Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Breadon, Program Director, Health and Aged Care, Grattan Institute

A Senate committee has investigated why so many Australians are missing out on dental care and made 35 recommendations for reform.

By far the most sweeping is the call for universal coverage for essential dental care. The committee also proposed a suite of measures to get more dental care to groups who are missing out, including those in rural areas.

The government has three months to respond. It should lay out a plan to gradually expand coverage, while putting guardrails in place to make sure care is effective, efficient and equitable.

Read more:
Expensive dental care worsens inequality. Is it time for a Medicare-style ‘Denticare’ scheme?

If Australians can’t pay, they miss out

The Senate committee report follows more than a dozen national inquiries and reports into dental care since 1998, many with similar findings.

Dental care was left out of Medicare from the start, due to opposition from dentists and concerns about cost.

Half a century later, Australia still funds oral health very differently to how we fund care for the rest of the body, with patients paying most of the cost themselves.

As a result, many people miss out on care. In 2022-23, 2.3 million Australians skipped or delayed necessary dental care because of the cost – 17.6% of people, up from 16.4% the year before.

People on lower incomes were much more likely to miss out. People living in the poorest areas are around three times as likely to wait more than two years between visits to the dentist, compared to people in the wealthiest areas. One in four report delaying care.

Even if you can afford to see a dentist, you might not be able to get in. Our analysis of census data shows there is one dentist for every 400 to 500 people in inner-city parts of most capital cities. But in Blacktown North in outer Sydney, there is only one dentist for every 5,100 people.

Regional areas fare even worse. There is only one for every 10,300 people in the northeast of Ballarat in Victoria. In some remote areas, there are no working dentists at all.

Missing dental care can affect the whole body

The consequences of missing dental care are serious. Around 80,000 hospital visits a year are for preventable dental conditions.

Oral health problems are also linked to a range of chronic diseases affecting the rest of the body too, and may cause damage to the brain.

On top of that, there are costs from people not being able to work or study, leading to further economic costs of more than half a billion dollars a year.

Those numbers only hint at the individual suffering involved. Dental disease often means pain, embarrassment and stigma.

The Senate inquiry heard from one 30-year-old on a low income who couldn’t afford dental care for years. They skipped meals for months to save up enough money to go to the dentist, and were finally diagnosed with advanced gum disease. They now expect to lose teeth, which will affect them for the rest of their life.

Dental problems are rising, spending is falling

Compared to five years ago, more of us have untreated dental decay, are concerned about the appearance of our teeth, avoid food due to dental problems, and have toothaches.

Despite all this, government spending on dental health has been falling. In the ten years to 2020-21, the federal government’s share of spending on dental services – excluding premium rebates – fell from 12% to 5%, while the states’ share fell from 10% to 9%.

Federal government spending on private health insurance rebates for dental care increased, but that doesn’t close the funding gap, and it doesn’t help the most vulnerable.

Time for universal dental care

Most submissions to the Senate inquiry supported major reform to expand coverage for dental care, as previous reviews, Royal Commissions and a 2019 Grattan Institute report have recommended.

Getting there will be costly.

Read more:
Worried about your child’s teeth? Focus on these 3 things

The May budget kicked the can down the road by extending the current, inadequate funding for public dental services for another year. That funding will now stop in mid-2025, the same time that federal and state governments need to agree on a new National Health Reform Agreement – the biggest financial health deal in Australia.

With national health funding up in the air, there is an opportunity to finally work out a plan to expand dental coverage, starting in less than two years.

Phasing, fairness and efficiency will be key

Building a new, universal health care system is something Australia hasn’t done for generations. It will take more than simply expanding funding. Instead, governments should seize an historic opportunity to avoid the problems in other universal coverage schemes.

First, dental coverage should ramp up gradually. The Senate committee recommended phasing in a universal scheme, and mentioned establishing a Seniors Dental Benefit Scheme, and expanding the Child Dental Benefits Schedule to cover all children over time.

Starting with these steps would allow time for the workforce, providers, and government funding to expand to care for more people, as Australia builds a universal scheme.

Second, policies should ensure care is available where it’s needed most. This means getting more dentists in disadvantaged and rural areas.

Even with more funding and broader coverage, some areas will struggle to attract dentists, particularly where there is a small population, few people who can afford fees and where clinics need to be set up from scratch.

The committee proposed incentives for providers in rural areas, new dental schools in regional universities, expanding rural medical student subsidies to dentistry and oral health, and better pay for clinicians in public dental clinics.

Third, given the huge costs involved, care must be efficient and effective. The committee outlined some ways to get good value for money. It said the universal scheme should fund essential oral health care, which would exclude cosmetic dentistry, for example. And it wants regulations and funding changed so oral health therapists can do more.

Read more:
Collaborating with communities delivers better oral health for Indigenous kids in rural Australia

Governments and the public should also be able to see where the billions of dollars of new investment are going, and the difference it is making.

Participating public and private clinics should record the treatments they provide, how satisfied their patients are, wait times and their results. And clinics should commit to following evidence-based guidelines and using data to continually improve their care.

Successive governments have skimped on dental care even as demand has risen. But those savings are a false economy that causes unnecessary disease and entrenches inequality. Today’s proposal for an overhaul should be the last – it’s time to fill this gap in the health system.

Peter Breadon’s employer, Grattan Institute, has been supported in its work by government, corporates, and philanthropic gifts. A full list of supporting organisations is published at www.grattan.edu.au.

Anika Stobart 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. Reform delay causes dental decay. It’s time for a national deal to fund dental care – https://theconversation.com/reform-delay-causes-dental-decay-its-time-for-a-national-deal-to-fund-dental-care-217914

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Thompson, Associate Professor of Media Studies, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Winston Peters had only just been sworn in as deputy prime minister when his long-standing antipathy to the news media emerged in the form of a serious accusation.

Referring to the Public Interest Journalism Fund (PIJF) set up under the previous Labour government (and no longer operating), the NZ First leader claimed “you can’t defend $55 million of bribery”.

He demanded the press gallery “tell the public what you signed up to, to get the money”. And he went on to question the independence of publicly owned media operators TVNZ and RNZ.

His claims have reignited arguments over the merits of publicly subsidised news media. This has already led to one NZ On Air board member resigning over his public reaction to Peters’ comments.

But the controversy is symptomatic of a broader and growing mistrust of the “mainstream” and government-funded media among some sections of the public.

Perceptions of bribery

The PIJF was established as part of the Labour government’s response to the COVID pandemic – which saw a sharp decline in advertising spend. It was a contestable fund administered by state funding agency NZ On Air.

The fund provided NZ$55 million between 2021 and 2023 to support local news initiatives, including journalist roles, specific projects, and industry development and training.

Read more:
Three parties, two deals, one government: the stress points within New Zealand’s ‘coalition of many colours’

The fund was intended to extend news reporting into areas otherwise not commercially viable – including local democracy, courts, regional and farming issues, and Māori and Pasifika affairs.

Peters’ remarks about “bribery” may reflect his personal unease with the media in general. During and after the election campaign he accused one interviewer of being a “dirt merchant”, “corrupt” and a “left-wing shill”.

But it is also possible Peters has long-standing misgivings about public-funded media mechanisms like the PIJF. While in coalition with Labour as part of the 2017–23 government, NZ First reportedly vetoed an earlier Labour proposal for such a fund, citing concerns it could be misconstrued as bribery.

Misinformation and funding

Being sceptical about what we read or watch is entirely sensible. But wholesale cynicism toward the news – particularly at a time when disinformation thrives on unregulated platforms – can be corrosive to democracy and social cohesion.

Former editor-in-chief of the New Zealand Herald Gavin Ellis reviewed the open justice and local democracy reporting components of the PIJF. He has suggested the disinformation and conspiracy theories that emerged around the fund proved difficult to counter with factual evidence.

Read more:
Fake news didn’t play a big role in NZ’s 2023 election – but there was a rise in ‘small lies’

The problem was exacerbated when perceptions of bias or government influence on journalism were used by opposition politicians at the time to attack aspects of the PIJF and its operation.

One of the common themes of misinformation about the PIJF was that it required all bids for funding to conform to an ideologically motivated commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

This arguably flowed from the fund’s general guidelines setting out a number of overarching goals, including: “Actively promote the principles of Partnership, Participation and Active Protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi acknowledging Māori as a Te Tiriti partner.”

However, this was not a generic requirement for all funding applications.

NZ On Air did commission an external report about what a Treaty-informed reporting framework might look like. This was in response to requests from media interested in applying for funding to cover Māori issues. The report proposed establishing some journalistic principles to address structural racism and colonisation.

Read more:
‘Let them watch Netflix’ – what can be salvaged from the wreckage of the failed TVNZ-RNZ merger?

There’s no doubt this could have been perceived as radical by those already hostile to the Treaty’s place in public life. But crucially, the report was only published in 2022 – and these were not the criteria NZ On Air used to administer actual funding decisions.

The head of funding for NZ On Air has confirmed that not a single PIJF application was declined for failing to meet Māori reporting criteria.

Public policy already affected

NZ On Air has existed since 1989 and has a track record of transparently and independently disbursing contestable public funds. Factual content and current affairs have been funded since 2009.

If the mechanism was prone to government interference, one has to wonder why it has only become a concern so recently.

To conflate a contestable funding mechanism, operating at arm’s length from the government, with the notion that state funding means direct government control, suggests either fundamental misunderstanding or ideological motivation.

Read more:
Closures, cuts, revival and rebirth: how COVID-19 reshaped the NZ media landscape in 2020

The PIJF supported over 200 journalist roles, projects and training programmes across the sector. It seems implausible that none would have blown the whistle on government interference if it existed – which would surely have made headlines.

One practical alternative funding mechanism for public-interest journalism would involve imposing a levy on commercial media revenues, particularly the digital platforms which have captured so much of the advertising market.

Ironically, as the cabinet paper behind Labour’s Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill reveals, this was apparently considered by the minister at the time – but rejected in part because of concerns about perceptions of state influence over the media:

Continued financial support for the creation of public interest content through taxpayer funding increases risks around the perceived independence of, and public trust in, the media.

If one is looking for political conspiracy theories, this surely indicates disinformation has begun to affect the scope of public policy. The weaponised dissemination of political disinformation – whether deliberately or through ignorance – is surely the real threat to democracy.

Peter Thompson has received funding for commissioned research from the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, NZ on Air, the Department of Internal Affairs, and the Canadian Department of Heritage. He is chair of the Better Public Media Trust.

– ref. Is Winston Peters right to call state-funded journalism ‘bribery’ – or is there a bigger threat to democracy? – https://theconversation.com/is-winston-peters-right-to-call-state-funded-journalism-bribery-or-is-there-a-bigger-threat-to-democracy-218782

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

A parliamentary inquiry has delivered a scathing indictment of Australia’s employment services, finding it does not serve the interests of job seekers or employers and urging the privatised system be partially wound back.

A rigid approach to mutual obligation is killing unemployed people’s motivation, employers are flooded with inappropriate applications, and people are not adequately assessed upfront, the inquiry has found.

“We have an inefficient, outsourced, fragmented social security compliance management system that sometimes gets someone a job against all odds,” the committee chair, Victorian Labor MP Julian Hill, writes in his foreword to the report into Workforce Australia Employment Services.

The inquiry, done by a House of Representatives committee, finds the system can’t be fixed by “tweaks”.

It recommends a comprehensive rebuilding of the system with a much stronger role for government, including the establishment of a new entity within the public service to drive the system and be a “hybrid provider”.

Employment services were privatised 25 years ago and form the federal government’s biggest single procurement outside defence.

The inquiry found jobseekers are subject to “excessive – often very punitive – compliance and enforcement arrangements, which have little or no positive impact on their capacity for social and economic participation”.

The present approach “is tying the system up in red-tape and pointlessly harming productivity in providers, driving large and small businesses away from the system, and actually making many people less employable.”

The inquiry urges a more tailored approach.

This would include counselling clients several times before moving to compliance, an adjusted sanctions regime, and having “human decisions-makers” deal with key compliance functions, removing “Robo-Cancel” automation in suspending and cancelling payments.

The report, titled Rebuilding Employment Services, says stakeholders painted a picture of a scheme based on fear, excessive competition and compliance.

Participants fear doing something wrong and losing income. Providers fear the department giving them a black mark and losing their contracts. Excessive competition is to the detriment of employers and vulnerable job seekers.

The report says the public service, sitting on top of the system, “is detached and seemingly disinterested in or unaware of what actually happens at the frontline or in brokering place-based solutions, sharing best practice or encouraging innovation”.

Instead, it is focused on procurement, contract management and key performance indicators.

The employment services system is underpinned by two “flawed theories”.

“The first is that unemployment is an individual failing […] and that clients will make efforts to secure employment if only they are beaten hard enough.

“The second is that choice and competition in human services will inevitably result in better services and improved employment outcomes, especially for vulnerable and long-term unemployed people,” the report says.

“The system is also driven by the pernicious myth of the ‘dole bluder’, reflected in a patently ridiculous level of compliance and reporting activities.

“Employers have made it clear that the system adds little value to their business, and that it repeatedly tries to force unsuitable jobseekers into vacancies without providing adequate incentives or support.”

The report says “a hunger games-style contracting model and regulatory culture drives very high turnover in providers during contracting and licensing rounds”. This leads to disruption and devastates trust. In the last round, some 22% of regions saw all providers removed.

The inquiry urges government be an “active steward” proving enabling services as well as some direct service delivery in “thin markets” and to rebuild capability.

“Consistent with the world’s best employment systems and other human services (think TAFE, education, health or aged care) a public sector core to the employment services system must be rebuilt,” Hill writes in his foreword.

“Australia must change our culture and mindset from the current paradigm where politicians obsessively contract employment services out and deny responsibility, to a system where service partners are contracted to work with government and employers in local communities.”

The new entity proposed, Employment Services Australia, would be within the department of employment and workplace relations. It would be a large “digital-hybrid provider for jobseekers”.

It would establish regional hubs, where possible co-located with existing services, which would undertake jobseeker assessment and referrals to services, as well as engaging with industry and employers.

The inquiry’s blueprint for reform recommends dialling back excessive competition in local areas, focusing on more employer engagement, and considering integrating digital employment marketplaces, such as SEEK, LinkedIn and competitors into the system.

The committee’s 75 recommendations include the government creating a permanent administrative traineeship position for disadvantaged jobseekers in the electorate office of each MP. This is to lead by example and expose all parliamentarians to the lived experiences of disadvantaged people. Each placement would last between nine and 18 months.

The report says Australia spends materially less than the OECD average on employment services overall. Taking out administrative costs and the like, Australia spends slightly more than the OECD average on case management, job placements and benefit administration. But it invests significantly less in direct job creation, start up initiatives and training.

In a dissenting report, Liberal MP Aaron Violi criticised some of the central recommendations.

“The Coalition has concerns about some of the key recommendations […] that evidently seek to water down mutual obligation requirements, pass on key employment service functions from the private to the public sector, which end up increasing the size of the bureaucracy, inflating the cost to the taxpayer and simply risk
creating more red tape.”

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

– ref. Parliamentary report slams mutual obligation, calling for total overhaul of employment services – https://theconversation.com/parliamentary-report-slams-mutual-obligation-calling-for-total-overhaul-of-employment-services-218807

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stacy Carter, Professor and Director, Australian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, University of Wollongong

Artificial intelligence (AI) is already being used in health care. AI can look for patterns in medical images to help diagnose disease. It can help predict who in a hospital ward might deteriorate. It can rapidly summarise medical research papers to help doctors stay up-to-date with the latest evidence.

These are examples of AI making or shaping decisions health professionals previously made. More applications are being developed.

But what do consumers think of using AI in health care? And how should their answers shape how it’s used in the future?

Read more:
AI is already being used in healthcare. But not all of it is ‘medical grade’

What do consumers think?

AI systems are trained to look for patterns in large amounts of data. Based on these patterns, AI systems can make recommendations, suggest diagnoses, or initiate actions. They can potentially continually learn, becoming better at tasks over time.

If we draw together international evidence, including our own and that of others, it seems most consumers accept the potential value of AI in health care.

This value could include, for example, increasing the accuracy of diagnoses or improving access to care. At present, these are largely potential, rather than proven, benefits.

But consumers say their acceptance is conditional. They still have serious concerns.

1. Does the AI work?

A baseline expectation is AI tools should work well. Often, consumers say AI should be at least as good as a human doctor at the tasks it performs. They say we should not use AI if it will lead to more incorrect diagnoses or medical errors.

Read more:
AI chatbots are still far from replacing human therapists

2. Who’s responsible if AI gets it wrong?

Consumers also worry that if AI systems generate decisions – such as diagnoses or treatment plans – without human input, it may be unclear who is responsible for errors. So people often want clinicians to remain responsible for the final decisions, and for protecting patients from harms.

Read more:
Who will write the rules for AI? How nations are racing to regulate artificial intelligence

3. Will AI make health care less fair?

If health services are already discriminatory, AI systems can learn these patterns from data and repeat or worsen the discrimination. So AI used in health care can make health inequities worse. In our studies consumers said this is not OK.

4. Will AI dehumanise health care?

Consumers are concerned AI will take the “human” elements out of health care, consistently saying AI tools should support rather than replace doctors. Often, this is because AI is perceived to lack important human traits, such as empathy. Consumers say the communication skills, care and touch of a health professional are especially important when feeling vulnerable.

Read more:
Chatbots for medical advice: three ways to avoid misleading information

5. Will AI de-skill our health workers?

Consumers value human clinicians and their expertise. In our research with women about AI in breast screening, women were concerned about the potential effect on radiologists’ skills and expertise. Women saw this expertise as a precious shared resource: too much dependence on AI tools, and this resource might be lost.

Consumers and communities need a say

The Australian health-care system cannot focus only on the technical elements of AI tools. Social and ethical considerations, including high-quality engagement with consumers and communities, are essential to shape AI use in health care.

Communities need opportunities to develop digital health literacy: digital skills to access reliable, trustworthy health information, services and resources.

Respectful engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities must be central. This includes upholding Indigenous data sovereignty, which the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies describes as:

the right of Indigenous peoples to govern the collection, ownership and application of data about Indigenous communities, peoples, lands, and resources.

This includes any use of data to create AI.

This critically important consumer and community engagement needs to take place before managers design (more) AI into health systems, before regulators create guidance for how AI should and shouldn’t be used, and before clinicians consider buying a new AI tool for their practice.

We’re making some progress. Earlier this year, we ran a citizens’ jury on AI in health care. We supported 30 diverse Australians, from every state and territory, to spend three weeks learning about AI in health care, and developing recommendations for policymakers.

Their recommendations, which will be published in an upcoming issue of the Medical Journal of Australia, have informed a recently released national roadmap for using AI in health care.

Read more:
Worried about AI? You might have AI-nxiety – here’s how to cope

That’s not all

Health professionals also need to be upskilled and supported to use AI in health care. They need to learn to be critical users of digital health tools, including understanding their pros and cons.

Our analysis of safety events reported to the Food and Drug Administration shows the most serious harms reported to the US regulator came not from a faulty device, but from the way consumers and clinicians used the device.

We also need to consider when health professionals should tell patients an AI tool is being used in their care, and when health workers should seek informed consent for that use.

Lastly, people involved in every stage of developing and using AI need to get accustomed to asking themselves: do consumers and communities agree this is a justified use of AI?

Only then will we have the AI-enabled health-care system consumers actually want.

Stacy Carter receives funding from National Health and Medical Research Council, National Breast Cancer Foundation, Medical Research Futures Fund.

Emma Frost receives funding from the Australian Government Research Training Program and the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Farah Magrabi receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Digital Health CRC and Macquarie University. She is Co-Chair of the Australian Alliance for AI in Healthcare’s Safety, Quality and Ethics Working Group.

Yves Saint James Aquino receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (CRE 2006-545 – WiserHealthcare). He is affiliated with Bellberry Limited, a not-for-profit organisation providing scientific and ethical review of human research projects.

– ref. Artificial intelligence is already in our hospitals. 5 questions people want answered – https://theconversation.com/artificial-intelligence-is-already-in-our-hospitals-5-questions-people-want-answered-217374

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tristan Salles, Senior Lecturer, University of Sydney

Earth’s surface is the living skin of our planet – it connects the physical, chemical and biological systems.

Over geological time, this surface evolves. Rivers fragment the landscape into an environmentally diverse range of habitats. These rivers also transfer sediments from the mountains to the continental plains and ultimately the oceans.

The idea that landscapes have influenced the trajectory of life on our planet has a long history, dating back to the early 19th century scientific narratives of German polymath Alexander von Humboldt. While we’ve learnt more since then, many aspects of biodiversity evolution remain enigmatic. For example, it’s still unclear why there is a 100-million-year gap between the explosion of marine life and the development of plants on continents.

In research published in Nature today, we propose a new theory that relates the evolution of biodiversity over the past 540 million years to sediment “pulses” controlled by past landscapes.

10 years of computational time

Our simulations are based on an open-source code released as part of a Science paper published earlier this year.

To drive the evolution of the landscape through space and time in our computer model, we used a series of reconstructions for what the climate and tectonics were like in the past.

We then compared the results of our global simulations with reconstructions of marine and continental biodiversity over the past 540 million years.

To perform our computer simulations, we took advantage of Australia’s National Computational Infrastructure running on several hundreds of processors. The combined simulations presented in our study are equivalent to ten years of computational time.

Read more:
How the Earth’s last supercontinent broke apart to form the world we have today

Marine life and river sediment were closely linked

In our model, we discovered that the more sediment rivers carried into the oceans, the more the sea life diversified (a positive correlation). You can see this tracked by the red line in the chart below.

As the continents weather, rivers don’t just carry sediment into the oceans, they also bring a large quantity of nutrients. These nutrients, such as carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus, are essential to the biological cycles that move vital elements through all living things.

This is why we think rivers delivering more or less nutrients to the ocean – on a geological timescale of millions of years – is related to the diversification of marine life.

Perhaps even more surprisingly, we found that episodes of mass extinctions in the oceans happened shortly after significant decreases in sedimentary flow. This suggests that a lack or deficiency of nutrients can destabilise biodiversity and make it vulnerable to catastrophic events (like asteroid impacts or volcanic eruptions).

Read more:
What is a ‘mass extinction’ and are we in one now?

Landscapes also drove the diversity of plants

On the continents, we designed a variable that integrates sediment cover and landscape ruggedness to describe the continents’ capacity to host diverse species.

Here we also found a striking correlation (see below) between our variable and plant diversification for the past 400 million years. This highlights how changes in landscape also have a strong influence on species diversifying on land.

We hypothesise that as Earth’s surface was gradually covered with thicker soil, richer in nutrients deposited by rivers, plants could develop and diversify with more elaborate root systems.

As plants slowly expanded across the land, the planet ended up hosting varied environments and habitats with favourable conditions for plant evolution, such as the emergence of flowering plants some 100 million years ago.

A living planet

Overall, our findings suggest the diversity of life on our planet is strongly influenced by landscape dynamics. At any given moment, Earth’s landscapes determine the maximum number of different species continents and oceans can support.

This shows it’s not just tectonics or climates, but their interactions that determine the long-term evolution of biodiversity. They do this through sediment flows and changes to the landscapes at large.

Our findings also show that biodiversity has always evolved at the pace of plate tectonics. That’s a pace incomparably slower than the current rate of extinction caused by human activity.

Read more:
Five ways you can help stop biodiversity loss in your area – and around the world

This research was undertaken with resources from the National Computational Infrastructure supported by the Australian Government and from Artemis HPC supported by the University of Sydney. This work was supported by an Australian Research Council grant.

Beatriz Hadler Boggiani, Laurent Husson, and Manon Lorcery 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. New unified theory shows how past landscapes drove the evolution of Earth’s rich diversity of life – https://theconversation.com/new-unified-theory-shows-how-past-landscapes-drove-the-evolution-of-earths-rich-diversity-of-life-217286

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toby Walsh, Professor of AI, Research Group Leader, UNSW Sydney

OpenAI’s artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot ChatGPT was unleashed onto an unsuspecting public exactly one year ago.

It quickly became the fastest-growing app ever, in the hands of 100 million users by the end of the second month. Today, it’s available to more than a billion people via Microsoft’s Bing search, Skype and Snapchat – and OpenAI is predicted to collect more than US$1 billion in annual revenue.

We’ve never seen a technology roll out so quickly before. It took about a decade or so before most people started using the web. But this time the plumbing was already in place.

As a result, ChatGPT’s impact has gone way beyond writing poems about Carol’s retirement in the style of Shakespeare. It has given many people a taste of our AI-powered future. Here are five ways this technology has changed the world.

1. AI safety

ChatGPT forced governments around the world to wise up to the idea that AI poses significant challenges – not just economic challenges, but also societal and existential challenges.

United States President Joe Biden catapulted the US to the forefront of AI regulations with a presidential executive order that establishes new standards for AI safety and security. It looks to improve equity and civil rights, while also promoting innovation and competition, and American leadership in AI.

Soon after, the United Kingdom held the first ever intergovernmental AI Safety Summit in Bletchley Park – the place where the computer was born in World War II to crack the German Enigma code.

And more recently, the European Union has appeared to be sacrificing its early lead in regulating AI, as it struggled to adapt its AI Act with potential threats posed by frontier models such as ChatGPT.

Although Australia continues to languish towards the back of the pack in terms of regulation and investment, nations around the world are increasingly directing their money, time and attention towards addressing this issue which, five years ago, didn’t cross most people’s minds.

Read more:
The hidden cost of the AI boom: social and environmental exploitation

2. Job security

Before ChatGPT, it was perhaps car workers and other blue collar workers who most feared the arrival of robots. ChatGPT and other generative AI tools have changed this conversation.

White collar workers such as graphic designers and lawyers have now also started to worry for their jobs. One recent study of an online job marketplace found earnings for writing and editing jobs have fallen more than 10% since ChatGPT was launched. The gig economy might be the canary in this coalmine.

There’s huge uncertainty whether more jobs get destroyed by AI than created. But one thing is now certain: AI will be hugely disruptive in how we work.

3. Death of the essay

The education sector reacted with some hostility to ChatGPT’s arrival, with many schools and education authorities issuing immediate bans over its use. If ChatGPT can write essays, what will happen to homework?

Of course, we don’t ask people to write essays because there’s a shortage of them, or even because many jobs require this. We ask them to write essays because it demands research skills, improves communication skills, critical thinking and domain knowledge. No matter what ChatGPT offers, these skills will still be needed, even if we spend less time developing them.

Read more:
Dumbing down or wising up: how will generative AI change the way we think?

And it isn’t only school children cheating with AI. Earlier this year, a US judge fined two lawyers and a law firm US$5,000 for a court filing written with ChatGPT that included made-up legal citations.

I imagine these are growing pains. Education is an area in which AI has much to offer. Large language models such as ChatGPT can, for example, be fine-tuned into excellent Socratic tutors. And intelligent tutoring systems can be infinitely patient when generating precisely targeted revision questions.

4. Copyright chaos

This one is personal. Authors around the world were outraged to discover that many large language models such as ChatGPT were trained on hundreds of thousands of books, downloaded from the web without their consent.

The reason AI models can converse fluently about everything from AI to zoology is because they’re trained on books about everything from AI to zoology. And the books about AI include my own copyrighted books about AI.

The irony isn’t lost on me that an AI professor’s books about AI are controversially being used to train AI. Multiple class action suits are now in play in the US to determine if this is a violation of copyright laws.

Users of ChatGPT have even pointed out examples where chatbots have generated entire chunks of text, verbatim, taken from copyrighted books.

Read more:
No, the Lensa AI app technically isn’t stealing artists’ work – but it will majorly shake up the art world

5. Misinformation and disinformation

In the short term, one challenge which worries me most is the use of generative AI tools such as ChatGPT to create misinformation and disinformation.

This concern goes beyond synthetic text, to deepfake audio and videos that are indistinguishable from real ones. A bank has already been robbed using AI-generated cloned voices.

Elections also now appear threatened. Deepfakes played an unfortunate role in the 2023 Slovak parliamentary election campaign. Two days prior to the election, a fake audio clip about electoral fraud that allegedly featured a well-known journalist from an independent news platform and the chairman of the Progressive Slovakia party reached thousands of social media users. Commentators have suggested such fake content could have a material impact on election outcomes.

According to The Economist, more than four billion people will be asked to vote in various elections next year. What happens in such elections when we combine the reach of social media to with the power and persuasion of AI-generated fake content? Will it unleash a wave of misinformation and disinformation onto our already fragile democracies?

It’s hard to predict what will unfold next year. But if 2023 is anything to go by, I suggest we buckle up.

Toby Walsh receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Google.org, the philanthropic arm of Google.

– ref. A year of ChatGPT: 5 ways the AI marvel has changed the world – https://theconversation.com/a-year-of-chatgpt-5-ways-the-ai-marvel-has-changed-the-world-218805

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tristan Dunning, Honorary Research Fellow, The University of Queensland

While the world remains fixated on the devastating October 7 Hamas attacks and the subsequent Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip, there has been a pronounced – and mostly unnoticed – escalation in violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Before the recent events, this had already been the deadliest year for Palestinians in the West Bank since 2005, with about 200 fatalities, mostly attributed to Israeli security forces.

This figure has more than doubled since October 7, including the killings of 55 children. That brings the yearly fatality total in the West Bank to more than 450 Palestinians so far, according to the United Nations.

The UN has also recorded 281 settler attacks against Palestinians in the West Bank since October 7, resulting in eight deaths. Four Israelis have been killed in attacks by Palestinians.

In nearly half of the settler attacks, Israeli security forces either “accompanied or actively supported the attackers”, according to the UN.

A sharp increase in displacements

It is no coincidence the upsurge in anti-Palestinian violence this year has corresponded with the coming to power of the most right-wing nationalist government in Israeli history.

The new hardline government promised to expand Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which Israel has occupied since capturing the territory in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

This has emboldened Israeli settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, who now regularly engage in violence and provocative nationalist actions around the al-Aqsa mosque compound.

Since 1967, Israel has built over 270 settlements containing approximately 750,000 settlers. Despite these settlements being deemed illegal under international law, they remain protected by the Israeli military and their own security squads.

In February, the Israeli government transferred the West Bank from military to civilian control, which critics claimed could represent a step towards legalised annexation.

Since October 7 alone, the Israeli human rights group B’tselem reports that 16 Palestinian communities have been “forcibly transferred” in Area C, which covers about 65% of the West Bank and is under complete Israeli control. Overall, over 1,000 Palestinians have been displaced in the West Bank due to settler violence and access restrictions, according to the UN.

According to a group of UN experts:

Israel’s continuous annexation of portions of the occupied Palestinian territory […] suggests that a concrete effort may be under way to annex the entire occupied Palestinian territory in violation of international law.

Settler violence against Palestinians also includes the uprooting of hundreds of olive trees, destruction of property, blocked roads, armed raids and sabotaged wells. Military checkpoints and barriers make movement between Palestinian areas increasingly difficult.

Settlers also enjoy civilian and political rights in the West Bank, while Palestinians are subjected to military rule. This has been described by human rights groups, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B’tselem, as well as prominent Israelis, as apartheid.

In a study of 1,000 cases of settler violence submitted to the Israeli judiciary between 2005 and 2021, the human rights organisation Yesh Din found 92% were dismissed.

Read more:
Understanding the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 5 charts

A recipe for more violence

The West Bank continues to be run, at least in parts, by the internationally recognised Palestinian Authority (PA), led by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah.

However, the PA is considered corrupt, nepotistic and is deeply unpopular among Palestinians in the territories. Recent polling revealed 78% of Palestinians want Abbas to resign. Primarily, this is because the PA is seen by Palestinians in the West Bank as nothing more than Israel’s security subcontractor and has suppressed demonstrations in solidarity with Gaza.

As a result, a younger generation of Palestinian fighters has emerged in West Bank towns and cities that transcend the longstanding divide between Hamas in Gaza and the PA in the West Bank.

These self-defence battalions are intended to defend Palestinians against Israeli incursions, especially in the Jenin refugee camp and the old city of Nablus, both of which have repeatedly been the subject of Israeli raids this year.

Meanwhile, Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s national security minister and the leader of the Jewish Power Party, continues to openly defend settlers’ actions, setting the stage for more attacks.

Earlier this year, a joint statement by the Israeli military, Shin Bet (Israel’s domestic security agency) and Israeli police condemned Jewish settler violence against Palestinians, saying the increased vigilantism contradicted Jewish values and were a form of “nationalist terror in the full sense of the term”. Days later, though, Ben-Gvir blocked condemnation of the settlers and is reported to have called them “sweet kids” who had been turned into adults in detention.

After the October 7 attacks, Ben-Gvir’s ministry announced it had purchased 10,000 assault rifles to be distributed to civilian security teams around the country, including in West Bank settlements.

Other senior Israeli politicians have also been seen to encourage violence. In March, for instance, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who is also in charge of the civil administration of the West Bank, said a Palestinian town called Huwara should be “wiped out”.

The US State Department said the comment amounted to an incitement of violence and called it “repugnant”. Smotrich later apologised, calling it a “slip of the tongue”.

All of this has helped create an environment of fear, frustration and desperation among Palestinians in the West Bank. Following five weeks of war in Gaza, the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research reported 69% of Palestinians say they “fear future settler attacks”.

The upshot of this continued violence in the West Bank is the prospects for a viable two-state solution are more remote than ever, leaving Palestinians with little alternative then to continue resisting.

Read more:
West Bank’s settler violence problem is a second sign that Israel’s policy of ignoring Palestinians’ drive for a homeland isn’t a long-term solution

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. Since the Gaza war began, violence against Palestinians has also surged in the West Bank – and gone virtually unnoticed – https://theconversation.com/since-the-gaza-war-began-violence-against-palestinians-has-also-surged-in-the-west-bank-and-gone-virtually-unnoticed-218236

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacqueline Peel, Director, Melbourne Climate Futures, The University of Melbourne

As the COP28 climate summit gets underway in the oil production hub of the United Arab Emirates today, Australia’s climate minister Chris Bowen will detail our progress in meeting emissions cut targets and updated projections.

The second Annual Climate Change Statement will be tabled in parliament at noon. But we already know some of the detail. Australia is now likely to cut its emissions 42% below 2005 levels by 2030 –very close to the legislated 43% target the government introduced last year.

This is likely to give Bowen a spring in his step, when combined with last week’s funding announcement on renewables and storage. From this strengthened platform, he will argue Australia can be trusted to meet its climate goals.

Next week Bowen heads to Dubai to lead Australia’s negotiating team. He can expect international pressure to be more ambitious in setting the nation’s 2035 target. This is essential if we are to keep 1.5°C within reach. Scientists consistently say wealthy countries such as Australia should be cutting their emissions by 50 to 75% by 2030 to meet the Paris Agreement goals.

But Bowen can also expect a different pressure, as efforts to phase down or phase out fossil fuels such as Australia’s gas and coal gather pace.

Read more:
As disasters and heat intensify, can the world meet the urgency of the moment at the COP28 climate talks?

What role will Australia play in COP28 negotiations?

At COP28, Australian negotiators are likely to have two broad objectives. The first is to achieve ambitious emissions reductions in line with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal. The agreement requires countries to make increasingly stringent five year plans – called “nationally determined contributions” – in line with keeping global warming within the range of 1.5–2°C.

The second is to ensure positive outcomes for our Pacific neighbours. These objectives are linked, given the existential threat climate change poses to many Pacific island countries if 1.5°C of warming is exceeded.

Australia will play a prominent role in negotiations around adapting to climate change, as assistant climate minister Jenny McAllister will co-chair this work. We will also be visible in efforts to lay out the ground rules for the new Loss and Damage fund, a key outcome from last year’s COP27 in Egypt.

Negotiators are also hoping for an announcement on Australia’s bid to host a joint Australia-Pacific COP meeting in 2026. This bid has already increased global scrutiny of Australia’s international engagement on climate and its domestic actions.

The elephant in the room will be fossil fuels

For many nations – especially our Pacific neighbours – the elephant in the room is Australia’s plans to keep expanding fossil fuel production. This overshadows Australia’s credibility on domestic emissions reduction and its commitment to the Pacific.

As resources minister Madeleine King spruiked in June, Australia is “one of the world’s largest exporters of liquefied natural gas, as well as the world’s largest exporter of metallurgical coal and second largest exporter of thermal coal”, based on 2021 figures.

The federal government continues to approve new and expanded coal mines under the nation’s main environmental laws, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. This is despite the contribution to climate change made by the emissions of the coal when burned.

In October 2023, the Federal Court ruled environment minister Tanya Plibersek could legally decide on coal mine proposals under the act without considering their potential climate impacts.

At COP28, observers expect to see a strong push for the phase-down or total phase-out of unabated fossil fuels, given mounting evidence that planned fossil fuel production would blow the world’s remaining carbon budget several times over.

Even the COP28 President – UAE oil company CEO Sultan al-Jaber – has declared the phase-down of fossil fuels is “inevitable” and “essential”. This has been undercut by reports the UAE plans to make oil deals during the climate talks.

Read more:
COP28: inside the United Arab Emirates, the oil giant hosting 2023 climate change summit

Australia’s position on phasing down fossil fuels remains uncertain but there’s an indication of the likely policy direction in Bowen’s recent speech to the Lowy Institute.

In this speech, the minister described Australia’s position as a “traditional fossil fuel-based economy in the middle of a major transition” to a low-carbon energy system. On energy exports, he sees Australia transforming from a major fossil fuel producer to a renewable energy superpower.

As Bowen noted, our domestic decarbonisation efforts are important, but in global terms they:

[…] pale in comparison to the emissions reductions achieved if we are able to harness and export our renewable energy to help countries without our abundant renewable resources to decarbonise.

How Australia navigates this dilemma will be of great interest to our Pacific neighbours and other international onlookers at COP28.

For many, it will be the real litmus test for Australia’s ambition to be a global climate leader.

Read more:
As disasters and heat intensify, can the world meet the urgency of the moment at the COP28 climate talks?

Jacqueline Peel 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. COP28: How will Australia navigate domestic climate wins and fossil fuel exports at the negotiating table? – https://theconversation.com/cop28-how-will-australia-navigate-domestic-climate-wins-and-fossil-fuel-exports-at-the-negotiating-table-218697

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jemma Skeat, Associate Professor, Director of Speech Pathology, Deakin University, Deakin University

ChatGPT is one year old today. Depending on who you ask, this technology either spells great doom or great opportunity for education.

With ChatGPT capable of passing graduate-level exams, there have been calls for universities to drastically change assessments, amid concerns it will lead to cheating and students disengaging with their studies.

Some teachers and students have also expressed enthusiasm at the potential for generative AI to cut down their workloads and help with learning.

But what has happened on the ground?

We have been tracking the use of AI in Australian universities this year. We did a survey on the first half of 2023. Now we release data from semester two.

More students are using AI

Across the year, we have asked 154 students and 89 academics about their use of AI via an online survey. Of this group, 81 students and 60 academics from Australian universities completed the survey during the second half of the year (June to November).

At the start of the year, just over half of students had tried or used generative AI. In the second half of the year, this had climbed to 82% of students and some of these were were using it in the context of university learning (25%) or assessment (28%).

In some cases, it was suggested or required for assessments, but for most students using it in this way, this was self-directed (85%).

Perhaps as a result of this increased use, students appear to be far more “sold” on this technology now than earlier in the year. Only 30% of first-semester students agreed generative AI would help them learn, 67% of second-semester students agreed with this.

Students reported applying generative AI in lots of ways, including summarising dense and long pieces of text, generating ideas/brainstorming, or to help “test” their own learning (for example, by generating a quiz about a learning topic). One student wrote they use it

to help solve problems (it suggests things that I would never think of).

Another said it is “another pair of eyes” to help them proofread and edit their work.

Read more:
AI is now accessible to everyone: 3 things parents should teach their kids

Students confident about limitations

Students also appear to be very aware of the limitations of generative AI. As one respondent wrote:

I love it […] when I am at the beginning of exploring a topic, I find it very helpful. As I dive in more deeply I have to rely on more credible sources of information.

Students consistently noted issues with accuracy. These include “AI hallucinations” (when a tool generates nonsense or something false or misleading), biases and specific limitations. Students also noted generative AI technology is still developing capabilities when it comes to solving and checking complex maths and coding problems.

Since the start of 2023, students have been more confident than academics in their knowledge of AI’s limitations (63% students, 14% academics), this confidence has only grown for students (88%) while academics have barely changed (16%).

This is interesting, given universities have been encouraging academics to support students to understand AI’s limitations.

What are the ongoing issues?

While universities have scrambled to provide overarching policies, students who are using this technology want more specific, practical examples of what they are allowed to do with it.

In the second semester, few students considered the use of generative AI in assessment as “cheating” (22% compared to 72% in first semester). However, many students commented the rules for what is “ethical” versus what is “cheating” are still unclear. One student told us:

I want to comply with the rules […] but it’s not clear what I’m actually allowed to do with it.

Academics in our survey agreed with this sentiment, calling on universities to develop clear guidelines around the use of generative AI.

Students and academics both indicated they felt some universities had put the breaks on generative AI use. For those institutions allowing it, they felt the technology was not being incorporated meaningfully or obviously into teaching and learning. As one academic told us:

You should stop fighting the reality that AI is here to stay. It’s not the future, it’s actually the present […] I just don’t understand why academics are underestimating themselves and continue to be so hostile to the technology.

Students also advised their universities to “embrace it”, “discuss it openly” and noted:

we’ll need to work with it as it will not go away. We can work in a supportive, collaborative relationship with AI.

Read more:
‘Please do not assume the worst of us’: students know AI is here to stay and want unis to teach them how to use it

Will access be equal?

A growing concern for students is the potential for an uneven AI playing field. Some platforms, including ChatGPT, offer both free and paid models, with the latter being more advanced.

As the Group of Eight (who represent Australia’s top research universities) has noted, there is a potential for “disparities in educational outcomes” with this technology – depending on who is able to afford a subscription and who is not.

This is an issue that universities must grapple with as they look towards the future.

Meanwhile, advances in this technology keep coming and will keep redefining the educational landscape. Universities will need to plan and manage how generative AI is used across many different disciplines.

Important considerations include how generative AI could be used to optimise teaching and learning, opportunities for innovations in curriculum, assessment and research and potential uses for technology to support inclusion.

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. Australian uni students are warming to ChatGPT. But they want more clarity on how to use it – https://theconversation.com/australian-uni-students-are-warming-to-chatgpt-but-they-want-more-clarity-on-how-to-use-it-218429

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Pace, Associate Lecturer, Sydney Pharmacy School, University of Sydney

Australia is experiencing a fresh wave of COVID, seeing increasing cases, more hospitalisations and a greater number of prescriptions for COVID antivirals dispensed over recent months.

In the early days of the pandemic, the only medicines available were those that treated the symptoms of the virus. These included steroids and analgesics such as paracetamol and ibuprofen to treat pain and fever.

We now have two drugs called Paxlovid and Lagevrio that treat the virus itself.

But are these drugs effective against current variants? And who is eligible to receive them? Here’s what to know about COVID antivirals as we navigate this eighth COVID wave.

What antivirals are available?

Paxlovid is a combination of two different drug molecules, nirmatrelvir and ritonavir. The nirmatrelvir works by blocking an enzyme called a protease that the virus needs to replicate. The ritonavir is included in the medicine to protect the nirmatrelvir, stopping the body from breaking it down.

Molnupiravir, marketed as Lagevrio, works by forcing errors into the RNA of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID) as it replicates. As these errors build up, the virus becomes less effective.

Read more:
Paxlovid is Australia’s first-line COVID antiviral but Lagevrio also prevents severe disease in over-70s

This year in Australia, the XBB COVID strains have dominated, and acquired a couple of key mutations. When COVID mutates into new variants, it doesn’t affect the ability of either Paxlovid or Lagevrio to work because the parts of the virus that change from the mutations aren’t those targeted by these two drugs.

This is different to the monoclonal antibody-based medicines that were developed against specific strains of the virus. These drugs are not thought to be effective for any variant of the virus from omicron XBB.1.5 onwards, which includes the current wave. This is because these drugs recognise certain proteins expressed on the surface of SARS-CoV-2, which have changed over time.

What does the evidence say?

As Lagevrio and Paxlovid are relatively new medicines, we’re still learning how well they work and which patients should use them.

The latest evidence suggests Paxlovid decreases the risk of hospitalisation if taken early by those at highest risk of severe disease.

Results from a previous trial suggested Lagevrio might reduce COVID deaths. But a more recent, larger trial indicated Lagevrio doesn’t significantly reduce hospitalisations or deaths from the virus.

However, few people at highest risk from COVID were included in this trial. So it could offer some benefit for patients in this group.

Read more:
We’re in a new COVID wave. What can we expect this time?

In Australia, Lagevrio is not routinely recommended and Paxlovid is preferred. However, not all patients can take Paxlovid. For example, people with medical conditions such as severe kidney or liver impairment shouldn’t take it because these issues can affect how well the body metabolises the medication, which increases the risk of side effects.

Paxlovid also can’t be taken alongside some other medications such as those for certain heart conditions, mental health conditions and cancers. For high-risk patients in these cases, Lagevrio can be considered.

Some people who take COVID antivirals will experience side effects. Mostly these are not serious and will go away with time.

Both Paxlovid and Lagevrio can cause diarrhoea, nausea and dizziness. Paxlovid can also cause side effects including muscle aches and weakness, changes in taste, loss of appetite and abdominal pain. If you experience any of these, you should contact your doctor.

More serious side effects of both medicines are allergic reactions, such as shortness of breath, swelling of the face, lips or tongue and a severe rash, itching or hives. If you experience any of these, call 000 immediately or go straight to the nearest emergency department.

Be prepared

Most people will be able to manage COVID safely at home without needing antivirals. However, those at higher risk of severe COVID and therefore eligible for antivirals should seek them. This includes people aged 70 or older, people aged 50 or older or Aboriginal people aged 30 or older with one additional risk factor for severe illness, and people 18 or older who are immunocompromised.

If you are in any of these groups, it’s important you plan ahead. Speak to your health-care team now so you know what to do if you get COVID symptoms.

If needed, this will ensure you can start treatment as soon as possible. It’s important antivirals are started within five days of symptom onset.

Read more:
Who’s taking COVID antivirals like Paxlovid? Hint: it helps if you’re rich

If you’re a high-risk patient and you test positive, contact your doctor straight away. If you are eligible for antivirals, your doctor will organise a prescription (either an electronic or paper script).

These medicines are available under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and subsidised for people with a Medicare card. The cost for each course is the standard PBS co-payment amount: A$30 for general patients and A$7.30 for people with a concession card.

So you can rest and reduce the risk of spreading the virus to others, ask your pharmacy to deliver the medication to your home, or ask someone to collect it for you.

Dr Jessica Pace is a pharmacy practice academic and practising hospital pharmacist. She is a fellow and the chair of the Society of Hospital Pharmacists Australia (SHPA) NSW branch and member of the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia (PSA).

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

– ref. COVID wave: what’s the latest on antiviral drugs, and who is eligible in Australia? – https://theconversation.com/covid-wave-whats-the-latest-on-antiviral-drugs-and-who-is-eligible-in-australia-218423

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robyn Eckersley, Redmond Barry Professor of Political Science, School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of Melbourne

Australia’s net-zero transition is struggling. Despite the government’s efforts, announced last week, to revive flagging investment in renewable energy, greenhouse gas emissions from existing industry are still rising. Yet under the Paris Agreement, Australia must adopt even more ambitious targets for 2035.

At the same time, governments in Australia and overseas are facing rising community opposition to the rollout of clean energy infrastructure needed for a net zero transition. Such opposition is being exploited by right-wing parties for electoral gain.

But that pressure only underscores what the Australian government must do. To lift its climate game, it needs a mission-oriented, whole-of-government approach, built on what is known as a “just transition”.

The two main elements of a just transition

A just transition requires both distributive justice and procedural justice. Distributive justice means policies that ensure a fair distribution of the economic burdens and benefits of the climate transition, along with protections for low-income people.

Procedural justice includes – but goes beyond – engaging with workers directly impacted by the decline of fossil fuel production. It means going beyond engagement with stakeholders that mainly represent incumbent industries.

A just transition would give all of Australia’s communities a chance to not only take part in discussions about the costs and benefits of different approaches to net zero, but also to have a say in designing climate policies that directly affect them.

The success of the net zero transition may depend on the government’s willingness to use the expertise of local communities in finding solutions for the lands and waters they know best.

The Labor government signed the Just Transition Declaration at last year’s COP27 global climate summit at Sharm el-Sheikh. The declaration spells out this idea in its second principle:

the development of effective, nationally coherent, locally driven and delivered just transition plans within countries is dependent on effective and inclusive social dialogue.

Yet the Albanese government’s net-zero strategy has no explicit commitment to a just transition. Instead, its piecemeal strategy lacks integration and avoids tackling the essential phase-out of fossil fuels.

Read more:
How could Australia actually get to net zero? Here’s how

Many government bodies – but is there a plan?

In May the government announced it would establish a statutory Net Zero Authority “to ensure the workers, industries and communities that have powered Australia for generations can seize the opportunities of Australia’s net zero transformation.”

The authority is expected to “help investors and companies to engage with net zero transformation opportunities,” to help regions and communities attract new investment in clean energy, and to assist workers in the transition away from emissions-intensive industries.

To design the legislation to create the Net Zero Authority and to “immediately kick-start” its work, in July the government set up an interim body known as the Net Zero Economic Agency, located in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

The agency is chaired by former Labor climate change minister Greg Combet and supported by a ten-member advisory board. The mining industry and mining unions are well represented, holding three seats. However, many key stakeholders, including environmental and climate NGOs and the social welfare sector, are not represented.

At the same time, climate minister Chris Bowen has established a Net Zero Taskforce in the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water to advise on the 2035 emissions reduction target and the plan to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

Guided by the advice of the Climate Change Authority, the taskforce will develop six sectoral decarbonisation plans in:

• electricity and energy
• industry
• resources
• the built environment
• agriculture and land
• transport.

How the work of all these bodies fits together is unclear. An overarching Net Zero National Cabinet Committee, as suggested by the Grattan Institute’s Tony Wood, could provide the necessary coordination, as long as it is guided by an integrated strategy for a net zero just transition.

Yet a just transition is not mentioned on government websites relating to the interim agency and the taskforce, other than to say that they will engage with communities, industry, First Nations, and unions, with an emphasis on affected workers in regions. There is no earmarked funding, institutional innovation, or capacity building to enable inclusive dialogues across communities and society.

Read more:
Why Australia urgently needs a climate plan and a Net Zero National Cabinet Committee to implement it

Lessons in dialogue at home and overseas

The Net Zero Authority is well positioned to coordinate and fund such dialogues, which are best approached from a perspective geared towards systemic change.

As the Sydney Policy Lab has found in its community “listening campaign” on the climate transition in Geelong, the authority’s transition planning will lack support if it ignores the issues (such as secure housing and affordable living) communities most worry about.

Read more:
Australia’s new dawn: becoming a green superpower with a big role in cutting global emissions

Such approaches have already met with considerable success elsewhere. In Denmark, an OECD study found social dialogues have been a significant factor in the country’s successful transition to wind power. It now accounts for a major share of Denmark’s energy output.

And in Sweden, the government’s Innovation Agency, Vinnova, has recently developed highly collaborative processes for redesigning energy, food and other systems to achieve net zero and other goals.

Far from slowing the transition, a commitment to inclusive dialogue will secure it by building the social license for change, while ensuring some measure of accountability for the injustices of the fossil fuel era.

The more inclusive the dialogue, the better the government will be able to minimise political backlash as decarbonisation accelerates.

A national net zero summit

To reach these outcomes will need significant coordination between federal, state and local governments, and across government departments.

To jumpstart this process, and building on the success of regional summits, a national summit should be convened to explore the perspectives and initiatives of a wide range of stakeholders. That means not just unions and workers (as important as they may be) but also climate and energy NGOs, local governments and historically marginalised communities.

A net zero summit would place the perspectives of policy elites and incumbent interests in dialogue with the diverse demands of citizens. It must include Indigenous communities, on whose lands much of the renewable energy infrastructure is likely to be built and critical minerals likely to be extracted.

Debate at the summit cannot be perfunctory. It must provide ample space for many voices. The goal is to discover, propose and fund a net zero transition in ways that don’t unduly privilege the needs of investors and companies, but instead champion the wisdom and solutions of local communities.

Read more:
Beyond Juukan Gorge: how First Nations people are taking charge of clean energy projects on their land

Robyn Eckersley has received research funding in the past from the Australian Research Council and she currently hold a research grant with the Research Council of Norway.

Erin Fitz-Henry 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. What is a ‘just’ transition to net zero – and why is Australia struggling to get there? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-just-transition-to-net-zero-and-why-is-australia-struggling-to-get-there-218706

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ari Mattes, Lecturer in Communications and Media, University of Notre Dame Australia

Bona fide Christmas films usually fit into one of the following categories.

There are the sardonic comedies poking fun at the consumerist undertones of the holiday (National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation, Gremlins). There are the cheesy, schmaltzy Christmas fantasy films (The Christmas Star, Prancer) that strain to impart some of that good ol’ Christmas miracle to the viewer. There are the camp, deliberately kitsch bodgy romps like the Hulk Hogan vehicle Santa with Muscles. And there are the social realist dramas about people just trying to make it through the stress of the period (Almost Christmas).

This is not to mention the numerous Christmas horror films – anti-Christmas films? – that skewer the joy of the holidays with things like axe-wielding Santas (Silent Night, Deadly Night), deranged, obscene phone-calling maniacs (Black Christmas) and evil Krampuses looking to punish the naughty of every stripe (Rare Exports).

Christmess, the latest film from writer-director Heath Davis, fits firmly in the social realist mode.

Alcoholic ex-film star Chris (Steve Le Marquand) leaves rehab and moves into a halfway house with just over a week until Christmas. Living with his sponsor, Nick (Darren Gilshenan), a self-professed Yulephile, and musician and recovering addict Joy (Hannah Joy), he works hard to get his life on track and secures a job as a Santa at a suburban mall. But various obstacles – like bumping into his daughter Noelle, estranged for 20 years – impede his efforts.

As he attempts to develop a relationship with his daughter, he discovers, alas, that despite the optimism of people like his sponsor Nick, simply apologising isn’t always (or even often) enough, even if, as Nick is fond of saying, “Christmas is the time for forgivin’.”

There’s no glorious overcoming or transcendence at the end of the film, and anything that could be interpreted as a “Christmas miracle” is minor to say the least. But there is a definite sense of the development of genuine friendship between the characters, and a sense that the grey world Chris inhabits is at least a few shades warmer by the end of the film (even if, as is so often the case with addicts, macro-level patterns repeat).

Rather than dampening the film, the minor stakes make it a more touching experience – and it is an emotionally engrossing film, satisfying in its combination of melancholy tinged with the vague outlines of hope.

Read more:
Christmas films: there might be some truth to stories about hometown romances, according to research

Carefully observed details

For a low-budget independent film to be successful – and this is a true independent film, which in Australia means no investment from any of the major screen bodies – it needs to be as close to flawless as possible across three fronts.

It needs to look good by embracing a suitable (and usually low-key) aesthetic, it needs to feature excellent actors, and the writing needs to be razor sharp. Christmess succeeds in each area.

The performances, particularly by seasoned veterans Le Marquand and Gilshenan, are exceptional.

Le Marquand has long been one of Australia’s most underrated stars of stage and screen – watch him in Two Hands or Last Train to Freo and it’s hard to understand why he hasn’t developed a longer Hollywood resume – and he effortlessly commands the attention of the viewer here.

Gilshenan, best known for television comedies like The Moodys and Full Frontal, is superb as the kind (if a touch sanctimonious) AA sponsor. Hannah Joy, lead singer and guitarist of Middle Kids, breaks up the drama with some beautifully performed songs.

The dialogue is naturalistic, fitting the minor tenor of the film, with some subtle bursts of wry humour punctuating the drama.

“Most Santas aren’t NIDA graduates,” Chris says to his employer. “You’d be surprised,” she barks in reply.

“I lied,” Chris says to Nick at one point, “I’m an actor and an addict, what’d you expect?”

The cinematography by Chris Bland is excellent – it looks like it’s been shot for cinemas and not streaming, making the most of the wide aspect ratio and long lenses, with the handheld style recalling the imagery of more savage suburban movies like Snowtown.

The film is full of carefully observed details that situate it within a Sydney milieu, capturing the sad banality of so much of suburban life. Unkempt, rubbish-strewn canals, ugly and depressingly empty shopping malls, carefully manicured weatherboard houses – all the stuff they tried to make us forget about during the Sydney Olympics.

At the same time, there are details anyone who’s spent a Christmas in Sydney would immediately recognise: the glorious but slightly unhinged light displays that seem out of place without snow peppering them; a dying Christmas tree, rescued from a fruit shop; much complaining about the heat, as an ancient air conditioner fruitlessly struggles to do its work. There are the ubiquitous Christmas warehouse stores, a barbecue, yellow brick houses, small, carefully mowed lawns, and lots of sweat.

The film’s only weakness – and it’s minor – is the score, which seems a little uninspired but, thankfully, is used minimally.

Christmess is an exceptionally well-crafted independent film punching well above its weight in terms of budget. It lingers in the imagination far longer than most Hollywood-scale productions.

There’s a subtlety to it unusual for contemporary cinema, which tends to browbeat viewers in an insufferably didactic register. It wouldn’t surprise me if this were at the top of lists of Australian Christmas movies. It’s undoubtedly one of the best Christmas films to emerge – from anywhere – in recent years.

Christmess is in cinemas from today.

Read more:
Christmas Ransom: I quite enjoyed watching this (terrible) new Aussie Christmas film

Ari Mattes 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. Christmess is undoubtedly one of the best Christmas films to emerge – from anywhere – in recent years – https://theconversation.com/christmess-is-undoubtedly-one-of-the-best-christmas-films-to-emerge-from-anywhere-in-recent-years-218435

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

Extreme weather seasons are putting Australia’s energy systems more at risk of sabotage, the government’s annual Climate Change Statement warns.

These events place increased strain on the energy networks, and the resulting fragility could be exploited by “hostile actors”.

“The threshold for damage to Australia’s energy networks from sabotage may be significantly lower during high demand/low supply periods, such as extreme weather seasons,” the national security section of the statement says.

The statement, prepared by departmental officials, will be released by the Minister for Climate and Energy Chris Bowen on Thursday. The updated security warnings are informed by a declassified snapshot of work undertaken into climate change security risks by the Office of National Intelligence.

Labor asked the ONI to prepare a report on the security implications of climate change, following an election promise, but the government declined to release the report.

The Climate Statement forecasts Australia is heading towards meeting its 2030 target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

On present indications, emissions are expected to reduce by 42% below 2005 levels by 2030. The Labor target is a 43% reduction. The latest projection is better than last year’s, which was for a 40% reduction.

The Climate Statement highlights the biosecurity problems climate change brings. It will create “unprecedented potential for pests and diseases to spread to Australia, posing risks to the management of our border and supply chains.

“Invasive plants, animals and diseases could reduce forestry and agricultural productivity. Meanwhile, it is anticipated fisheries will become more contested as high ocean temperatures and acidification reduce ocean productivity and alter the range of fish stocks, which could have flow on impacts for Australia’s maritime security.”

Climate extremes are likely to put more stress on national coordination arrangements and domestic crisis management bodies, the statement says. This will stretch Australia’s emergency capabilities.

Rising sea levels are likely to see countries look to Australia and other countries for closer economic integration, through migration and expanded labour schemes, the report says, pointing to the recent agreement with Tuvalu, under which Australia will accept an annual intake of people.

The global transition to clean energy, while having many positives, could also bring problems, affecting Australia’s emergency response and warfighting capabilities.

“Maintaining a secure and affordable supply of legacy fuels during the transition is a priority for the government, as is the resilience of critical infrastructure in the face of extreme weather events or cyber attacks.”

Bowen will tell parliament on Thursday climate change already presents serious national security threats but they will become more severe, compounding as the planet becomes hotter.

“Australia will not sit on its hands, pause the transformation and expect to deploy speculative solutions in 2049 to address a climate emergency that is with us now.”

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

– ref. Extreme weather leaves energy networks vulnerable to ‘hostile actors’, Climate Statement warns – https://theconversation.com/extreme-weather-leaves-energy-networks-vulnerable-to-hostile-actors-climate-statement-warns-218815

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isaac Gross, Lecturer in Economics, Monash University

Australia’s inflation rate has dived from 5.6% to 4.9% in October, pushing it below 5% for the first time in 20 months.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures relate to the newer monthly measure of annual inflation, rather than the traditional quarterly measure, which came in at 5.4% in the September quarter, down from 6% in the June quarter.

Pushing down the annual inflation rate was a fall in average prices in October.

In October average prices fell 0.3%, driven down by a 2.9% fall in the price of petrol, a 7% fall in the price of price of holiday travel and accommodation, and a 2.5% fall in the price of household gas.

Read more:
Why further RBA rate hikes are less likely now than even 1 week ago

Even the average cost of rent fell 0.4% in the month, driven down by an increase in Commonwealth Rent Assistance.

The bureau says without the increase in rent assistance, measured rents would have climbed 0.7% making annual growth 8.6% instead of 7.6%.

The easing of inflation wasn’t limited to just a few sectors. So-called core inflation, which excludes volatile items like fruit, fuel and holiday travel, also experienced a decline, falling from 5.5% to 5.1%.

It means the RBA can relax just a bit

Economists who had anticipated a higher rate are now reconsidering their expectations for next week’s Reserve Bank board meeting, believing a further increase in interest rates at that meeting is now much less likely.

However, it is important not to get carried away with one month’s news.

We have previously seen inflation dip in a single month only to bounce back later.

Still, it is welcome news in the lead-up to the festive season.

It comes on top of news of very soft retail sales in October, up just 1.2% over a year in which we now know prices grew 4.9% and the population grow by about 2.4%, implying a fall in purchases per person of around 6%

Falling inflation in the US is about to help

While a lot of the fall in Australian inflation in October was due to lower oil prices, a lot from here on will be driven by a much higher Australian dollar, which climbed from 63.4 US cents to 66.5 US cents throughout November – an increase approaching 5%.

The higher dollar means that even if the price of oil and other overseas prices don’t fall further in November, they should fall further in Australian dollars.

The Australian dollar has climbed because the US dollar has fallen amid expectations that no further US interest rate hikes will be needed in the light of much lower inflation throughout the Western world.

Having said that, inflation in the cost of Australian services, from haircuts to dentistry, continues to concern Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock.

We will know more when the Australian Bureau of Statistics releases the major quarterly inflation report at the end of January ahead of the first Reserve Bank board meeting for the year on Monday and Tuesday February 5 and 6.

The Reserve Bank’s goal of bringing inflation back to its target band of 2-3% by late 2025 remains challenging, especially with ongoing price pressures in the labor-intensive services sector.

Still, if Australia can mimic the success of the US and other Western countries in continuing to bring inflation down, interest rates should peak soon, and perhaps even fall sometime in 2024.

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

– ref. Australia’s inflation rate now starts with a 4, allowing the RBA to hold fire on rates – https://theconversation.com/australias-inflation-rate-now-starts-with-a-4-allowing-the-rba-to-hold-fire-on-rates-218806

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 Poll Bludger has summarised the final report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) that was released Monday. The most contentious recommendation is that the number of senators for both the ACT and the Northern Territory be increased from two to four.

In the current 76-member Senate, every state has 12 senators, with half elected at a normal election for the House of Representatives and half the Senate. In a special double dissolution election, all senators are up for election. The ACT and NT have two senators each, with all their senators up at every House election.

Elections use proportional representation with preferences. At a half-Senate election, the quota for election is one-seventh of the vote or 14.3% in a state. In the ACT and NT, the quota is one-third or 33.3%.

The Australian Constitution requires all states to have the same number of senators, so Tasmania is greatly overrepresented. Analyst Kevin Bonham wrote in July 2022 that Tasmania has 21 senators per million people while New South Wales has only 1.5 senators per million people.

Australia overall has three senators per million people, the NT eight and the ACT 4.4. So both territories are already overrepresented in the Senate. Doubling the number of ACT and NT senators would increase the NT’s senators per million people to 16 and the ACT’s to 8.8.

Proponents of more territory senators compare territory representation to Tasmania. But doubling the number of territory senators will increase Senate “malapportionment” – this term is used to describe situations where unequal numbers of people elect parliamentarians.

JSCEM did not recommend staggered terms, so all four NT and ACT senators would be up for election at every House election. The quota for election would drop from one-third to one-fifth or 20%.

For the left to get a 2–0 split in the ACT, they currently need about a 67–33 winning margin over the right. When David Pocock and Labor’s Katy Gallagher won the two ACT senators in 2022, it was the first time the ACT had not split 1–1 between the major parties.

Read more:
ACT Senate result: Pocock defeats Liberals in first time Liberals have not won one ACT Senate seat

With four senators, a 60–40 left win would be enough for the left to take three of these four. Bonham said that every federal election since 2007 would have given the left a 3–1 split of ACT senators. So the left would benefit from this increased malapportionment.

The four senators from the NT would be expected to split 2–2 between the left and right.

Essential poll: just a one-point lead for Labor

A federal Essential poll, conducted November 22–26 from a sample of 1,151, gave Labor a 48–47 lead including undecided (49–47 last fortnight). Primary votes were 34% Coalition (steady), 31% Labor (down one), 13% Greens (up one), 7% One Nation (steady), 1% UAP (down one), 8% for all Others (steady) and 6% undecided (up one).

If 2022 election preference flows were used, Labor would be further ahead. But respondent preferences from Essential have been weaker for Labor in the last few months than at the 2022 election.

By 47–42, voters disapproved of Anthony Albanese’s performance, a reversal of a 46–43 approval in October. Peter Dutton’s net approval improved four points to -3. This is the first time in Essential Albanese’s net approval has been negative since he became PM and also the first time he has trailed Dutton on net approval.

The Coalition led Labor by 33–25 on managing the economy and 28–25 on reducing cost of living pressures. Labor led the Coalition by 37–19 on supporting higher wages. Over 65% thought the government’s performance on cost of living and housing affordability was either below average or poor.

Respondents were read a detailed question on the stage three tax cuts that said those earning $200,000 would receive over a $9,000 tax reduction a year, while those earning $60,000 would only receive a $375 reduction.

On these tax changes, 41% said they should be revised so they mostly benefit those on low and middle incomes, 22% said they should go ahead for those earning under $200,000 but be deferred for those earning over $200,000 until conditions improve, 20% said they should go ahead as planned in July 2024 and 16% said they should not go ahead at all.

The problem with this detailed question is that the vast majority of voters would be unfamiliar with the detail of the stage three tax cuts, and could be persuaded by a broken promises campaign from the Coalition if Labor dumped or revised these cuts.

Morgan poll and additional Newspoll question

In the best poll news for Labor since the early November Resolve poll, a federal Morgan poll, conducted November 20–26 from a sample of 1,379, gave Labor a 52.5–47.5 lead, a three-point gain for Labor since last week.

Primary votes were 35% Coalition (down 2.5), 32% Labor (up 2.5), 13.5% Greens (steady), 5% One Nation (down 1.5), 9% independents (up two) and 5.5% others (down 0.5).

In an additional question from this week’s Newspoll that had a 50–50 tie, 50% said they and their family were worse off than two years ago, 16% better off and 34% about the same.

Victorian Mulgrave byelection final results

A Victorian state byelection occurred in Mulgrave on November 18. This seat was previously held by former Labor premier Daniel Andrews. Primary votes were 40.2% Labor (down 10.8% since the 2022 election), 21.7% Liberals (up 4.5%), 18.8% for right-wing independent Ian Cook (up 0.8%), 6.0% Greens (up 0.9%), 3.6% Victorian Socialists (new), 3.1% Family First (up 1.1%) and 2.9% Libertarian (new).

ABC election analyst Antony Green has details of the preference flow. Although Cook was 2.9% behind the Liberals on primary votes, preference flows from the Libertarians and Family First put Cook 0.4% behind the Liberals, and he surpassed the Liberals on preference leakage from the Socialists and Greens to finish 0.4% ahead of them at the point where one was excluded.

Labor then defeated Cook after preferences by 56.5–43.5, a 4.3% swing to Cook since the 2022 election. The electoral commission also provided a two party Labor vs Liberal measure, which showed that if the Liberals had made the final two, Labor would have won by 54.7–45.3, a 5.5% swing to the Liberals.

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. Extra senators for ACT and NT will benefit left but increase malapportionment – https://theconversation.com/extra-senators-for-act-and-nt-will-benefit-left-but-increase-malapportionment-218708

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Minyon Avent, Antimicrobial Stewardship Pharmacist, The University of Queensland

Antimicrobial resistance is one of the biggest global threats to health, food security and development. This month, The Conversation’s experts explore how we got here and the potential solutions.

Antibiotic resistance occurs when a microorganism changes and no longer responds to an antibiotic that was previously effective. It’s associated with poorer outcomes, a greater chance of death and higher health-care costs.

In Australia, antibiotic resistance means some patients are admitted to hospital because oral antibiotics are no longer effective and they need to receive intravenous therapy via a drip.

Antibiotic resistance is rising to high levels in certain parts of the world. Some hospitals have to consider whether it’s even viable to treat cancers or perform surgery due to the risk of antibiotic-resistant infections.

Australia is one of the highest users of antibiotics in the developed world. We need to use this precious resource wisely, or we risk a future where a simple infection could kill you because there isn’t an effective antibiotic.

Read more:
The rise and fall of antibiotics. What would a post-antibiotic world look like?

When should antibiotics not be used?

Antibiotics only work for some infections. They work against bacteria but don’t treat infections caused by viruses.

Most community acquired infections, even those caused by bacteria, are likely to get better without antibiotics.

Taking an antibiotic when you don’t need it won’t make you feel better or recover sooner. But it can increase your chance of side effects like nausea and diarrhoea.

Some people think green mucus (or snot) is a sign of bacterial infection, requiring antibiotics. But it’s actually a sign your immune system is working to fight your infection.

If you wait, you’ll often get better

Clinical practice guidelines for antibiotic use aim to ensure patients receive antibiotics when appropriate. Yet 40% of GPs say they prescribe antibiotics to meet patient expectations. And one in five patients expect antibiotics for respiratory infections.

It can be difficult for doctors to decide if a patient has a viral respiratory infection or are at an early stage of serious bacterial infection, particularly in children. One option is to “watch and wait” and ask patients to return if there is clinical deterioration.

Read more:
No, antibiotics aren’t always needed. Here’s how GPs can avoid overprescribing

An alternative is to prescribe an antibiotic but advise the patient to not have it dispensed unless specific symptoms occur. This can reduce antibiotic use by 50% with no decrease in patient satisfaction, and no increase in complication rates.

Sometimes antibiotics are life-savers

For some people – particularly those with a weakened immune system – a simple infection can become more serious.

Patients with life-threatening suspected infections should receive an appropriate antibiotic immediately. This includes serious infections such as bacterial meningitis (infection of the membranes surrounding the brain)
and sepsis (which can lead to organ failure and even death).

When else might antibiotics be used?

Antibiotics are sometimes used to prevent infections in patients who are undergoing surgery and are at significant risk of infection, such as those undergoing bowel resection. These patients will generally receive a single dose before the procedure.

Antibiotics may also be given to patients undergoing chemotherapy for solid organ cancers (of the breast or prostate, for example), if they are at high risk of infection.

While most sore throats are caused by a virus and usually resolve on their own, some high risk patients with a bacterial strep A infection which can cause “scarlet fever” are given antibiotics to prevent a more serious infection like acute rheumatic fever.

How long is a course of antibiotics?

The recommended duration of a course of antibiotics depends on the type of infection, the likely cause, where it is in your body and how effective the antibiotics are at killing the bacteria.

In the past, courses were largely arbitrary and based on assumptions that antibiotics should be taken for long enough to eliminate the infecting bacteria.

More recent research does not support this and shorter courses are nearly always as effective as longer ones, particularly for community acquired respiratory infections.

For community acquired pneumonia, for example, research shows a three- to five-day course of antibiotics is at least as effective as a seven- to 14-day course.

The “take until all finished” approach is no longer recommended, as the longer the antibiotic exposure, the greater the chance the bacteria will develop resistance.

However, for infections where it is more difficult to eradicate the bacteria, such as tuberculosis and bone infections, a combination of antibiotics for many months is usually required.

What if your infection is drug-resistant?

You may have an antibiotic-resistant infection if you don’t get better after treatment with standard antibiotics.

Your clinician will collect samples for lab testing if they suspect you have antibiotic-resistant infection, based on your travel history (especially if you’ve been hospitalised in a country with high rates of antibiotic resistance) and if you’ve had a recent course of antibiotics that hasn’t cleared your infection.

Read more:
How do bacteria actually become resistant to antibiotics?

Antibiotic-resistant infections are managed by prescribing broad-spectrum antibiotics. These are like a sledgehammer, wiping out many different species of bacteria. (Narrow-spectrum antibiotics conversely can be thought of as a scalpel, more targeted and only affecting one or two kinds of bacteria.)

Broad-spectrum antibiotics are usually more expensive and come with more severe side effects.

What can patients do?

Decisions about antibiotic prescriptions should be made using shared decision aids, where patients and prescribers discuss the risks and benefits of antibiotics for conditions like a sore throat, middle ear infection or acute bronchitis.

Consider asking your doctor questions such as:

• do we need to test the cause of my infection?
• how long should my recovery take?
• what are the risks and benefits of me taking antibiotics?
• will the antibiotic affect my regular medicines?
• how should I take the antibiotic (how often, for how long)?

Other ways to fight antibiotic resistance include:

• returning leftover antibiotics to a pharmacy for safe disposal
• never consuming leftover antibiotics or giving them to anyone else
• not keeping prescription repeats for antibiotics “in case” you become sick again
• asking your doctor or pharmacist what you can do to feel better and ease your symptoms rather than asking for antibiotics.

Read the other articles in The Conversation’s series on the dangers of antibiotic resistance here. Listen to the podcast here.

Minyon Avent has received funding from the Metro North Hospital and Health Service, the Children’s Hospital Foundation Queensland, the Department of Health, MSD and the Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia.

Fiona Doukas has received funding from the Society of Hospital Pharmacists Australia and Hospira. She works for the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. She is part of an NGO called Hepatitis B Free. She works at two Sydney Hospitals.

Kristin Xenos works for the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care.

– ref. Do you really need antibiotics? Curbing our use helps fight drug-resistant bacteria – https://theconversation.com/do-you-really-need-antibiotics-curbing-our-use-helps-fight-drug-resistant-bacteria-217920

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alysia Blackham, Associate Professor in Law, The University of Melbourne

Alex Gutierrez worked for MUR Shipping and its predecessors for nearly 30 years. But in 2018 he was told, in line with company policy, it was time to set a retirement date.

Gutierrez was moved to a fixed-term contract, asked to train his replacement and ultimately resigned from his job. He then complained to the Australian Human Rights Commission and brought his claim to court, alleging age discrimination.

He won the case but he also lost.

The court found the company had discriminated. But Gutierrez’s damages – A$20,000 – dwarfed his legal costs, which amounted to about $150,000. The low damages also meant Gutierrez might have to pay MUR’s costs, as the damages were lower than a previous settlement offer.

Read more:
Workplace discrimination saps everyone’s motivation − even if it works in your favor

Gutierrez was the first person to win an age discrimination case in court in the roughly 20 years the federal Age Discrimination Act 2004 has existed and his situation explains why. You can win in court but still be hugely out of pocket for your costs and your employer’s costs. Few people take the risk.

That problem will be largely eliminated under a new government bill before the federal parliament. The bill would introduce a modified “equal access” cost protection provision for discrimination claims.

How changing the law would help

If the bill passes, claimants (workers) will generally recover their costs when their claim is successful. Respondents (employers) cannot generally recover their costs, except in limited circumstances. This could significantly increase the number of workers who are willing to sue over discrimination, of any kind.

Discrimination at work is common: in one survey conducted for the Australian Human Rights Commission, 63% of respondents said they had experienced age discrimination – being considered too young, or too old – in the last five years.

But few people challenge discrimination in the workplace. In my research on age discrimination law, I found people were often concerned about the costs of making a complaint. This includes financial costs, but also personal and emotional costs. People were also worried about the time it might take to resolve.

Read more:
20 years of tracking sexual harassment at work shows little improvement. But that could be about to change

Costs have been a particular problem under federal discrimination law.

Australia has discrimination laws at state, territory and federal level. Discrimination is also banned under industrial law – the federal Fair Work Act 2009. In every jurisdiction except Victoria, a complaint is first made to a statutory equality agency, which tries conciliation.

In many cases, this succeeds and most claims are resolved, though many are withdrawn.

Conciliation can save time and money

Conciliation is comparatively quick and cheap and lawyers are often not involved because you can represent yourself.

It is when a complaint isn’t resolved at conciliation that the costs increase. In the states and territories, and under the federal Fair Work Act 2009, parties mostly pay their own costs (that is, the cost of a lawyer).

It is different under federal discrimination law. In the federal courts, the losing party generally pays the winning party’s costs. This makes the stakes of a discrimination claim incredibly high: if your claim fails, you may not just have to pay your own legal bill, but also the other side’s legal bill.

The perils of costs were shown by Gutierrez’s case. In Gutierrez v MUR Shipping Australia Pty Limited, despite winning his claim of age discrimination, Gutierrez had to appeal in order to escape punishing legal costs.

Fortunately, Gutierrez had his appeal upheld; his damages were increased to $232,215, so he was no longer liable for the other side’s costs, and he had his appeal costs paid. But not every claim under the current law will be so lucky.

Prohibitive costs can stop people from taking action

Costs make challenging discrimination at work under federal law much more difficult. The human rights commission’s Respect@Work report found the risk of a costs order was a significant “disincentive” to bringing a claim under federal law.

The new bill might remove this disincentive by re-balancing the costs of claiming, enabling many more people to challenge discrimination in the federal courts.

We all have an interest in challenging discrimination and inequality. Research suggests more equal societies are happier and healthier overall. There is a good chance, too, many of us will experience some form of discrimination in our working lives.

Read more:
Every worker is entitled to be safe at work, but casual workers can fall through the cracks

Using discrimination law – making a complaint – can benefit us as individuals but can also force broader change. It can lead to policy change and it can force employers to take equality seriously.

Alysia Blackham has previously received grant funding from the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme (Project DE170100228) and the Victorian Commission for Gender Equality in the Public Sector. She is a member of the National Tertiary Education Union.

– ref. It can be hard to challenge workplace discrimination but the government’s new bill should make it easier – https://theconversation.com/it-can-be-hard-to-challenge-workplace-discrimination-but-the-governments-new-bill-should-make-it-easier-218359

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Louis Backstrom, PhD Student, University of St Andrews

Australia is one of the greatest places to see birds. We are fortunate to have more than 800 different bird species across the nation. At least 370 species are found nowhere else on Earth. They range from the iconic Australian magpie to the migratory short-tailed shearwater, the golden-shouldered parrot and the delightful superb fairy-wren.

Every day, thousands of birdwatchers are out spotting birds. Yet despite this enthusiasm, there’s a lot still to learn. More than 200 species are already listed as threatened with extinction but others may also be struggling and we just don’t know it yet.

In our new research, we used citizen science data to rank Australia’s birds in terms of how well they are known. We looked at how often birdwatchers spot each species and where they find birds, compared with how often they look, to determine rates of survey success. This quantifies how “well known” each species is.

We found a quarter of all Australian bird species can be considered well surveyed and adequately represented in our sightings databases. Many of these species have ranges that overlap with the densely populated regions of Australia. And some, like the southern cassowary and eastern rosella, are well known to most Australians. At the other end of the spectrum, some birds are very hard to find. Here’s Australia’s top 10 most elusive birds.

Read more:
Australia has more native bird species than almost anywhere else. What led to this explosion of diversity?

Taking advantage of citizen science

Before smartphones took off, birders would take notes in their private notebooks. They might share details of interesting sightings on internet forums or birdwatching clubs, but otherwise most knowledge was locked away from scientists and conservationists.

Now birders are increasingly taking advantage of easy-to-use birding apps such as eBird run by Cornell Lab of Ornithology in the United States, and Birdata from Birdlife Australia.

Collectively, these two platforms contain more than 40 million bird occurrence records spanning the entire country. That represents 3.8 million volunteer hours, or more than 430 years of effort.

Using these apps, birdwatchers and scientists alike can quickly collate bird records at a specific location.

As conservation scientists and ornithologists, we wanted to work out how to identify species we know very little about because poorly known species may be disappearing without us realising. While some researchers have already highlighted serious declines in poorly known species like the red goshawk, swift parrot and buff-breasted buttonquail, we recognised citizen science databases as a vast untapped source of knowledge for all of our native birds.

Australia’s most elusive birds

In our new study, published in the journal Emu (Austral Ornithology), we looked at millions of citizen science bird records. We focused on 581 terrestrial, native species.

We found a group of 56 “hide and seek” champions of Australia. These are the species which are seen least often by birdwatchers. Many of these species exhibit cryptic behaviour or are primarily nocturnal, which explains why they are not regularly seen by citizen scientists. However, we have serious concerns for a handful of these species.

The Coxen’s fig parrot emerges as a species of major concern. Birders recorded more than 300,000 surveys within this species’ range in the rainforests of south-east Queensland and northern New South Wales. Yet only four sightings of this tiny green parrot are documented in our combined citizen science database. None of these sightings were accompanied by photo or video evidence. In fact there has never been a photo of a live bird of this species. Our research suggests this species is well and truly “lost to science” and may already be extinct.

Another species of increasing concern is the buff-breasted buttonquail of far north Queensland. Only seven sightings of this bird are recorded in our combined dataset. Recent research suggests many reported sightings of this species may be mistaken. As with the Coxen’s fig parrot, no photo of a living buff-breasted buttonquail has ever been taken. Nevertheless, there is some hope for this elusive species, as its range has been less comprehensively surveyed by birdwatchers. There is now a concerted effort to find them.

Read more:
More than 200 Australian birds are now threatened with extinction – and climate change is the biggest danger

We can all play a role

Our analysis shows much of Australia is not frequented by birdwatchers, so birds in our least populated areas are still poorly known to contemporary science. Some of the most sparsely surveyed regions include Australia’s many deserts, and remote areas such as the Nullarbor Plain, Arnhem Land and western Cape York Peninsula.

Australians can help these elusive birds by heading outdoors with a smartphone and a pair of binoculars. Records of scarce birds will become increasingly important as species continue to decline. Even records of more common birds in backyards have value too. The more information we have, the more chance we can slow the rate of extinction and conserve our amazing birdlife.

Read more:
Our mysterious night parrot has terrible vision – but we discovered it might be able to hear like an owl

James Watson has received funding from the Australian Research Council, National Environmental Science Program, South Australia’s Department of Environment and Water as well as from Bush Heritage Australia, Queensland Conservation Council and Birdlife Australia. He serves on scientific committees for Bush Heritage Australia, climate start up Subak Australia, BirdLife Australia and has a long-term scientific relationship with the Wildlife Conservation Society. He serves on the Queensland Government’s Land Restoration Fund’s Investment Panel as the Deputy Chair.

Louis Backstrom 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. We analysed citizen science to find Australia’s top 10 most elusive birds – https://theconversation.com/we-analysed-citizen-science-to-find-australias-top-10-most-elusive-birds-216645

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christian Eva, PhD Candidate and Research Officer, Australian National University

We are seeing more Indigenous businesses in Australia. This is important, given these businesses produce social impact, support Indigenous economic self-determination and maintain strong levels of Indigenous employment.

When we hear about Indigenous knowledge businesses, we often think about how this knowledge is presented within a business’ product or service, such as through art, tourism or clothing. What is less understood is the role Indigenous knowledge can play in the organisation and culture of a business, and the profound impact this can have.

There is still a stark gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous employment on a national level. It doesn’t help when non-Indigenous-owned businesses continue to struggle with hiring and retaining Indigenous employees.

But for Indigenous-owned businesses across locations and industries, employment remains strong. Research shows 36% of employees within these businesses are Indigenous.

In our new research, we interviewed Indigenous business owners, managers and employees to explore how these businesses support strong levels of Indigenous employment. Our findings show a need for all Australian businesses to learn best practices from Indigenous businesses.

Read more:
Indigenous-owned businesses are key to closing the employment gap

What are Indigenous businesses doing differently?

Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing can bring a holistic approach to business management and organisational culture. In our research, participants discussed how Indigenous businesses maintained a non-hierarchical approach to their business structure. This structure incorporated a diversity of perspectives, which better informed tailored and effective policy and practices.

This meant the specific perspectives, values, strengths and circumstances of a workforce could be reflected by the business. This goes against the one-size-fits-all approach to Indigenous employment and recruitment policies that non-Indigenous businesses often implement.

To be formally recognised as an Indigenous-owned business, a business must be at least 50% owned by Indigenous people.

Most Indigenous businesses listed in Supply Nation, a national database of Indigenous businesses, are 100% Indigenous-owned. As such, these Indigenous businesses have Indigenous people in leadership roles. This is in contrast to non-Indigenous businesses that struggle with this.

Our research participants described Indigenous governance within businesses as collaborative, responsive and relational. Through this, managers can be better attuned to their employees’ needs, values and circumstances.

This knowledge builds a foundation to inform specific workplace practices. For example, workplace flexibility is often provided within Indigenous businesses, but how it is provided varies on the specific contexts of the workforce.

Cultural competence is essential

Cultural competence refers to the ability to work effectively and respectfully with people of other cultures.

Cultural competence in the workplace is often considered as education. Our research participants described cultural competence as an action embedded into the practices of their organisations. They did not view cultural competence as a nicety, but an occupational health and safety necessity.

For example, Indigenous businesses are not only aware of cultural obligations or individual circumstances that impact their employees. These businesses often accommodate, support and draw on these things to inform their business practices. Indigenous employees said this meant their businesses understood, valued and supported them.

Employees also detailed stark differences in experiences of racism between Indigenous businesses and their former workplaces. Indigenous business owners and managers were more attuned to their experiences and more committed to addressing and eliminating racism in the workplace.

These are just some of the ways Indigenous businesses can provide a model for rethinking the organisational cultures of non-Indigenous businesses.

Read more:
Closing the First Nations employment gap will take 100 years

Learning from Indigenous businesses

Many organisations across Australia implement their own policies to increase Indigenous employment. Our research participants said many of these policies are heavily focused on “traditional” recruitment practices and policies.

This falsely presumes the supply of jobs is the sole problem. There are many factors affecting Indigenous people’s employment, which differ across the country. Approaches to Indigenous employment often don’t reflect this.

Indigenous businesses demonstrate there is no singular recruitment strategy, Reconciliation Action Plan, apprenticeship program or cultural competence training to improve levels of Indigenous employment.

For example, some Indigenous-owned businesses progress Indigenous employees from entry-level positions to management because they recognise the commitment, logistics and benefits of doing so. Simply creating an entry-level position where an employee does not progress cannot achieve the same outcome.

Strong Indigenous employment is not limited to Indigenous businesses in certain industries. This is why tailored practices are needed that reflect a diverse Indigenous workforce across the country.

Restructuring organisational culture in Australian businesses isn’t only beneficial for Indigenous peoples. Values-driven workplaces invest in employees, support their cultures, maintain a safe work environment and create opportunities for those often excluded from employment. This benefits everyone.

Non-Indigenous institutions can learn from Indigenous businesses, not just to become better employers of Indigenous people, but to be better employers for all.

This article is based on research undertaken at the Australian National University by Christian Eva, Jessica Harris, Kerry Bodle, Dennis Foley, Nina Nichols and Boyd Hunter.

The research project that this article reports on is subject to funding from the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA)

Kerry Bodle works for Griffith University. The research project that this article reports on is subject to funding from the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA)

– ref. New research shows how Indigenous-owned businesses are creating better outcomes for their employees – https://theconversation.com/new-research-shows-how-indigenous-owned-businesses-are-creating-better-outcomes-for-their-employees-218246

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kathleen McGuire, Lecturer, Australian Catholic University

Who could have imagined how quickly we would return to pre-COVID routines?

Here we are again, juggling year-end stressors, wondering how we can squeeze everything in. If you have young children, you will likely also have several school concerts to mark the end of the year.

While we want to support our loved ones’ extracurricular activities, perhaps you secretly curse sitting through yet another performance or carols sing-along.

I am a researcher in music education and a conductor of community ensembles. Are these events important? Do they matter at all?

Why music matters

The first thing to remember is music really matters. Apart from the joy of making music and gaining a skill, there are many advantages for kids learning music.

Australian music educator and researcher Anita Collins has studied how learning music helps children’s cognitive development.

As she explains, neuroscientists have found the brains of people who studied music look different from those who did not have music lessons:

music education works three areas of the brain at once: the motor, visual and auditory cortices. If we think about it, it’s like a full-brain workout; it’s like our legs, our arms and our torso doing an exercise at the same time. Music education is exercise for the brain.

The long-term impact on the brain is also startling. Research suggests children who undergo music training have better verbal memory, second language pronunciation accuracy, reading ability, reasoning skills, auditory, motor and sensorimotor integration, and executive function.

Other research, surveying more than 112,000 students, revealed those who learn music were more successful than non-musicians across maths, English and science.

Showcasing and building skills

But these concerts also have a broader purpose.

At school concerts, students showcase their learning as individuals and in ensembles. This can motivate a child to practise and learn their instrument. The performance itself can build a student’s confidence and skills in other areas such as public speaking, presentation and managing nerves.

When they play in groups, students can often perform better than expected. As a music director of many school (and community) productions, I can attest that something magical happens in the couple of weeks leading to a performance.

Read more:
Learning music early can make your child a better reader

A sense of belonging

We know people who play in music ensembles identify a feeling of belonging as a benefit of playing with others.

This feeling can be amplified in year-end concerts where a school community and families gather together. Research shows feeling connected to others or a sense of belonging can reduce feelings of loneliness, alienation or hopelessness.

Connection beyond schools

In my broader work, I have also seen how end-of-year concerts can provide important connection and build community at a time of year many find really difficult.

For those who have lost or are separated from loved ones, the festive season can be very stressful and lonely.

But community music can provide a broader social purpose and support network. While conducting the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus, I noticed some singers, who were estranged from their families, struggled each December. To help, we filled our schedule with appearances. Being together and connected lifted everyone’s spirits.

In the post-pandemic era, en masse community music-making has exploded with the Pub Choir and Spooky Men’s Chorale attracting thousands of participants. People of all ages buy tickets or volunteer to meet up and learn songs in low-pressure settings such as pubs, sports arenas or outdoors. Here, social and wellbeing factors are emphasised, rather than the quality or expertise of the performance.

Read more:
Before you let your child quit music lessons, try these 5 things

More than just a concert

So yes, year-end concerts are another thing to do at an already busy time of year. But they are so important. They can enhance students’ learning and wellbeing and unite communities.

They are also hopefully fun and rewarding.

So let’s vote with our bums-on-seats. Knowing the essential benefits of music to children and society, let’s show up and clap and cheer. Better yet, participate! Your life will be the richer for it.

Kathleen McGuire conducts various community choirs, including the Tudor Choristers. She is a teacher educator at Australian Catholic University, specialising in Secondary Music Education.

– ref. Hallelujah, it’s school concert season. A music researcher explains why these performances are so important – https://theconversation.com/hallelujah-its-school-concert-season-a-music-researcher-explains-why-these-performances-are-so-important-218240

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ramon Lobato, Associate Professor, School of Media and Communication, RMIT University

Communications Minister Michelle Rowland has today introduced legislation that will require smart TV manufacturers to ensure we can easily find local broadcasters – including ABC, SBS and the commercial networks – when we turn on our TVs.

This “prominence” law will require TV manufacturers to preinstall iview, SBS On Demand, 9Now, 7Plus and 10Play on all smart TVs sold in Australia. It will also ensure these apps are not unfairly hidden in the user interface compared to major players like Netflix and Disney+.

This prominence law was recently the subject of heated discussion between the free-to-air networks, TV platforms, manufacturers and Foxtel – a pseudo-debate driven by industry scare campaigns.

But there is little reason for users to be alarmed.

The government’s proposed smart TV law is a light-touch change that will support our local content and public-service broadcasting ecosystem without compromising the user experience.

Smart TVs need smart regulation

Since 2019, our team at RMIT has been studying smart TVs as part of an Australian Research Council project. During this time we observed significant changes in the smart TV marketplace that point to the need for careful regulation.

Major TV manufacturers have reinvented themselves as advertising platforms. To generate ad revenue, they charge apps fees for prominence: advertising dollars determine the order in which streaming apps appear when you turn on your smart TV.

Samsung, LG, Hisense and TCL have also launched their own FAST (Free Advertiser Supported TV) channels, which are actively promoted on the TV home screen.

Read more:
Netflix and other streaming giants pay to get branded buttons on your remote control. Local TV services can’t afford to keep up

One consequence of these commercial arrangements is reduced visibility of local apps and services. The smart TV testing we conducted at RMIT found local services are much less prominent and less frequently preinstalled than Netflix, Disney+ and other US-based services that do global prominence deals with manufacturers.

Why is this a problem? Our research found a third of Australian users do not know how to download smart TV apps. For these users, the smart TV is a preconfigured device: if local apps aren’t on the TV when it comes home from the store they will likely never be installed.

In other words, manufacturers rely on the inertia bias of users to opt for prominently positioned advertiser apps.

Within this environment, local streamers and other smaller players are structurally disadvantaged. In particular, our public-service broadcasters – who do not have the resources to pay for prominence in the attention economy of the smart TV interface – would face a dim future.

How will the prominence law work?

The key feature of the new law, which will take effect mid-2025, is a “must carry” requirement. While ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority) will clarify the detail of the rules in coming months, the government’s intention is to require manufacturers of smart TVs and connected TV devices sold in Australia to preinstall the streaming apps of Australian free-to-air channels.

These apps need to have their own home screen shortcuts, which must be of equivalent size and format to those of other streaming services. This will prevent manufacturers trying to bury these shortcuts in favour of paying advertisers’ apps.

However, the order of tiles is left up to the manufacturer – and, importantly, users are free to delete or move the tiles as they wish. So ultimate control of the device still rests with the user.

Our research found a clear majority (around 59%) of Australian adults support compulsory preinstallation of broadcaster apps on new smart TVs. Only around 15% of users said they disagreed with compulsory preinstallation. The rest were neutral or unsure.

This suggests any user backlash against the proposed changes will be modest.

What about TV search and recommendations?

While the free-to-air broadcasters will be pleased with this outcome, they have not received everything they asked for.

The broadcast lobby pushed hard for a must-promote rule, which would have placed their content first in the recommendations and search results.

The government has rejected this idea in favour of the more modest must-carry rule. The order of results in search and recommendations will be left up to the manufacturer, as is presently the case.

The long view

Some may argue any intervention in smart TVs is an overreach by government. But the reality is that almost every country regulates television for cultural, industry and security reasons. Many national regulators are considering prominence rules similar to what has been introduced in Australia today.

Smart TVs – as the new distribution platform for television content – clearly need to be moved into the scope of regulation over the long term.

In doing this, government must balance the competing priorities of user autonomy, local industry needs, and existing market arrangements.

The proposed prominence is a step in the right direction – but only the first step in what will surely be a complex process of media reform.

Read more:
Apple, Disney and Netflix’s streaming battle isn’t winner-take-all

Ramon Lobato receives funding from the Australian Research Council (FT190100144).

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

– ref. The government has announced plans to regulate smart TV home screens: what the new rules mean for you – https://theconversation.com/the-government-has-announced-plans-to-regulate-smart-tv-home-screens-what-the-new-rules-mean-for-you-218791

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lucas Walsh, Professor and Director of the Centre for Youth Policy and Education Practice, Monash University

Many of us were anxious and fearful during the COVID pandemic, but we’ve probably started to feel a lot better since lockdowns have stopped and life looks more like it did previously.

But new data shows that hasn’t been the case for Australia’s young people.

Our wide-ranging survey of youth across the country reveals many young people fear they’ll never be able to own a home and will end up worse-off than their parents.

Read more:
Listening to youth voices was missing in the COVID-19 pandemic response

Affordable housing is their top concern

Data from the 2023 Australian Youth Barometer, which surveyed 571 young Australians aged 18-24 and interviewed 30 more, highlight young people’s interconnected and confronting attitudes about their futures.

In this third iteration of the annual survey, we expected improvements in young people’s attitudes following the worst of the pandemic.

But the pressures have intensified following increases to costs of living and multiple disruptions to young lives, leading to anxieties about their future.

The clear majority of young people (70%) said affordable housing was their top concern (15% increase since last year), while 51% nominated employment opportunities (up 9%) as the second.

Concern about affordable housing is unsurprising. The fear is real.

Aside from skyrocketing rents and house prices, many young people face the prospect of having nowhere to live. According to 2021 Census data, almost one in four of all people experiencing homelessness (23%) are 12 to 24 years of age.

A 23-year-old woman from the ACT, who’s living in a caravan she doesn’t own, told us housing was her biggest concern:

I’m very lucky to have it [the caravan]. And if it gets taken away from me, I’m back out on the streets again […] I need to be able to shower, have a place to get ready, eat, all that. That’s really the only concern in life.

Seeing a pathway to affordable accommodation is all the more challenging given young people’s current circumstances.

Some 90% of those surveyed experienced financial difficulties in the past year, a continuation of last year’s trend. Around one in five (21%) experienced food insecurity.

Surviving now is a concern, let alone affording a roof tomorrow. Just 35% of young people feel confident that they’ll be able to afford a place to live in the next year.

Feeling unprepared for the future

Only 52% of young people we surveyed feel their education has prepared them for the future

Three issues arise here. First, some young people are critical of education in their schools and post school institutions.

One 23-year-old woman from South Australia said:

The learning system in Australia is absolutely appalling is what I have to say about it. It is so behind, it is so backdated, it has not kept up with the times, their learning ways are just inaccurate, and a waste of everyone’s time […] It wasn’t catered to what would be best for learning in the classroom, it was just, ‘This is what the system is, that’s what we’re doing’.

Second, there is a growing awareness that in a competitive labour market, greater qualifications might not lead to desirable, secure jobs.

The third is understanding what is required to get that desirable work. Upheavals to the workforce, including technological developments such as automation, have led to questioning what skills, knowledge and experience are required for job futures that are decreasingly knowable.

Other factors such as climate change (the third top issue requiring immediate action) and geopolitical insecurity amplify uncertainty about the future.

Read more:
Yes, young people are concerned about climate change. But it can drive them to take action

Challenges to youth mental health

The challenges outlined above intersect. One 20-year-old woman from Queensland told us:

I’m just worried that it’ll be harder for me to get a job from my course or whatever, or that if stuff like cost of living and everything keeps going up, no matter if I get a job, I wouldn’t be able to, like, stay on top of that, as well.

Only 52% of young Australians think that it is likely or extremely likely that they will achieve financial security in the future.

More young Australians think they will be financially worse off than their parents (from 53% in 2022 to 61% in 2023). Most (97%) felt worried, anxious or pessimistic in the past year (an increase of 14% on last year’s data).

Read more:
How to teach children about climate change, inspire hope and take action to change the future

Just over a quarter (26%) characterised their mental health as poor or very poor (up 8% on last year). Nearly one in four (24%) received mental health care in the past year.

Young people see their health and wellbeing as interconnected to other factors, such as affordable accommodation, jobs and food security. A 24-year-old man from New South Wales said that:

Financial independence is kind of a healthy thing. I think that knowing that you could afford your rent, knowing that you can afford food […] knowing that you have a roof over your head is something that I measure for healthiness.

Attitudes that are here to stay?

Conditions for young people typically deteriorate during economic downturns. The question is whether the trends above reflect a tremor or a quake.

We saw during previous recessions how young people were disproportionately and negatively affected compared to older age groups. That tremor is already visible, despite relatively good employment figures in recent years (which insufficiently capture the quality, security and desirability of current employment). Even so, youth unemployment rate has increased to 8.7%.

So are these attitudes likely to remain?

A youthquake is typically defined as a marked shift in cultural norms brought about by changing values, tastes and attitudes of young people. Such shifts are associated with wider social, economic and political seismic upheavals.

Our findings suggest that conditions for the next youthquake might have begun.

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

– ref. What are young Australians most worried about? Finding affordable housing, they told us – https://theconversation.com/what-are-young-australians-most-worried-about-finding-affordable-housing-they-told-us-218426

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kylie Fraser, PhD Candidate, Deakin University

Meal kits are a billion dollar industry selling the promise of convenience while cooking healthy meals at home. Delivering ingredients and step-by-step recipes to the doorstep, meal kits reduce the time and energy to plan, shop and prepare meals. But do they deliver on their promise of health?

While people may think meal kits are healthy, our new research suggests this varies.

The range and quantity of vegetables in a meal is a great indicator of how healthy it is. So we assessed the vegetable content of recipes from six Australian meal kit providers. We found when it comes to nutrition, whether it be budget friendly or high-end, it’s more about the meals you choose and less about what company to use.

Read more:
Are we overthinking family meals? 5 realistic tips to ease the pressure

What we found

For our new research we purchased a one-week subscription to nine Australian-based meal kit companies to access weekly recipes. Six companies provided their full week of recipes. The vegetable content of these recipes were analysed.

Of the 179 meals analysed, we found recipes use a median of three different types of vegetables and provide a median of 2.5 serves of vegetables per person. At first glance, this looks promising. But on closer inspection, the number and types of vegetables vary a lot.

Some recipes provide less than one serve and others more than seven serves of vegetables per person. Not surprisingly, vegetarian recipes provide more vegetables, but almost one-third of these still include less than two vegetables serves per person.

The variety of vegetables included also varies, with recipes providing between one and six different types of vegetables per meal.

What’s for dinner?

Dinner is the time when we’re most likely to eat vegetables, so low levels of vegetables in meal kit meals matter.

Eating vegetables is known to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, obesity and some cancers. What’s more, food preferences and eating habits are learned in childhood. So being exposed to a wide range of vegetables from a young age is important for future health.

But few Australians eat enough vegetables. According to the Australian Dietary Guidelines, children should be eating 2.5 to five serves and adults at least five serves of vegetables each day. Currently children eat an average of less than two serves and adults less than three serves of vegetables per day.

So there’s room for improvement and meal kits may help.

Read more:
Trying to spend less on food? Following the dietary guidelines might save you $160 a fortnight

Meal kits have advantages

The good news is that using meal kits can be a healthier alternative to ordering takeaway delivery or prepared ready-to-heat meals. When we cook at home, we have much more say in what’s for dinner. We can use healthier cooking methods (think grilled rather than deep-fried), healthier fats (olive or canola oil) and add in plenty of extra veg. All make for better nutrition and better health.

Meal kits might also build your cooking confidence to cook more “from scratch” and to learn about new ingredients, flavour combinations and time-saving techniques. Cooking with meal kits may even cut household food waste by providing the exact amount of ingredients needed to prepare a meal.

Read more:
How to save $50 off your food bill and still eat tasty, nutritious meals

5 tips for getting the most out of meal kits

1) Select some vegetarian options

This way you can have meat-free dinners during the week. Vegetarian recipes are more likely to help you meet daily vegetable intakes and to eat a wider variety of vegetables

2) Choose recipes with at least 3 different types of vegetables

Eating a range of vegetable types and colours will help maximise nutritional benefits. Research shows eating a variety of vegetables at dinner can increase our vegetable intakes. Exposing children to “eating the rainbow” can also increase their willingness to eat vegetables

3) Choose recipes with unfamiliar or new vegetables

Research tells us that learning to prepare and cook vegetables can increase cooking confidence and skills. This can influence our willingness to buy a wider range of vegetables. Worried about fussy eaters? Add your child’s favourite cooked or raw veg to their plate (one familiar, one new)

4) Look for ways to add more vegetables

It’s OK to tweak the recipe! Adding vegetables from your fridge – maybe some lettuce on the side or chopped up carrots to a cooked sauce – to meal kit meals will help reduce household food waste. You can also extend meals by adding a can of lentils or beans to mince-based meals, or frozen peas or chickpeas to a curry. This adds valuable fibre to the meal and also bulks up these recipes, giving you leftovers for the next day

5) Use less

While vegetables are important for health, it’s also important to consider the salt, fat and energy content of meal kit recipes. When using meal kits, you can use less seasoning, spice mix or stock cubes and add more herbs instead.

Alison Spence is affiliated with Dietitians Australia.

Karen Campbell receives funding from NHMRC

Penny Love is currently a named investigator on a NHMRC CRE Grant (2022-2026) and Norwegian Research Council (2021-2025) funded project. She is affiliated with Dietitians Australia (DA), the World Public Health Nutrition Association (WPHNA), and the International Society for Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity (ISBNPA).

Kylie Fraser 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. Meal kits are booming – but how do they stack up nutritionally? – https://theconversation.com/meal-kits-are-booming-but-how-do-they-stack-up-nutritionally-218339

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Megan Nash, Casual Academic, School of Art, Communication and English, University of Sydney

In a 1950 essay on Charles Dickens, literary critic Dorothy Van Ghent suggested the author had an unusual way of writing about the human form.

She identified his “habit of seeing the parts of the body as separable and manipulable” in a descriptive technique of “surgical division”.

While these surgical divisions were often figurative, there were plenty of literal examples in Dickens as well. The most notable sees one of his characters searching after his own amputated leg in the seedy anatomical emporiums of London.

The new Australian series The Artful Dodger pursues this surgical fascination in a reworking of Oliver Twist. Its irreverent intentions are clearly marked by its substitution of the cheeky but lovable Dodger for the too-good Oliver, who’s summarily dismissed in the first episode as so much “wet lettuce”.

Casual brutality

It is 15 years after the end of the novel and the Dodger – Jack Dawkins (Thomas Brodie-Sangster) – is in a fictional Australian town where he’s turned his pickpocket’s dexterity to the purpose of surgery.

Jack has fallen into an enormous gambling debt to a local crook (Tim Minchin), who is threatening to collect by taking off one of his precious hands.

At the same time, Jack’s old boss and bad father figure, Fagin (David Thewlis), arrives in town on a convict ship. Thrown into the mix in a meet-cute that takes place over a heinous compound fracture is the Lady Belle Fox (Maia Mitchell), who intends on becoming the colony’s first female surgeon.

In the vein of a show like Dickensian, the series’ writers stitch together miscellaneous bits and pieces from the author’s canon.

They borrow the Dodger’s naval surgeon training from Bleak House and its kindly love interest, Mr Woodcourt. Rather than hanging, Fagin meets the fate of the transported convict Magwitch of Great Expectations. And in one of the show’s more creative additions, the hospital’s artificial limb maker (Luke Carroll) evokes Dombey and Son’s charming duo Solomon Gills and Captain Cuttle. His complex mechanical arms and wooden legs recall both the scientific instruments manufactured by Gills and the prosthetic hook the captain uses in place of his hand.

Playing up the spectacle, speed and savagery of surgery before anaesthesia and antibiotics, the series presents its public operations as something between pantomime and blood sport. But despite all the viscera and violence, it refuses to double down on Dickensian misery, largely playing its most gruesome elements for laughs.

Read more:
Great Expectations by Charles Dickens: class prejudices, the convict stain and a corpse-bride

Trading in bleakness

Bleakness has long been the stock-in-trade of Dickens adaptations. But in the midst of all their Dickensian fog, many forget the fun of the author’s books.

This isn’t true of The Artful Dodger. Taking notes from the recent success of pop period dramas like Bridgerton, the new adaptation is loud, energetic and refreshingly bright. It’s full of Australian sun and sound, each episode starting off with an Aussie rock track from the likes of Spiderbait and The Cruel Sea.

While these stylistic revisions reinvigorate, the show’s jokes and subplots are more hit and miss. Caricature has always been key to Dickens’s fiction, but the sheer silliness of Lady Belle’s unwanted suitor and her domesticated sister don’t serve the series well. Despite being a show that itself centres a minor figure, it fails to give some of its best side characters room to breathe.

The most significant issue facing the series is its central romance. The key erotic scenes between the Dodger and Lady Belle just don’t crackle as intended.

There’s frankly much more on-screen chemistry between Brodie-Sangster and Thewlis, so the show is at its best when the Dodger and Fagin are keeping company. The pair skilfully tap into the troubling mix of affection and abuse in this relationship, with Fagin longing for a past that to Jack is the stuff of traumatic childhood memory.

Welcome revisionism

Given the enormous quantity of screen adaptations of Dickens, do we really need another reworking of the old Victorian?

In a recent essay, On Killing Charles Dickens, Zadie Smith discusses her complicated feelings towards the author. With self-conscious hyperbole, Smith recounts how she went so far as to flee London to avoid writing her new historical novel and, in particular, to avoid everything Dickens.

Long story short: she couldn’t do it.

Returning home to work on The Fraud, she found him an irrepressible presence haunting both her city and her story. And so, she set about killing off the famous author by writing his death into the pages of her book.

As Smith aptly concludes, Dickens’ (sometimes irritating) ubiquity doesn’t mean he should be handed the last word.

If Smith’s strategy was to kill Dickens, we might say The Artful Dodger’s is to perform hacksaw surgery on him. The series slices and amputates and stitches back together with a welcome revisionism.

If the result is a little uneven, it works well enough. As Victorian surgeons knew, sometimes you have to be brutal to keep things alive.

The Artful Dodger is on Disney+ from today.

Read more:
The Fraud by Zadie Smith review: a dazzling depiction of Victorian colonial England

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

– ref. Spectacle, speed and savagery: Disney’s The Artful Dodger comes down under for a pop period spin – https://theconversation.com/spectacle-speed-and-savagery-disneys-the-artful-dodger-comes-down-under-for-a-pop-period-spin-218242

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Masoumeh Sara Rahmani, Lecturer Study of Religion, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Religious beliefs among Māori have shifted significantly over the past two decades.

The number of Māori identifying as having “no religion” in the census between 2006 and 2018 increased from 36.5% to 53.5%. Māori affiliation with Christianity has fallen from 46.2% to 29.9%.

Are Māori simply rejecting Christianity? Or are they rejecting all supernatural phenomena, including traditional Māori beliefs?

Our research examined the apparent rise of Māori atheism. We found the colonial history of religion was a driving force for Māori who identified as atheist or having no religion.

We also found Māori atheists said they experienced discrimination for their lack of religion, and their “Māoriness” was questioned within their community or work.

The “no religion” category in the census captures a range of worldviews, including people who say they are spiritual but not religious; agnostics – people who are uncertain about the existence of a higher power; and atheists – people who do not believe in the existence of god(s).

Multiple reasons for leaving religion

As part of our research, we spoke with 16 Māori aged 30 to 65 who did not believe in god(s). All but four were raised in religious households.

Some emphasised lingering intellectual doubts as the reason for rejecting religion. As one participant explained:

If I’m being intellectually honest and consistent, I should put all my beliefs on the table and I should examine all of them. I shouldn’t keep some safe from scrutiny just because they’re mine, they’re Māori.

Read more:
When is being Māori not enough? Why Māori politics are always personal

Others said they left for moral reasons. These included a perceived hypocrisy among churchgoers, immorality of religious leaders, and the role of religion in spreading harmful views about women and LGBTQ people.

Most participants, however, framed their rejection of religion as an expression of resistance against the colonial systems of belief.

In fact, participants’ ideas of “religion” were primarily shaped by their experience of various Christian denominations and their knowledge of the Christian missionary history in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Accordingly, most of the people we spoke with viewed religion as a colonial tool for the oppression of Māori people and culture. Another participant noted:

I’ve only become very angry against religion over the last five years after I found out what they’ve done to my culture […] We’ve lost a lot of our culture from the Anglican missionary societies […] Removing one’s culture and then assimilating them into religion is […] like a double-edged sword of colonisation.

Some interviewees spoke about how Christianity had been used as a way to exert cultural superiority, labelling Indigenous beliefs and practices as “evil”.

Others argued that the God of the Bible is not indigenous to Aotearoa, but rather a creation myth from the Middle East and therefore inherently irrelevant to Māori people.

Dissatisfaction entwined with colonial history

The interview responses show Māori rejection of Christianity seems to be largely aligned with anti-colonial movements, Māori protest movements, and the decolonial feminist movement.

For most participants, “atheism” equated to non-belief in the existence of God and the rejection of monotheistic traditions, specifically Christianity.

In other words, being a Māori atheist did not necessarily mean the rejection of all supernatural beliefs.

While some individuals were confident in their non-belief in all supernatural phenomena, others were either ambivalent towards certain wairua (spirit, soul) beliefs or emphasised the need to understand Māori beliefs as metaphors for a way to live.

What it means to be Māori is changing

The emergence of “non-religious” as a growing sector of the Māori community poses both challenges and opportunities to the ideas of what it is to be Māori and the development of New Zealand.

If we see ourselves progressing as a “bi-cultural” Treaty/Tiriti-enhanced nation, it stands to reason we need to be able to identify the two cultures clearly.

But there is the opportunity to develop more quickly without identity “membership” based on religious affiliation or non-affiliation.

Within the community, there is a spectrum of views about the significance of religious or spiritual beliefs to Māori identity.

On one end, there are those who ask whether it is even possible to be Māori if one is not “religious” or “spiritual” in some shape or form.

At the other, there are those who distinguish between culture and religion, and argue Māori development can be more easily enhanced if one is freed from the constraints of religious belief.

Read more:
Kiwiana is past its use-by date. Is it time to re-imagine our symbols of national identity?

The former speaks to a “traditional” and conservative view of being Māori; the latter to notions of changes in cultures, the impact of the colonial experience, modernisation, and different ways of being Māori.

Our research highlights the diversity of non-religion among Māori, which is neither reflected in representations of Māori (for instance in education), nor considered in Māori-Crown relations.

While there is little difficulty in identifying the Crown in Treaty negotiations, the emerging “no religion” sector of the Māori community adds new layers of complexity to who the Treaty partner is. Importantly, is being spiritual or religious a prerequisite to being a Māori?

This research was supported by Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington’s Faculty Research Establishment Grant and the Explaining Atheism research grant awarded by Queen’s University Belfast with funding from the John Templeton Foundation.

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

– ref. Māori atheism on the rise: the legacy of colonisation is driving a decline in traditional Christian beliefs – https://theconversation.com/maori-atheism-on-the-rise-the-legacy-of-colonisation-is-driving-a-decline-in-traditional-christian-beliefs-214701

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Megan Nash, Casual Academic, School of Art, Communication and English, University of Sydney

In a 1950 essay on Charles Dickens, literary critic Dorothy Van Ghent suggested the author had an unusual way of writing about the human form.

She identified his “habit of seeing the parts of the body as separable and manipulable” in a descriptive technique of “surgical division”.

While these surgical divisions were often figurative, there were plenty of literal examples in Dickens as well. The most notable sees one of his characters searching after his own amputated leg in the seedy anatomical emporiums of London.

The new Australian series The Artful Dodger pursues this surgical fascination in a reworking of Oliver Twist. Its irreverent intentions are clearly marked by its substitution of the cheeky but lovable Dodger for the too-good Oliver, who’s summarily dismissed in the first episode as so much “wet lettuce”.

Casual brutality

It is 15 years after the end of the novel and the Dodger – Jack Dawkins (Thomas Brodie-Sangster) – is in a fictional Australian town where he’s turned his pickpocket’s dexterity to the purpose of surgery.

Jack has fallen into an enormous gambling debt to a local crook (Tim Minchin), who is threatening to collect by taking off one of his precious hands.

At the same time, Jack’s old boss and bad father figure, Fagin (David Thewlis), arrives in town on a convict ship. Thrown into the mix in a meet-cute that takes place over a heinous compound fracture is the Lady Belle Fox (Maia Mitchell), who intends on becoming the colony’s first female surgeon.

In the vein of a show like Dickensian, the series’ writers stitch together miscellaneous bits and pieces from the author’s canon.

They borrow the Dodger’s naval surgeon training from Bleak House and its kindly love interest, Mr Woodcourt. Rather than hanging, Fagin meets the fate of the transported convict Magwitch of Great Expectations. And in one of the show’s more creative additions, the hospital’s artificial limb maker (Luke Carroll) evokes Dombey and Son’s charming duo Solomon Gills and Captain Cuttle. His complex mechanical arms and wooden legs recall both the scientific instruments manufactured by Gills and the prosthetic hook the captain uses in place of his hand.

Playing up the spectacle, speed and savagery of surgery before anaesthesia and antibiotics, the series presents its public operations as something between pantomime and blood sport. But despite all the viscera and violence, it refuses to double down on Dickensian misery, largely playing its most gruesome elements for laughs.

Read more:
Great Expectations by Charles Dickens: class prejudices, the convict stain and a corpse-bride

Trading in bleakness

Bleakness has long been the stock-in-trade of Dickens adaptations. But in the midst of all their Dickensian fog, many forget the fun of the author’s books.

This isn’t true of The Artful Dodger. Taking notes from the recent success of pop period dramas like Bridgerton, the new adaptation is loud, energetic and refreshingly bright. It’s full of Australian sun and sound, each episode starting off with an Aussie rock track from the likes of Spiderbait and The Cruel Sea.

While these stylistic revisions reinvigorate, the show’s jokes and subplots are more hit and miss. Caricature has always been key to Dickens’s fiction, but the sheer silliness of Lady Belle’s unwanted suitor and her domesticated sister don’t serve the series well. Despite being a show that itself centres a minor figure, it fails to give some of its best side characters room to breathe.

The most significant issue facing the series is its central romance. The key erotic scenes between the Dodger and Lady Belle just don’t crackle as intended.

There’s frankly much more on-screen chemistry between Brodie-Sangster and Thewlis, so the show is at its best when the Dodger and Fagin are keeping company. The pair skilfully tap into the troubling mix of affection and abuse in this relationship, with Fagin longing for a past that to Jack is the stuff of traumatic childhood memory.

Welcome revisionism

Given the enormous quantity of screen adaptations of Dickens, do we really need another reworking of the old Victorian?

In a recent essay, On Killing Charles Dickens, Zadie Smith discusses her complicated feelings towards the author. With self-conscious hyperbole, Smith recounts how she went so far as to flee London to avoid writing her new historical novel and, in particular, to avoid everything Dickens.

Long story short: she couldn’t do it.

Returning home to work on The Fraud, she found him an irrepressible presence haunting both her city and her story. And so, she set about killing off the famous author by writing his death into the pages of her book.

As Smith aptly concludes, Dickens’ (sometimes irritating) ubiquity doesn’t mean he should be handed the last word.

If Smith’s strategy was to kill Dickens, we might say The Artful Dodger’s is to perform hacksaw surgery on him. The series slices and amputates and stitches back together with a welcome revisionism.

If the result is a little uneven, it works well enough. As Victorian surgeons knew, sometimes you have to be brutal to keep things alive.

The Artful Dodger is on Disney+ from today.

Read more:
The Fraud by Zadie Smith review: a dazzling depiction of Victorian colonial England

Megan Nash 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. Spectacle, speed and savageness: Disney’s The Artful Dodger comes down under for a pop period spin – https://theconversation.com/spectacle-speed-and-savageness-disneys-the-artful-dodger-comes-down-under-for-a-pop-period-spin-218242

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Ellis, Medical Doctor. Interdisciplinary Lecturer. PhD Student, History and Philosophy of Science., University of Sydney

The scientific worldview has made great contributions to humanity’s flourishing. But, as science advances into territory once firmly held by religion – attempting to answer questions about the origins of the universe, life and consciousness – science communication often paints a fairly pessimistic picture of the world.

Take a few examples. An article in New Scientist claims our perception that pet dogs love us may be an illusion. Physicist Brian Greene sees humanity’s ultimate fate in the demise of the Solar System. Writer Yuval Noah Harari, in his bestselling book Sapiens, posits that life holds no inherent meaning. Philosopher David Benatar goes so far as to argue that being born is a bad thing.

Scientists themselves may not find the view of the universe presented above to be pessimistic. However, this may bring them into conflict with many things humanity values – or has evolved to value – such as meaning, purpose and free will.

The Copernican principle

One essential function of science communication is to mobilise people to act against some of humanity’s most pressing problems – think of the COVID pandemic, or climate change.

However, unlike most people, scientists and science communicators often tend to think humans are in a sense nothing special. This idea is known as the Copernican principle.

Read more:
Copernicus’ revolution and Galileo’s vision: our changing view of the universe in pictures

The Copernican principle (named after the astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus, who realised Earth goes around the Sun) holds that humans are not special observers of the universe compared to any other beings who may exist elsewhere.

Going further, the principle has been extrapolated to mean that any attempt to ascribe meaning to human life or imply there is something exceptional about human relationships falls outside the realm of science. As a consequence, humans have no unique value – and any suggestion otherwise can be dismissed as unscientific.

Paradoxes in science communication

Although science does not deny the importance of human happiness and societal function, we would not expect a physicist, for example, to modify their theories of cosmology to make them more psychologically meaningful.

This leads us to two great paradoxes science communication often tries to straddle.

1. We live in a deterministic world without free will, yet we must choose to accept science and prevent climate change. And we must act now!

2. The universe is destined to end in a dead, freezing void and life has no meaning. But we must prevent climate change so our planet does not become a dead, overheated void – and we can continue our meaningless lives.

As a result of these paradoxes, those who do not align with science’s claims about the fundamental nature of the universe may not accept scientific arguments regarding climate change. If agreeing to stop using fossil fuels is linked to accepting your life has no meaning, it’s no wonder some are reluctant.

What’s worse, signing up to “science” may also mean accepting your religion is false, your spirituality is an illusion and your relationship with your dog is based on an evolutionary lie.

Science communication and beliefs

In words you might sometimes see on novelty T-shirts, commonly attributed to astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson, “Science doesn’t care what you believe.” What Tyson actually said was a little less combative: “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.”

But if science, by its rational and objective nature, is not able to care what people believe, perhaps science communication should care.

Compare science communication to health communication, for example. The maternity ward at Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney contains the word “welcome” in more than 20 languages. The admission paperwork asks for your religion so that care may be taken to avoid insensitivities and also to provide an appropriate spiritual guide if needed.

Public health messaging is adapted to its audience based on research in health anthropology.

Read more:
The cultural assumptions behind Western medicine

All of this is done to achieve the best health outcomes and to try to create health care centred on people. This is despite the fact that a virus or a chronic disease care little for your religious or spiritual beliefs.

Just as the World Health Organization’s Social Determinants of Health Framework looks at non-medical factors that influence health outcomes, we also need to look at non-science factors when evaluating science communication outcomes.

The opposite poles of the debate

Proponents of science often see themselves in a battle against the forces of superstition and religion, one which geneticist Francis S. Collins has written is “overshadowed by the high-decibel pronouncements of those who occupy the poles of the debate”.

But if we are trying to use science communication to make the world a better place, we shouldn’t let the drama of this battle distract us from our ultimate goal.

Instead, science communicators would do well to take a more sensitive and anthropological approach to science communication. Understanding what people value and how to reach them may actually help the advancements of science make the world a better place.

We don’t have to change what science discovers, but we perhaps do not have to tell people their life has no meaning in the opening chapter of a popular science book. As Brian Greene put it, “we have developed strategies to contend with knowledge of our impermanence”, which provide us with hope as we “gesture toward eternity”.

Chris Ellis 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. Science communicators need to stop telling everybody the universe is a meaningless void – https://theconversation.com/science-communicators-need-to-stop-telling-everybody-the-universe-is-a-meaningless-void-215334

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luke Grzeskowiak, Channel 7 Children’s Research Foundation Fellow in Medicines Use and Safety – Flinders University & South Australian Health & Medical Research Institute, Flinders University

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will deliver a national apology to thalidomide survivors and their families today. More than 60 years since the medication had devastating consequences when taken by pregnant women, the apology recognises the government’s role in the tragedy and its enduring impact.

Had the government acted more swiftly to issue public warnings and restrict thalidomide use when concerns were first raised, as many as 20% of Australia’s thalidomide survivors may not have been affected.

Today, protecting pregnant people and the fetus means ensuring there is high quality science to guide medicine use.

Read more:
Remind me again, what is thalidomide and how did it cause so much harm?

What is the thalidomide story?

Thalidomide was developed in the 1950s in Germany. Originally intended for use as a sedative or tranquilliser, by the late 1950s it was soon being widely promoted as a safe and effective treatment for morning sickness in pregnancy.

At the time, it was commonly thought the placenta would act as a barrier to stopping medicines reaching the fetus in the womb. Animal studies showed low toxicity and no tests were done involving pregnant women.

Thalidomide rapidly become available for use around the world, including the United Kingdom and Australia. The United States famously rejected marketing approval, largely owing to the efforts of pharmacologist Frances Kelsey who was concerned about the paucity of safety data available.

As use increased worldwide, so too did reports of babies being born with distinct birth malformations. Thalidomide embryopathy is characterised by shortening of the arms or legs. But when taken in early pregnancy it can also result in sight or hearing loss, facial paralysis and impact to internal organs.

The first public report linking thalidomide to birth malformations was made by an Australian doctor William McBride in The Lancet journal in 1961. Soon after, the medicine began to be withdrawn from the market. By this time, it was estimated thalidomide led to thousands of miscarriages and deaths of newborns worldwide and left more than 10,000 children with lifelong disability.

A careful comeback

In the last decade thalidomide has made a comeback. Thalidomide is being used in the treatment of certain cancers and other relatively rare conditions such as leprosy. Most recently, it was investigated as a potential treatment for COVID.

While its return may cause anxiety, there are strict controls limiting its use. This includes requiring people who could get pregnant to take regular pregnancy tests and multiple forms of birth control.

Prescribing thalidomide involves careful counselling and discussion of risks involved. Some may prefer to see thalidomide gone forever. For others, it represents a potential life-changing treatment.

Read more:
Thalidomide: the drug with a dark side but an enigmatic future

Thalidomide changed medicine – for better and worse

The continued availability of thalidomide raises important ethical questions about how we balance the need to make available effective treatments, while ensuring we protect the most vulnerable.

The thalidomide tragedy represents a significant historical turning point in medicines testing and regulatory oversight. There is now much tighter testing of medicines in both animals and humans before they are marketed and closer scrutiny of their potential side-effects.

But there is a dark side. Thalidomide also gave rise to an ongoing hesitancy towards the testing and use of medicines during pregnancy. This has stifled the critical development of new and existing medicines to treat common life-threatening conditions in pregnancy. Globally, many thousands of women and babies die each year from conditions such as preterm birth and pre-eclampsia. Yet, in the last 30 years, only one new medication has been developed specifically for use to treat such complications.

Such hesitancy was most recently demonstrated during the COVID pandemic where pregnant women were excluded from participating in the first vaccination and treatment clinical trials. This led to uncertainty about how to best protect vulnerable pregnant individuals and their children from the effects of COVID, leading to otherwise avoidable deaths.

Read more:
Take care with paracetamol when pregnant — but don’t let pain or fever go unchecked

What’s next?

A national apology represents an important step in the healing process for those affected by thalidomide and an opportunity to reflect on its legacy.

The most important legacy should be one of ensuring we have adequate data to support the safe and effective use of medicines in pregnancy, rather than one of excluding pregnant people from research or using medicines.

This requires greater government investment and support into how we develop, evaluate, monitor and guide medicines use in pregnancy. A coordinated national approach across all sectors to identify, outline and implement strategies could ensure pregnant people have access to the modern medicines they deserve. Otherwise we risk repeating failures of the past and relegating pregnant people to the status of therapeutic orphans.

Luke Grzeskowiak receives funding from the Channel 7 Children’s Research Foundation, The Hospital Research Foundation, National Health and Medical Research Council and Medical Research Future Fund.

Hannah Jackson receives an Australian Government Research Training Program Stipend from the University of Technology Sydney.

– ref. Thalidomide survivors are receiving an apology for the pharmaceutical disaster that changed pregnancy medicine – https://theconversation.com/thalidomide-survivors-are-receiving-an-apology-for-the-pharmaceutical-disaster-that-changed-pregnancy-medicine-218691

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Mackey, Director, Griffith Climate Action Beacon, Griffith University

Eight years ago, the world agreed to an ambitious target in the Paris Agreement: hold warming to 1.5°C to limit further dangerous levels of climate change.

Since then, greenhouse gas emissions have kept increasing – and climate disasters have become front page news, from mega-bushfires to unprecedented floods.

In 2023, the world is at 1.2°C of warming over pre-industrial levels. Heatwaves of increasing intensity and duration are arriving around the world. We now have less than 10 years before we reach 1.5°C of warming.

This week, the COP28 climate talks will begin against a backdrop of evermore strident warnings from climate scientists and world leaders. United Nations chief António Guterres has warned climate action is “dwarfed by the scale of the challenge” and that we have “opened the gates of hell”. In his latest climate letter, Pope Francis quotes bishops from Africa who dub the climate crisis a “tragic and striking example of structural sin”.

In the United Arab Emirates, the 198 nations in the UN’s climate framework will gather for COP28. Can we expect to see real progress – or half-measures?

Watch for these three key issues facing negotiators.

1. Taking stock of progress on climate action

This year, a critical issue will be the global stocktake, the key mechanism designed to ratchet up climate ambition under the 2015 Paris Agreement. This is the first time each nation’s emission cut targets and benefits from climate adaptation or economic diversification plans have been assessed.

The stocktake reveals what track we are on. Do the combined emission cut promises from all countries mean we can limit warming to 1.5°C? If not, what is the “emissions gap” – and how much more ambitious do nation’s emission reductions need to be?

Read more:
UN’s ‘global stocktake’ on climate offers a sobering emissions reckoning − but there are also signs of progress

There’s been progress, but not nearly enough. If all national emissions pledges became a reality, global warming would peak between 2.1-2.8°C.

That leaves an emissions gap of around 22.9 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent over the period to 2030.

It is very good that the worst-case scenarios – unchecked warming and 4+ degrees of global heating by 2100 are now looking unlikely. But a 2°C world would bring unacceptable harm and irreversible damage.

We’ll need much more ambitious targets and support to cut global greenhouse gas emissions 43% by 2030 and 60% by 2035 compared with 2019 levels if we are to reach net zero CO₂ emissions by 2050 globally. A major measure of COP28’s success will be whether the major emitting nations agree on more ambitious emission reduction actions.

2. Who pays for climate loss and damage?

For decades, nations have wrestled over the fraught question of who should pay for loss and damage resulting from climate change.

Now we’re close to finalising arrangements for the new Loss and Damage Fund. This will be the second major issue for negotiators at COP28.

So far, governments have drawn up a blueprint for the new fund. Expect to see debate over who will manage the fund – the World Bank? A UN agency? – and whether emerging economies such as China will provide funds. To date, there’s no target for how much money the fund will hold and disburse. The blueprint must be formally adopted at COP28 before it can begin operating.

Why a new fund? Other climate finance commitments are aimed at cutting emissions or helping societies adapt to climate impacts. This fund deals specifically with the loss and damage from the unavoidable impacts of climate change, like rising sea levels, prolonged heatwaves, desertification, the acidification of the sea, extreme weather and crop failures.

Think of the damage from the unprecedented floods in Pakistan or Libya, for instance.

3. Where’s the climate finance?

A major issue in climate negotiations is how countries can transform their economies so they are “climate ready”, with lower emissions and boosted resilience. For developing countries, this requires massive levels of investment and new technologies to let them “leapfrog” fossil fuel dependency.

This is likely to be a critical sticking point. To date, climate finance has flowed too slowly. Under the Paris Agreement, rich countries promised to provide funds of A$150 billion a year every year. This has been slow in coming, though it is nudging closer, with $130 billion flowing in 2021.

Unless we see significant progress on climate finance – including making the Loss and Damage Fund a reality and meeting the existing commitments – we’re unlikely to see progress on other key issues such as ratcheting up emission cuts under the stocktake mechanism, phasing out fossil fuels and work on preserving biodiversity.

Read more:
In September we went past 1.5 degrees. In November, we tipped over 2 degrees for the first time. What’s going on?

How do you build a 198-government consensus?

One reason climate negotiations advance slowly is the need for consensus.

All 198 governments must agree on each decision. This means any one nation or group of countries can block a proposal or force the wording to be changed in order for it to be approved.

The votes of less wealthy countries – including small island nations and least developed countries – therefore carry as much weight as the G20 nations, who account for about 85% of global GDP. This has in the past worked to increase the level of climate action, including the focus on 1.5°C as the global warming target.

The COP28 President is Sultan Ahmed al-Jaber, who has attracted controversy due to the fact he heads the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company. Expect to see considerable debate over wording. Will governments agree to the “phasing down of fossil fuels” or just the “phasing down of unabated fossil fuels”?

It might sound like quibbling but it’s not – the second option, for instance, implies the heavy use of yet-to-be-proven carbon capture and storage technologies and offsets.

Sultan al-Jaber has, to his credit, promoted some progressive agenda items including a focus on the conservation, restoration, and sustainable management of nature to help achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Here, there are welcome commonalities with the major global biodiversity pact struck late last year, the Global Biodiversity Framework, aimed at stemming the extinction of species and degradation of ecosystems. Healthy ecosystems store carbon and help people adapt to the climate change already here.

As nations prepare for a fortnight of intense negotiation, the stakes are higher than they have ever been. Now the question is – can the world community seize the moment?

Read more:
COP28: inside the United Arab Emirates, the oil giant hosting 2023 climate change summit

Brendan Mackey has received funding from the Australian Government to support his work with the IPCC 6th Assessment Report. He is a volunteer member of the Great Eastern Ranges connectivity conservation initiative science advisory group and board.

– ref. As disasters and heat intensify, can the world meet the urgency of the moment at the COP28 climate talks? – https://theconversation.com/as-disasters-and-heat-intensify-can-the-world-meet-the-urgency-of-the-moment-at-the-cop28-climate-talks-217063

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Saul Karnovsky, Senior Lecturer & Bachelor of Education (Secondary) Course Coordinator, Curtin University

As we approach the end of the school year, many families are thinking about what might be an appropriate gift to thank teachers.

Meanwhile, teachers are preparing for an inundation of scented candles, boxes of chocolates and pot plants as they head into a well-deserved summer break.

As a former high school teacher, I remember receiving plenty of these gifts. Most would sit in a drawer, or be quickly eaten and forgotten about. The pot plants often wilted.

If you are a cash-strapped parent or carer and wish to genuinely express thanks, how best can you do this, particularly in a cost-of-living crisis?

Read more:
‘Thank you for making me feel smart’: will a new campaign to raise the status of teaching work?

Write something

It may seem simple, but take a few minutes out of your day and write something meaningful to thank your child’s teachers.

Also encourage your child to write or draw something that tells their teacher what difference they have made in their year. Ask them what made their teacher special, funny, caring or kind?

It could be something like, because of their support your child no longer struggles with maths, or now loves to read every day. Perhaps they have more confidence speaking in front of others or just loved going to school each day.

Teachers want to know if they helped

Teachers want to help young people and make a difference in their lives but this can be difficult to measure. Reports and test scores only reveal so much, they can show how someone has improved academically but this is only one part of positive changes teachers make.

As a new graduate I fondly remember getting a handwritten letter from a Year 9 student on the last day of term four. He was a difficult student. We were often locked in battle – he would call me out if I spelled a word wrong on the board or gave an incorrect fact about history.

Yet, at the end of the year he took the time to tell me what a great teacher I was and how he would miss me. Other teachers I spoke to have loved receiving personalised gifts, like hand-drawn pictures with quotes they would often say in class, delicious home-made cookies, letters of thanks, framed photos and messages that made them laugh.

Refill a teacher’s cup

We know teachers are under a huge amount of pressure and at the end of the year they need their cup to be refilled.

Research tells us teachers can feel undervalued and their work can be highly stressful. We also know increasing numbers are not sure if they want to remain in the profession .

As a community we can tell teachers we care for them and understand their work can be hard. Tell teachers they matter, they are doing important work, they have inspired your child to love learning and will be remembered.

Read more:
A new database of teachers on screen shows they are often portrayed as rule breakers, losers or villains

Saul Karnovsky 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. What should I give my child’s teacher at the end of the year? – https://theconversation.com/what-should-i-give-my-childs-teacher-at-the-end-of-the-year-217687

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Naish, Professor in Earth Sciences, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

As this year’s UN climate summit (COP28) gets under way in Dubai, scientists studying Earth’s frozen regions have been delivering an urgent call for action to policy makers. But is anyone listening?

Throughout 2023, we have been warning of an impending series of crises occurring in the cryosphere – polar ice sheets, ice shelves, sea ice, mountain glaciers and permafrost.

The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) released its decadal synopsis on the state of Antarctic climate change and ecosystems. It led the recent Antarctic Treaty meeting to issue the Helsinki Declaration to highlight that significant observed changes in Antarctica influence climate impacts globally.

The World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) has prepared the Kigali Declaration, summarising the latest climate science to highlight the urgency at COP28.

And this month, a State of the Cryosphere 2023 report assessing the most recent science warned that even 2°C of warming would trigger irreversible loss of ice sheets, glaciers, snow, sea ice and permafrost, with disastrous consequences for society and nature.

I have contributed to all three documents. Some of the most dramatic changes are occurring in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, including extreme heatwaves, record lows in sea ice and the emergence of an amplified warming pattern across the entire Antarctic continent.

These changes are melting Antarctica’s ice sheet and delivering vast quantities of freshwater to the ocean. This in turn drives an accelerating rise in shorelines around the world.

Polar warming is also contributing to drought and wildfires in Australia, floods in New Zealand and extreme weather at every latitude.

Read more:
We can still prevent the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet – if we act fast to keep future warming in check

Breaching planetary thresholds

In July this year, average monthly global temperatures breached 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for the first time. With a large El Niño event underway in the Pacific, 2023 is virtually certain to be the hottest year on record.

The World Meteorological Organisation predicts the world is on track to exceed the Paris target to keep warming below 2°C within the next five years, on an annual basis.

Scientific evidence is clear that due to the current trajectory of human-derived greenhouse gas emissions, the polar regions will continue to warm at rates of up to four times the global average.

This is because of self-reinforcing feedbacks, such as those related to retreating sea ice. The more sea ice melts, the more energy the darker ocean surface absorbs, in turn leading to more land ice melting and the potential crossing of tipping points linked to temperature thresholds close to 1.5-2°C of global warming.

There are two key planetary thresholds in the polar regions. Firstly, thawing permafrost in the Arctic has the potential for widespread release of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, further enhancing global heating.

Secondly, meltdown of up to two-thirds of Antarctica’s ice sheet may become irreversible, locking in multi-metre sea-level rise for generations to come even if the warming were to stop or reverse after peaking before 2100.

Dramatic consequences at all latitudes

The Southern Ocean has taken up most of the heat from global warming (70%). This excess energy will remain in the ocean for centuries and continue melting parts of the coastal fringes of Antarctica from underneath.

The amplified polar warming is accelerating the melting of ice sheets. They are now the largest contributors to rising global sea levels. But they respond slowly, trapping heat and releasing it over long timescales. Sea-level rise will therefore continue for centuries to come, even with net zero emissions.

Projections show substantial differences between low- and high-emissions scenarios, especially after 2050. A high-emissions scenario could result in multi-metre sea-level rise for coming centuries. This includes a “low likelihood, high impact” scenario in which two metres by 2100 cannot be ruled out due to rapid loss of Antarctica’s fringing ice shelves and consequent melting of the ice sheet.

The ice shelves currently stabilise the interior ice sheet and protect it from erosion by encroaching warming ocean waters. Evidence suggests the Paris climate target of limiting heating to 1.5-2C°C is a threshold for widespread ice shelf loss.

The loss of two-thirds of the world’s high mountain glaciers (often referred to as the third pole) is also likely. This will affect two billion people who depend on these frozen water stores for their drinking, power production, agriculture and related ecosystems services.

As glacial lakes fill up, more people will be exposed to hazards such as the recent glacial outburst flood and landslides in Sikkim in India’s northeast.

Intense high-latitude, low-pressure systems – “bomb cyclones” – are now bringing extreme temperatures and precipitation via atmospheric rivers to coastal regions and the interior of Antarctica and Greenland. These extremes cause unseasonal weather not only in polar regions, but also in lower latitudes, including New Zealand.

Changing icescapes

An unprecedented heat wave occurred over East Antarctica in March 2022, peaking at 39°C above the climatological average. It was the largest temperature anomaly ever recorded globally. A local ice shelf, which was in a vulnerable state, collapsed within days.

This demonstrates the potential of future heatwaves over the warmer, lower-elevation West Antarctic Ice Sheet to trigger surface melting and collapse of ice shelves.

During this year’s southern hemisphere winter, Antarctica’s sea ice cover reached a 40-year low. This followed the record low annual sea-ice minimum in early 2023, due to an unseasonably warm Southern Ocean and changed atmospheric circulation patterns that brought warm air south.

These unprecedented changes were well outside the range of natural variability. They coincide with new evidence from a study of ice cores that shows the emergence of an amplified surface-warming pattern over Antarctica.

Decision makers still hold the power

The latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reinforces that “limiting warming well below 2°C involves rapid, deep and in most cases immediate greenhouse gas emissions reductions”.

However, it is now clearer than ever that policy is not responding at the pace and scale required to avert the impending nexus of global climate, ecological and environmental catastrophes.

Read more:
Antarctica’s heart of ice has skipped a beat. Time to take our medicine

Every nation’s emissions policy settings are insufficient to achieve the Paris target. New Zealand’s climate policies are assessed as “highly insufficient”, but the country is not alone. The global policy response remains grossly ineffective and has been that way since the IPCC’s first report in 1990.

But the report provides some hope through “multiple feasible and effective, sustainable and equitable options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to human caused climate change”.

Scientists made this clear in a policy briefing on sea-level rise to the UN General Assembly, stating:

Ambitious mitigation in line with the Paris Agreement is critical to avoiding thresholds that would yield rapid and irreversible sea-level rise and to enabling successful adaptation.

Timothy Naish 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. COP28: Earth’s frozen zones are in trouble – we’re already seeing the consequences – https://theconversation.com/cop28-earths-frozen-zones-are-in-trouble-were-already-seeing-the-consequences-218119

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Ghezelbash, Associate Professor and Deputy Director, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, UNSW Law & Justice, UNSW Sydney

After ruling on November 8 that indefinite immigration detention is unlawful, the High Court today delivered its reasons for the decision that upturned 20 years of precedent. Its ruling has required the release of some 140 people from immigration detention so far, and set off a political scramble to legislate in response to the outcome.

The judgment, the first made by the court under new Chief Justice Stephen Gageler, was unanimous. It largely turned on questions of constitutional law and the limits of executive power.

The court made it clear that a person must be released from detention when there was no real prospect of them being deported in the foreseeable future. Previously, there was no limit to the length of time people could be detained in immigration detention in Australian law. In fact, people could legally be detained for the rest of their lives without ever being found guilty of a crime.

Read more:
The High Court has decided indefinite detention is unlawful. What happens now?

The decision overturns the much-criticised 2004 Al-Kateb v Godwin case, where a 4-3 majority ruled that, provided the government maintained an intention to eventually remove a person from Australia, the Constitution allowed them to be detained indefinitely until that removal took place.

The court’s reasons in this case indicated that other laws allowing detention, such as continuing detention orders, could apply to people released because of the decision. Continuing detention orders are a mechanism that enable people to be detained once they have served their sentence for a crime.

However, those orders are only available if the person is considered to pose an “unacceptable” risk of reoffending and only in relation to specific, serious crimes. Such orders can only be made with the support of expert evidence and with judicial oversight, as detailed below.

Implications of the decision

The decision has significant ramifications for the rapidly drafted legislation that was passed by parliament in response to the case, before the High Court had released its reasons.

In response to the release of the reasons for the decision, the federal government indicated it would legislate again before parliament rises for the year.

Laws rushed through parliament earlier this month included curfews, high levels of monitoring of people released from detention and severe mandatory prison sentences for infringements of release conditions. The first package of laws has already been challenged in the courts by a Chinese refugee known as S151, on the basis they are “punitive”. More challenges are anticipated.

With this decision, the court has revealed an intention to exercise much greater scrutiny of the parliament and executive in ensuring constitutional limits on power are respected.

In this way, this judgment can be seen as representing a turn from more permissive approaches to limits on parliamentary legislative power.

The challenge and decision

The challenge was brought by a stateless Rohingya man, given the pseudonym NZYQ, who had fled his home country of Myanmar and arrived in Australia by boat in 2012. He spent just over a year in immigration detention on arrival.

Soon after he was released into the community, he was convicted of sexual intercourse with a minor and was sentenced to a maximum of five years imprisonment. While in prison, he applied for refugee status. He was found to be owed protection but, due to his criminal history, was not granted a protection visa. On release from prison, he was immediately re-detained in immigration detention.

Both international and Australian law prohibit sending people back to places where they are at risk of persecution, as NZYQ had been found to be.

The Migration Act requires “unlawful non-citizens” to be held in detention until they are removed from Australia, deported or granted a visa.

NZYQ’s appeal focused on two questions. Did the detention provisions authorise the potential indefinite detention of non-citizens in circumstances where there were no real prospects of removal? If so, was this constitutionally valid?

The High Court answered the first question in the affirmative, in essence agreeing with the majority in Al-Kateb that relevant legislative provisions authorised detention until a detainee was removed, deported or given a visa, no matter how long that might take.

But on the second question, treading a course it said “should not lightly be taken”, the court reopened and overruled the constitutional holding in Al-Kateb, finding that detention provisions contravened the separation of powers in the Constitution. That is, detention is generally punishment, which can only be ordered by courts, not the government.

There are limited exceptions to this rule for immigration detention. Detention will not be punishment as long as it for the purpose of deportation or enabling an application for a visa to be made.

In NZYQ, the High Court stated that ongoing detention – where there is no reasonable prospect of the removal of the plaintiff from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future – would not meet this test.

What does it mean?

With this judgment, the court unanimously rejected the ability of the parliament to define its own limits for detention. In doing so, it brings Australia into line with international law and practice. No other country allows for, let alone requires, indefinite mandatory immigration detention.

While the court did not engage directly with international law arguments, the outcome and reasoning reaffirm international principles of reasonableness and proportionality, set out in a memo by international refugee law expert Professor Guy S Goodwin-Gill. This formed the basis of Kaldor Centre’s intervention with the Human Rights Law Centre in the case.

In terms of when an individual will be required to be released from detention, the court makes clear that the onus is on the government to show there is real prospect of removal in the reasonable future. This means deportation has to be a real possibility – it is not enough for the government to say it is trying without showing there is a real prospect it can be achieved.

This decision also will have broader ramifications for habeas corpus in Australian courts. This is the requirement that any person detained by the government has the right to challenge that detention. When challenged, the government must demonstrate the basis for the detention. With this judgment, the court has made it clear that inquiries will be rigorous, not merely considering the surface arguments made by detaining authorities.

Read more:
Grattan on Friday: A government in a big hurry gives opposition some wins on ex-detainees

Preventive detention

The court acknowledged that people released from immigration detention because of its decision could be re-detained under other laws, such as continuing detention provisions. These allow for the ongoing detention of people who are considered to pose an unacceptable risk of reoffending. This would need to be for reasons exclusively connected to the risk that is posed, not to their immigration status.

Such provisions already exist for some sex or terrorism crimes. However, for such orders to be made, there must be clear evidence the individual poses an unacceptable risk; merely having committed a crime before is not adequate. Most importantly, these decisions are generally made by the courts, and not the government.

The High Court’s decision was clear – only the courts have the power to deal out punishment. The risk is that any further blanket restrictions on individual liberty that are not subject to judicial oversight will be similarly overturned by the courts.

Daniel Ghezelbash receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the NSW Government. He is a member of the management committee of Refugee Advice and Casework Services and a Special Counsel at the National Justice Project. He is the Deputy Director of the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, which was given leave to intervene in the NZYQ case as amicus curiae.

Anna Talbot receives funding from the Australian government as a PhD scholar at the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, University of NSW, Sydney, which was given leave to intervene in the NZYQ case as amicus curiae.

– ref. High Court reasons on immigration ruling pave way for further legislation – https://theconversation.com/high-court-reasons-on-immigration-ruling-pave-way-for-further-legislation-218699

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

The government will urgently legislate to enable some of those released from immigration detention to be preventatively detained.

This follows the High Court on Tuesday outlining its reasons for its decision that indefinite immigration detention was unconstitutional. The judgment indicates the decision was unanimous.

Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil told parliament late Tuesday: “We are moving quickly to finalise a tough preventative detention regime before parliament rises. The safety of Australian citizens is our utmost priority.”

This is the last full week of the House of Representatives for the year. Next week the Senate sits with the house only due to come back on Thursday to deal with final legislation.

The opposition has been calling for a preventative detention regime.
Opposition home affairs spokesman James Paterson said the High Court reasons had removed the government’s “final excuse not to act”. It was “crystal clear” that a preventative detention regime “is necessary and lawful”.

“If the government introduces one as we have recommended we’ll be highly likely to support it,” Paterson said.

Refugee lawyer David Manne said the court did not suggest there was a need for a new legal regime.

“The High Court makes it clear there are already laws for preventative detention to manage serious risks to the community in relation to people reoffending”, Manne said.

Constitutional expert George Williams, from UNSW, said it would be very difficult for the government to legislate for the whole cohort, but the judgment indicated individuals could be detained under other provisions. This would require a case-by-case approach.

The court says in its judgment a person could, for instance, be detained “under a law providing for preventive detention of a child sex offender who presents an unacceptable risk of reoffending if released from custody.”

The government has released 241 people. One is now missing, and being sought by authorities.

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

– ref. Government readying to rush through more legislation on ex-detainees – https://theconversation.com/government-readying-to-rush-through-more-legislation-on-ex-detainees-218724