin, artemisinin [an ancient Chinese herbal malaria treatment], and childhood cancer treatments.

This has benefited humanity, and fattened the profits of many pharmaceutical companies. Yet Indigenous people have seen very little financial benefit – or even credit.

This is one of the many reasons we need to foster Indigenous-led research and engage communities in research.

A seat at the table – and more

Bringing more people to the table – both in research and at universities in general – will help us ask better questions. It will ensure people, especially Indigenous peoples, can lead or guide the research, see benefit and help build capacity in communities.

The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies code of ethics points the way forward. It centres Indigenous self-determination, Indigenous leadership, sustainability and accountability, and demonstrating impact and value. It all starts with listening, and ensuring that research addresses priorities determined and supported by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

The National Science Statement calls for teamwork. It calls for research collaborations between universities, civil society, governments and international partners to solve some of our biggest societal, geopolitical, economic and environmental challenges.

This task also demands new approaches to what responsibility means in research. To create futures in which people can thrive, responsible research must go beyond compliance to formal rules of ethics and integrity.

It must ask much bigger questions about the place of research within local communities and much larger geopolitical environments. And it must reconsider how we partner well with the governments, industries and the communities with which we are embedded.

This takes us right back to the question of why we do research. Is it to publish more papers, or find a drug that makes a lot of money? Or are we here to make the world a better place?

It’s a question the National Statement on Science is asking. It is up to us to put it into practice.

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. Indigenous science can help solve some of the great problems of our time. Here’s how – https://theconversation.com/indigenous-science-can-help-solve-some-of-the-great-problems-of-our-time-heres-how-236597

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeanette Mollenhauer, Honorary Fellow (Dance), Faculty of Fine Arts & Music, The University of Melbourne

The inclusion of breaking in the 2024 Olympic Games certainly raised eyebrows. And now, Australian competitor Rachael Gunn (known as “Raygun”) is one of the most famous Olympians from any nation – as well as Australia’s most famous dancer.

Her performance generated an onslaught of (often negative) social media memes, comments and bullying. However, her teammates showed their support, with Australian rower Angus Widdicombe even carrying Gunn on his shoulders on the day of the closing ceremony.

Raygun’s Olympic story offers the chance for Australians to examine their attitudes towards dance. For instance, was her dancing so out of place in a nation that has the Nutbush as one of its cultural icons?

Yes, Australia has impressive professional companies such as The Australian Ballet, Sydney Dance Company and Bangarra Dance Theatre, but Raygun has pushed community-based dance into the spotlight. She has also forced Australia to examine its own attitudes towards the various forms and functions of dance. And that’s your best move, B-girl!

A nation of shy dancers

Why do Australians feel that dance is mainly for performance, rather than participation? We get up and sing tunelessly at karaoke, but shy away from dancing in public. The most recent arts participation report from Creative Australia shows that while one in six Australians engage with music, only one in ten Australians regularly dance. It seems we’re just not a nation of recreational dancers.

In 2007, Australian dance writer Lee Christofis – a child of Greek immigrants – posed the question: “why can’t the ‘English’ teach their children how to dance?” He couldn’t understand why his Anglo-Australian neighbours had no community dance activities.

His observation still rings true today. Creative Australia’s 2023 report shows both First Nations Australians (25% compared to 8% of non-First Nations) and Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) Australians (17% compared to 6% of non-CALD) are more likely to dance than Anglo-Australians.

Maybe Anglo-Australians have been conditioned to think “dance” only means what we see on stages and screens – that it is something reserved for those with the physique and flair of Paul Mercurio in Strictly Ballroom (1992).

The community roots of dance

Unless they’re thinking about the Nutbush, white Australians don’t usually connect “dance” with “community” as First Nations and CALD Australians tend to. But the reality is that, alongside technique and athleticism, dance has always been about community, politics and expression.

In her own article for The Conversation, Gunn described how breakdancing emerged in the Bronx (New York) among African-American and Puerto Rican youths, before being adopted across nations.

And it’s not the only community dance form that has been co-opted for mass entertainment. Tap dance also emerged from African and Irish-American roots to be included in mainstream dance practices. Twerking is another example of a style with African roots being popularised through Western mass media.

But despite co-opting dances from various other cultures, Western societies still view classical ballet and contemporary dance as the pinnacle of the dance world. The dance section of The Sydney Morning Herald focuses on these two styles – and likely shapes public opinion. Certainly, media reviews can make or break an artist or troupe by either attracting or repelling audiences.

In Australia, it’s difficult for anyone outside of ballet and contemporary dance to receive adequate government funding. Money often doesn’t go beyond the stage door to the grassroots dancers – to those who enjoy folk, swing, square or, of course, breakdancing.

In Gunn’s own words:

[in] Australia, we haven’t had the same level of investment going in. […] I was never going to beat these b-girls at what they do, so I did what I do best and I went out and I showed myself, my creativity, my style, a little bit of Australian character so that I could try and make my mark on this world stage.

The reaction to Raygun’s performance is about dance, but also about national expectation; with Australia coming to the end of its most successful Games ever, receiving a score of zero is just not what people wanted to hear.

Raygun got the whole world talking

Even before the Paris games, it was confirmed that breaking won’t be renewed in the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics – held in the nation where breaking first emerged. Gunn wasn’t happy with the news.

She is a dance scholar with a focus on cultural politics in breaking. Her research centres on gender imbalances in breaking, with one early article containing a brief reference to her “enactment of Australian-ness” when dancing. Perhaps this approach inspired her Paris costume and choreography?

Although her routine didn’t land with everyone, Gunn has been defended by AusBreaking, fellow Olympians and even Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who applauded her for sticking to the “Australian tradition of people having a go”.

Overall, Gunn has given Australia much to talk about. The aftermath of her Olympic appearance has revealed a lot about our own attitudes towards dance – and the fact we don’t indulge in it as much we ought to. She has also brought breaking to the world’s attention – and for both of these, she should be congratulated.

Jeanette Mollenhauer is affiliated with PopMoves, a subsidiary of the Dance Studies Association. Rachael Gunn is also a member.

– ref. Raygun is now Australia’s most famous dancer. What does she reveal about our own attitudes towards dance? – https://theconversation.com/raygun-is-now-australias-most-famous-dancer-what-does-she-reveal-about-our-own-attitudes-towards-dance-236582

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Holloway, Senior Research DECRA Fellow, Institute for Learning Sciences and Teacher Education, Australian Catholic University

The latest national NAPLAN results are out and the results are very similar to last year.

In both 2023 and 2024 we have seen about one in three school students fall short of minimum numeracy and literacy expectations and about one in ten needing additional support.

What does this mean?

What is NAPLAN?

Introduced in 2008, NAPLAN is an annual test of all Australian students in years 3, 5, 7 and 9. It aims to see whether students are developing basic skills in literacy and numeracy. Students receive one of four bands: “needs additional support,” “developing,” “strong” and “exceeding”.

Schools have been releasing individual results to families since the start of term 3. Today, we have the overall results.

What are the results?

In reading, the average proportion of students who achieved “exceeding” and “strong” levels in 2024 was 67%. This increased from Year 3 (66.3%) to Year 5 (71.4%), then dropped in Year 7 (67.3%) and Year 9 (63%).

The average proportion of students who achieved “needs additional support” was 10.3%. This dropped from Year 3 (11.3%) to Year 5 (8.7%) and increased in Year 7 (10.2%) and Year 9 (11.1%).

In numeracy, the average proportion of students who achieved “exceeding” and “strong” was 65.5%. This increased from Year 3 (63.5%) to Year 5 (67.8%) was relatively stable in in Year 7 (67.2%) and then dropped in Year 9 (63.4%).

The average proportion of students who achieved “needs additional support” was 9.5%. This dropped from Year 3 (9.7%) to Year 5 (8.6%) and increased in Year 7 (9.4%) and Year 9 (10.4%).

Like last year, more Indigenous students and students in very remote schools were identified as “needs additional support” than their peers.

For example, in reading, across all year groups, around one in three Indigenous students are in the “needs additional support” level, compared to about one in ten non-Indigenous students.

Recent changes

This is only the second year of the current NAPLAN system.

Early last year, the testing window was moved from May to March. In 2023, NAPLAN was also done entirely online for the first time.

There was also a major change in how NAPLAN is reported. Now, results are reported against four proficiency levels instead of ten.

How did these changes affect the 2024 results?

It was possible such big changes could have created years of instability, but this hasn’t been the case so far.

This lack of change in the results can be interpreted a couple of ways. The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority chief executive Stephen Gniel said the results are a “testament to the hard work” of schools and students.

Not only have NAPLAN changes been difficult to navigate, we cannot forget the impact of COVID on student learning. Teachers have had a tremendous responsibility to help students return to a sense of normal in the past two years.

Education Minister Jason Clare, however has a different interpretation. As he said:

We have a good education system, but it can be a lot better and a lot fairer and that’s what these results again demonstrate.

These results provide another year of evidence our system is fundamentally unfair and too many children are being left behind.

Who ‘needs additional support’?

One advantage of the new proficiency levels is they explicitly tell us how we should respond to the results.

This is not new information. Year after year students from more advantaged backgrounds perform higher on tests like NAPLAN. We also know inequitable access to resources is a major factor in these results.

What is new is these results themselves tell us what to do: “provide additional support”.

How can we do this?

Last month, the federal government released released details of the next funding agreement for Australian schools, due to start in 2025.

As part of this, Clare announced A$16 billion of federal funding for public schools. This funding is only available if schools implement significant changes, including phonics and numeracy checks in the early years, evidence-based teaching and catch-up tutoring.

Clare has said he wants this money to make a difference to “the kids who really need it”.

We know government schools have not received adequate funding, as promised by previous reforms.

As the next phase of school funding in finalised this year, governments should ensure schools with large proportions of disadvantaged students receive the support they need to help all Australian students succeed.

Jessica Holloway has received funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. NAPLAN results again show 1 in 3 students don’t meet minimum standards. These kids need more support – https://theconversation.com/naplan-results-again-show-1-in-3-students-dont-meet-minimum-standards-these-kids-need-more-support-236688

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Hughes, Lecturer, Research School of Management, Australian National University

If anything is a sure bet right now, it’s corporate Australia’s willingness to use some variation of the “for society’s good” argument.

The most recent example of this is the claim being made, including by federal minister Bill Shorten, that an outright ban on gambling advertising would be disastrous for free-to-air TV.

To be clear, Labor still supports new restrictions on gambling advertisements, including hourly caps and bans during kids’ TV and during and around sports broadcasts.

But it has rejected the idea of a total ban, prompting a backlash extending as far as some of its own backbench MPs.

Speaking on ABC’s Q&A on Monday night, Shorten said Australia’s free-to-air TV broadcasters were in “diabolical trouble”, with many needing gambling ad revenue “in order just to stay afloat”.

“I’m not convinced that complete prohibition works,” he said.

So would our commercial TV networks really fall over tomorrow without gambling ad revenue? Or is something else at play?

Read more:
The government is under pressure to ban gambling ads. History shows half-measures don’t work

Who is buying ads in Australia?

Let’s start by building a bigger picture of where advertising spend more broadly comes from in Australia. Global analytics firm Nielsen regularly compiles top 20 lists of both the categories and individual companies spending the most on ads here.

In 2023 the top category, retail, accounted for A$2.56 billion in advertising spend. Gambling and gaming, in contrast, represented just $239 million, less than a tenth of this figure.

Harvey Norman topped the list of individual companies in 2023. The first we see of any gambling brand is Sportsbet, which came in at 16th.

For gambling companies, it’s fair to assume the lion’s share of this goes to TV. Research by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) found 68% of gambling companies’ ad spend went to free-to-air TV markets.

As for the remainder, 9% went to radio, 15% to social media and 8% to other online platforms.

How much is actually getting spent?

But how do we estimate the gambling industry’s total annual advertising spend? There are certainly a lot of numbers getting thrown around.

One source put it at $300.5 million for 2022.

More recently, ACMA published detailed figures for the period between May 2022 and April 2023 which put it at just over $238 million, with $162 million of this going to free-to-air TV networks.

But the way advertising is classified – what defines an advertisement – can sometimes differ between agencies. Then there is the number of brands operating, which is constantly changing.

In a market with so many competitors, any new entrant needs to spend big on advertising just to capture enough market share to be viable.

This is why I argue that the actual figure for financial year 2023 may be slightly higher than ACMA’s widely quoted figure, accounting for the big ad spend of new entrants that may have fallen outside the time window assessed.

Based on average company ad spend as a percentage of revenue and the size of the gambling industry, I estimate it could be higher, in the ballpark of $275 million.

How much is that to the networks?

This exercise is all about putting these figures in context.

Channel Seven, for example, brought in $1.5 billion in revenue in 2023. Even if it had received the gambling industry’s entire ad spend at my higher estimate of $275 million, this would still only account for less than 20% of its annual turnover.

If that money all went to TV ads, Channel Seven’s stated 38.5% share of television advertising revenue would put its revenue from the estimated sports betting advertising at about $106 million in this example, around 7% of its total annual revenue.

Losing most of that would hurt, but wouldn’t mortally threaten the business.

A total ban would most likely be phased in over a number of years, not enacted overnight.

Australia’s free-to-air networks would adapt, restrategise, and find and develop new markets to replace that revenue. Their management teams are far too smart to just shrug their shoulders and take a revenue hit on the corporate chin.

Networks have had plenty of time to adapt

Just a refresher. LinkedIn is now more than 20 years old. Facebook is 20. YouTube is 19. X (formerly known as Twitter) is 18. TikTok is seven.

If free-to-air TV’s business model is so glacial it can’t function in the digital age, it probably doesn’t deserve to be operating in the big leagues.

Digital is here and has been for a while now. The media industry has borne the brunt of this change, but has also had the most time to adapt to the disruptors, who are now more established oligopolies and duopolies than “cool start-ups” out of Silicon Valley.

The argument that we need to protect sports gambling ads to protect the big media brands – has little to no basis. It’s a worn out argument we’ve seen time and time again – big tobacco, I’m looking at you.

Protecting the interests of corporate Australia at the cost of society itself is a gamble none of us should be prepared to take.

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

– ref. Does free-to-air TV really need gambling ads to survive? – https://theconversation.com/does-free-to-air-tv-really-need-gambling-ads-to-survive-236686

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nelson Ma, Associate Professor, corporate governance, innovation, University of Technology Sydney

With reporting season in full swing, many ASX-listed companies are releasing their financial results to the market.

These results are used to cast judgement on the performance of the company, led by the chief executive officer (CEO). Amid all the information released by the company, there is one figure all eyes will fixate on – earnings.

The earnings figure will have wide-ranging impacts on company employees, investors, and everyday Australians who have their superannuation invested in the stock market.

Despite its importance, the financial reporting process that goes on behind the scenes to decide the earnings figure is hidden to those outside the boardroom.

The hidden process in financial reporting

Financial reporting is a complex process that involves millions, if not billions, of company transactions summarised into one earnings figure. While the concept of earnings is straightforward, the choices made in calculating them are anything but simple.

At face value, earnings are the difference between what a company receives from customers for delivering a good or service and what it costs the company to deliver that good or service.

However, behind the figure are many choices the company makes about which accounting policies to use. This includes deciding how long an asset will last or how many customers will not pay their debts to the company.

These decisions can result in major changes to the earnings figure.

Boardroom power play

Typically, investors benefit from higher stock values when their companies report higher than expected earnings.

Often, the other big winner is the CEO. CEOs regularly receive large bonuses when earnings exceed performance targets set by the company. This is designed to motivate CEOs to improve company performance.

However, academic research reveals some CEOs will engage in disturbing action to meet performance targets.

Instead of driving genuine performance improvements, the pressure faced by CEOs to meet targets often results in them pushing for accounting policies that inflate earnings.

There are safeguards to maintain checks and balances on the CEO. The board of directors is responsible for overseeing CEO decision-making to protect investor interests.

But some CEOs have power over the board of directors, and have the ability to push back on restrictions on their decision making.

CEO power isn’t just about charisma or leadership style. It’s about the ability to influence key decisions, particularly in financial reporting.

When a CEO wields excessive power — due to long tenure, significant ownership, or close personal ties to the board — they can inflate earnings to present a more favourable picture of the company’s performance than reality warrants.

The audit committee: a critical safeguard

A key safeguard against this is the audit committee – a group within the board of directors. Members of the audit committee monitor the financial reporting process used in generating earnings to protect the interests of investors.

However, our research examining more than 2,500 US companies across 12 years uncovers a troubling trend about how CEOs reduce the effectiveness of the audit committee.

Powerful CEOs appear to influence the decision of who serves on the audit committee. These CEOs often favour committees which provide weaker monitoring – resulting from less knowledge of accounting or a lack of authority to question the CEO.

CEOs also prefer audit committee members to be people with whom they share close personal ties. This may include members who attended the same university or have membership at the same golf club.

The consequences of a powerful CEO having a “weaker” audit committee? Earnings are more likely to be inflated to meet performance targets.

Measures to avoid conflicting interests

In Australia, there are some protections against this corporate manoeuvring.

The ASX Corporate Governance Principles recommend separating the roles of CEO and board chair, having boards where most directors are independent of the company, and ensuring audit committees have the relevant qualifications and experience.

However, our research suggests these measures are not enough to protect investors’ interests. While recommendations promote safeguards to limit direct conflicts of interest, they fall short of dealing with the root cause – CEOs wielding excessive power over their colleagues.

This issue is exemplified in the case of Qantas where the board of directors failed to challenge the decisions made by former CEO Alan Joyce.

Importantly, Alan Joyce exerted power over the board of directors, controlling key decisions and often disregarding the input of the board of directors.

What’s needed

In companies there is a power struggle to influence key accounting decisions about earnings.

Although there are safeguards, our research points towards CEO power being a threat to the effectiveness of those safeguards protecting the integrity of the earnings figure and other accounting information.

Investors and individuals involved with companies should take the earnings figure with a grain of salt.

This should especially be the case when the company has a CEO who holds outsized influence. Such awareness is crucial in helping to protect the interests of investors and all Australians dependent on the stock market for their financial wellbeing.

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. Earnings announcements at an AGM can reflect a corporate power play, not necessarily a company’s true value – https://theconversation.com/earnings-announcements-at-an-agm-can-reflect-a-corporate-power-play-not-necessarily-a-companys-true-value-236580

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steve Macfarlane, Head of Clinical Services, Dementia Support Australia, & Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Monash University

There was disagreement on social media recently after a story was published about an aged care provider creating “fake-away” burgers that mimicked those from a fast-food chain, to a resident living with dementia. The man had such strict food preferences he was refusing to eat anything at meals except a burger from the franchise. This dementia symptom risks malnutrition and social isolation.

But critics of the fake burger approach labelled it trickery and deception of a vulnerable person with cognitive impairment.

Dementia is an illness that progressively robs us of memories. Although it has many forms, it is typical for short-term recall – the memory of something that happened in recent hours or days – to be lost first. As the illness progresses, people may come to increasingly “live in the past”, as distant recall gradually becomes the only memories accessible to the person. So a person in the middle or later stages of the disease may relate to the world as it once was, not how it is today.

This can make ethical care very challenging.

Is it wrong to lie?

Ethical approaches classically hold that specific actions are moral certainties, regardless of the consequences. In line with this moral absolutism, it is always wrong to lie.

But this ethical approach would require an elderly woman with dementia who continually approaches care staff looking for their long-deceased spouse to be informed their husband has passed – the objective truth.

Distress is the likely outcome, possibly accompanied by behavioural disturbance that could endanger the person or others. The person’s memory has regressed to a point earlier in their life, when their partner was still alive. To inform such a person of the death of their spouse, however gently, is to traumatise them.

And with the memory of what they have just been told likely to quickly fade, and the questioning may resume soon after. If the truth is offered again, the cycle of re-traumatisation continues.

A different approach

Most laws are examples of absolutist ethics. One must obey the law at all times. Driving above the speed limit is likely to result in punishment regardless of whether one is in a hurry to pick their child up from kindergarten or not.

Pragmatic ethics rejects the notion certain acts are always morally right or wrong. Instead, acts are evaluated in terms of their “usefulness” and social benefit, humanity, compassion or intent.

The Aged Care Act is a set of laws intended to guide the actions of aged care providers. It says, for example, psychotropic drugs (medications that affect mind and mood) should be the “last resort” in managing the behaviours and psychological symptoms of dementia.

Instead, “best practice” involves preventing behaviour before it occurs. If one can reasonably foresee a caregiver action is likely to result in behavioural disturbance, it flies in the face of best practice.

Read more:
When someone living with dementia is distressed or violent, ‘de-escalation’ is vital

What to say when you can’t avoid a lie?

What then, becomes the best response when approached by the lady looking for her husband?

Gentle inquiries may help uncover an underlying emotional need, and point caregivers in the right direction to meet that need. Perhaps she is feeling lonely or anxious and has become focused on her husband’s whereabouts? A skilled caregiver might tailor their response, connect with her, perhaps reminisce, and providing a sense of comfort in the process.

This approach aligns with Dementia Australia guidance that carers or loved ones can use four prompts in such scenarios:

• acknowledge concern (“I can tell you’d like him to be here.”)

• suggest an alternative (“He can’t visit right now.”)

• provide reassurance (“I’m here and lots of people care about you.”)

• redirect focus (“Perhaps a walk outside or a cup of tea?”)

These things may or may not work. So, in the face of repeated questions and escalating distress, a mistruth, such as “Don’t worry, he’ll be back soon,” may be the most humane response in the circumstances.

Different realities

It is often said you can never win an argument with a person living with dementia. A lot of time, different realities are being discussed.

So, providing someone who has dementia with a “pretend” burger may well satisfy their preferences, bring joy, mitigate the risk of malnutrition, improve social engagement, and prevent a behavioural disturbance without the use of medication. This seems like the correct approach in ethical terms. On occasion, the end justifies the means.

Steve Macfarlane works for Dementia Support Australia, a service led by HammondCare.
He is a member of the Royal Asutralian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists

– ref. Is it OK to lie to someone with dementia? – https://theconversation.com/is-it-ok-to-lie-to-someone-with-dementia-236229

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rajeev Varshney, Professor, Food Futures Institute, Murdoch University

Food security is shaping up as one of the biggest challenges we face globally. In some places, access to food has steadily deteriorated in recent years, due to wars, inflation and climate-driven extreme weather. The cost of basic foods such as eggs and vegetables has made news worldwide.

Food price inflation is now ahead of overall inflation in over half the world’s nations. The obvious answer is to grow more crops, especially the energy-dense top six – rice, wheat, corn, potatoes, soybeans and sugarcane.

Unfortunately, it’s getting harder to produce food due to conflict, more extreme weather such as flash droughts and floods and a surge in plant diseases and pests.

For farmers to keep producing in an uncertain future, we need better crops. But much cutting edge agricultural research focuses on improving specific aspects of a plant – better drought resistance, or a better ability to tolerate salt in the soil. This may not be enough to cope with future shocks.

Our research suggests a way to accelerate the creation of stronger crops by drawing on the full genetic strength of crop species.

Crops that don’t stop

Humans have greatly modified the plants which give us the lion’s share of our food, using tools such as selective breeding and genetic manipulation.

But much agricultural research is done in isolation. Researchers dive deep into solving specific problems – how to make wheat resilient against a specific fungus, for example.

The growing challenges to food security across many fronts means a new approach is needed. The changing climate will throw many different threats at our crops. Parts of the world might endure flash droughts while extreme rain floods others. Some pests and diseases will thrive in a hotter world.

That’s why we’re looking to another approach – pangenomics, which attempts to capture every gene a species has access to.

You might think a species has a unified set of genes, but this is not true. Yes, all rice plants have a set of shared genetic sequences. But individual plants and strains have distinct genetic differences too. The pangenome covers all of these.

The idea of a pangenome only emerged in 2005, when microbiologist Hervé Tettelin and his collaborators were looking for a vaccine against the streptococcus bacteria. As they examined different strains, they realised how much additional genetic information was held in them.

It was a breakthrough, and showed how much we missed by focusing closely on a single isolate of a species. Before their discovery, we had assumed an individual of a species carried enough information to accurately represent the genomic content of that species. But this isn’t correct.

This realisation has changed how we see our crops. Rather than trying to perfect a single cultivar (cultivated variety) using only its own genetic package, the pangenome offers a way to reinfuse lost vigour from the wider gene pool.

In 2019, we took the pangenome approach further by considering the entire gene pool of a crop, including its domestic cultivars – and their wild relatives. Many wild relatives of domesticated crops still exist. These plants have huge genetic diversity, and often harbour superior genes or gene variants (alleles) lost to crop plants through domestication and breeding.

We dubbed this approach the “super-pangenome” to recognise the capture of domesticated and wild gene pools.

How can this help shore up food supplies?

For more than 10,000 years, humans have domesticated and selectively bred crops. But wild relatives have thrived over the same timeframe.

There are good reasons these wild relatives have not been domesticated, from poor taste to difficulty of storage to low yields. But what they do have are desirable traits in their genetic code we can identify, isolate and infuse back into the domesticated species.

Once we have genetic data from across a species and its wild relatives, we can begin looking for particularly useful genes. What we’re after are the ones responsible for adapting to or surviving environmental stresses likely to get worse in the future, such as drought, saline soils and extreme temperatures. We can identify genes responsible for disease resistance and determine why certain varieties offer other desirable traits such as better taste or higher yields.

Around the world, a number of promising research projects use this approach, from American researchers using the genes of wild grapes to boost the yield of domesticated grapes to Chinese researchers doing similar work on tomatoes.

We and our colleagues are focused on the humble chickpea, a highly nutritious legume of particular importance to India’s 1.4 billion people. Chickpeas, like other legume crops, take nitrogen from the air and fix it in the soil, which improves fertility and helps offset emissions of nitrous oxide, a lesser-known greenhouse gas.

But chickpeas lack of genetic diversity due to several evolutionary bottlenecks, domestication and selective breeding. This is already causing problems, because low genetic diversity makes species more vulnerable to pests and disease. Chickpea farmers in Western Australia still remember the outbreak of a fungal blight which almost wiped out production in the late 1990s and left the crop unpopular – even while other states expanded exports.

The solution: look to the wild relatives. In the genomes of relatives such as Cicer echinospermum, we found several promising genes which helped resist this fungus.

These genes can now be incorporated into domesticated species through modern approaches – such as genomics-assisted breeding and gene editing – to develop disease-resistant and high-yielding chickpea varieties.

Once we seek out and capture the full gene stock of our most important crops, both wild and domesticated, it will become easier and faster to supercharge these essential plants – and equip them with the genes they need to survive the uncertainties the future holds.

Rajeev Varshney receives funding from the Grains Research & Development Corporation, Australia, for pulses research at Murdoch University.

Vanika Garg receives funding from the Grains Research & Development Corporation, Australia for pulses research at Murdoch University.

– ref. Wild genes in domestic species: how we can supercharge our crops using their distant relatives – https://theconversation.com/wild-genes-in-domestic-species-how-we-can-supercharge-our-crops-using-their-distant-relatives-233437

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Esther Willing, Associate Professor of Hauora Māori, University of Otago

We are being told the health system is in crisis, “on the brink of failure” – spending beyond its budget, waiting times getting longer, suffering from widespread staff shortages.

The government has responded by dismissing the board of Te Whatu Ora (Health NZ) and appointing Lester Levy as commissioner, with the task of reducing “overspending”. Levy himself has called the system “bloated” and said a “reset” is needed.

However, claims of overspending downplay the most significant external contributors to our stressed health system, while attempting to shift the focus internally. We are concerned the overspending narrative may be a precursor to doubt being cast on the viability of the publicly-funded system in general.

Many of the challenges faced by our health system are not unique to New Zealand. Global workforce shortages have been building since the 2000s, affecting most health systems.

COVID-19 exacerbated these trends. Many healthcare workers experienced burnout during the pandemic and left the health system. Many who remain are stressed and overworked.

Workforce pressures combine with a number of other factors: increased demand for health services, ageing populations (of patients and the health workforce), ever-growing treatment options and rising patient expectations, and an increasing prevalence of chronic health conditions needing ongoing, long-term care.

NZ underspends on health

The health systems of most high-income countries are under stress. But by far the biggest local factor contributing to New Zealand’s stressed health system is historical and current underfunding. Rather than overspending, it has been incredibly frugal for a long time.

Throughout the 2010s, just over 9% of the country’s GDP was spent on health, when most comparable countries were spending between 10% and 12%. According to OECD data, in 2020 New Zealand spent the equivalent of US$3,929 per capita on health – far less than Canada (US$6,215) and Australia (US$5,802).

That gap drives salary differences with comparable countries for health workers, exacerbating our workforce shortages as valuable trained staff leave for better pay elsewhere. While there is scope for productivity improvement in parts of the system, any such gains would be small compared to the cumulative extent of past underfunding.

Also important is the two-tiered nature of the New Zealand health system. The 1938 Social Security Act, which created the publicly-funded system, aimed to ensure health services would be free and accessible to all citizens. Now, however, primary health care is not affordable for around one in eight New Zealanders.

The problem goes back to the original compromise between the government and the medical profession. GPs retained the right to operate as private businesses, receiving government subsidies while also charging patients consultation fees. Doctors in public hospitals became salaried, but were allowed to operate a parallel private practice.

Consequently, better-off people could access health services more quickly in the private sector. No government since has been able to shift these arrangements, despite the considerable inequities of access they entail.

Would other funding models work?

For more than 80 years, the basic design of the publicly-funded health system has served us well, even with the two-tiered design flaws. Around 80% of the health system is funded publicly through taxation, a model we share with the UK, Spain and Scandinavian countries.

Given 37% of New Zealanders currently have private insurance, would a greater role for private funding reduce pressure on public funding? International experience tells us no.

The private insurance-based US health system is by far the most expensive in the world, soaking up nearly 18% of GDP. The prices paid by private insurers for health services have increased significantly faster than public parts of the US system.

There is also New Zealand evidence that private insurance can burden the public sector, with acute followup care sometimes required in public hospitals. Private insurers manage the pinch of rising healthcare costs by increasing premiums and tightening eligibility restrictions.

Health systems that rely on funding via private insurance are less accessible, less efficient, less equitable and generally have worse health outcomes. Put simply, market-based healthcare doesn’t deliver the expected benefits of markets, but does generate the expected downsides.

Another alternative to the tax-funded system is social insurance, where employers and employees pay into sickness funds, not unlike New Zealand’s Accident Compensation Corporation.

In countries with social insurance, such as Germany and the Netherlands, the provision of care is predominantly from non-government providers, rather than government-run hospitals. But research has shown there are higher cost pressures in social insurance systems because they are costlier to administer than tax-based systems.

In tax-based systems, rationing due to funding shortfalls is more visible in the form of waiting times and waiting lists. In private insurance-based systems, rationing is based on affordability and is far less visible.

Protecting access and fairness

Addressing the challenges within New Zealand’s health system requires adequate funding, and investment in the people who make up the system itself.

This includes the healthcare workers who take care of us, and the administrative and support staff who make that healthcare possible.

Short-term belt-tightening will most likely deepen the crisis. In the longer term, a viable publicly-funded system is more efficient and effective than the known alternatives.

This requires a policy commitment to actively address the many drivers of the crisis in ways that align with our values of universal access and fairness.

Meanwhile, we will need to have difficult conversations about how we address this underfunding, and how we train and support healthcare workers. Our publicly-funded health system is needed as much now as when it was first set up, to ensure all New Zealanders have access to healthcare when they need it.

Esther Willing receives funding from the Health Research Council.

Paula Lorgelly receives or has received funding from the Ministry of Health, Health New Zealand and the Health Research Council.

Peter Crampton receives or has received funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand and the Ministry of Health. He is a member of the Public Health Advisory Committee, the Board of Te Tāhū Hauora (Health Quality and Safety Commission), and the Ministry of Health Primary and Community Care Advisory Group. He was a member of the Health and Disability System Review panel.

Tim Tenbensel receives funding from the Health Research Council. He is affiliated with Health Coalition Aotearoa.

Jaime King and Robin Gauld 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. NZ already spends less on health than Australia or Canada – we need proper funding, not ‘crisis’ management – https://theconversation.com/nz-already-spends-less-on-health-than-australia-or-canada-we-need-proper-funding-not-crisis-management-236583

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jack Lucas, Professor of Political Science, University of Calgary

Municipal politicians often argue that local government is the part of the political world where things actually get done. Other levels of government might be plagued by partisan factionalism and ideological radicalism, they like to say, but municipal government continues to chug along, effective but unrecognized.

In municipal politics, the saying goes, there’s no right-wing or left-wing way to pick up the garbage. This makes the people who are elected to municipal office more pragmatic and ideologically moderate than their provincial or federal cousins.

It’s an appealing vision, especially in our politically polarized age. But is it true?

Comparing politicians

As municipal elections loom in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan this fall, this is a tricky question to answer.

To really understand if municipal politicians are closer to the ideological centre than their provincial or federal counterparts, it’s necessary to compare politicians across all levels of government. It’s rare for politicians in more than one level of government to be included in the same research studies — which is exactly what’s needed to be able to compare across levels.

Fortunately, however, two teams of political scientists have spent the past two years surveying Canadian politicians across all levels of government. These surveys make it possible to actually answer the age-old question: are municipal politicians really ideological moderates?

In a new research article, I combined surveys of provincial and federal politicians (from a project called POLPOP) with surveys of municipal politicians (from a project called the Canadian Municipal Barometer) into a single multilevel mega-survey.

Both survey projects included questions about politicians’ ideological self-understanding — that is, where they place themselves on a left-right spectrum — as well as their policy attitudes.

Policy attitudes

My analysis found that municipal politicians are in fact more likely to think of themselves as ideological moderates. Compared to provincial or federal politicians, municipal politicians tend to place themselves closer to the centre of the left-right spectrum, rather than the extremes.

This is what political scientists call “symbolic” ideology“ — how you think of yourself ideologically — and on this scale, municipal politicians do tend to be more moderate.

But ideology isn’t just about how we think of ourselves. It’s also about our actual policy attitudes. If I have fiercely right-wing views on gun control, immigration, environmental policy and health care, you might reasonably describe me as a “right winger” even if I think of myself as a centrist.

On this second measure — politicians’ actual policy attitudes — I find no important differences among municipal, provincial and federal politicians. When digging into politicians’ views on policy issues like income redistribution, electric vehicle subsidies or euthanasia, it turns out that municipal politicians aren’t any closer to the ideological centre than other politicians.

This means that municipal politicians think of themselves as moderate, but when we measure their actual policy attitudes, they don’t stand out for their ideological moderation.

Read more:
Foreign interference could affect municipal elections, too. Here are 2 ways to reduce it

Genuine non-partisans

There’s a further twist to my findings. In Canadian municipal elections, candidates don’t have to be partisans to get elected; they don’t need to declare themselves as part of the Liberal or NDP or Conservative team.

Many municipal politicians do identify strongly with a political party — some have even been elected to office at the provincial or federal level — but some don’t. In fact, more than a quarter of municipal politicians are genuine non-partisans, with no party affiliation or identity at all.

It turns out that the differences in ideological self-perception between municipal politicians and provincial/federal politicians are driven by these municipal non-partisans. Non-partisanship and ideological moderation go hand in hand: non-partisan local politicians also tend to think of themselves as ideological moderates.

Self-perceptions matter

So even though Canada’s municipal politicians aren’t distinctly moderate in their policy attitudes, many think of themselves as moderates — and the reason for this difference, in large part, has to do with Canada’s distinctively non-partisan municipal elections.

Even if municipal politicians aren’t actually any more moderate than provincial or federal politicians in their policy beliefs, their self-perceptions are still important. They reflect a longstanding norm of ideological moderation in municipal politics — pragmatism, non-partisanship, compromise — which probably shapes how politicians go about their business on council.

But my findings also make it clear that Canadians can’t count on the municipal system to automatically attract more moderate politicians. If Canadians want municipal representatives who are pragmatic, willing to compromise and ideologically moderate, they need to go out into their communities and find them — and then elect them to office.

Jack Lucas receives funding from SSHRC.

– ref. Municipal politicians claim to be ideological moderates. Is it true? – https://theconversation.com/municipal-politicians-claim-to-be-ideological-moderates-is-it-true-236471

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kaylee Byers, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences; Senior Scientist, Pacific Institute on Pathogens, Pandemics and Society, Simon Fraser University

Rats are present in almost every city in the world, building their own rat settlements in parallel with human urban infrastructure.

Cities are ideal habitats for rats because they offer everything a rat needs to survive: food, water and harbourage — a place to live. For brown rats, also known as Norway rats, any patch of soil can quickly become a home, and their omnivorous diets allow them to thrive on kitchen scraps, backyard gardens, fruit trees and even waste in our garbage bins and sewer systems.

Several North American cities are considering the use of new contraceptive products to address rat infestations. This effort is commendable as it shows that cities are exploring alternative approaches to more established techniques that are known to cause harms, such as poisons that kill non-targeted wildlife.

However, the use of birth control raises the question: Could reducing rat reproduction be the solution to our rat worries?

Putting rats on birth control

Rat birth control products, packaged as sugary bait, reduce the number of offspring rats produce. Given that rats can have about five litters a year, with an average of four to eight pups in each litter, addressing reproduction is an attractive approach to reducing rat numbers. However, there are three important limitations to such a strategy.

First, not all rats will eat the bait. This is a classic problem of rat management strategies that rely on poison and kill-trapping. Numerous studies demonstrate that even with intensive baiting and trapping programs, there will often be some rats left behind. Once the campaign ends, the surviving rats can once again reproduce, and populations can rebound in as little as four weeks.

Second, rat birth control does nothing to address the reason for why rats are there in the first place. Access to food, water and harbourage create environments conducive to rats, and also determine the number of rats that can survive in an area. By reducing the number of offspring of rats that eat the bait, it may increase the likelihood of survival of the offspring of other rats that do not eat the bait, as well as rats from any neighbouring areas where the bait was not applied.

For this reason, these types of approaches will likely be most successful in situations where the resources available to rats can be simultaneously reduced or removed and the immigration of new rats can be avoided, such as in indoor settings.

Third, focusing solely on reducing the number of rats may not, paradoxically, reduce the harms that people are experiencing. For example, in under-resourced neighborhoods, rats are symbolic of social injustice and neglect.

Our research has found that most rat complaints to the City of Vancouver are actually complaints about situations involving poor environmental hygiene, where rats are invoked by complainants to urge the city to respond. In neither scenario will reducing or removing rats address the ultimate problem.

Diversified approaches

The bottom line is that just as a variety of tools are needed to build a house, so are a variety of tools and approaches required to successfully deliver a rat control program.

In addition to contraceptives, these tools could include enforcing bylaws that enshrine the right of low-income tenants to a healthy living environment. Municipalities could also implement the use of rat-proof garbage containers or schedule more frequent garbage collection.

Other approaches include programs that prevent the accumulation of tree fruit that could serve as a food source for rats and divert those fruits for human consumption. Even rebate programs that support home improvements could be used — research shows that home improvements for energy efficiency also help keep rodents away.

Ideally, rat control tools are best used in the context of a broader program developed, implemented, maintained, evaluated and improved by a diverse set of specialists. In addition to extermination interventions run by pest control professionals, such a program might include: surveillance to quantify rats and rat-related harms to prioritize management efforts and measure their success; policies to provide municipalities with the legislative authority to prevent and address infestations; new waste management systems; or urban planning to ensure that new developments are more resistant to infestations.

A complex issue like rat management is unlikely to be solved by a single approach. By combining a variety of rat management tools, we not only improve our attempts to address rat-related issues, but also increase the overall health and resiliency of urban environments.

Kaylee Byers is co-lead of the Vancouver Rat Project and collaborates with the Chicago Rat Project.

Chelsea Himsworth is co-lead of the Vancouver Rat Project.

– ref. Rat birth control programs may not be the most efficient way to address urban rat infestations – https://theconversation.com/rat-birth-control-programs-may-not-be-the-most-efficient-way-to-address-urban-rat-infestations-234335

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

So certain is the Australian government that childcare workers are being poorly paid that it is handing them an extra 15% – 10% this December, followed by a further 5% in December 2025 – and speaking as if there’s more to come.

It is calling the increases “interim” because it expects the Fair Work Commission to offer at least that much. The commission has begun an investigation into what “early childhood education and care workers” are actually worth compared to workers in other occupations.

They’re not paid as much as most. On a list of the average hourly rates for about 100 occupations prepared by the Bureau of Statistics, child carers are the eleventh lowest. They earn an average of $31.20 an hour – less than receptionists, who get $31.50, less than retail workers on $32, and less than data entry workers on $33.10.

Yet the Fair Work Commission says childcare workers are required to

• provide a nurturing environment and interact with the children in such a way
  that each individual child’s emotional needs are met

• provide environments and experiences which are appropriately stimulating and
  engage with the children in such a way that each child’s cognitive, language and creative development is stimulated

• observe babies and children sensitively and accurately and use a
  developmental analysis of those observations to assist in planning and caring
  appropriately for each child

• plan appropriate programs for individual children and groups of children for all areas of their development and wellbeing

• guide children’s behaviour and manage situations where a child’s behaviour
  is difficult and challenging

• communicate appropriately and sensitively with families in a way that is
  supportive of the child’s well-being and development

The commission has given an indication of what it will do. It says it won’t start its investigation with a “blank slate”. It will piggyback on the research it used to address the undervaluation of aged care work.

That may be a good sign for childcare workers – in March, the commission awarded most aged care workers more than 20%, and some as much as 28.5%.

Why is childcare so poorly paid?

If you guessed that gender was one of the reasons childcare workers are so poorly paid, the commission’s research suggests you’re right. About 96.6% of childcare workers are women. It’s one of the most highly feminised industries there is.

Australian parents come into it too. As childcare customers, we are reluctant to pay too much more.

And when it comes to nurses employed by governments, as taxpayers we seem to be reluctant to pay too much more.

But much of it isn’t deliberate discrimination. The way the commission tells it, much of what has happened to the pay rates of childcare workers – along with nurses, aged care workers and workers in all manner of other highly feminised occupations – is a series of accidents, each building on the other.

Here’s the commission’s potted history of how we got here, which goes back more than a century.

Wages for those with wives and children

The first tribunal to set a so-called “living wage” was the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in the so-called Harvester decision of 1907.

Sunshine Harvester made grain harvesters at Sunshine, now a western suburb of Melbourne.

Justice Henry Bournes Higgins ruled that even unskilled workers were entitled to live in “frugal comfort”, which he said was enough to allow an unskilled labourer to feed, house and clothe a wife and three children. Skilled workers would get a margin for skill.

Women, often single and not usually needing to support wives and children, got less; in early days about 30% less and later about 25% less.

The 1969 equal pay decision was meant to end that gap. It granted equal pay to women where they were assessed as doing exactly the same work as men.

But women usually don’t do exactly the same work as men. Even today, women are far more likely to be nurses than men, and far more likely to be child carers.

Caring still isn’t seen as ‘equal value’ work

So in 1972, the commission ruled that even women undertaking different jobs than men had to get the same pay rate, so long as the work was of equal value.

Equal value was hard to determine, and for a lot of jobs, it never was. There were a few attempts to link skill levels in feminised industries to the C10 classification in the Metal Industry Award, but they depended on an assessment of skills.

So-called invisible caring skills often weren’t noticed, in part because work similar to nursing and childcare had been traditionally done at home without charge and without training, even though training was later required.

The commission – now called the Fair Work Commission – had shown itself to be slow in updating assessments of the skills required for jobs such as childcare, meaning that female pay has climbed at a snail’s pace relative to men’s for decades.

Four decades ago, the average Australian woman working full time got 82% of what the average man did. Two decades later it was 85%. Last year it was 87%.

What’s being done? And will it be enough?

Responding that glacial change, in 2022 the newly-elected Albanese government rewrote the Fair Work Act to require the commission to “promote job security and gender equality”.

That’s what the commission’s now doing. It is having to do it not only because it has been slow in the past, but also been the ultimate employers have been stingy, forcing childcare workers and nurses to rely on awards.

For childcare workers, the ultimate employers are parents. For nurses, they are largely state governments. Few have been keen to pay over the odds.

The Productivity Commission says the only way to get more workers into childcare is to pay them more, either in our own right as parents, or through our taxes via the government.

There’s little doubt the economy can afford it. Calculations by AMP chief economist Shane Oliver suggest the increase just announced will lift Australia’s overall wages bill by a few tenths of a percentage point.

Figures released Tuesday showed overall wages climbed 4.1% in the year to June, a few points above prices which climbed 3.8%.

A few more points would be welcome, but they wouldn’t contribute to ongoing wage inflation: they would be a one-off correction for an injustice.

If we had it in us, we would help as well. Either as parents or taxpayers, we would pay childcare centres more, so they could pay their workers more. We would act as if their work – nurturing our children – really mattered.

Peter Martin is Economics Editor of The Conversation.

– ref. Why are child carers still paid less than retail workers? And how can we help fix it? – https://theconversation.com/why-are-child-carers-still-paid-less-than-retail-workers-and-how-can-we-help-fix-it-236563

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toby Murray, Associate Professor of Cybersecurity, School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne

On Tuesday, Australia’s minister for government services, Bill Shorten, announced the federal government is developing a new digital identity and credential system. Known as the Trust Exchange (TEx), Shorten said the new system will be “world leading” and represents an “exciting step forward for Australia’s digital infrastructure”.

But details about the system are scarce. Shorten admitted it is still something of an “abstract concept” at this point. However, we know it will allow people to prove things about themselves (for example, who they are or whether they are over 18) to organisations, while controlling how much information they share.

The system could make it much easier for people to access government and business services while keeping better control of their sensitive information.

However, its success will depend on a crucial factor: public trust.

And right now, with the ghost of the Robodebt royal commission findings still very much alive, the public has every right to be distrustful of government technology.

So, how should the government address the potential trust and privacy concerns surrounding its new digital identity system?

Why do we need a new digital ID system?

The Trust Exchange system is related to two other existing government systems: MyGov and MyGovID.

MyGov is the central online portal for accessing Australian government services. It includes the MyGov mobile phone app, which has a wallet feature allowing people to show digital versions of their Centrelink concession or Medicare cards.

MyGovID is the government’s current online digital identity system. It allows you to prove who you are to several online services, including MyGov and a range of other government organisations and agencies. You can, for example, log in to MyGov online using your MyGovID.

The new Trust Exchange system is designed to give people much greater control over what personal digital information they share with organisations.

At present, you can show your digital driver’s license if you are requested to prove your identity when entering a sports club. However, that requires you to share not only your age but also your name and street address with club staff.

The new system would allow you to prove that you are over 18 by using your mobile phone, without having to share any other information about yourself.

If successful, the new system could reduce the need for companies to collect and store so much sensitive identity information about their customers.

It therefore holds significant promise in an age in which sensitive data breaches, like those that hit Optus and Medibank in 2022, seem to be an almost everyday occurrence.

Public trust is vital

However, for the Trust Exchange system to succeed, the public will need to have trust in the security and privacy of the system.

The minister has said businesses will be able to trust the information in the system because it will be backed by existing systems like MyGovID.

This makes sense; to create a standard strength MyGovID, you need to upload your valid driver’s license and passport into the MyGovID system. Any business can therefore trust the information you share with it via TEx really is genuine.

However, this raises the obvious concern about how the new system itself will be secured.

At the moment, MyGovID is used by relatively few organisations. However, the Trust Exchange system looks to have much more ambitious goals: to become the de facto method for Australians to prove things about themselves to companies, venues and government agencies.

If that happens, accounts will be exposed to far higher risk of hacking than MyGovID currently is.

Less obvious are potential privacy concerns.

Will MyGov wallets contain a record of each time we prove our age to purchase alcohol? What about to enter adult establishments? Will the government have access to that information? And if so, what will that information be used for?

Finally, it’s not clear whether the government sees the new digital identity system as a means to provide age verification to prevent children from accessing online pornography.

From the government’s perspective, doing so might seem attractive. However, that would raise significant privacy concerns if the system records online interactions.

What can the government do to build public trust?

In the wake of Robodebt, it’s up to the government to assure Australians the Trust Exchange system can be trusted and will keep their sensitive information secure.

This is doubly important given Shorten said the system will be opt-in rather than mandatory.

The government should act now to reassure the public it will protect their privacy and security.

This will require carefully explaining what information the system will and will not collect about individuals, who will have access to that information and how it will be secured.

Crucially, the Trust Exchange system should be designed to limit how much information it records about the organisations individuals interact with. Ideally, it would record none at all. If this information is recorded, the government must carefully explain why that collection is necessary.

In the absence of this kind of careful consideration and explanation, the public will have every right to remain sceptical of this technology.

Toby Murray receives research funding from the Department of Defence. He is the Director of the Defence Science Institute, which receives funding from the state governments of Victoria, Tasmania and the Commonwealth government.

– ref. The government is developing a new digital ID system. It must first gain the public’s trust – https://theconversation.com/the-government-is-developing-a-new-digital-id-system-it-must-first-gain-the-publics-trust-236689

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samantha Thomas, Professor of Public Health, Deakin University

With parliament sitting this week, the federal government is trying to finalise its proposed laws to limit gambling advertising.

The current proposal is a partial ban, with limits to ads during general TV programming. Previously, a parliamentary committee, chaired by late Labor MP Peta Murphy, unanimously recommended banning gambling ads entirely.

The betting industry, unsurprisingly, doesn’t want a full ban. Speaking on ABC Radio, the chief executive of Responsible Wagering Australia (the peak body for the industry), Kai Cantwell, argued bans push gamblers to illegal offshore services. He said this has already happened in parts of Europe. He also rejected suggestions advertising was normalising gambling to children.

But is that true? What does the evidence say about ad bans like this?

Marketing is key

The gambling industry is one of the most innovative health harming industries of modern times. The evidence about the harms from gambling is clear. They include relationship breakdown, physical ill-health, job loss, debt, crime, homelessness, family related violence and suicide.

Technological advances have enabled the industry to develop sophisticated and instantly accessible products. They promote these products using novel marketing strategies that are able to rapidly target individuals through different media channels, including TikTok. The industry is driven by highly profitable and powerful companies, including those who legitimise and facilitate gambling, such as broadcasters and sporting codes.

For the gambling industry to make money, people have to lose. This is also why a continuing customer base is necessary. Marketing is core to the industry’s business model, creating pathways to new products and brands.

As companies compete to spruik their products, children and young people are exposed to saturation gambling marketing in their everyday lives. Evidence from multiple countries shows that marketing is doing its job – contributing to the normalisation of gambling for young people, promoting brand recognition and recall and shaping positive perceptions of gambling. It’s also creating a perception that gambling has limited risk attached to it. As one 11-year-old told us:

When kid’s get to 18, they will want to bet all the time.

Of course the gambling industry disagrees with these conclusions. When asked if he thought that gambling had become normalised for children in recent years, Cantwell said no.

He agreed more could be done to ensure that children were not targeted by advertising, but went on to state that it was the illegal offshore market that was “advertising very heavily towards children and young people”. Cantwell said Australian providers were working with government to ensure that children were not targeted by advertising.

That work doesn’t appear to be preventing children from being exposed to gambling marketing everywhere they go. Sportsbet and the TAB are commonly recalled brand names among young people. Young people have also told us they would bet with a particular brand because of familiarity, they liked the advertisements, or that they had seen a company promote deals or offers. One said:

Sportsbet, because if you bet with them you can get your money back.

What did the inquiry find?

This is why the recent parliamentary inquiry unanimously recommended the need for strong regulatory action on gambling advertising. It proposed legislation to phase in a blanket ban on gambling advertising, with a fundamental aim of protecting children. These calls have been backed by numerous Australian politicians and many others who have stressed that partial bans will only ever get partial results.

Read more:
The government is under pressure to ban gambling ads. History shows half-measures don’t work

It is perhaps not surprising that gambling companies, and those that profit from gambling, strenuously oppose significant restrictions on gambling marketing. They use a range of strategies to delay, distract, and deflect calls for evidence-based regulation that would disrupt pathways to their products.

In his interview, Cantwell advocated for a “balanced, nuanced approach” and “sensible reforms”: in other words, nothing that would cause the industry any discomfort. He also stated a blanket ban on advertising would “run the risk of driving Australian consumers into online illegal offshore providers”.

However, experts have cast doubt on these claims. A focus on protecting young people overshadows any claims about the impact of advertising restrictions on driving people to unregulated markets. Financial counsellors, who are at the forefront of helping those recover from gambling related harms have said:

In financial counselling casework, we observe that the dominant harm comes from those licensed in Australia [who can advertise heavily]. We observe only a very small amount of gambling with the unregulated, overseas operators […]

The parliamentary inquiry also looked closely at illegal offshore gambling. They cited evidence from the regulator in Spain. The gambling industry, television and advertising sectors lobbied against reforms there too. After implementing advertising restrictions, the regulator found:

None of the dire predictions have occurred […] The TV stations said that they would go broke without gambling revenue and this has not happened […] Spanish sports teams said that they wouldn’t be competitive if they were the only ones not allowed sponsorship, and this hasn’t happened either […] The threat of gamblers migrating to illegal operators had not occurred either.

The inquiry acknowledged that continued action on illegal offshore gambling was an important part of preventing gambling harm. It is worth noting that since November 2019, the Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA) has actively blocked 995 illegal offshore gambling and affiliate websites.

While there will always be means for some determined people to access these sites, increased resourcing for the regulator would help ensure people are prevented from accessing them where possible.

In her foreword to the parliamentary inquiry report, Peta Murphy thanked those with lived experience of gambling harm who had testified to the inquiry. She stated:

It took incredible courage and strength for you to come forward, and it is your experiences, described in your own words that have provided the foundation for this report and its recommendations.

We now wait to see if the government will show the political courage and strength to go up against powerful vested interests.

Samantha Thomas has received research funding from the Australian Research Council Discovery Grant Scheme, the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, Healthway and the New South Wales Office of Responsible Gambling. She is a board member for the International Confederation of Alcohol, Tobacco and other Drug Research Associations (ICARA). She is the Editor in Chief for Health Promotion International.

– ref. The gambling industry is pulling out all the stops to prevent an ad ban, but the evidence is against it – https://theconversation.com/the-gambling-industry-is-pulling-out-all-the-stops-to-prevent-an-ad-ban-but-the-evidence-is-against-it-236679