Health and physical education is one of the key subjects students learn at school. In Australia it is mandatory for students from the first year of school to Year 10.

It involves theory and practical components to help students manage their health and wellbeing. This includes healthy eating habits, sexual health, cyber safety and mental health. It also incorporates fundamental movement skills (such as throwing and catching), sports (such as swimming, gymnastics and football) and team-building.

Because it is a core, compulsory part of the curriculum it is supposed to be free for students at government schools. But our research shows some students are being asked to pay – and those who cannot are missing out.

Our research

In our recent study, we looked at the staffing and delivery of health and physical education in New South Wales government schools.

We surveyed 556 schools, which make up about 30% of public schools in the state. This included primary and high schools with a mix of locations and levels of advantage.

We used an online survey, which was completed by the teacher in charge of health and physical education.

Many schools are outsourcing lessons

We asked survey respondents who was teaching health and physical education to students at their schools. Some schools were using more than one option.

• For all schools: 67% were using external provider, 44.5% were using a specialist teacher and 55.4% were using another teacher.

• For primary schools: 78.4% were using an external provider, 17.9% were using a specialist teacher and 48% were using another teacher.

• For high schools: 44.8% were using an external provider, 95.9% were using a specialist teacher and 69.2% were using another teacher.

Previous research has shown how schools outsource to external providers to “fill the gap” of teachers lacking confidence and competence to provide quality health and physical education lessons.

This study did not measure how frequent outsourcing was, however, comments from respondents suggests it is regular. For example, one teacher said: “a typical [outsourced] class would have one lesson a week for a term”.

Another teacher similarly said

one 40 min[ute] lesson per week. Company comes in with equipment and young university students to run different activities. They also assess our students for us.

Another teacher told us:

We use [company name], they offer different sports/programs that run for one lesson a week per term.

Families are being asked to pay

Of the schools who were outsourcing lessons, 78% of the schools outsourcing lessons said they were asking parents to help pay for these lessons.

One respondent told us, the costs were “A$45 for one term, $80 for two”.

Of this group, 64% reported students who did not pay did other school work (either for health and physical education or another core subject). About one fifth of schools said students that don’t pay just had to “sit and watch”.

This suggests some students are missing out on basic learning opportunities at school for financial reasons. As one teacher told us:

the school uses some off-campus sporting/gaming facilities that students can choose to pay extra for instead of free on-campus teacher run [activities].

Why is this a problem?

The outsourcing of health and physical education lessons comes in the middle of an ongoing teacher shortage in Australia and around the world.

A 2024 UN report estimates a global shortage of more than 44 million teachers, with many teachers teaching outside of their areas of expertise.

Specific shortages of health and physical education teachers have been noted for more than a decade.

However, outsourcing lessons away from qualified teachers, is a significant concern. Little is known about the external providers’ qualifications or quality. Unlike teachers, they are not subject to registration requirements or professional standards.

Even more concerning is some students are missing out on lessons or some components of lessons because their families have not been able to pay.

This links to wider concerns about unequal access to sport in the school system. This includes some private schools with new Olympic pools and boat ramps when other public schools don’t have access to council playing fields.

More research is needed

Our study suggests more research is needed. We need further information on staffing, outsourcing and lesson delivery in other areas of the country and in other subjects.

We need to be sure all students are being taught the core curriculum, free of charge and by qualified teachers – ideally specialists.

Jessica Amy Sears, Lecturer, School of Education, Charles Sturt University and Rachel Wilson, Professor of Social Impact, University of Technology Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Albanese government today introduced long-awaited legislation to parliament which is set to revolutionise Australia’s cyber security preparedness.

The legislation, if passed, will be Australia’s first standalone cyber security act. It’s aimed at protecting businesses and consumers from the rising tide of cyber crime.

So what are the key provisions, and will it be enough?

What’s in the new laws?

The new laws have a strong focus on victims of “ransomware” – malicious software cyber criminals use to block access to crucial files or data until a ransom has been paid.

People who pay a ransom do not always regain lost data. The payments also sustain the hacker’s business model.

Under the new law, victims of ransomware attacks who make payments must report the payment to authorities. This will help the government track cyber criminal activities and understand how much money is being lost to ransomware.

The laws also involve new obligations for the National Cyber Security Coordinator and Australian Signals Directorate. These obligations restrict how these two bodies can use information provided to them by businesses and industry about cyber security incidents. The government hopes this will encourage organisations to more openly share information knowing it will be safeguarded.

Separately, organisations in critical infrastructure – such as energy, transport, communications, health and finance – will be required to strengthen programs used to secure individuals’ private data.

The new legislation will also upgrade the investigative powers of the Cyber Incident Review Board. The board will conduct “no-fault” investigations after significant cyber attacks. The board will then share insights to promote improvements in cyber security practices more generally. These insights will be anonymised to ensure the identities of victims of cyber attacks aren’t publicly revealed.

The legislation will also introduce new minimum cyber security standards for all smart devices, such as watches, televisions, speakers and doorbells.

These standards will establish a baseline level of security for consumers. They will include secure default settings, unique device passwords, regular security updates and encryption of sensitive data.

This is a welcome step that will ensure everyday devices meet minimum security criteria before they can be sold in Australia.

A long-overdue step

Cyber security incidents have surged by 23% in the past financial year, to more than 94,000 reported cases. This is equivalent to one attack every six minutes.

This dramatic increase underscores the growing sophistication and frequency of cyber attacks targeting Australian businesses and individuals. It also highlights the urgent need for a comprehensive national response.

High-profile cyber attacks have further emphasised the need to strengthen Australia’s cyber security framework. The 2022 Optus data breach is perhaps the most prominent example. The breach compromised the personal information of more than 11 million Australians, alarming both the government and the public, not to mention Optus.

Cyber Security Minister Tony Burke says the Cyber Security Act is a “long-overdue step” that reflects the government’s concern about these threats.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has also acknowledged recent high-profile attacks as a “wake-up call” for businesses, emphasising the need for a unified approach to cyber security.

The Australian government wants to establish Australia as a world leader in cyber security by 2030. This goal reflects the government’s acknowledgement that cyber security is fundamental to national security, economic prosperity and social well being.

Broader implications

The proposed laws will enhance national security. But they could also present challenges.

For example, even though the laws place limitations on how the National Cyber Security Coordinator and Australian Signals Directorate can use information, some businesses might still be unwilling to share confidential data because they are worried about damage to their reputation.

Businesses, especially smaller ones, will also face a substantial compliance burden as they adapt to new reporting requirements. They will also potentially need to invest more heavily in cyber security measures. This could lead to increased costs, which might ultimately be passed on to consumers.

The proposed legislation will require careful implementation to balance the needs of national security, business operations and individual privacy rights.

David Tuffley, Senior Lecturer in Applied Ethics & CyberSecurity, Griffith University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Many of us care for animals and feel empathy when they suffer. At the same time, many of us also accept their suffering and death when it happens in the name of science.

How do people manage this tension? Our latest research shows we do it by pretending lab animals have no inner lives or complex mental capacities.

Justified suffering?

More than 190 million animals are used in laboratory experiments around the world each year, according to one estimate. These animals undergo experiments we do not want to perform on humans, whose lives are more important to us.

Some experiments involve simple things such as eating various foods and taking blood samples. Others are more extreme, such as simulating drowning to test antidepressants, or inducing painful tumours to study cancer.

Despite efforts to encourage alternatives to animal experimentation, many still see it as necessary. This view is common not only among scientists, but also members of the public. Many perceive animal suffering as justified by hoped-for benefits to human health.

Mixed feelings

At the same time, numerous polls show the public is increasingly opposed to animal exploitation, particularly of animals most like us.

So people don’t want animals to suffer, but may perceive animal suffering as necessary to benefit humans. How do we resolve these mixed feelings?

Animal experimentation disturbs us because the animals used in laboratories have mental capacities. They can experience suffering. If you ask people to imagine the emotional activity of a lobster, they are more opposed to it being mistreated.

There are several ways of silencing our empathy for laboratory animals to legitimise animal experimentation. One common method is to understate animals’ mental capacities.

A dog or an ‘experimental animal’?

So if people see a creature as a lab animal, will they have a lower opinion of its cognitive abilities? This is the question we examined in our latest study, published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

We showed pictures of different animals (rabbits, hamsters, dogs, macaques) to 3,455 participants, accompanied by descriptions. One group of participants read descriptions of characteristics such as size and fur colour, while the other group had the animal presented as a laboratory subject.

All participants were asked to rate the extent to which the animals presented possessed 15 mental abilities, such as hunger, joy, fear, pride, suffering or planning ability.

For example, the control group saw the image above left with the caption: “This animal is a dog and more specifically a beagle. It is a four-legged animal, and the colour of its coat can be composed of several colours such as white, brown or black. The beagle is a diurnal animal, which means that it is active during the day and rests at night.”

The experimental group saw the image above right with the caption: “This hamster lives in a laboratory to be used as an experimental animal for medical, personal care and household products. For scientific purposes, it will be subjected to tests and suffer organ failure, bleeding and irritation. At the end of the experiment, the hamster will be euthanised.”

Objectifying animals

We found participants systematically attributed fewer mental and cognitive abilities to animals described in a laboratory context than to animals presented through their physical characteristics. We found this effect was replicated through different studies and despite experimental variations.

The results were similar when presented with pictures of different animals (a hamster, a mouse or even a beagle), or in different situations (a laboratory animal in pain, or a laboratory animal not in pain).

Scientists often objectify lab animals, using euphemisms such as “sacrifice” instead of “kill” and avoiding giving animals names. Our new research shows we are also motivated to deny the cognitive abilities of animals as soon as they are labelled as test subjects.

The use of euphemisms, not naming the animals, and the reduction of their cognitive abilities, ultimately serve the same function: to reduce the animals to the status of test tubes.

Our study supports the idea that categorising laboratory animals as nothing more than “hairy test tubes” lacking cognitive capacity facilitates psychological detachment.

This makes it easier to justify their use in scientific experiments, and quell any inner moral conflict. If animal experimentation upsets us, it is psychologically more comfortable to objectify test animals and not to recognise their mental capacity.

Legitimising animal sacrifice

Our results are in keeping with earlier work showing people will perform a similar manoeuvre if they are told an animal is destined for the butcher. They will lower their estimate of the animal’s cognitive abilities to justify meat consumption.

Of course, people hold a range of views towards animal experimentation. These are influenced by many factors, such as gender and interest in science.

However, our research is the first to demonstrate that the simple fact of categorising an animal as a test subject will lead to the denigration of its mental capacities.

Beyond animal experiments

The benefits of experimenting on animals are much debated. A survey of 20 vast systematic reviews of various kinds of biomedical animal experiments found only two concluded that animal experimentation was useful.

One of the limitations of animal experiments is the poor reproducibility of research. This lack of stability in scientific results is extremely costly for society. The development of alternatives to animal testing is progressing.

Opponents of animal testing often focus on the three Rs: replace, reduce, refine. These are widely accepted in Europe, the United States and elsewhere.

However, moving away from animal experiments may prove difficult. As we have seen, the mere presence of animals in laboratories can be enough to make us believe that their sacrifice is no sacrifice at all.

Kevin Vezirian, Maître de conférences, Université Savoie Mont Blanc; Brock Bastian, Professor, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, and Laurent Bègue-Shankland, Professeur de psychologie sociale, membre honoraire de l’Institut universitaire de France (IUF), directeur de la MSH Alpes (CNRS/UGA), Université Grenoble Alpes (UGA)

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Two scientists, Victor Ambros (UMASS Chan Medical School in the US) and Gary Ruvkun (Harvard Medical School in the US), have won the 2024 Nobel prize in medicine or physiology.

They received the prestigious award for discovering tiny molecules in our cells called microRNAs. This discovery has not only changed our understanding of how our bodies work, but opens up a whole new area of science as well. It even extends into new treatments.

These molecules, microRNAs, can be simply thought of as tiny controllers inside our cells, the building blocks of our bodies. They help decide which parts of our DNA, our own genetic material, should be active and which should be quiet.

Think of them as volume knobs for our genes, turning them up or down as needed. All our cells contain the same number of DNA letters called bases – there’s about 3 billion. These tiny little molecules themselves, in fact, help control which of those letters are on or off, how loud that volume switch is and, in doing so, how our own genes behave.

This is called gene regulation and is so important, helping cells decide what type of cell they should be. They also have lots of roles in hard-to-treat diseases such as cancer and neurological diseases such Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

MicroRNAs play crucial roles in our bodies throughout our lives. They guide our development from a single cell into a fully formed person with various organs and tissues.

As we grow and age, these tiny molecules continue to keep us healthy by fine-tuning our genes’ activity as needed. When microRNAs malfunction, it can lead to diseases such as cancer, which is why scientists are studying them to develop new treatments.

Interestingly, microRNAs also help explain why different parts of our body look and function differently, despite all our cells containing the same DNA letters. This makes them essential for both our overall health and our individual uniqueness.

Much of my own research has focused on microRNAs and we now know there are thousands of these in our cells, all of them different. Teams I have led have shown their importance across many different cancer types, and how they control different cellular processes, such as growth, division, but also spread, which can occur in cancer. We’ve even found they’re key to waking up stem cells in cancer, rare populations that can seed a whole new tumour.

Ambros and Ruvkun found these microRNAs while studying tiny worms. They realised that these molecules could control how the worms grew.

The fact that microRNAs are found across many species suggests they’ve been important throughout evolutionary history, and across biology in general. Later, scientists found that humans and other animals have microRNAs, too.

Understanding microRNAs could lead to new ways to diagnose diseases earlier and overall a deeper understanding of how our bodies work.

Scientists are exploring ways to use microRNAs or molecules that target them as treatments for various diseases. We’ve found that some microRNAs are in fact very good at turning off cancer cells so they might even be useful as treatments in themselves.

In basic terms, the discovery of microRNAs is like finding a new set of tools that our bodies use to stay healthy. This knowledge gives scientists and doctors new ways to help people when things go wrong with their health.

The Nobel prize recognises how important this discovery is for medicine and our understanding of life. Their pioneering work on tiny worms led to the discovery of a fundamental biological mechanism that’s crucial for life as we know it.

Their Nobel prize recognises how this discovery has transformed our understanding of gene regulation and opened up new avenues for medical research and treatment. It shows that even tiny things in our cells can have a huge impact on our overall health and wellbeing.

Justin Stebbing, Professor of Biomedical Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics has been awarded to scientists John Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton “for foundational discoveries and inventions that enable machine learning with artificial neural networks”.

Inspired by ideas from physics and biology, Hopfield and Hinton developed computer systems that can memorise and learn from patterns in data. Despite never directly collaborating, they built on each other’s work to develop the foundations of the current boom in machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI).

What are neural networks? (And what do they have to do with physics?)

Artificial neural networks are behind much of the AI technology we use today.

In the same way your brain has neuronal cells linked by synapses, artificial neural networks have digital neurons connected in various configurations. Each individual neuron doesn’t do much. Instead, the magic lies in the pattern and strength of the connections between them.

Neurons in an artificial neural network are “activated” by input signals. These activations cascade from one neuron to the next in ways that can transform and process the input information. As a result, the network can carry out computational tasks such as classification, prediction and making decisions.

Most of the history of machine learning has been about finding ever more sophisticated ways to form and update these connections between artificial neurons.

While the foundational idea of linking together systems of nodes to store and process information came from biology, the mathematics used to form and update these links came from physics.

Networks that can remember

John Hopfield (born 1933) is a US theoretical physicist who made important contributions over his career in the field of biological physics. However, the Nobel Physics prize was for his work developing Hopfield networks in 1982.

Hopfield networks were one of the earliest kinds of artificial neural networks. Inspired by principles from neurobiology and molecular physics, these systems demonstrated for the first time how a computer could use a “network” of nodes to remember and recall information.

The networks Hopfield developed could memorise data (such as a collection of black and white images). These images could be “recalled” by association when the network is prompted with a similar image.

Although of limited practical use, Hopfield networks demonstrated that this type of ANN could store and retrieve data in new ways. They laid the foundation for later work by Hinton.

Machines that can learn

Geoff Hinton (born 1947), sometimes called one of the “godfathers of AI”, is a British-Canadian computer scientist who has made a number of important contributions to the field. In 2018, along with Yoshua Bengio and Yann LeCun, he was awarded the Turing Award (the highest honour in computer science) for his efforts to advance machine learning generally, and specifically a branch of it called deep learning.

The Nobel Prize in Physics, however, is specifically for his work with Terrence Sejnowski and other colleagues in 1984, developing Boltzmann machines.

These are an extension of the Hopfield network that demonstrated the idea of machine learning – a system that lets a computer learn not from a programmer, but from examples of data. Drawing from ideas in the energy dynamics of statistical physics, Hinton showed how this early generative computer model could learn to store data over time by being shown examples of things to remember.

The Boltzmann machine, like the Hopfield network before it, did not have immediate practical applications. However, a modified form (called the restricted Boltzmann machine) was useful in some applied problems.

More important was the conceptual breakthrough that an artificial neural network could learn from data. Hinton continued to develop this idea. He later published influential papers on backpropagation (the learning process used in modern machine learning systems) and convolutional neural networks (the main type of neural network used today for AI systems that work with image and video data).

Why this prize, now?

Hopfield networks and Boltzmann machines seem whimsical compared to today’s feats of AI. Hopfield’s network contained only 30 neurons (he tried to make one with 100 nodes, but it was too much for the computing resources of the time), whereas modern systems such as ChatGPT can have millions. However, today’s Nobel prize underscores just how important these early contributions were to the field.

While recent rapid progress in AI – familiar to most of us from generative AI systems such as ChatGPT – might seem like vindication for the early proponents of neural networks, Hinton at least has expressed concern. In 2023, after quitting a decade-long stint at Google’s AI branch, he said he was scared by the rate of development and joined the growing throng of voices calling for more proactive AI regulation.

After receiving the Nobel prize, Hinton said AI will be “like the Industrial Revolution but instead of our physical capabilities, it’s going to exceed our intellectual capabilities”. He also said he still worries that the consequences of his work might be “systems that are more intelligent than us that might eventually take control”.

Aaron J. Snoswell, Research Fellow in AI Accountability, Queensland University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Australian construction industry has long been facing a crisis of serious defects in apartment buildings. In the past, alarming incidents such as the Sydney Opal Tower evacuation and the Melbourne Lacrosse fire signalled systemic problems in construction.

The same problem persists today. One recent report shows serious defects in apartment buildings in New South Wales have more than doubled between 2021 and 2023.

As the Albanese government fast-tracks its five-year plan to build 1.2 million dwellings, this number will likely worsen.

We’ve researched the pressures the construction industry feels and how that can result in unsafe apartments, and what can be done to make housing like this better for everyone.

Why are we in this situation?

Serious defects endanger lives, cost building and insurance firms millions of dollars, and put pressure on regulators. Typical responses involve increased regulation, but the lack of change in apartment quality shows increased regulation is not enough. Behavioural and cultural changes are needed.

We found the poor quality of apartment buildings is often the result of deeply entrenched patterns of unprofessional behaviour across the industry. These often arise as professionals face pressures to cut costs in an industry notorious for its low profit margin.

We also found this pressure is exacerbated by aggressive competition, work overload, exploitation and a toxic culture.

As pressures mount, professionals’ decision-making becomes increasingly fraught. For example, many professionals we interviewed largely believe they must choose between profit and quality.

There are no simple answers to this age-old conundrum. However, our study shows a way forward.

What did we find?

Our three-year study funded by the Australian Research Council is the first in Australia to extensively investigate 12 building professions struggling to navigate and resolve this perceived dilemma.

Teams from four Australian universities conducted desktop reviews, analysed professional codes of conduct, interviewed 53 professionals and conducted six focus group discussions. After two years of analysis and model development, we published our industry technical report and presented our findings to practitioners in NSW and Queensland.

We have empirical evidence that shows profitability and quality do not have to be mutually exclusive. We have uncovered powerful, innovative but ad hoc strategies showing businesses can reconcile both.

One builder we profiled, a multinational company and a market leader in apartment construction, took a pioneering approach to this dilemma.

For many years, the company’s strategy was to build as quickly and cheaply as possible to save money. However, these savings were ultimately lost because they found they had “[…] made some money at the time, but we basically spent it all fixing things that we didn’t build that well”.

The company re-examined its business model and developed a new strategy that reconciled profitability, quality and professional behaviours.

The company analysed where the majority of their defects arose from and there were five key areas including:

• balcony waterproofing

• shower construction and waterproofing

• fire wall installations

• penetrations through fire walls

• brick masonry construction.

They then built prototypes of high quality construction for each of these typical building elements. They found their prototypes addressed defects while also integrating different technical standards.

The company then informed their clients, subcontractors and suppliers that “this is how we will build from now on”. Over time, it became apparent their strategy supported skills training while also improving long-term financial sustainability.

These prototypes are now showcased at a centre in NSW. Subcontractors, architects, engineers, designers, professional associations and other supply-chain actors regularly visit.

The company now conducts training for quality based on these prototypes and reports that since the establishment of this strategy, defects have been reduced by 85%.

Our empirical evidence shows these strategies drive quality and long-term financial sustainability.

Safer homes nationwide

This strategy does not have to be limited to a few large companies.

In our report, we provide a plan to ensure safer, more financially sustainable building practices can be rolled out across the industry. It relies on collaboration across sectors.

Best-practice companies in each state, like the one in NSW, would come under a national umbrella. Commonwealth and state governments would initiate the effort by identifying the best examples in different states. Together, they could focus on design, construction quality and on innovative materials, standards and ways to build safely and cost-effectively.

With positive role models to follow, other companies can improve. This would instil a mindset and culture of leadership, accountability and responsibility across the sector. More coherent standards would be embedded across the industry would ensure workers at all levels are no longer siloed.

Education and training organisations would progressively incorporate these new standards. Over time, the workforce would rebuild knowledge and skills that are perceived to have largely disappeared.

It’s important to ensure clients help drive this too. By mandating or incentivising companies with safer supply chains, there’s a commercial imperative to do better.

Professional associations also have a role to play. They can support these efforts further by creating resources and advocating for best practice.

Making apartments safer requires a shift in the thinking of the entire construction industry. There are inventive ways to align quality with profitability. We must challenge the assumption that they are always irreconcilable.

Kerry London, Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Research, Torrens University Australia; Barbara Bok, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Healthy and Sustainable Development, Torrens University Australia, and Zelinna Pablo, Senior Research Fellow, Torrens University Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Australians’ ability to protest has again been in the news this week. Against the background of an armed conflict in the Middle East and rallies nationwide, the government has suggested Australia should establish a permit system for all protests.

Minister for the NDIS and Government Services Bill Shorten made the suggestion on television this week:

how the permit system works is it doesn’t stop people protesting, but the purpose of is to look at the circumstances […] I don’t necessarily think it should apply to industrial relations, but for some of these protests we’ve seen week in, week out, I do think that having a permit system would at least straighten it up.

So what are protest laws like around the country? Do any states or territories have this permit system, and should they? And importantly, what effect to these laws have on the right to protest?

What are the laws like nationally?

A permit system to allow protest organisers to hold an “authorised public assembly” operates in most states and territories in Australia. These systems allow police to “authorise” a particular protest and require a written application to police and/or the relevant local council.

For instance, in New South Wales, people who wish to hold an authorised protest must lodge a “notice of intention to hold a public assembly” with the NSW Police Commissioner.

Similar provisions also exist in Queensland, where organisers wishing to obtain authorisation for a protest must send a “Notice of Intention to Hold a Public Assembly” form to Queensland Police Service and the local council.

In Western Australia, organisers may apply for a permit to hold a public meeting and/or procession under the Public Order in Streets Act.

However, there a significant differences in the detail of these laws. In most states, the permit system simply allows the protest to be “authorised”. This means that while it is not a criminal offence to hold a protest without a permit, it provides a level of protection to protesters from certain criminal charges such as obstructing traffic.

Victoria does not have a permit system like NSW. Instead, it has laws that enable police to move people on, or to arrest someone for violent or anti-social behaviour.

However, in Tasmania, a section of the Police Offences Act makes it an offence for a person to organise or conduct a demonstration without a permit if it is to be held, wholly or partly, on a public street. It’s punishable by a fine.

The period of notification also varies widely. In most states and territories, the lead time is anywhere from five days to two weeks.

However, in Tasmania, protest organisers are advised to lodge an application with police 12 weeks before the demonstration.

Finally, the grounds for rejection of a permit can be overly broad. For instance, in South Australia, police and other authorities may reject a permit on the ground that “it would, if effectuated, unduly prejudice any public interest”. The legislation does not set out any criteria for that test.

Which laws are the best?

In terms of how these laws compare with one another and which approach is the most preferable, we need to consider two factors: the practicalities of a permit system, and whether allowing government authorities to control protests is advisable.

In terms of practicalities, the paperwork burden, cost and uncertainty of a mandatory permit system may be unworkable. There could also be ensuing litigation to consider.

This was starkly demonstrated in 2020 when planned protests against Indigenous deaths in custody were litigated in the NSW Supreme Court.

In NSW, which has a permit system, the “Stop All Black Deaths in Custody” protest was initially rejected by the NSW Supreme Court but was then declared an authorised public assembly by the NSW Court of Appeal only minutes before the protest was scheduled to start.

In deciding on the best approach to permits, we must also consider whether it is wise to allow government agencies to give the green light to some protests and disallow others. Will this put too much power into the hands of police and individual judges?

The human right of protesting

Here it is relevant to consider Australia’s international human rights treaty obligations, which protect the right to assemble peacefully. United Nations guidance on this right recognises that states can set up notification provisions for protests, but they cannot establish authorisation requirements.

This means Australia can set up a notification system to allow police to facilitate the smooth conduct of a protest in advance (such as by organising road closures).

However, this cannot require people to get permission from the police before undertaking a protest. In fact, this international human rights guidance states that having to apply for permission to protest undermines its status as a basic human right.

More generally, it should be remembered that protests can be spontaneous and should be allowed to be so.

This is best illustrated by one of the most important acts of protest in Australian history: the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. This was set up spontaneously on January 26 1972 when four Indigenous men set up a beach umbrella on the lawns opposite Parliament House in Canberra as a protest against the government’s approach to Indigenous land rights.

It stands to this day and is a visual reminder of the power of spontaneous protest, carried out without police permission, and a sober reminder of the importance of protest in our democratic system.

Maria O'Sullivan, Associate Professor of Law, Member of Law as Protection Centre, Deakin Law School, Deakin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Albanese government on Wednesday will introduce legislation to ensure the NBN remains in government ownership.

The move is designed to set up a test for the Coalition, putting pressure on the opposition ahead of the election to declare whether it would try to privatise the NBN.

The government said in a statement from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Finance Minister Katy Gallagher and Communications Minister Michelle Rowland: “The Coalition rushed to declare the NBN ‘complete’ so they could put it on the block for sale – selling out Australian consumers and regional communities.

"The Albanese government won’t let that happen. This legislation will ensure the NBN is owned by who it belongs to – the Australian people.”

The upgrades the government had undertaken “are already making a real difference in the lives of Australians through faster, more reliable internet access. Keeping the NBN in public hands will lock in affordable and accessible high speed internet for all Australians for generations to come.”

Albanese said:“The Coalition made a mess of the NBN – my government is getting on with the job of fixing it and making sure it stays in public hands, where it belongs.”

Rowland said: “Australians don’t trust the Coalition not to flog off the NBN just like they did with Telstra, resulting in higher prices and poorer services, especially in the regions.”

Downgraded

The Rudd Labor government announced what was to be a predominantly fibre-to-the-home wholesale network in 2009, promising it would cost $43 billion and later be privatised to claw back the expense.

In 2010 Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said Labor “remained firmly committed to selling its stake in NBN Co after the network was fully built and operational, subject to market conditions and security considerations”.

By 2020 the government was estimated to have spent $51 billion on a scaled-down version of the project completed using a mix of technologies.

In June that year a review by the Parliamentary Budget Office put its fair value at $8.7 billion.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Building a home can come with hidden costs. Unfortunately, many people don’t think about these costs until it’s too late.

Some buyers succumb to the tricks marketers use to attract them, with upgrades and add-ons blowing out the cost.

Other costs relate to risks of delay, changes in borrowing conditions, unexpected taxes and fees, insurance, compliance with local development standards and even exit fees in some cases.

So let’s explore the sales tactics buyers need to beware of, as well as the five hidden costs of building new homes.

How marketers persuade us to build a home

Marketers of home-building packages use various strategies to attract buyers.

Attractive pricing and promotions

Marketers often attract first-time home buyers and young families by advertising low prices and showing off modern designs.

They will then offer an upgrade or value package. The most common examples we see are deals with, for example, a $30,000 credit on upgrading, $45,000 cashback, or an amazingly cheap house and land package.

Our research found consumers are likely to feel more surprised by higher levels of discounts in the case of high-involvement products such as a buying a house.

The marketers make it seem like you’re getting a great deal, with options to customise the house just the way you like. What they don’t always tell you is the advertised prices usually apply to the most basic version of the home.

Any upgrades, such as granite countertops or hardwood floors, cost more. Often, the base price does not include essential features such as curtains, ceiling fans or air conditioning.

These upgrades quickly add up to more than that $30,000 credit for upgrading or that $45,000 cashback offer. Buyers can end up paying much more than they planned.

Keep in mind most home-building companies act as middlemen who buy and outsource products. They are likely to add charges for most upgrades or fixtures you order through them.

A $200 price tag for a kitchen light bought directly from a retailer such as Beacon Lighting can cost you $300 from the builder. Costs like this add up for a whole house.

What can you do? Note down the code or name of the item and buy it directly. See if the builders can install fittings for a lower cost if you supply them.

Social media and influencers

Influencers can make the process look easy and fun. Our research on influencer marketing and human influencers and virtual influencers shows trusting followers are more likely to follow influencers’ suggestions.

An influencer might, for example, share a video of their “perfect day” in their new home, focusing on the perks without mentioning the hidden costs.

Special deals and time-limited offers like cashbacks are used to make buyers feel they have to act fast, without taking the time to think about the financial commitment. This strategy exploits the fear of missing out, or FOMO.

The goal is to get customers to quickly sign up with a $1,000–$5,000 deposit. That increases customer commitment and stops them backing out.

Carefully check the conditions of the deposit, as you can most likely back out with a full refund if you are not happy with the final price before the final contract is signed, or during a cooling-off period after signing.

What are the 5 hidden costs?

1. Changing interest rates over 30 years

Many home buyers think about interest rates when they get a mortgage, but they often do not consider how rates can change over the years. Even a small increase can mean paying thousands more over the life of the loan.

When buying a home, people hope for lower interest rates, though they cannot predict future economic conditions. The theory of optimism bias could explain why many of us have expectations about a future that’s more favourable to us.

What should temper this optimism is the fact that even seemingly small interest rate changes make a big difference over time. For example, a $700,000 loan over 30 years at 3.5% interest has a monthly repayment of $3,143.31. At 4.5% interest, the repayment becomes $3,546.80. That’s an extra $4,841.88 a year.

Understanding this can help families budget for possible changes and avoid financial stress later on.

2. Delay costs

Delays can happen due to weather, problems getting materials, or other unexpected issues. Timber shortages have affected home building since 2020.

The costs of delay can include having to rent a place to live while waiting for the home to be finished. Renting for three months, for instance, at the national average of $600 a week will cost more than $7,000.

3. Unexpected costs

Apart from predictable costs, such as the down payment and tax or transfer (stamp) duty, other smaller, unexpected costs can add up.

These include bank fees, solicitor fees, building and pest inspections, moving costs, utility connections and home and contents insurance.

These are all essential to ensure the home is safe and secure. But the cost can easily top $5,000.

4. Standardised costs

Many new housing developments have rules about what owners can and cannot do with their property.

These rules might specify paint colours, fence types or landscaping choices, such as planting a set number of large trees.

A development might require home owners to use certain types of trees or materials for driveways, costing an extra $2,000.

More often than not, the land developer will require a refundable deposit of about $1,000–$5,000 when you buy the land for your home. It’s only refunded once the developer has confirmed you have met all the conditions. If you don’t, you won’t get your money back.

Before buying an apartment, first find out how much you have to pay in strata fees and other fixed or ongoing costs.

5. Exit costs

In rare cases, selling the property might attract exit fees. For example, if an owner sells their house within five years, they might face a $5,000 penalty fee for selling early.

This can be an unpleasant surprise and cause problems for families who need to move quickly due to a job change or other life events.

Make sure you read all the conditions of sale before signing.

A market in need of greater transparency

Knowing about these hidden costs of building a home helps avoid unexpected expenses and makes the process less stressful.

For policymakers and advocates, these costs highlight the need for fair marketing practices and rules that protect buyers from financial surprises.

Ensuring more transparency in this market can help make home ownership more affordable and accessible for everyone.

Park Thaichon, Associate Professor of Marketing, University of Southern Queensland and Sara Quach, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, Griffith University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Senator Fatima Payman, launching her new political party Australia’s Voice, is pitching strongly at the large number of voters who are disillusioned with the big parties.

“Australians are fed up with the major parties having a duopoly, a stranglehold over our democracy. If we need to drag the two major parties kicking and screaming to do what needs to be done, we will.”

Payman, who stresses she is not forming a Muslim party, quoted both Gough Whitlam and Robert Menzies in introducing the new group.

She said the party was “for the disenfranchised, the unheard, and those yearning for real change”. But she was short on any detail, saying policies and candidates would come later.

Payman quit the Labor party to join the crossbench after disciplinary action that followed her crossing the floor over Gaza. A senator from Western Australia, she doesn’t face the voters until the election after next.

It has previously been flagged the party intends to field Senate candidates as well as run in some lower house seats. Its strategist is so-called preference whisperer Glenn Druery, who works for Payman. Druery had success in promoting micro-party candidates running for upper houses in the past, but tightened federal electoral rules mean it will be an uphill battle to get a senator elected for the new party.
Payman told a news conference on Wednesday: “This is more a movement than a party. It’s a movement for a fairer, more inclusive, Australia. Together we will hold our leaders accountable and ensure that your voice – Australia’s Voice – is never silenced.”

Payman invoked “the great Gough Whitlam” when he said, “There are some people who are so frightened to put a foot wrong that they won’t put a foot forward”.

“This comment made in 1985 applies so much to the current Labor Party who has lost its way,” Payman said.

Looking also to the other side of politics she said: “Australia’s Voice believes in a system where people come first, where your concerns are not just heard but acted upon. We reject the status quo that serves the powerful and ignores the rest, the forgotten people as Robert Menzies put it.”

She said after spending countless hours listening to Australians, the message she’d heard had been “a growing frustration”.

“A feeling of being left behind, of shouting into a void, only for their concerns to fall on deaf ears.

"So many of you have told me, with emotion in your hearts. ‘We need something different We need a voice’.

"It is this cry for change that has brought us here today. Because we can no longer sit by while our voices are drowned out by the same old politics. It’s time to stand up, to rise together, and to take control of our future.”

Underlining the party would be inclusive, Payman said, “This is a party for all Australians. We’re going to ensure that everyone is represented, whether it’s the mums and dads who are trying to make ends meet, or the young students out there, or whether it’s the grandparents who want to have dignity and respect as they age.”

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The budget surplus for last financial year has come in at $15.8 billion, well exceeding the $9.3 billion that was forecast in the May budget.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers, just back from talks in Beijing on China’s economic outlook, will announce the result on Monday.

The government says the better-than-forecast outcome has been driven entirely by lower spending. Revenue was also lower than the budget anticipated. Areas of savings included the National Disability Insurance Scheme, payments to the states, and various grant programs that don’t exist anymore.

This is the government’s second consecutive surplus. The May budget has predicted deficits for the coming years.

Across 2022-23 and 2023-24 the budget position has improved by a cumulative $172.3 billion, compared with what was forecast in the official Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook, released immediately before the 2022 election.

The government says it has made $77.4 billion in savings, including $12.2 billion in 2023-24.

Payments were 25.2% of GDP in 2023-24. This compared to the PEFO forecast of 27.1%

Chalmers said this was the “first government to post back-to-back surpluses in nearly two decades”. The surpluses hadn’t come at the expense of cost-of-living relief, he said in a statement.

Speaking in Beijing on Friday Chalmers said it remained to be seen whether China’s just-announced stimulus measures would work.

“But we’ve seen on earlier occasions when the authorities here, the administration here, steps in to support activity in the economy that is typically a good thing for Australia – good for our businesses and workers, our industries, our investors, and good for the global economy as well.

"Like a lot of people around the world, we have been concerned about the softer conditions here in the Chinese economy. Subject to the details [of measures] that will be made public in good time, any efforts to boost growth and support activity here is a welcome one around the world and especially at home in Australia.”

Chalmers on Monday is likely to face further questions on the Treasury’s work on negative gearing, news of which leaked out last week.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Deki, a 23-year-old resident of the remote town of Armidale, NSW, has been sleepless with excitement since the Bhutanese embassy in Canberra announced an upcoming visit from Bhutan’s fifth monarch, King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck.

King Jigme Khesar will be visiting from October 10 to 16. It will be his first time in Australia, as well as the first ever visit from a Bhutanese head of state.

According to Bhutan’s ministry of foreign affairs and external trade, the king will meet with Australian government officials, business leaders and the Bhutanese community during his trip. Audiences with the king are scheduled in Sydney on October 12, Canberra on October 13, and Perth on October 16.

Deki will be travelling to Sydney by train on October 11 with about 60 people from Armidale’s Bhutanese community. The journey will take more than eight hours. Some residents will fly on the morning of October 12.

The Armidale residents have practised dances to present to the royal entourage. Their enthusiasm is palpable. With more than 35,000 Bhutanese people living in Australia, the embassy received an overwhelming number of registrations for the royal audience.

Chhimi Dorji, president of the Association of Bhutanese in Perth, said many Bhutanese residents applied for leave the moment the royal visit was announced. He said the community’s overwhelming excitement signifies a deep love and respect for the king.

A deep reverence for the king

Devotion to the king is ingrained in Bhutanese society; he is even considered a sacred figure. This love and respect stems from a view of the monarchy as a symbol of pride and unity.

My ongoing research on language and politics in Bhutan – as well as the many years I spent working there as a journalist – has revealed a genuine admiration for the king among the public. Research participants in rural Bhutan told me politicians should learn from the king in order to serve their people.

In 2008, King Jigme Khesar facilitated Bhutan’s transition from an absolute monarchy to a democratic constitutional monarchy. As party politics fragmented the small nation and divided people along party lines, the monarchy was seen as a beacon of hope.

The Bhutanese public’s devotion to its king defies theories which claim that the concept of the monarchy more broadly is becoming obsolete.

Serving the people

One reason King Jigme Khesar is so revered is because of his role in helping to build and advance Bhutan. During the pandemic, he was hailed for implementing pandemic response strategies and for visiting every nook and corner of the country to comfort citizens.

He has also implemented programs that provide important public services. For instance, Desuung, a volunteer training program that started in 2011, delivers volunteers for a variety of projects such as disaster operations and charity events. Another national service program, Gyalsung, was started this year.

Currently, the king is planning to develop the world’s first mindfulness city in Gelephu – a southern plain in Bhutan spanning more than 1,000 square kilometres – with hopes to attract foreign investment and encourage emigrated Bhutanese people to return.

Ahead of the royal visit, Sydney resident Tshering Palden said he and his children were clearly excited to greet King Jigme Khesar.

Besides other things, I am excited to hear about the developments around Gelephu Mindfulness City and how Bhutanese living abroad like me can be part of His Majesty’s brain child and the long-term nation building […]

Foreigners are also intrigued and very interested to know about the project and ask us a lot about it.

The Australian dream

As a landlocked country that really only made itself known to the world in 1999 (after internet and television were finally introduced), Bhutan is something of an enigma.

It is touted as the world’s happiest country, largely due to its uptake of a unique metric called “gross national happiness” in the 1970s. In 1972, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck (King Jigme Khesar’s father) proclaimed the country’s gross national happiness was an even more important measure of progress than gross domestic product (GDP).

Today, however, the tiny Himalayan country of about 800,000 people faces an existential crisis due to widespread unemployment and huge numbers of youth and young professionals moving overseas for a better future.

Australia remains a top destination for Bhutanese residents – and currently has more Bhutanese diaspora than any country in the world. Bhutan is also said to be Australia’s 14th largest source country for international students.

But despite living so far away, Bhutanese diaspora in Australia remain deeply rooted to their identity, culture and devotion to the monarchy. Most of them still celebrate the king’s birthday on February 21 each year, as well as Bhutan’s National Day on December 17.

Meanwhile, Deki – who has portraits of Jigme Khesar in her home in central Bhutan – says being able to meet the king will be a “dream come true”.

Tashi Dema, PhD Candidate in Language and Politics, University of New England

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Should young people be paid less than their older counterparts, even if they’re working the same job? Whether you think it’s fair or not, it’s been standard practice in many industries for a long time.

The argument is that young people are not fully “work-ready” and require more intensive employer support to develop the right skills for their job.

But change could be on the horizon. Major unions and some politicians are pushing for reform – arguing “youth wages” should be scrapped entirely for adults.

Why? They say the need to be fairly paid for equal work effort, as well as economic considerations such as the high cost of living and ongoing housing crisis, mean paying young adults less based on their age is out of step with modern Australia.

So is there a problem with our current system, and if so, how might we go about fixing it?

What are youth wages?

In Australia, a youth wage or junior pay rate is paid as an increasing percentage of an award’s corresponding full adult wage until an employee reaches the age of 21.

This isn’t the case in every industry – some awards require all adults to be paid the same minimum rates.

But for those not covered by a specific award, as well as those working in industries including those covered by the General Retail Industry Award, Fast Food Industry Award and Pharmacy Industry Award, employees younger than 21 are not paid the full rate.

Why pay less?

Conventionally, junior rates have been thought of as a “training wage”. Younger people are typically less experienced, so as they gain more skills on the job over time, they are paid a higher hourly rate.

But there are a few key problems with this approach, which may not be relevant given many employers’ expectations for their workers to start “job-ready” and a lack of consistency in the training they provide.

Training up and developing skills is an important part of building any career. But it isn’t always provided by their employers.

Many young workers train themselves in job-related technical education and short courses, often at their own expense and prior to starting work.

Employers reap the benefit of this pre-employment training and so a “wage discount” for younger workers may be irrelevant in this instance.

None of this is to say employers aren’t offering something important when they take on young employees.

Younger workers coming into employment relatively early have access to more than just a paid job, but also become part of a team, with responsibilities and job requirements that support “bigger-picture” life skills.

Those who employ them may be contributing to their broader social and cultural engagement, something that could be considered part of a more inclusive training package. Whether that justifies a significant wage discount is less clear.

Calls for a rethink

There are growing calls for a rethink on the way we compensate young people for their efforts.

An application by the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association – the union for retail, fast food and warehousing workers – seeks to remove junior rates for adult employees on three key awards. This action will be heard by the Fair Work Commission next year.

Sally McManus, Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, said the peak union body will lobby the government to legislate such changes if this application fails. The Greens have added their support.

That doesn’t have to mean abolishing youth wages altogether. But 21 years of age is a high threshold, especially given we get the right to major adult responsibilities such as voting and driving by 18.

A transition strategy could consider gradually lowering this threshold, or increasing the wage percentages over time.

Lessons from New Zealand

We wouldn’t be the first to make such a bold change if we did.

Our geographically and culturally close neighbour, New Zealand, has already removed the “youth wage” – replacing it with a “first job” rate and a training wage set at 80% of the full award rate in 2008.

A common argument against abolishing youth wages – and increasing the minimum wage in general – is that it will stop businesses hiring young people and thus increase unemployment.

But a 2021 study that examined the effects of New Zealand’s experience with increasing minimum wages – including this change – found little discernible difference in employment outcomes for young workers.

The authors did note, however, that New Zealand’s economic downturn post-2008 had a marked effect on the employment of young workers more generally.

What’s fair?

It’s easy to see how we arrived at the case for paying younger adults less. But younger workers should not bear the burden of intergenerational inequity by “losing out” on wages in the early part of their working life.

The debate we see now echoes the discussions about equal pay for equal work value run in the 1960s and ‘70s in relation to women’s unequal pay.

We were warned that paying women the same as men would cause huge economic dislocation. Such a catastrophe simply did not come to pass.

Kerry Brown, Professor of Employment and Industry, School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The NSW Education Standards Authority has announced that teaching of the Aboriginal past prior to European arrival will be excluded from the Year 7–10 syllabus as of 2027.

Since 2012, the topic “Ancient Australia” has been taught nationally in Year 7 as part of the Australian Curriculum. In 2022, a new topic called the “deep time history of Australia” was introduced to provide a more detailed study of 65,000 years of First Nations’ occupation of the continent.

However, New South Wales has surprisingly dropped this topic from its new syllabus, which will be rolled out in 2027. Instead, students will only learn First Nations’ history following European colonisation in 1788.

This directly undermines the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration of 2020. This is a national agreement, signed by education ministers from all jurisdictions, which states:

We recognise the more than 60,000 years [sic] of continual connection by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as a key part of the nation’s history, present and future.

If the planned change to the syllabus goes through, the only Aboriginal history taught to NSW students would be that which reflects the destruction of traditional Aboriginal society. It also means Aboriginal students in NSW will be denied a chance to learn about their deep ancestral past.

The significance of Australia’s deep time past

Bruce Pascoe’s groundbreaking 2014 book Dark Emu (which sold more than 500,000 copies), and the associated documentary, have highlighted an enormous appetite for learning about Australia’s deep time past.

Hundreds of thousands of Australians engaged with Dark Emu. As anthropologist Paul Memmott notes, the book prompted a debate that encouraged a better understanding of Aboriginal society and its complexity.

It also generated research that investigated whether terms such as “hunter-gatherers” are appropriate for defining past Aboriginal society and economic systems.

In schools, teachers have used Pascoe’s book Young Dark Emu to introduce students to sophisticated land and aquaculture systems used by First Peoples prior to colonisation.

The book raises an important question. If you lived in a country that invented bread and the edge-ground axe – a culture that independently developed early trade and social living – and did all of this without resorting to land war – wouldn’t you want your children to know about it?

For many students, the history they learn at school is knowledge they carry into their adult lives – and knowledge is the strongest antidote to ignorance. Rather than abandoning the Aboriginal deep time story, schools should be encouraging students to engage with it.

Learning on Country

One of the strengths of the current NSW history syllabus is the requirement for students to undertake a “site study” in Years 8 and 9. Currently, NSW is the only jurisdiction that has made this mandatory.

Site studies are an excellent opportunity for students to learn on Country. Many teachers organise excursions to Aboriginal cultural sites where students can directly engage with local Traditional Owners and Elders.

New South Wales is brimming with sites of cultural significance to Aboriginal people. The map below highlightssome of these, ranging from megafauna sites, to extensive fish traps, to the enigmatic rock art galleries and ceremonial engravings (petroglyphs).

How students will miss out

The Ngambaa people and archaeologists from the University of Queensland are currently investigating one of the largest midden complexes in Australia. This complex, located at Clybucca and Stuart’s Point on the north coast, spans some 14 kilometres and dates back to around 9,000 years ago.

Middens, or “living sites”, are accumulations of shell that were built over time through thousands of discarded seafood meals. Since the shells help reduce the acidic chemistry of the soil, animal bones and plant remains are more likely to be preserved in middens.

For instance, the Clybucca-Stuarts Point midden complex contains remains from seals and dugongs. Both of these animals were once part of the local ecosystem, but no longer are.

The middens also extend back to before the arrival of dingoes, so studying them could help us understand how biodiversity changed once dingoes replaced thylacines and Tasmanian devils on the mainland.

Local school students, especially Aboriginal students, will be actively participating in this cutting-edge research alongside the Ngambaa people, archaeologists and teachers. Among other things, the students will learn how the Ngambaa people sustainably managed land and sea Country over thousand of years during periods of dramatic environmental change.

But innovative programs like this will no longer be as relevant if Australia’s deep time history is removed from the NSW syllabus.

An opportunity for leadership

The study of First Nations archaeological sites, history and cultures tells us a broader human story of continuity and adaptability over deep time. Indigenising the curriculum – wherein Aboriginal knowledge is braided with historical and archaeological inquiry – is a powerful way to reconcile different approaches to understanding the past.

The NSW Education Standards Authority’s proposed changes risk sending young people the message that Australia’s “history” before colonisation is not an important part of the country’s historic narrative.

But there is still time to show leadership – by reversing the decisions and by connecting teachers and students to powerful stories from Australia’s deep time past.

Michael Westaway, Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Archaeology, School of Social Science, The University of Queensland; Bruce Pascoe, Enterprise Professor, Indigenous Agriculture School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, The University of Melbourne, and Louise Zarmati, Senior Lecturer in Humanities and Social Sciences Education, Faculty of Education, University of Tasmania

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Over the nearly five years since COVID first emerged, you’d be forgiven if you’ve lost track of the number of new variants we’ve seen. Some have had a bigger impact than others, but virologists have documented thousands.

The latest variant to make headlines is called XEC. This omicron subvariant has been reported predominantly in the northern hemisphere, but it has now been detected in Australia too.

So what do we know about XEC?

Is COVID still a thing?

People are now testing for COVID less and reporting it less. Enthusiasm to track the virus is generally waning.

Nonetheless, Australia is still collecting and reporting COVID data. Although the number of cases is likely to be much higher than the number documented (around 275,000 so far this year), we can still get some idea of when we’re seeing significant waves, compared to periods of lower activity.

Australia saw its last COVID peak in June 2024. Since then cases have been on the decline.

But SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID, is definitely still around.

Which variants are circulating now?

The main COVID variants circulating currently around the world include BA.2.86, JN.1, KP.2, KP.3 and XEC. These are all descendants of omicron.

The XEC variant was first detected in Italy in May 2024. The World Health Organization (WHO) designated it as a variant “under monitoring” in September.

Since its detection, XEC has spread to more than 27 countries across Europe, North America and Asia. As of mid-September, the highest numbers of cases have been identified in countries including the United States, Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Denmark.

XEC is currently making up around 20% of cases in Germany, 12% in the UK and around 6% in the US.

Although XEC remains a minority variant globally, it appears to have a growth advantage over other circulating variants. We don’t know why yet, but reports suggest it may be able to spread more easily than other variants.

For this reason, it’s predicted XEC could become the dominant variant worldwide in the coming months.

How about in Australia?

The most recent Australian Respiratory Surveillance Report noted there has been an increasing proportion of XEC sequenced recently.

In Australia, 329 SARS-CoV-2 sequences collected from August 26 to September 22 have been uploaded to AusTrakka, Australia’s national genomics surveillance platform for COVID.

The majority of sequences (301 out of 329, or 91.5%) were sub-lineages of JN.1, including KP.2 (17 out of 301) and KP.3 (236 out of 301). The remaining 8.5% (28 out of 329) were recombinants consisting of one or more omicron sub-lineages, including XEC.

Estimates based on data from GISAID, an international repository of viral sequences, suggests XEC is making up around 5% of cases in Australia, or 16 of 314 samples sequenced.

Queensland reported the highest rates in the past 30 days (8%, or eight of 96 sequences), followed by South Australia (5%, or five out of 93), Victoria (5%, or one of 20) and New South Wales (3%, or two of 71). WA recorded zero sequences out of 34. No data were available for other states and territories.

What do we know about XEC? What is a recombinant?

The XEC variant is believed to be a recombinant descendant of two previously identified omicron subvariants, KS.1.1 and KP.3.3. Recombinant variants form when two different variants infect a host at the same time, which allows the viruses to switch genetic information. This leads to the emergence of a new variant with characteristics from both “parent” lineages.

KS.1.1 is one of the group commonly known as “FLiRT” variants, while, KP.3.3 is one of the “FLuQE” variants. Both of these variant groups have contributed to recent surges in COVID infections around the world.

The WHO’s naming conventions for new COVID variants often use a combination of letters to denote new variants, particularly those that arise from recombination events among existing lineages. The “X” typically indicates a recombinant variant (as with XBB, for example), while the letters following it identify specific lineages.

We know very little so far about XEC’s characteristics specifically, and how it differs from other variants. But there’s no evidence to suggest symptoms will be more severe than with earlier versions of the virus.

What we do know is what mutations this variant has. In the S gene that encodes for the spike protein we can find a T22N mutation (inherited from KS.1.1) as well as Q493E (from KP.3.3) and other mutations known to the omicron lineage.

Will vaccines still work well against XEC?

The most recent surveillance data doesn’t show any significant increase in COVID hospitalisations. This suggests the current vaccines still provide effective protection against severe outcomes from circulating variants.

As the virus continues to mutate, vaccine companies will continue to update their vaccines. Both Pfizer and Moderna have updated vaccines to target the JN.1 variant, which is a parent strain of the FLiRT variants and therefore should protect against XEC.

However, Australia is still waiting to hear which vaccines may become available to the public and when.

In the meantime, omicron-based vaccines such as the the current XBB.1.5 spikevax (Moderna) or COMIRNATY (Pfizer) are still likely to provide good protection from XEC.

It’s hard to predict how XEC will behave in Australia as we head into summer. We’ll need more research to understand more about this variant as it spreads. But given XEC was first detected in Europe during the northern hemisphere’s summer months, this suggests XEC might be well suited to spreading in warmer weather.

Lara Herrero, Research Leader in Virology and Infectious Disease, Griffith University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most diagnosed childhood neurological disorder in Australia.

Over the years, it has been the subject of controversy about potential misdiagnosis and overdiagnosis. There has also been variation in levels of diagnosis and drug prescription, depending on where you live and your socioeconomic status.

To address these concerns and improve consistency in ADHD diagnosis and prescribing, the Australasian ADHD Professionals Association has released a new prescribing guide. This will help the health-care workforce to consistently get the right treatment to the right people, with the right mix of medical and non-medical supports.

Here’s how ADHD prescribing has changed over time and what the new guidelines mean.

What is ADHD and how is it treated?

Up to one in ten young Australians experience ADHD. It is diagnosed due to inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity that has negative effects at home, school or work.

Psychostimulant medication is a central pillar of ADHD treatment.

However, the internationally recognised approach is to combine medicines with non-medical interventions in a multimodal approach. These non-medical interventions include cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), occupational therapy, educational strategies and other supports.

Medication use has changed over time

In Australia, Ritalin (methylphenidate) was originally the most prescribed ADHD medication. This changed in the 1990s after the introduction of dexamphetamine, along with the subsequent availability of Vyvance (lisdexamfetamine).

Perhaps the most significant change has come with “slow release” versions of the above medications that can last more than eight hours (longer than a school day).

When following clinical guidelines, prescribing medication for ADHD is safe practice. Yet the use of amphetamines to treat young people with ADHD has caused public concern. This highlights the importance of consistent guidelines for prescribing professionals.

Growth in diagnosis and prescribing

Starting from low levels, there was a dramatic rise in diagnosis and drug treatment in the 1990s. Much of this was overseen by a small number of psychiatrists and paediatricians in each state or territory. While this promised the potential of consistency in the early days, it also raised concerns about best practice.

This led to the development of the first ADHD clinical guidelines by the National Medical Health and Research Council in 1997.

It was followed by several refinements as prescription expanded due to changing diagnostic criteria (expanding to include a dual diagnosis with autism) and the need for best practice with the growing prescription by GPs. These guidelines enhanced the consistency of approaches nationally and reduced the likelihood of misdiagnosis or overdiagnosis.

However, a recent Senate inquiry found diagnosis and drug treatment continued to grow substantially in the five years to 2022. It emphasised the need for a more consistent approach to diagnosis and prescribing.

First the ingredients, then the recipe

The most recent clinical guidelines, released by the Australasian ADHD Professionals Association in 2022, outlined a roadmap for ADHD clinical practice, research and policy. They did so by drawing on the lived experience of those with ADHD. They also emphasised broader health questions, such as how to respond to ADHD as a holistic condition.

It remains difficult to predict individual responses to different medication. So the new prescribing guide offers practical advice about safe and responsible prescribing. This aims to reduce the potential for incorrect prescribing, dosing and adjusting of ADHD medication, across different age groups, settings and individuals.

To put this visually, the clinical guidelines describe what the ingredients of the cake should be, while the prescribing guidelines provide step-by-step recipes.

So what do they recommend?

An important principle in both these documents is that medication should not be the first and only treatment. Not every drug works the same way for every child. In some cases they do not work at all.

The possible side effects of medication vary and include poor appetite, sleep problems, headaches, stomach aches, moodiness and irritability. These guidelines assist in adapting medication to reduce these side effects.

Medication provides an important window of opportunity for many young people to gain maximum value from psychosocial and psychoeducational supports. These supports can, among others, include:

• cognitive training
• CBT
• neurofeedback
  
• occupational therapy
• educational strategies
• ADHD coaching.

Support for ADHD can also include parent training. This is not to suggest parents cause ADHD. Rather, they can support more effective treatment, especially since the rigours of ADHD can be a challenge to even the “perfect” parent.

Getting the right diagnosis

There have been reports of people seeking to use TikTok to self-diagnose, as well as a rise in people using ADHD stimulants without a prescription.

However, the message from these new guidelines is that ADHD diagnosis is a complex process that takes a specialist at least three hours. Online sources might be useful to prompt people to seek help, but diagnosis should come from a qualified health-care professional.

Finally, while we have moved beyond unhelpful past debate about whether ADHD is real to consolidate best diagnostic and prescribing practice, there is some way to go in reducing stigma and changing negative community attitudes to ADHD.

Hopefully in future we’ll be better able to cherish diversity and difference, and not just see it as a deficit.

Brenton Prosser, Professor of Public Policy and Leadership, UNSW Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

For almost a decade, researchers have been gathering evidence that the social media platform Facebook disproportionately amplifies low-quality content and misinformation.

So it was something of a surprise when in 2023 the journal Science published a study that found Facebook’s algorithms were not major drivers of misinformation during the 2020 United States election.

This study was funded by Facebook’s parent company, Meta. Several Meta employees were also part of the authorship team. It attracted extensive media coverage. It was also celebrated by Meta’s president of global affairs, Nick Clegg, who said it showed the company’s algorithms have “no detectable impact on polarisation, political attitudes or beliefs”.

But the findings have recently been thrown into doubt by a team of researchers led by Chhandak Bagch from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. In an eLetter also published in Science, they argue the results were likely due to Facebook tinkering with the algorithm while the study was being conducted.

In a response eLetter, the authors of the original study acknowledge their results “might have been different” if Facebook had changed its algorithm in a different way. But they insist their results still hold true.

The whole debacle highlights the problems caused by big tech funding and facilitating research into their own products. It also highlights the crucial need for greater independent oversight of social media platforms.

Merchants of doubt

Big tech has started investing heavily in academic research into its products. It has also been investing heavily in universities more generally. For example, Meta and its chief Mark Zuckerberg have collectively donated hundreds of millions of dollars to more than 100 colleges and universities across the United States.

This is similar to what big tobacco once did.

In the mid-1950s, cigarette companies launched a coordinated campaign to manufacture doubt about the growing body of evidence which linked smoking with a number of serious health issues, such as cancer. It was not about falsifying or manipulating research explicitly, but selectively funding studies and bringing to attention inconclusive results.

This helped foster a narrative that there was no definitive proof smoking causes cancer. In turn, this enabled tobacco companies to keep up a public image of responsibility and “goodwill” well into the 1990s.

A positive spin

The Meta-funded study published in Science in 2023 claimed Facebook’s news feed algorithm reduced user exposure to untrustworthy news content. The authors said “Meta did not have the right to prepublication approval”, but acknowledged that The Facebook Open Research and Transparency team “provided substantial support in executing the overall project”.

The study used an experimental design where participants – Facebook users – were randomly allocated into a control group or treatment group.

The control group continued to use Facebook’s algorithmic news feed, while the treatment group was given a news feed with content presented in reverse chronological order. The study sought to compare the effects of these two types of news feeds on users’ exposure to potentially false and misleading information from untrustworthy news sources.

The experiment was robust and well designed. But during the short time it was conducted, Meta changed its news feed algorithm to boost more reliable news content. In doing so, it changed the control condition of the experiment.

The reduction in exposure to misinformation reported in the original study was likely due to the algorithmic changes. But these changes were temporary: a few months later in March 2021, Meta reverted the news feed algorithm back to the original.

In a statement to Science about the controversy, Meta said it made the changes clear to researchers at the time, and that it stands by Clegg’s statements about the findings in the paper.

Unprecedented power

In downplaying the role of algorithmic content curation for issues such as misinformation and political polarisation, the study became a beacon for sowing doubt and uncertainty about the harmful influence of social media algorithms.

To be clear, I am not suggesting the researchers who conducted the original 2023 study misled the public. The real problem is that social media companies not only control researchers’ access to data, but can also manipulate their systems in a way that affects the findings of the studies they fund.

What’s more, social media companies have the power to promote certain studies on the very platform the studies are about. In turn, this helps shape public opinion. It can create a scenario where scepticism and doubt about the impacts of algorithms can become normalised – or where people simply start to tune out.

This kind of power is unprecedented. Even big tobacco could not control the public’s perception of itself so directly.

All of this underscores why platforms should be mandated to provide both large-scale data access and real-time updates about changes to their algorithmic systems.

When platforms control access to the “product”, they also control the science around its impacts. Ultimately, these self-research funding models allow platforms to put profit before people – and divert attention away from the need for more transparency and independent oversight.

Timothy Graham, Associate Professor in Digital Media, Queensland University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Missy Higgins’ recent ARIA number-one album, The Second Act, represents an increasingly rare sighting: an Australian artist at the top of an Australian chart.

My recently published analysis of Australia’s best-selling singles and albums from 2000 to 2023 shows a significant decline in the representation of artists from Australia and non-English-speaking countries.

The findings suggest music streaming in Australia – together with algorithmic recommendation – is creating a monoculture dominated by artists from the United States and United Kingdom. This could spell bad news for our music industry if things don’t change.

Who dominates Australian charts?

In 2023, Australia’s recorded music industry was worth about A$676 million, up 10.9% year on year.

Building a strong local music industry is important, not only to support diverse cultural expression, but also to create jobs and boost Australia’s reputation on a global stage.

When Australian artists succeed, this attracts global investment, which in turn stimulates all aspects of the local music industry. Conversely, a weak music economy can lead to global disinvestment, thereby disadvantaging local companies, artists and consumers.

My research shows how the rise of music streaming – which became the dominant format for Australian recorded music sales in 2017 – has had a noticeable impact on the diversity of artists represented in the ARIA top 100 single and album charts.

In the year 2000, the top 100 singles chart featured hits from 14 different countries. By contrast, only seven countries were represented in 2023.

The percentage of Australian and New Zealand artists in the top 100 single charts declined from an average of 16% in 2000–16 to around 10% in 2017–23, and just 2.5% in 2023.

Album share also declined from an average of 29% in 2000–16 to 18% in 2017–23, and 4% in 2023.

Similarly, the proportion of artists from outside the Anglo bloc of North America, the UK and Australia/New Zealand declined from an average of 11.1% in 2000–16 to 7.3% in 2017–23 – while album share declined from 5% in 2000–16 to 2.3% in 2017–23.

My study also found representation of Indigenous artists remained low, but stable, over the period studied – and in line with population ratios.

Concetration of power

The findings suggest the decline in Australian and non-Anglo representation in the ARIA top 100 charts is linked.

Some economists and academics have argued easier access to independent music and global distribution via streaming will lead to greater diversity in music. But this hasn’t been the case in Australia, at least as far as chart-topping artists are concerned.

The global recorded music industry has consolidated in recent years. In the early 2000s there were five major music labels. Currently there are just three: Universal, Sony and Warner.

Last year, these three labels were responsible for more than 95% of the Australian top 100 single and album charts. Meanwhile, Spotify, Apple Music and YouTube make up an estimated 97% of the Australian streaming market.

These concentrations of power allow a handful of record labels and distributors to have a disproportionate influence over music design, production, distribution and governance – thereby limiting opportunities for diversity.

The need for new policy

My findings align with European research that found markets with a strong cultural differentiator of language are showing increased national diversity with streaming.

However, countries without a distinctive language are being increasingly dominated by global music production. In Australia’s case, we’re becoming reliant on the star-making machinery of the US.

Recently, Australia’s live music crisis came under scrutiny at a federal government inquiry, which highlighted the significant power imbalance between artists and multinational promoters.

As I and many others have suggested, targeted cultural policies are necessary to combat our highly concentrated and US-dependent market.

Relying on labels and streaming platforms will do little to preserve and promote our nation’s unique musical and cultural identity.

Tim Kelly, PhD Candidate, University of Technology Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

This article is part of a series on the great internet letdown. Read the rest of the series.

Ever found yourself unable to resist checking out a social media notification? Or sending a random picture just to keep a Snapchat “streak” going? Or simply getting stuck staring at YouTube because it auto-played yet another cute cat video?

If so, you’re far from alone. And if we adults can’t resist such digital temptations, how can we expect children to do any better?

Many digital environments are not designed with the best interest of users in mind – and this is especially true of games, apps and platforms commonly used by kids and teens.

Designers use persuasive design techniques to make users spend more time on apps or platforms, so they can make more money selling ads. Below, we explain some of the most common design tricks used in popular games, social media and apps.

Decision-making made easy 🔀

Social media and streaming platforms strive to provide “seamless” user experiences. This makes it easy to stay engaged without needing to click anything very often, which also minimises any obvious opportunities where we might disengage.

These seamless experiences include things such as auto-play when streaming videos, or “infinite scrolling” on social media. When algorithms present us with a steady flow of content, shaped by what we have liked or engaged with in the past, we must put in extra effort to stop watching. Unsurprisingly, we often decide to stay put.

Rewards and dopamine hits 🧠

Another way to keep children engaged is by using rewards, such as stars, diamonds, stickers, badges or other “points” in children’s apps. “Likes” on social media are no different.

Rewards trigger the release of a chemical in our brains – dopamine – which not only makes us feel good but also leaves us wanting more.

Rewards can be used to promote good behaviour, but not always. In some children’s apps, rewards are doubled if users watch advertisements.

Loot boxes and ‘gambling’ 💰

Variable rewards have been found to be especially effective. When you do not know when you will get a certain reward or desired item, you are more likely to keep going.

In games, variable rewards can often be found (or purchased) in the form of “loot boxes”. Loot boxes might be chests, treasures, or stacks of cards containing a random reward. Because of the unpredictable reward, some researchers have described loot boxes as akin to gambling, even though the games do not always involve real money.

Sometimes in-game currency (fake game money) can be bought with real money and used to “gamble” for rare characters and special items. This is very tempting for young people.

In one of our (as yet unpublished) studies, a 12-year-old student admitted to spending several hundred dollars to obtain a desired character in the popular game Genshin Impact.

The lure of streaks 🔥

Another problematic way of using rewards in design is negative reinforcement. For instance, when you are at risk of a negative outcome (like losing something good), you feel compelled to continue a particular behaviour.

“Streaks” work like this. If you do not do the same task for several days in a row, you will not get the extra rewards promised. Language learning app DuoLingo uses streaks, but so does Snapchat, a popular social media app. Research has shown a correlation between Snapchat streaks and problematic smartphone use among teens.

Streaks can also make money for apps directly. If you miss a day and lose your streak, you can often pay to restore it.

Loss of reputation 👎

Reputation is important on social media. Think of the number of Facebook friends you have, or the number of likes your post receives.

Sometimes designers build on our fear of losing our reputation. For instance, they can do this by adding a leaderboard that ranks users based on their score.

While you may have heard of the use of leaderboards in games, they are also common in popular educational apps such as Kahoot! or Education Perfect. Leaderboards introduce an element of competition that many students enjoy.

However, for some this competition has negative consequences – especially for those languishing low in the ranks.

Similarly, Snapchat has a SnapScore where reputational loss is still at play. You do not want a lower score than your friends! This makes you want to keep using the app.

Exploiting feelings of connection 🥰

Another tool in the designers’ bag of tricks is capitalising on the emotional ties or connections users form with influencers or celebrities on social media, or favourite media characters (such as Elmo or Peppa pig) for younger children.

While these connections can foster a sense of belonging, they can also be exploited for commercial gain, such as when influencers promote commercial products, or characters urge in-app purchases.

What can parents do? 🤷

Persuasive design isn’t inherently bad. Users want apps and games to be engaging, like we do for movies or TV shows. However, some design “tricks” simply serve commercial interests, often at the expense of users’ wellbeing.

It is not all bleak, though. Here are a few steps parents can take to help kids stay on top of the apps:

• have early and ongoing discussions with children about ideas such as the underlying commercial intent of what they are engaging with

• model good digital choices of not giving in to persuasive design, such as by avoiding digital distractions yourself

• use trustworthy resources to help in digital decision-making, such as Common Sense Media and Dark Pattern Games.

For the moment, the responsibility for managing children’s interactions with the digital realm falls largely on individuals and families.

Some governments are beginning to take action, but measures such as blanket age-based bans on social media or other platforms will only shield children temporarily. A better approach for governments and regulators would be to focus on safety by design: the idea that the safety and rights of users should be the starting point of any app, product or service, rather than an afterthought.

Chris Zomer, Associate Research Fellow at the Centre of the Digital Child, Deakin University and Sumudu Mallawaarachchi, Research Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child, University of Wollongong

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Pandemics – the global spread of infectious diseases – seem to be making a comeback. In the Middle Ages we had the Black Death (plague), and after the first world war we had the Spanish flu. Tens of millions of people died from these diseases.

Then science began to get the upper hand, with vaccination eradicating smallpox, and polio nearly so. Antibiotics became available to treat bacterial infections, and more recently antivirals as well.

But in recent years and decades pandemics seem to be returning. In the 1980s we had HIV/AIDS, then several flu pandemics, SARS, and now COVID (no, COVID isn’t over).

So why is this happening, and is there anything we can do to avert future pandemics?

Unbalanced ecosystems

Healthy, stable ecosystems provide services that keep us healthy, such as supplying food and clean water, producing oxygen, and making green spaces available for our recreation and wellbeing.

Another key service ecosystems provide is disease regulation. When nature is in balance – with predators controlling herbivore populations, and herbivores controlling plant growth – it’s more difficult for pathogens to emerge in a way that causes pandemics.

But when human activities disrupt and unbalance ecosystems – such as by way of climate change and biodiversity loss – things go wrong.

For example, climate change affects the number and distribution of plants and animals. Mosquitoes that carry diseases can move from the tropics into what used to be temperate climates as the planet warms, and may infect more people in the months that are normally disease free.

We’ve studied the relationship between weather and dengue fever transmission in China, and our findings support the same conclusion reached by many other studies: climate change is likely to put more people at risk of dengue.

Biodiversity loss can have similar effects by disrupting food chains. When ranchers cleared forests in South America for their cattle to graze in the first half of the 20th century, tiny forest-dwelling, blood-feeding vampire bats suddenly had a smörgåsbord of large sedentary animals to feed on.

While vampire bats had previously been kept in check by the limited availability of food and the presence of predators in the balanced forest ecosystem, numbers of this species exploded in South America.

These bats carry the rabies virus, which causes lethal brain infections in people who are bitten. Although the number of deaths from bat-borne rabies has now fallen dramatically due to vaccination programs in South America, rabies caused by bites from other animals still poses a global threat.

As urban and agricultural development impinges on natural ecosystems, there are increasing opportunities for humans and domestic animals to become infected with pathogens that would normally only be seen in wildlife – particularly when people hunt and eat animals from the wild.

The HIV virus, for example, first entered human populations from apes that were slaughtered for food in Africa, and then spread globally through travel and trade.

Meanwhile, bats are thought to be the original reservoir for the virus that caused the COVID pandemic, which has killed more than 7 million people to date.

Ultimately, until we effectively address the unsustainable impact we are having on our planet, pandemics will continue to occur.

Targeting the ultimate causes

Factors such as climate change, biodiversity loss and other global challenges are the ultimate (high level) cause of pandemics. Meanwhile, increased contact between humans, domestic animals and wildlife is the proximate (immediate) cause.

In the case of HIV, while direct contact with the infected blood of apes was the proximate cause, the apes were only being slaughtered because large numbers of very poor people were hungry – an ultimate cause.

The distinction between ultimate causes and proximate causes is important, because we often deal only with proximate causes. For example, people may smoke because of stress or social pressure (ultimate causes of getting lung cancer), but it’s the toxins in the smoke that cause cancer (proximate cause).

Generally, health services are only concerned with stopping people from smoking – and with treating the illness that results – not with removing the drivers that lead them to smoke in the first place.

Similarly, we address pandemics with lockdowns, mask wearing, social distancing and vaccinations – all measures which seek to stop the spread of the virus. But we pay less attention to addressing the ultimate causes of pandemics – until perhaps very recently.

A planetary health approach

There’s a growing awareness of the importance of adopting a “planetary health” approach to improve human health. This concept is based on the understanding that human health and human civilisation depend on flourishing natural systems, and the wise stewardship of those natural systems.

With this approach, ultimate drivers like climate change and biodiversity loss would be prioritised in preventing future pandemics, at the same time as working with experts from many different disciplines to deal with the proximate causes, thereby reducing the risk overall.

The planetary health approach has the benefit of improving both the health of the environment and human health concurrently. We are heartened by the increased uptake of teaching planetary health concepts across the environmental sciences, humanities and health sciences in many universities.

As climate change, biodiversity loss, population displacements, travel and trade continue to increase the risk of disease outbreaks, it’s vital that the planetary stewards of the future have a better understanding of how to tackle the ultimate causes that drive pandemics.

This article is the first in a series on the next pandemic.

Olga Anikeeva, Research Fellow, School of Public Health, University of Adelaide; Jessica Stanhope, Lecturer, School of Allied Health Science and Practice, University of Adelaide; Peng Bi, Professor, School of Public Health, University of Adelaide, and Philip Weinstein, Professorial Research Fellow, School of Public Health, University of Adelaide

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

This piece is the final of a three part series on Australia’s defamation laws. You can read the other pieces here and here.

Defamation laws exist to strike a balance between press freedom and the protection of people’s reputations from wrongful harm. In Australia, this balance has always been loaded against press freedom.

This is due partly to the way the defamation laws have been framed and partly by the way the courts have interpreted them.

Courts examine matters of journalism in the same way they examine matters of law: forensically, with strict rules and high standards of evidence and proof.

While we rightly expect ethical and honest reporting from our media, even the best can prove insufficient under the piercing gaze of defamation law. And in a time when media companies are more cash-strapped than ever, this has a chilling effect on the stories that get told and press freedom more broadly.

Ethics vs the law

Until 2006, each Australian jurisdiction had its own defamation laws. This created a nightmare of complexity for publishers, especially of newspapers and broadcasts that crossed state boundaries, which meant all the main media organisations.

They had to take into account the risks posed by litigation in the jurisdiction least favourable to press freedom.

For many decades, that was New South Wales. It was one of the states where truth alone was not a sufficient defence; there also had to be a public interest in the material. In some other jurisdictions this was called public benefit.

This was a major burden on press freedom and it was removed by the introduction of uniform defamation laws in 2006.

Since then, it has been enough for publishers to prove the substantial truth of the meanings conveyed in an article in order for the defence of truth to succeed.

It may sound straightforward, but proving substantial truth requires producing admissible evidence strong enough to satisfy the civil standard of proof: on the balance of probabilities. That usually means having documents and witnesses who are willing to be identified.

If, as is often the case, the article has drawn on evidence from a confidential source, the publisher is unable to put that source in the witness box because to do so would breach the media’s fundamental ethical obligation to protect the identity of confidential sources.

So unless the source is prepared in advance to be identified should the matter come to court, a story relying significantly on that person’s testimony may not see the light of day unless some other defence is available.

In 2021, those defences were expanded, although quite how significant that expansion turns out to be remains to be seen.

What appears on paper to be the most significant change was the introduction of a general public interest defence. This says that if publication of a story is in the public interest, and the publisher has a reasonable belief that it is, then publication can be defended on that ground.

There has been only one major test of that new defence, and it went against the media.

That case showed “reasonable belief” depended on the journalism being sound. In this case, the court found that the defendant, which was the ABC, had relied on shaky testimony that had not been sufficiently verified and had not given the subject of the story a fair opportunity to respond.

At odds with practicalities

This brings us to the question of how the courts interpret the law.

One of the big disappointments in this respect has been the way the courts have interpreted what, at the time, was hoped to be a significant addition to Australia’s threadbare free-speech jurisprudence.

In a case brought against the ABC by a late prime minister of New Zealand, David Lange, the High Court established the principle that freedom of speech on matters of government and politics trumped a person’s case for protection for their reputation.

If a person wanted to sue for defamation, they had to do so in a way that did not burden freedom of speech on matters of government and politics.

However, the High Court attached a test of reasonableness to this freedom. In several ways, it’s similar to the “reasonable belief” test in the new public interest defence.

Unfortunately, successive courts have applied the Lange reasonableness test in ways that are so strict they require journalists to meet standards demanding more powers of investigation than they possess or to exceed the usual journalistic standards of verification. Journalists can’t subpoena documents or compel people to speak to them.

The result is that this defence has become more or less a dead letter for journalistic purposes.

Is a story worth the cost?

Those accused of defamation can also defend it by saying it was comment or honest opinion. The first requirement of this defence is that the material be a comment and not a statement of fact.

But courts have interpreted this in different ways.

This uncertainty was illustrated by a famous case that became known as “Leo the Lobster”. A restaurant and restaurateur in Sydney successfully sued the Sydney Morning Herald over a review of a lobster dinner written by one Leo Schofield.

Schofield, who was a colourful writer, said the lobster had been overcooked:

the carbonized claws contained only a kind of white powder which might have been albino walrus.

Despite the amusing language, the court interpreted that as a literal factual description, not a statement of opinion.

Courts have a limited sense of humour, which makes satirical writing a chancy business, since the sharper the satire, the closer it is to literal truth.

Cartoons, which are satirical by definition, have more leeway but are not immune to defamation suits.

Then there’s the costs of defamation, particularly for media outlets. They’ve become exorbitant.

It has been estimated that the costs involved in the case brought by Ben Roberts-Smith against The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Canberra Times amounted to about $25 million. The newspapers won, although the matter has gone to appeal.

But even if the verdict is upheld, experience shows it is unlikely they will recoup anything like their full costs.

At a time when all major news media organisations are under acute financial pressure because of the inroads the internet has made on their revenue, there is a strong temptation not to risk publishing material the public has a right to know because of the financial impact an action for defamation would have.

Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

This week the New South Wales government announced it would introduce legislation that ensures renters are offered convenient, fee-free options to pay their rent.

The announcement is just one of many state and territory reforms that aim to address issues arising from the use of rental technology platforms.

In recent years these platforms and the landlords who use them have come under fire for intruding on renters’ privacy and charging additional fees. While practices such as “rent bidding” have already been outlawed around Australia, governments are now starting to turn their attention to other harmful practices facilitated by new technologies.

Action on these issues is long overdue, and there’s much more that needs to be done to ensure rental technology platforms actually benefit consumers.

An expanding industry

A wide range of digital technology platforms are used to facilitate the use, trading, operation and management of real estate assets. A well-known example is AirBnb, a technology platform that facilitates short-term rentals by connecting hosts with guests.

The property technology industry in Australia is rapidly expanding. In 2023, there were more than 478 products, start-ups and established companies ranging from marketing tools to data analytics platforms. This was up from 188 in 2019.

A portion of these companies make services typically designed to be used by renters, real estate agents or landlords.

A major selling point of rental technology platforms is that they promise to streamline a range of processes. To renters, these technologies are billed as quick, easy and effective ways to submit property applications, request maintenance or pay rent.

If designed well, these platforms can certainly offer convenience. But many have expressed dissatisfaction with rental technology businesses that pressure renters to pay for costly background checks, collect too much personal data, or use opaque algorithms to “score” applicants.

People who struggle to access or use technologies may also find these platforms difficult to use. This makes it harder for them to access an essential service.

Some 41% of renters report feeling pressured to use a third-party rental technology platform to apply for a property. And 29% say they have opted not to apply for particular rentals because they do not trust rental technology platforms. This suggests that the use of these technologies may sometimes deter, rather than attract, applicants.

Additional fees

Over 30% of Australians rent their homes, a figure that continues to grow as people find themselves priced out of home ownership. Rising rents and the overall increase in the cost of living have put many renters under substantial financial pressure.

With this in mind, it’s concerning that some renters have found themselves with little choice but to use rental technology platforms that charge fees to process rental payments.

For example, renters using a popular platform called Ailo are typically charged between 0.25% to 1.50% to make automated rental payments, depending on the method of payment they use. A rough estimate shows that a household paying the median weekly rent (A$627 per week) on a fortnightly basis might see themselves paying between $81.51 and $489.06 in additional fees each year.

As required by law, Ailo does offer a fee-free option to pay rent. But this option is highly inconvenient: it requires renters to enter their bank details anew each time they make a payment.

The fee-free options offered by some other rental technology platforms are equally inconvenient. They include paying rent in cash at the local post office.

For renters who have been asked to use a rental payment platform, this may mean spending additional time and effort every time they pay their rent to avoid paying additional fees.

The NSW government already requires lessors to offer fee-free ways to pay rent (similar protections are legislated in other states and territories). However, the key element of this week’s announcement is a commitment to making sure these fee-free methods are actually convenient. This should hopefully close the legislative loophole that is enabling these rental technologies to unfairly profit at renters’ expense.

While the draft legislation is yet to be seen, these reforms might see renters reverting to tried and tested payment methods such as bank transfers and bypassing rental technology payment platforms altogether.

Effective enforcement

Introducing laws that ensure renters have access to convenient, fee-free ways to make rental payments is a no-brainer. The next step is ensuring these laws are enforced effectively.

To achieve this, the regulator must be well resourced to carry out compliance and enforcement activities that ensure lessors and rental technology businesses comply with these protections.

Beyond these reforms, there is more work to be done to ensure renters are effectively protected from a range of harms that are created or exacerbated by rental technology platforms.

Issues such as discrimination and unfair treatment through rental technology platforms warrant further attention.

The key challenge for governments and regulators is to keep up with technological developments so they can identify and address issues as they arise.

Correction: this article has been amended to reflect the fact that Ailo requires renters to enter their details for each payment, rather than monthly as originally stated.

Linda Przhedetsky, PhD Candidate, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.