Johansen.se

Israel and Iran are at war. In truth, the two sides have been fighting for decades, but the conflict has played out largely under the cover of covert and clandestine operations.

The recent actions of both sides in this once “shadow war” have changed the nature of the conflict. It is not clear that de-escalation is on the horizon.

On Oct 1, 2024, Iran launched a massive, direct attack against Israel notionally in retribution for Israel’s dual assassinations of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and Hezbollah’s chief, Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah.

It was the second such barrage in six months.

By many accounts, the previous Iranian attack against Israel on April 13 – which consisted of over 300 ballistic and cruise missiles and attack drones – caused very little damage to Israel. Perhaps because of this, and likely in part due to U.S. encouragement of restraint, Israel’s immediate military response then – an airstrike against a single advanced Iranian air defense system in the Isfahan province – was somewhat measured.

Many onlookers saw the calibrated exchange in April as a possible indication that both sides would prefer to de-escalate rather than engage in ongoing open warfare.

But further Israeli military operations since then have prompted escalatory Iranian military responses, forcing the conflict back out of the shadows.

With Hamas’ capabilities and leadership degraded in the Gaza Strip, Israel’s military leaders announced in June that they were “ready to face” Hezbollah – the Iranian-backed Lebanese militant group whose persistent rocket attacks against northern Israel have caused tens of thousands to evacuate the area.

Israel pivots north

Israel’s pivot from Gaza toward Lebanon coincided with the July 31, 2024, assassination of Hamas’ political bureau chairman, Haniyeh, during his stay in Tehran. The purported Israeli operation was seen as an affront to Iran’s sovereignty. It was also an embarrassment that highlighted the vulnerability and permeability of Iran’s internal security apparatus.

Even though Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei vowed a “harsh response” against Israel, by September Iran had taken no action.

Tehran’s inaction caused many Middle East analysts to question if the Iranian response would ever materialize – and by extension, what that would mean for Khamenei’s commitment to his proxy forces.

If indeed Iran’s leadership opted for restraint following the assassination of Hamas’ top political leader, the same could not be said for its reaction to Israel’s multiphase operation against Hezbollah in mid-September.

Israel began with a clandestine operation to sow chaos and confusion in Hezbollah’s command and control through the means of sabotaged explosive communications devices. Israel then carried out airstrikes eliminating Hezbollah’s top leaders including Nasrallah. The Israeli military then launched what the country’s leaders describe as a “limited [ground] operation” into southern Lebanon to remove Hezbollah positions along the northern border.

Tehran’s Oct 1. attack in response against Israel was, according to many Middle East experts and indeed Iranian military leaders, primarily a retaliation for the two high-profile assassinations against Hamas and Hezbollah leaders.

These were certainly key factors. But as an expert on Iran’s defense strategy, I argue that Iran’s leaders also felt compelled to attack Israel for three equally, if not more important, reasons: to slow Israel’s advance in Lebanon, to save face, and to restore deterrence.

Challenging Israel’s advance

Iran hopes to slow and potentially reverse Israel’s successes against Hezbollah, especially as Israel embarks on ground operations into southern Lebanon. Of course, Israeli ground troops must now deal with what is perhaps the world’s most capable guerrilla fighting force – one that performed quite successfully during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war.

Nevertheless, Israel’s ability to achieve a tactical surprise and eliminate Hezbollah’s top leaders – even in the midst of an ongoing localized war, and even after Israel’s leaders announced their intention to engage Hezbollah – reveals a far superior Israeli strategy and operational planning and execution capability than that of Hezbollah.

And that presents a huge blow to what is seen in Iran as the Islamic Republic’s crown jewel within its “Axis of Resistance.”

In this respect, the Oct. 1 retaliatory strike by Iran can be seen as an attempt to afford Hezbollah time to appoint replacement leadership, regroup and organize against Israel’s ground invasion.

The brutal art of save face?

It also serves to help Iran save face, especially in how it’s seen by other parts of its external proxy network.

Orchestrated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, or IRGC – Tehran’s primary arm for coordinating external operations – Iranian money, training, guidance and ideological support enabled and encouraged the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack against Israel – even, as it has claimed, Iran had no prior warning of the assault.

Since then, Hamas fighters have received almost no real-time support from Tehran. This lack of support has no doubt contributed to Hamas being successfully degraded as a threat by Israel, with many of its members either dead or in hiding and unable to mount a coherent offensive campaign, leading Israel’s military leaders to claim the group has been effectively defeated.

Unsurprisingly, Iran is glad to enable Palestinians to fight Tehran’s enemies and absorb the human costs of war, because this arrangement primarily benefits the Islamic Republic.

Once the fighting in Gaza started, the IRGC was nowhere to be found.

Rockets fired from Iran are seen over Jerusalem on Oct. 1, 2024.
Wisam Hashlamoun/Anadolu via Getty Images

Now that Israel has shifted its attention to Lebanon and scored several initial tactical successes against Hezbollah, Iran cannot afford to stand back and watch for two main reasons. First, a year of fighting in Gaza has demonstrated that Israel is willing to do whatever it takes to eliminate threats along its borders – including a willingness to withstand international political pressure or operate within Iran’s borders.

And second, Iran’s proxy groups elsewhere are watching to see if Tehran will continue supporting them – or will abandon them, as it seemingly has done with Hamas.

Reclaiming deterrence

Perhaps above all, in Tehran’s calculus over how to respond is Iran’s need to restore a deterrence.

The two defining features of Iran’s interrelated external, or “forward defense,” and deterrence strategies is its regional network of militant proxies and its long-range weapons arsenal, which includes a large number of advanced ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and attack-capable drones.

These Iranian defense strategies seek to dissuade enemies from attacking Iran proper in two ways: first, by threatening Israel and other regional U.S. allies with punishment via proxy militia or long-range weapon attacks; and second, by offering scapegoat targets against which Iran’s enemies can express their rage. In effect, Iran’s proxy forces act as proxy targets that pay the costs for Iran’s hostile policies.

Israel’s degradation of Hamas and ongoing operations against Hezbollah threaten to undermine Iran’s ability to deter attacks against the homeland. For the Islamic Republic’s leaders, this is an unacceptable risk.

Who plays the next move?

These interweaving imperatives likely prompted Iran’s leaders to launch a second massive, direct missile attack on Oct. 1 against Israel. How effective the strike will be in achieving any of Tehran’s aims is unknown.

The Islamic Republic claimed that as many as 90% of the ballistic missiles reached their intended targets, while Israel and the United States characterize the attack as having been “defeated and ineffective,” despite unverified cellphone videos showing several ballistic missiles detonating after reaching land in Israel.

What is almost certain, however, is that this will not be the last move in the conflict. Israel is unlikely to halt its Lebanon operation until it achieves its border security objectives. And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed retaliation against Iran for its latest retaliatory attack.

IRGC leaders met this warning with a counterthreat of their own that if Israel responds to the Oct. 1 attack militarily, Iran will again respond with unspecified “crushing and destructive attacks.”

Rhetorically, neither side is backing down; militarily this may be true, too. The nature and scope of Israel’s next move will dictate how the war with Iran develops – but make no mistake, it is a war. Läs mer…

Long-spined sea urchins have emerged as an environmental issue off Australia’s far south coast. Native to temperate waters around New South Wales, the urchins have expanded their range south as oceans warm. There, they devour kelp and invertebrates, leaving barren habitats in their wake.

Lobsters are widely accepted as sea urchins’ key predator. In efforts to control urchin numbers, scientists have been researching this predator-prey relationship. And the latest research by my colleagues and I, released today, delivered an unexpected result.

We set up several cameras outside a lobster den and placed sea urchins in it. We filmed at night for almost a month. When we checked the footage, most sea urchins had been eaten – not by lobsters, but by sharks.

This suggests sharks have been overlooked as predators of sea urchins in NSW. Importantly, sharks seem to very easily consume these large, spiky creatures – sometimes in just a few gulps! Our findings suggest the diversity of predators eating large sea urchins is broader than we thought – and that could prove to be good news for protecting our kelp forests.

A puzzling picture

The waters off Australia’s south-east are warming at almost four times the global average. This has allowed long-spined sea urchins (Centrostephanus rodgersii) to extend their range from NSW into waters off Victoria and Tasmania.

Sea urchins feed on kelp and in their march south, have reduced kelp cover. This has added to pressure on kelp forests, which face many threats.

Scientists have been looking for ways to combat the spread of sea urchins. Ensuring healthy populations of predators is one suggested solution.

Overseas research on different urchin species has focused on predators such as lobsters and large fish. It found kelp cover can be improved by protecting or reinstating these predators.

Sea urchins feed on kelp.
Nathan Knott

In NSW, eastern rock lobsters are thought to be important urchin predators. The species has been over-fished in the past but stocks have significantly bounced back in recent years.

But despite this, no meaningful reduction in urchin populations, or increase in kelp growth, has been observed in NSW.

Why not? Could it be that lobsters are not eating urchins in great numbers after all? Certainly, there is little empirical evidence on how often predators eat urchins in the wild.

What’s more, recent research in NSW suggested the influence of lobsters on urchin populations was low, while fish could be more important.

Our project aimed to investigate the situation further.

Eastern rock lobsters are thought to be major urchin predators.
Flickr/Richard Ling, CC BY

What we did

We tied 100 urchins to blocks outside a lobster den off in Wollongong for 25 nights. This tethering meant the urchins were easily available to predators and stayed within view of our cameras.

Then we set multiple cameras to remotely turn on at sunset and turn after sunrise each day, to capture nocturnal feeding. We used a red-filtered light to film the experiments because invertebrates don’t like the white light spectrum.

We expected our cameras would capture lobsters eating the urchins. But in fact, the lobsters showed little interest in the urchins and ate just 4% of them. They were often filmed walking straight past urchins in search of other food.

Sharks, however, were very interested in the urchins. Both crested horn sharks (Heterodontus galeatus) and Port Jackson sharks (H. portusjacksonii) entered the den and ate 45% of the urchins.

As the footage below shows, sharks readily handled very large urchins (wider then 12 centimetres) with no hesitation.

Until now, it was thought few or no predators could handle urchins of this size. Larger urchins have longer spines, thicker shells and attach more strongly to the seafloor, making them harder to eat.

But the sharks attacked urchins from their spiny side, showing little regard for their sharp defences. This approach differs from other predators, such as lobsters and wrasses, which often turn urchins over and attack them methodically from their more vulnerable underside.

In fact, some sharks were so eager to eat urchins, they started feeding before the cameras turned on at sunset. This meant we had to film by hand.

Footage captured by the researchers showing crested horn sharks eating sea urchins. Horn sharks generally do not pose a threat to humans.

A complex food web

Our experiment showed the effect of lobsters on urchins in the wild is less than previously thought.
This may explain why efforts to encourage lobster numbers have not helped control urchin numbers.

We also revealed a little-considered urchin predator: sharks.

Lobsters are capable but hesitant predators, whereas sharks seem eager to eat urchins. And crested horn sharks are an abundant, hardy species that is not actively fished.

When interpreting these findings, however, a few caveats must be noted.

First, sharks (and lobsters) are not the only animals to prey on urchins. Other predators include bony fishes, and more are likely to be identified in future.

Second, other factors can control urchin numbers, such as storm damage and the influx of fresh water.

And finally, it is unsurprising that we found a key predator when we intentionally searched for it by laying out food. Tethering urchins creates an artificial environment. We don’t know if the results would be replicated in the wild.

And even though we now know some shark species eat sea urchins, we don’t yet know if they can control urchins numbers.

But our research does confirm predators capable of handling large urchins may be more widespread than previously thought. Läs mer…

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.

This chart shows changes in diveristy in the ARIA top 100 albums chart over 22 years.
Author provided

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. Läs mer…

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.

Medication for ADHD can be combined with other non-drug approaches.
Caleb Woods/Unsplash

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:

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. Läs mer…

What does the edge of the universe look like?

Lily, age 7, Harcourt

What a great question! In fact, this is one of those questions humans will continue to ask until the end of time. That’s because we don’t actually know for sure.

But we can try and imagine what the edge of the universe might be, if there is one.

Looking back in time

Before we begin, we do need to go back in time. Our night sky has looked the same for all of human history. It’s been so reliable, humans from all around the world came up with patterns they saw in the stars as a way to navigate and explore.

To our eyes, the sky looks endless. With the invention of telescopes about 400 years ago, humans were able to see farther – more than just our eyes ever could. They continued to discover new things in the sky. They found more stars, and then eventually started to notice that there were a lot of strange-looking cosmic clouds.

This gigantic image of the Triangulum Galaxy — also known as Messier 33 — is put together from about 54 different pointings with Hubble’s Advanced Camera for Surveys. With a staggering size of 34,372 by 19,345 pixels, it is the second-largest image ever released by Hubble.
NASA, ESA, and M. Durbin, J. Dalcanton and B. F. Williams (University of Washington)

Astronomers gave them the name “nebula” from the Latin word for “mist” or “cloud”.

It was less than 100 years ago that we first confirmed these cosmic clouds or nebulas were actually galaxies. They are just like Milky Way, the galaxy our own planet is in, but very far away.

What is amazing is that in every direction we look in the universe, we see more and more galaxies. In this James Webb Space Telescope image, which is looking at a part of the sky no bigger than a grain of sand, you can see thousands of galaxies.

It’s hard to imagine there is an edge where all of this stops.

NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope has produced the deepest and sharpest image of the distant universe to date. Known as Webb’s First Deep Field, this image of galaxy cluster SMACS 0723 is overflowing with detail.
NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI

The edge of the universe

However, there is technically an edge to our universe. We call it our “observable” universe.

This is because we don’t actually know if our universe is infinite – meaning it continues forever and ever.

Unfortunately, we might never know because of one pesky thing: the speed of light.

We can only ever see light that’s had enough time to travel to us. Light travels at exactly 299,792,458 metres per second. Even at those speeds, it still takes a long time to cross our universe. Scientists estimate the size of the universe is at least 96 billion light years across, and likely even bigger.

You can learn a little more about that and our universe as a whole in this video below.

What would we see if there was an edge?

If we were to travel to the very, very edge of the universe we think exists, what would there actually be?

Many other scientists and I theorise that there would just be … more universe!

As I said, there is a theory that our universe doesn’t actually have an edge, and might continue on indefinitely.

But there are other theories, too. If our universe does have an edge, and you cross it, you might just end up in a completely different universe altogether. (That is best saved for science fiction for now.)

Even though there isn’t a straightforward answer to your question, it is precisely questions like these that help us continue to explore and discover the universe, and allow us to understand our place within it. You’re thinking like a true scientist. Läs mer…

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.

An artists reconstruction of a Mithaka village, as documented in ethnohistoric accounts from 1871 and now being investigated by archaeologists.
G. Ginn (artist)/Author provided

Read more:
Farmers or foragers? Pre-colonial Aboriginal food production was hardly that simple

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.

If we ignore the ancient Aboriginal past, how can we be expect to build greater respect for Aboriginal culture among the next generation?
Dan Himbrechts/AP

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.

UQ zooarchaeologist Tiina Manne and Ngamba Tradional Custodian Hannah Smith inspect animal ribs eroded out of one section of Clybucca-Stuarts Point midden complex.
Michael Westaway

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. Läs mer…

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.

Interest rates can change dramatically over a 30-year loan period.
RBA, CC BY

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. Läs mer…