Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carolina Quintero Rodriguez, Senior Lecturer and Program Manager, Bachelor of Fashion (Enterprise) program, RMIT University

When you come home from a run or a sweaty gym session, do you immediately fling your clothes into the washing machine for a hot cycle? Or do you leave them on a chair (or the floordrobe) so you can wear them again tomorrow?

Earlier this year, the French government caused a stir with advice about how often you should wash your clothes. For sports clothes, it recommends up to three wears before you wash them.

This stems from legitimate environmental concerns – each laundry cycle consumes significant water and energy. Frequent washing can also degrade fabrics more quickly, contributing to textile waste.

But what about our health? If the thought of rewearing your stinky t-shirt or damp sports bra makes you squeamish, here’s what you need to know.

Sports clothes and sweat

In the past, exercise clothing was usually made from natural fibres (mainly cotton). Now, it’s mostly made of high-performance synthetic fabrics. These are designed to manage moisture, regulate temperature, improve breathability and control odour.

However research has shown this kind of exercise clothing, particularly synthetic fabrics, can harbour significant amounts of bacteria after just one use.

Polyester traps moisture, creating the warm, humid micro-environments bacteria prefer.

When clothing is damp, including from sweat, bacteria multiplies substantially much faster. There is a direct correlation between how much bacteria is present and how intense the smell is.

However, research shows innovations in textiles, such as the integration of silver nanoparticles in fibres, essential oil-based treatments, long-lasting antimicrobial treatments and structural fibre innovations are are making garments more durable and better at controlling bacteria.

So, is it safe to rewear gym clothes?

This depends on several factors:

Fabric type

Natural fibres such as cotton multiply fewer odour-causing bacteria than synthetics. So if you wear these fabrics to exercise in, they may last a few wears before needing a wash.

Exercise intensity and sweat level

Low-intensity activities that generate minimal or low sweat (including gentle yoga or walking), may allow for more re-wears than high-intensity workouts, as bacterial proliferation correlates directly with moisture levels in fabrics.

(In fact, the French government advice acknowledges how often you wash your sports clothes depends on how much you sweat.)

Season

Climate (temperature, humidity and airflow) significantly affects how much bacteria grows on fabrics. So it may be more reasonable to wash your clothes less in cooler months, when you sweat less.

Personal health

Some people should exercise greater caution rewearing gym clothes. For example, people with skin conditions, compromised immune systems and those prone to skin infections.

So, if you’re wearing a cotton t-shirt and shorts do something light – such as a walk in the cool morning air – you might get away with wearing them again once or twice (especially if you air them properly between use).

But synthetic performance wear, or any clothes you wear to do moderate or intense workouts, should be washed after each use (a cold wash cycle is fine). This is particularly important for garments in contact with high-bacteria areas such as underarms, groin or feet.

Tips for clothes between wears:

1. Turn garments inside-out (this exposes the bacteria to the air) and hang them up immediately after exercise

2. Ensure items are completely dry before storing

3. Store in well-ventilated areas, never in closed containers such as a washing hamper or bag

4. When possible, hang clothes in the sun – brief UV exposure provides natural antimicrobial benefits

5. Keep items you’ve worn away from clean clothes.

The bottom line

In the end, it’s up to personal choice – each of us has to weigh up the environmental benefits with potential health concerns and exercise habits.

But some items should always be washed after each use: sports bras and underwear, socks, anything visibly soiled or smelly, and any clothing worn during high-intensity workouts or in hot weather.

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

– ref. How often should I wash my exercise clothes? – https://theconversation.com/how-often-should-i-wash-my-exercise-clothes-250796

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexis Vassiley, Lecturer, School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University

A battle is underway on the mine sites in Western Australia’s remote Pilbara region. Unions are keen to get back into the iron ore industry after decades on the outer. Mining companies are desperate to keep them out.

At Rio Tinto site Paraburdoo, where both residential and fly-in-fly-out (FIFO) workers are employed, the Western Mine Workers Alliance announced on Thursday it had the signatures necessary to demonstrate majority support for enterprise bargaining. Over 400 workers had signed on.

Once ratified by the Fair Work Commission, the company will be obliged to negotiate an enterprise agreement with the union.

This is huge news, as enterprise agreements have been rare in the industry for many decades. Workers are generally on individual common law contracts which pay higher than the award but lack transparency and have no guaranteed yearly pay rise.

Many workers are FIFO, working 12-hour work shifts. The two weeks on, one week off roster is known colloquially as the “divorce roster”.

Unions are campaigning at Paraburdoo, as well as other Rio Tinto and BHP sites, for the option of “even time” rosters of one week on, one week off. These rosters have lower pay, however, due to working fewer hours per week on average.

Workers want better conditions

Long hours, extended periods away from home and a lack of autonomy can be a poisonous cocktail.

According to a study prepared for the WA government, about 30% of WA mining workers have “high or very high levels of psychological distress”.

Another study of FIFO workers mainly from WA found the likelihood of workers experiencing high or very high levels of mental distress was increased by a factor of four when they felt “very or extremely stressed by their immediate supervisors”.

The problem with insecure work

Job insecurity affects a significant proportion of the workforce. Sexual harassment plagues the industry and in some cases is linked to insecure work.

Haul truck driver Astacia Stevens testified to a parliamentary inquiry that her supervisor told her “if you want your shirt [a permanent position], you have to get on your knees first”.

She refused and was later sacked. What Stevens characterised as an anti-union culture had made her “reluctant to join” her union.

There is now an historic class action against BHP and Rio Tinto, alleging “widespread and systemic sexual harassment and gender discrimination over the past two decades” nationwide.

Unionists are also campaigning on pay, saying recent pay rises haven’t kept up with inflation.

The rise and fall of union power in the Pilbara mines

The Pilbara iron ore industry today has few union members, but used to be a bastion of militant unionism. In its periods of strength and subsequent decline, from the 1970s to the 1990s, the story of Pilbara iron ore unionism mirrors that of Australian unionism more broadly, but in an exaggerated and time-compressed way.

Unions improved work in the 1970s. Low pay, long hours, and “soggy” food were the norm when the Pilbara iron ore industry started in the 1960s. Union pressure changed this. Shifts were reduced to eight hours and workers gained a say over the work process.

Across Australia, the union movement was confident and militant in the 1970s. Yet the Pilbara was particularly so.

While the average Western Australian worker in 1973 went on strike for a quarter of a day, the average Pilbara iron ore worker struck for just over 11 days in that year.

One union delegate, interviewed as part of my PhD research, recounted:

We had industrial muscle and we used it. There was no fear.

Workers’ meetings on site would decide what issues to take up, when to strike and for how long. Often, union officials would only be told afterwards.

While strikes often provoked the ire of management and politicians, they dramatically improved workers’ lives. Unionists campaigned on community issues and even set up a cooperative during the 1979 Hamersley Iron strike.

Workers lived in towns near mine sites, and socialised together after hours, some playing sport every night of the week.

The unions were pushed out

In 1986, Robe River (now owned by Rio Tinto) broke with the other iron ore companies and launched a full-frontal attack on unions. In spite of expectations, unions did not adopt a strike strategy to defend themselves and lost out.

Two years later, amid industrial action and a divided management, Mount Newman Mining (now part of BHP) tried and failed to do the same thing. That company did not de-unionise until 1999.

During the mining boom of the 2000s, the Pilbara mines were a union wasteland, despite rebuilding efforts.

What could a renewed union presence mean?

Just last year, BHP train drivers showed how a renewed union presence might address these issues. They are a rare example of unionisation in the industry today, as I write in my book.

On Monday February 12 2024, workers voted for a 24-hour strike on the Friday if their demands weren’t met. At 11am on the Thursday, BHP came to the table to avert the strike. Pay was increased by an initial 4%, and then 4% a year over the following four years.

Rosters are now the even time (two weeks on, two weeks off) roster the workers fought for. The agreement is based on an average 42-hour week, not the 56-hour average work week (for lower pay) that is standard for many across the industry.

This is the context in which hundreds of Pilbara workers are joining their unions and fighting for enterprise agreements.

Alexis Vassiley is the author of Striking Ore: The Rise and Fall of Union Power in the Pilbara, to be published by Monash University Publishing on April 1.

He received an Australian Postgraduate Award and a Curtin Research Scholarship for the PhD research on which this article draws.

Alexis is a National Councillor for the National Tertiary Education Union and a member of Socialist Alternative.

– ref. After 30 years on the outer, unions could soon return to the Pilbara. Here’s why that’s a big deal – https://theconversation.com/after-30-years-on-the-outer-unions-could-soon-return-to-the-pilbara-heres-why-thats-a-big-deal-252187

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Nicole Driessen, Postdoctoral Researcher in Radio Astronomy, University of Sydney

Earlier this week, Saturn gained a whopping 128 new official moons, as the International Astronomical Union recognised discoveries from a team of astronomers led by Edward Ashton at the Academia Sinica in Taiwan. The sixth planet from the Sun now has a grand total of 274 moons, the most of any planet in the Solar System.

The discovery has raised a lot of questions. How do you spot moons, and why hadn’t anybody seen these ones already? Doesn’t Jupiter have the most moons? What are they going to call all these moons? Are there more out there? And what exactly makes something a moon, anyway?

Counting moons

These new discoveries cement Saturn’s place as the winner of the Solar System’s moon competition, with more confirmed moons than all of the other planets combined. But it hasn’t always been this way.

Jupiter’s four largest moons – Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto – were the first ever discovered orbiting another planet. They were spotted by Galileo Galilei more than 400 years ago, in 1610. Saturn’s first known moon, Titan, was discovered by Dutch astronomer Christiaan Huygens 45 years later.

The new batch of 128 moons was discovered by stacking images from the Canada France Hawaii telescope. Some of Saturn’s other moons were discovered by space voyages, and some during what are called “ring-plane crossings”.

When the Voyager 1 spacecraft passed by Saturn, it took images that were used to discover the moon Atlas. The Cassini Mission later discovered seven new Saturnian moons.

A ring-crossing is where Saturn’s rings seem to disappear from our point of view here on Earth. This is when Saturn is at just the right angle so we’re looking at the rings exactly side-on (that is, when we can only see the edge of the rings).

Titan was discovered during a ring-plane crossing, and so were 12 other moons. Saturn’s rings will be edge-on twice in 2025, in March and November.

The moon race

From 2019 to 2023, Jupiter and Saturn were fighting for first place in the moon race.

In 2019, Saturn surpassed Jupiter with the discovery of 20 new moons. This took the count to 82 for Saturn and 79 for Jupiter.

Just a few years later, in February 2023, Jupiter took the lead with 12 new moons, beating Saturn’s 83 moons at the time. Only a short time later, still in 2023, the same astronomers who discovered the recent 128 moons discovered 62 moons orbiting Saturn. This placed the ringed planet firmly in the lead.

Elsewhere in the Solar System, Earth has one moon, Mars has two, Jupiter has 95, Uranus has 28 and Neptune has 16, for a total of 142 moons. We only need to discover ten more moons around Saturn to give it double the number of all the other planets combined.

Regular or irregular?

The newly discovered moons are all small. Each one is only a few kilometres across. If something that small can be a moon, what really counts as a moon?

NASA tells us “naturally formed bodies that orbit planets are called moons”, but even asteroids can have moons. We crashed a spacecraft into an asteroid’s moon in 2022. Earth has had a few mini-moons, some only a couple of metres in size. The line of what is and isn’t a moon is a bit hazy.

Moons orbiting planets in the Solar System can be either “regular” or “irregular”. The new moons are all irregular.

Regular moons are formed around a planet at the same time as the planet itself forms. Irregular moons are thought to be small planets (planetesimals) that are captured by a planet as it finishes forming. They are then broken into pieces by collisions.

Regular moons tend to orbit their planets in nice, circular orbits around the equator. Irregular moons typically orbit in big ovals further away from planets, and at a range of angles. Saturn has 24 regular moons and 250 irregular moons.

Studying these moons can tell us about how moons form, and reveal clues about how the Solar System formed and evolved.

Saturn’s rings are made of small chunks of ice and rock. Astronomers think they formed out of pieces of comets, asteroids and moons that were torn apart by Saturn’s gravity.

So for Saturn in particular, irregular moons can tell us more about the formation of its beautiful rings.

What’s in a name?

Names of astronomical objects are governed by the International Astronomical Union (IAU). Originally, all moons in the Solar System were given names from Greco-Roman mythology.

But the large number of moons, particularly of Saturn and Jupiter, means the IAU has expanded to giants and gods from other mythology. And it’s all about the details. If binary moons are discovered, they are required to be given names of twins or siblings.

Saturn’s first seven moons were given numbers instead of names. In 1847, John Herschel named them after the Greek Titans. After they ran out of titans and Greek mythological giants, they expanded the naming system to include Inuit and Gallic gods and Norse giants.

Discoverers get to suggest names for moons, and the names they suggest are given priority by the IAU. In the past, there have been competitions to name new moons of Jupiter and Saturn.

With 128 new moons for Saturn, it might take a while to come up with names that follow the IAU rules. Maybe we’ll even see the addition of different mythologies. We’ll have to wait and see. Until then, each moon has a name made of a string of numbers and letters, such as “S/2020 S 27”.

Will we find more moons?

Without a solid definition of what a moon is, it’s hard to say when (or if) we will ever finish finding them. Everyone agrees we shouldn’t call every single chunk of rock in Saturn’s rings a moon, but exactly where to draw the line isn’t clear.

That said, there is probably a limit to the number of moon-like objects astronomers are likely to want to add to the list. Edward Ashton, who led the discovery of the new moons, doesn’t think we’ll be finding too many new moons until our technology improves.

Laura Nicole Driessen is an ambassador for the Orbit Centre of Imagination at the Rise and Shine Kindergarten, in Sydney’s Inner West.

– ref. Saturn now has 274 moons – but exactly what makes something a moon remains unclear – https://theconversation.com/saturn-now-has-274-moons-but-exactly-what-makes-something-a-moon-remains-unclear-252033

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pat McConville, Lecturer in Ethics, Law, and Professionalism, School of Medicine, Deakin University

This week, doctors announced that an Australian man with severe heart failure had left hospital with an artificial heart that had kept him alive until he could receive a donor heart.

The patient, a man from New South Wales in his 40s, was not the world’s first person to receive this type of artificial heart. However, he is said to be the first with one to be discharged from hospital to wait for a heart transplant, which he’s since had.

I am a philosopher and bioethicist. I completed my PhD on artificial hearts – particularly how these implants can change people’s lives in profound ways.

Here’s what patients and their families need to consider.

What is an artificial heart?

Artificial hearts began to be developed in the 1960s, sponsored by the United States government and funded in a similar way to space and military programs.

In 1982, a man named Barney Clark received the Jarvik-7 total artificial heart. Doctors removed his failing biological heart and replaced it with a plastic and metal device to circulate blood to his lungs and around his body. He lived for 112 days before dying from multi-organ failure. He never left hospital.

In the 1980s and 1990s, medical device companies began to develop alternatives to total artificial hearts. These partial artificial hearts, known as ventricular assist devices, help out a biological heart by supplementing or replacing one of its two pumping chambers.

These are more straightforward and versatile than total artificial hearts, and can be used for earlier stages of heart failure.

Not all artificial hearts generate a pulse.

Artificial hearts with a pulse generally mimic the biological heart. They pump blood in the same way the heart beats, by filling with blood and squeezing to circulate blood in waves or pulses.

But some devices continuously push blood around the body instead of pulsing. So with these continuous-flow devices neither the patient nor their health team can detect a pulse.

In the US between 2014 and 2024, almost 30,000 patients received continuous-flow ventricular assist devices. In the same period, more than 310 total artificial hearts were implanted.

The total artificial hearts commercially available today are licensed exclusively as bridging therapies – to keep people alive until a donor heart becomes available – rather than permanent implants.

How about the device making news this week?

The device in the news – the BiVACOR Total Artificial Heart – was developed by a US-Australian collaboration. This device is innovative, mainly because it is the first continuous-flow device designed to replace the whole heart. Designers are also aiming for it to be the first total artificial heart suitable as a permanent transplant (known as destination therapy).

A reliable, durable and responsive total artificial heart is, in the words of Paul Jansz, the surgeon who implanted the device, “the Holy Grail”.

The BiVACOR’s clinical success so far gives us reason to be optimistic about an alternative to scarce donor hearts for responding to severe heart failure.

Transplants can change lives

However, patients do not just resume their old lives when they leave hospital with an artificial heart.

While the pumping component is inside their chest, there are also external components to manage and monitor. A thick tube perforates their abdomen and connects to an external controller unit and power supply, which the patient carries around in a bag. Controllers must be closely monitored, and batteries must be regularly recharged.

My research showed that even a perfectly safe and reliable total artificial heart could transform patients’ lives in at least three major areas.

1. Is it part of me? Do I trust it?

Patients must trust, tolerate and receive sensory feedback about how the device is working for it to feel like part of them. In the case of an artificial heart, this might mean the device feels responsive to exercise and the body’s needs.

But it may be difficult for artificial hearts to meet these criteria, especially for devices that do not generate a pulse.

Patients may also question whether their heart is located in their body, or in the controller unit. They may wonder if they even have a heart, particularly if they can’t feel a pulse.

2. Beeps and alarms

An artificial heart also changes how patients live their lives and navigate the world.

Interruptions from loud device alarms distract patients from their normal activities. And patients must switch between mains power and batteries when they wake in the night and need to visit the toilet.

3. Marking time

Our hearts may be our natural metronomes, marking time. So removing someone’s heart rhythm can confuse their sense of time.

The need for batteries to be recharged periodically can also reshape patients’ days.

Waiting around for a transplant heart, or the latest software update, may change patients’ perspectives on what months and years feel like.

We need to give patients the whole picture

Artificial hearts are remarkable devices with great promise. But patients and families also deserve to know how these extraordinary treatments might change how they feel about themselves and the world.

They need to know this before they sign up for them. Artificial hearts don’t just save lives – they also change them.

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

– ref. An artificial heart may save your life. But it can also change you in surprising ways – https://theconversation.com/an-artificial-heart-may-save-your-life-but-it-can-also-change-you-in-surprising-ways-252165

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tanya Latty, Associate Professor, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney

About 90% of flowering plants rely on animals to transfer their pollen and optimise reproduction, making pollination one of nature’s most important processes.

Bees are usually the first insects to come to mind when people think of pollinators. But many other insects – including beetles, flies, moths and butterflies – also visit flowers to feed on nectar and pollen.

In doing so, they can play an essential role in pollinating plants.

Let’s take a closer look at some of nature’s unsung insect pollinators.

Fabulous flies

An estimated 30,000 species of fly (Diptera) call Australia home, making them the second largest group of insects after the beetles.

Flies have a huge variety of feeding habits including flower-visiting groups such as:

• blow flies (Calliphoridae)
• bee flies (Bombyliidae)
• hover flies (Syrphidae)
• noseflies (Rhinidae) and
• march flies (Tabanidae).

Blow flies often get a bad rap for their tendency to cluster on faeces and dead animals. But these amazing (and often beautiful!) animals can be important pollinators, especially in alpine regions such as the Australian Alps.

Named for their distinctive hovering flight, stripey yellow-and-black hover flies (Syrphidae) are often mistaken for bees. Hover flies are potential pollinators of several native plants.

The larvae of many common hover fly species prey on pest insects such as aphids, and so play an important role in controlling pest populations.

Another group in the hover fly family, known as drone flies, have larvae that live in stagnant water.

These larvae have a long, slender breathing tube, or “snorkel” that allows them to access air from the surface, earning them the rather unflattering name “rat-tailed maggots”.

Then there are the bee flies. As the name suggests, many species of bee fly (Bombyliidae) have fuzzy, bee-like bodies. Australia boasts around 400 species of bee fly.

Bee flies feed on the nectar or pollen of many native flowering plants and so may act as pollinators.

The larvae of most bee fly species lay their eggs in or on other insects, particularly wasps and solitary bees. The larvae then feed on the insect host, usually killing it.

Being both pollinators and natural regulators of insect populations, bee flies play an important yet often overlooked role in Australia’s ecosystems.

Don’t forget frit flies and march flies

Despite being relatively common, you’ve probably never noticed tiny frit flies (Chloropidae). No, that’s not a typo; frit flies are different to fruit flies (although they are often around the same size).

There are 322 described species of frit fly in Australia, although the actual number is probably much higher as these diminutive flies are understudied.

Frit flies and their relatives, the jackal flies (Milichiidae), are believed to be the pollinators of midge orchids (Genoplesium spp), many of which are rare or threatened in Australia.

Exactly how midge orchids are attracting these tiny flies is not clear, but at least some Genoplesium species may be mimicking the smell of wounded insects.

Biting flies can be annoying, but some are also pollinators. March flies, also known as horse flies (Tabanidae), are often disliked for their painful bites, but these large flies can act as pollinators when they visit flowers to feed on nectar and pollen. In fact, it’s only the females that eat blood to support egg development.

One species, the flower-feeding march fly (Scaptia auriflua), has abandoned blood meals altogether, feeding exclusively on nectar and pollen.

March fly larvae, which develop underground, are formidable predators. Equipped with venomous fangs, they actively hunt and subdue prey.

Friendly flower chafer beetles

Many beetle species visit flowers to feed on nectar and pollen, including the flower chafers (subfamily Cetoniinae). The flower chafer group includes beautiful beetles such as:

• green (and occasionally yellow) and black fiddler beetles (Eupoecila australasiae)
• big buzzy cowboy beetles (Chondropyga dorsalis), and
• the delightfully spotty punctuate flower chafers (Neorrhina punctatum).

Adult flower chafers feed on the nectar and pollen of many flowering plants, especially natives such as eucalyptus and angophoras.

Their larvae live underground, feeding on decaying organic matter. So don’t panic if you find curl grubs in your garden – they might be baby flower chafers.

Nectar scarabs (Phyllotocus spp) are another beetle frequently seen foraging on native flowers.
There are about 28 species in Australia.

Most are smaller and less conspicuous than flower chafers, although some species form large swarms on flowering trees such as Angophora, Eucalyptus and Leptospermum.

The larvae of nectar scarabs feed on decaying organic matter and grass roots in soils.

Even wasps help pollinate

Unlike bees, which mostly get their protein from pollen, wasps are primarily predators, although they may act as pollinators when they visit flowers for a sip of sugary nectar.

Some Australian orchids have evolved a remarkable strategy for attracting their wasp pollinators: they deceive unsuspecting males by mimicking the scent (and sometimes shape) of female wasps. Male wasps attempt to mate with the flower, unwittingly transferring pollen in the process.

Next time you’re outside, say a silent thanks for the many unsung insect pollinators helping to keep our ecosystems healthy.

Tanya Latty co-founded and volunteers for conservation organisation Invertebrates Australia, is former president of the Australasian Society for the Study of Animal Behaviour and is on the Education committee for the Australian Entomological Society. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council, NSW Saving our Species, and Agrifutures Australia

– ref. Not just bees and butterflies: beetles and other brilliant bugs are nature’s unsung pollinators – https://theconversation.com/not-just-bees-and-butterflies-beetles-and-other-brilliant-bugs-are-natures-unsung-pollinators-246484

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

Nearly 30 years before the Christchurch terror attacks of March 15 2019, New Zealand had to grapple with the horrors of another mass shooting. The Aramoana massacre on November 13 1990 left 13 people dead and a nation reeling.

But the firearms law changes made in the aftermath were inadequate, and the failure to tighten regulations arguably left the door open for the Christchurch atrocity – committed by a licensed firearms owner.

By contrast, after the Port Arthur massacre that killed 35 people on April 28 1996, Australia adopted fundamental changes to its firearms laws and banned semiautomatic rifles.

Later analysis suggests those reforms helped avoid a statistically likely 16 mass shootings. New Zealand didn’t match the Australian example, and it wasn’t until the Christchurch attacks that vast improvements to firearms laws were enacted.

But New Zealand still differs in significant ways from Australian federal and state models. With our Arms Act under review, and with a major rewrite due probably later this year, there are six key areas where we might learn from our nearest neighbour.

1. Genuine reasons to own a firearm

Australia and New Zealand both treat the possession of a firearm as a legal privilege, not a right as it is in the United States. But Australia differs in that a licence applicant must show a genuine reason to possess the firearms.

This is typically associated with other requirements, such as membership of a gun club or proof of other reasons to own a firearm (such as occupational or recreational needs).

Australia also has a 28-day “cooling off” period between an applicant being granted a licence and their ability to buy a firearm.

Licensed gun owners can only buy ammunition suited to the specifically licensed firearm. Australia,
like Canada, also sets a maximum magazine capacity of ten cartridges for most handguns.

Currently, New Zealand gun laws do not carry any of these restrictions.

2. The right character referees

Like Australia, New Zealand requires firearms owners to be “fit and proper” people. But none of the eight Australian state or territorial jurisdictions accept self-nominated character referees.

Instead, they apply a more investigative approach, during which police may talk to a wider range of people to assess the suitability of applicants. Each step of the process is laid out in greater detail, such as when health risk assessments may be required.

3. A more robust firearms register

Australia has taken firearms registration – and the traceability of every gun – very seriously since the shooting of two police officers and a member of the public in an ambush attack in rural Queensland in 2022. A lack of real-time available information about the offenders was identified as a contributing factor in the tragedy.

A national firearms register, hosted by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, is under construction. This will provide front-line officers with information on owners, firearms and parts, linked to other relevant police and government data.

Unlike in New Zealand, Australian authorities do not accept sales or transfers between individual firearms owners. These must go through registered dealers, who act as brokers for the transfer, adding an extra layer of security.

But the key lesson from Australia is that to be effective, firearms registries should sit within the police, not civilian bureaucracies.

4. A gradual licence system for young people

In New Zealand, an applicant for a firearms licence must be at least 16 years old. But there is no minimum age requirement for handling a firearm, only the rule that a young person must be under the “immediate supervision” of someone with a firearms licence.

There have been suggestions of adapted firearms licence safety courses in schools, which would see year 11 to 13 pupils receive initial vetting and a certificate as a stepping stone towards a full licence.

It’s a promising idea, but given the known risks of young people and violent extremism, and international experience of school shootings, this would need to be managed carefully.

An alternative might be the Australian approach, where young people are more formally brought into the licensing system with a “minor’s permit”. These are similar to a learner driver’s licence, with the aim of easing young people into responsible firearms ownership.

5. Limits on how many firearms can be owned

Large caches of fully operable firearms (unlike vintage collections, which are permanently inoperable) can attract criminal attention, for obvious reasons.

Western Australia is the first state to impose a limit on the number of firearms an individual can hold, modelled on a number of European systems. A licensed competition shooter can own ten, and a licensed hunter five.

New Zealand has no limits on how many firearms a licensed holder may possess.

6. Strong firearms prohibition orders

The New Zealand government came late to firearms prohibition orders, only realising their benefit in 2022.

These legal orders seek to prevent high-risk people from using, accessing or being around firearms. Although they have recently been augmented with greater search powers, only about 120 orders have been issued.

By comparison, since its own law was created in 1996, New South Wales has issued thousands of orders. In other words, it requires decades of work to mitigate risks to public safety.

The much needed rewrite of the Arms Act is a chance to learn from best practice around the world. Closest to home, Australia has laws, practices and proven results that should prompt us to ask, why not here?

---

The author thanks Clementine Annabell for assisting with the research for this article.

---

Alexander Gillespie is a recipient of a Borrin Foundation Justice Fellowship to research comparative best practice in the regulation of firearms. He is also a member of the Ministerial Arms Advisory Group. The views expressed here are his own and not to be attributed to either of these organisations.

– ref. Australia has learned valuable lessons from its own shooting tragedies: 6 ideas NZ can borrow – https://theconversation.com/australia-has-learned-valuable-lessons-from-its-own-shooting-tragedies-6-ideas-nz-can-borrow-252178

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dan van den Hoek, Senior Lecturer, Clinical Exercise Physiology, University of the Sunshine Coast

The Albert Park circuit for the Australian Formula 1 Grand Prix has 14 turns over 5.278 kilometres. F1 drivers can tell you the braking points, cornering speeds and preferred line for every one of those corners without actually being there.

How?

A demanding profession

Formula 1 drivers are unique athletes: typically, they are fitter, stronger, shorter and have lower body fat percentages than drivers in other racing sports.

In the early years, drivers were bigger and stronger so they could wrestle cars without power steering. Now, they are shorter, leaner and incredibly fit to deal with the increased G-forces from higher cornering speeds in modern cars.

Beyond the physical demands of F1 racing – like cornering G-forces in excess of 5Gs, the 600 newton forces needed to operate the brake pedal and cockpit temperatures that can exceed 50°C – drivers are subjected to high cognitive demands.

These include synthesising information about the track conditions, opponents and their environment, to help them to anticipate and execute precision driving.

In the past, F1 teams had unlimited opportunities to test cars and athletes on the track: some drivers accrued more than 100,000 km of testing across their careers.

But since 2009, F1 drivers and teams have been limited in the number of testing days and kilometres.

In 2025, drivers will only be allowed to take part in four test days, and they will be restricted to a total of 1,000 km.

The advancement of technology

Following these changes, teams have focused on technology to train drivers and test cars.

Simulators provide drivers and teams with additional testing not otherwise available under current rules.

Drivers typically have access to “factory” simulators owned by their team. These provide an experience as close to actually driving an F1 as you can get without being in the car.

They allow teams and drivers to change almost every aspect of the environment – car setup, tyre wear and even track temperature and humidity.

Drivers will also have a “home” simulator made up of multiple monitors, a steering wheel with force feedback and pedals.

These are used mostly for learning tracks and identifying racing lines, rather than for testing specific car setups.

The benefits of this technology

Arguably, the greatest benefit is safety: crashing a car in an F1 simulator won’t hurt the driver or damage an actual car.

Modern methods and mathematics allow teams to simulate damage without the costs associated with traditional crash testing.

Advanced racing simulators are expensive, costing up to £8M ($A15.9 million). But by eliminating the need for fuel, tyres and track hire, they significantly reduce expenses.

Drivers can also refine their skills, familiarise themselves with circuits and practise high-risk manoeuvres in a risk-free environment.

Simulators enable drivers to hone their overtaking and defensive manoeuvres by adjusting variables such as track conditions, the number of AI-cars on track, AI-car aggression and proximity.

This controlled yet dynamic training enhances problem-solving, sharpens reaction times and strengthens strategic decision-making.

These are all crucial for real-world racing.

At a track, it may take upwards of 20 minutes to make a single change to the settings on a car. In a simulator, changes can be made in seconds.

This allows teams to take a car to the race track with a tested set-up, ready for practice sessions where they can experiment with strategies including engine maps, fuel strategies and pit-stop timing.

Post-race, teams use simulators to analyse performance data, identify potential improvements and gain insights for future races and car development.

What might the future hold?

Electronic racing (e-racing) is a virtual form of motorsport where competitors drive a computer-generated car on a virtual track.

There are three typical sub-types of e-racing:

• sim racing (using realistic physics, tyre wear, fuel consumption and damage)
• simcade (incorporating some realistic elements but with reduced complexity)
• arcade racing (using simpler controls and physics like Mario Kart).

These online and electronic variants have surged in popularity, bridging the gap between virtual and real-world motorsport.

This is showcased in the movie Gran Turismo. It tells the true story of Jann Mardenborough, who transitioned from simulator racing to professional motorsport after winning a competition in 2011.

However, while simulators provide a controlled environment for skill development, they lack factors such as psychological and emotional stress, g-forces, thermal strain, and the unpredictable elements that exist in real-world competition.

Despite these differences, e-racing has gained credibility, with several F1 drivers regularly competing in virtual events.

Four-time F1 world champion Max Verstappen, for example, is also one of the best simulator racers in the world. He uses virtual racing to sharpen his skills and remain competitive between real-world races.

As e-racing continues to evolve, the role of simulators remains a key area of exploration.

Advancements in simulator technology — including enhanced motion feedback, physiological stress replication and AI-driven race dynamics – may further bridge the gap between virtual and real-world racing.

The question is no longer whether simulators can aid driver development but how they can be refined to better replicate the demands of on-track competition, ultimately shaping the future of motorsport training and performance.

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

– ref. Do it with your eyes closed: how Formula 1 drivers memorise race tracks before even stepping foot on them – https://theconversation.com/do-it-with-your-eyes-closed-how-formula-1-drivers-memorise-race-tracks-before-even-stepping-foot-on-them-248136

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carolina Quintero Rodriguez, Senior Lecturer and Program Manager, Bachelor of Fashion (Enterprise) program, RMIT University

Motorsport fans are getting their first taste of racing this year, with the opening grand prix of the 2025 Formula One (F1) season starting in Melbourne today.

But it’s not just the cars people should be watching. In a sport where milliseconds determine champions and conditions push the human body to its limits, drivers’ racing suits have evolved from a simple fire protection tool to a sophisticated performance tool.

In fact, today’s F1 suits represent something of a technological revolution that could determine who stands on the podium.

Driving at 300km/h in 50°C for two hours

F1 drivers compete at nearly 300 kilometres per hour while enduring cockpit temperatures of up to 50°C.

In case of an accident, they are required to wear multilayer fireproof clothing, including long underwear, a balaclava, gloves, and a helmet. But this can severely restrict the body’s natural cooling mechanisms.

Research has found that during races in extreme heat, skin temperature quickly rises from normal levels (32–33°C) to over 38°C, with hands and forehead sometimes exceeding 39°C.

This isn’t just uncomfortable for drivers. It also increases the risk of dehydration, muscle cramps, cognitive impairment, heat exhaustion and heat stroke.

Developers of driving suits therefore have a challenging job. They must design garments that provide maximum fire protection while also allowing drivers to maintain peak cognitive and physical performance for roughly two hours in extreme heat.

A driver-centred approach to design

Fire protection remains the primary function of racing suits. Because of this, flame-resistant synthetic materials such as nomex, oxidized polyacrylonitrile and polybenzimidazole are used for the suit. Wool is also prevalent in the inner layers, because of its flame-resistant characteristics.

But racing suits are also now designed to improve driver comfort and movement.

For example, the racing suits of motorsport company Alpinestars, which supplies the McLaren F1 team, feature pre-curved sleeves and legs that match the natural driving position. This reduces the energy drivers expend fighting against their clothing.

Alpinestars’ suits also have minimal seams around the elbow joints. This increases flexibility and eliminates pressure points during the continuous small steering adjustments drivers make throughout a race. The suits also have elasticated inserts and multiple panels around the elbow which reduces material bunching at this crucial joint.

Sportswear company PUMA, which supplies the Ferrari and Aston Martin F1 teams with driving suits, adopt similar features in their driving suits.

But this attention to joint mobility extends beyond elbows.

F1 suits are flexible and loose fitting around the arms. They also incorporate elasticated panels in the lower back region and seamless shoulder epaulettes. This means the suits move naturally with the driver and minimise resistance.

Adjustable features such as elasticated waists and belts allow drivers to personalise their suits. They can also request specific modifications, such as where ventilation openings are placed, based on their individual comfort needs.

The result is a racing suit that functions as a second skin, tailored precisely to each driver’s body and movements.

Cooling the elbows

Racing suit manufacturers have also developed advanced approaches to keep drivers cool as well as safe.

Research has demonstrated that advanced fabrics with improved air permeability (how air passes through the fabric) and breathability (how moisture and heat passes through the fabric), as well as reduced thickness, could reduce core temperature rise by 40% compared to thicker and tighter types of materials.

Fabric manufacturers have engineered breathable fabrics for the suit and inner layers. Product developers also strategically place ventilation zones and internal cooling systems with technology that draws moisture away from the skin in the suits to help drivers manage their core temperature

These thermal management features are carefully tailored to different body regions.

For example, knowing that elbows experience a 6–7°C temperature increase during racing, suit designers make the suit thinner in this region to improve air flow and use materials capable of adjusting their thermal properties to temperature.

The impact of these design innovations goes beyond basic comfort. They translate directly to competitive advantage. When body heat is better managed, drivers can think more clearly and have better reaction times.

The road ahead

The development of racing suits continues to accelerate, with several emerging technologies promising even better performance and safety.

Reflective elements are showing particular promise for thermal protection by reducing the rate of skin temperature increase compared to conventional racing suits.

Wearable technology built into the fabrics of suits can also monitor drivers’ physiological changes, and help predict performance changes and enhance safety during racing.

The emerging popularity of electric racing series such as Formula E is also changing the environmental challenges drivers face.

Electric cars generate far less heat and noise than traditional race cars. This shift may prompt a reevaluation of suit requirements. It may potentially allow for designs that prioritise driver comfort and performance over heat management, while maintaining their fire safety properties.

The next time you watch a F1 race, look beyond the fancy aerodynamics and engine performance. Observe who emerges from their cockpit looking relatively fresh after two long hours of driving. The competitive advantage might not be in the car alone. It might be woven into the fabric protecting the driver inside the car.

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

– ref. Formula One drivers face temperatures up to 50°C. High tech racing suits help keep them cool – https://theconversation.com/formula-one-drivers-face-temperatures-up-to-50-c-high-tech-racing-suits-help-keep-them-cool-250919

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brian Tweed, Senior lecturer, Institute of Education, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University

Since the start of this year, all New Zealand schools have been required to use structured literacy to teach reading and writing – including the country’s 310 primary and intermediate Māori-medium kura (schools that teach in te reo Māori).

This curriculum change was part of the National-led government’s plan to lift educational achievement. At the heart of the new policy appears to be the desire to apply structured literacy across the board – regardless of the educational context – in an explicit on-size-fits-all approach.

While work has been done to develop the new literacy resources in te reo Māori, and they will undoubtedly be welcomed by kura, the blanket application of structured literacy could cause more problems than it actually solves.

Is structured literacy needed?

Structured literacy focuses on teaching children to read words by following a progression from simple to more complex phonics – the practice of matching the sounds with individual letters or groups of letters.

However, unlike English, te reo Māori is a transparent language – the written form is completely phonetic with a 100% consistent match between symbol and sound. This makes learning to read and write in te reo Māori a different and easier task than in English.

There is no extensive research showing a general reading and writing problem in Māori-medium schools that requires a structured literacy approach to “fix”.

Instead, pushing structured literacy into Māori-medium schools seems to be driven by an ideological commitment to this teaching approach rather than an actual need.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi and consultation

There is also no indication that genuine consultation with Māori took place before the government made the announcement. In 2024, there was a trial with a small number of teachers and facilitators. But this falls far short of genuine involvement of Māori as the Treaty partner.

Further work by the Ministry of Education continues to be limited, with a focus on testing and validating imposed literacy assessments and getting feedback from Māori teachers as “end-users”. This is not consultation. It is using Māori teachers to provide data with which to refine an existing product.

According to a 1986 report from the Waitangi Tribunal, te reo Māori is a taonga (treasure) that Māori must have control of. It’s for Māori to decide on changes and innovations in the teaching and learning of the language.

The government’s introduction of structured literacy without full Māori involvement takes the language away from its guardians.

More than words

Language is simultaneously many things. For example it is both a “code” and an inherent part of cultural identity.

The code view of language positions it as a tool to carry information you wish to communicate.

However, seeing te reo Māori as part of a way of understanding the world places value not just on words, but also on the way the language is inherent in Māori thinking, history, experience and actions.

It is clear the government prioritises a code view of language in which literacy is a technical competence needed to achieve the outcomes set through the national curriculum.

For example, according to Education Minister Erica Stanford, the literacy packs were designed for children “learning through te reo Māori”.

The word “through” positions te reo Māori as a code that carries the “learning”. It is the national curriculum that is being learned and te reo Māori is reduced to the instrument carrying it.

This view means the cultural importance of te reo Māori in terms of whakapapa and being Māori could be pushed further into the background by a focus on structured literacy.

Learning as a performance

The promise of phonics checks at 20, 40 and 55 weeks of schooling could also over-emphasise the need for technical competence over the broader view of language.

For example, the ministry website supporting structured literacy offers this video of a student completing a phonics check.

Despite instructions and discussion between teacher and student clearly showing the student hears all the sounds of te reo Māori well enough to have a conversation, the phonics check reduces te reo Māori to a performance in which sounds must be classified as the same or different.

Teaching and testing this way risks reducing competence in te reo Māori to a set of standardised performances.

Missing the richness of te reo

While schools are important in the revitalisation of Indigenous languages, they are just one component and cannot achieve this goal alone. If language development happens entirely within a school system, without being an integral part of a larger community of language development, a “school version” of the language can develop.

This could end up being more aligned with the government’s aims for students than language revitalisation and Indigenous emancipation.

Te reo Māori is an endangered heritage language according to statistical modeling. The most important purpose of working in te reo Māori is not simply to develop reading and writing skills, but to be part of a full language revitalisation.

The aim is for te reo Māori to be living and flourishing within communities, passed within whānau from generation to generation and ensuring te reo itself is a central element in being Māori.

Te reo Māori is not an instrument to be used by the government to achieve curriculum outcomes. It is, above all, an inherent part of mātauranga and whakaaro Māori (Māori knowledge and thought), and vital for Māori emancipation.

This places a responsibility on the government to ensure any innovation in kura Māori is driven by Māori.

Brian Tweed worked for the Ministry of Education as a contractor in 2024 working on the Pāngarau (mathematics) curriculum.

Pania Te Maro was contracted by the Ministry of Education as a lead writer for the mathematics and statistics curriculum prior to 2023 and as lead writer for the tirewa marautnaga pāngarau (mathematics curriculum for Māori medium schools).
She has worked alongside and in some cases with the writers of the te reo matatini curriculum, and with the writers of the new rangaranga reo resources.

– ref. Language is a ‘central element in being Māori’ – using structured literacy to teach te reo misses the point – https://theconversation.com/language-is-a-central-element-in-being-maori-using-structured-literacy-to-teach-te-reo-misses-the-point-250390

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

Australian politicians on both sides of the house say protectionist policies are bad, right? That Australia, as a country, believes in and benefits from trade being as free as possible.

But what about some voluntary protectionism in the wake of the government’s failure to win an exemption from Donald Trump’s tariffs? Not counter tariffs of course – the government has ruled out that brand of retaliation. But it is looking to find ways to encourage consumers to buy locally-produced products rather than defaulting to (often cheaper) imports.

Anthony Albanese flags this will be a feature of the March 25 budget. All in the name of supporting “Team Australia”.

“I would urge Australians, if they’re in a local shop, to look to buy Australian,” the prime minister said on Thursday. “That’s one way that consumers can assist to create jobs here and to support our local industries.”

Despite the unfortunate circumstances in which it comes, this exhortation actually fits with the government’s pre-Trump policy of “Future Made in Australia”, with its incentives for projects especially in the clean energy area. Critics thought the policy was too interventionist, indeed protectionist. The government argued it was securing Australia’s place “in a changing global environment”.

Just as he seems to be wreaking havoc around the world, Donald Trump is now embedded in Australia’s domestic politics in the run-up to the election. Both sides are struggling to deal with the consequences of that.

Albanese is trying to contain the damage of the exemption failure, while pinning the “Trumpist” label on Dutton, accusing him of being “a cheer squad” for the Trumpites. “He had a choice yesterday of backing in the Trump administration in this decision or backing Australia. He chose to not back Australia”

Dutton is attempting to exploit the government’s inability to sway Trump but duck the accusation of not being on the national team.

The opposition says the tariff affair shows Albanese is weak, using this latest problem to feed into a general theme it is running about the PM. Dutton (though without evidence) claims he could get the Americans across the line. Kos Samaras from the political consultancy Redbridge, which does extensive research, says voters do think Dutton would be the better leader to deal with Trump.

Dutton’s challenge on the tariff issue is to criticise the government while not appearing to exult in Australia’s misfortune. It’s just one of the fine lines the Opposition leader is needing to walk at the moment.

Dutton is tantalisingly close to power, but the last steps will be the hardest.

A Newspoll finding published the week must give him cause for worry. More than half (55%) doubted the Coalition was ready for government. The poll found while this feeling was strongest among young voters, 61 % of those aged 35 to 49 doubted its readiness.

No wonder some Coalition MPs are worrying Dutton has left it too late to release and flesh out much of his policy,

He contests claims of a policy vacuum, pointing to the nuclear policy, housing measures and some other initiatives.

Nevertheless, because Dutton has run a basically small target strategy (nuclear apart) there will be a feeling among some voters that in government he could be a surprise packet. We know more of what he is against than what he is for, what he would do.

Many voters would recall Tony Abbott going out of his way to reassure people in the 2013 election campaign, and then unleashing the shock 2014 budget. A logical (and reasonable) question is, what would Dutton’s first budget be like?

If Dutton wouldn’t act like Abbott, would he follow the example of John Howard, whom he highlights as a role model?

Howard promised before the 1996 election that there’d “never ever” be a GST under him, then unveiled one (which he took to the following election).

In such uncertain times, it will be particularly important for Dutton to be able to reassure voters that they will get what they vote for, not something completely unexpected.

For an opposition, especially one with the smell of possible victory in its nostrils, there is always a tension between spelling out what it would do in office, and leaving itself flexibility.

For example it’s clear that Dutton has strong views on education policy. He told the Conversation’s podcast he thought this was “one of the most important areas”, and pointed to declining school completion rates and the need for a more back-to-basics approach.

But what would this mean in detail? How much would he seek to impinge on the states, which have prime responsibility for government schooling?

The more general point is that it is not clear whether Dutton would be an incrementalist or have his eyes on radical reform in government. Yet voters want more signals. Samaras says Dutton in recent weeks has been looking “flat-footed”, that he is not going to be able to get away with the small target strategy. “He needs to build a case for change.”

In some areas, the Coalition is leaning to potential heavy intervention. It has said it would break up supermarkets if they exploited their market power.

More recently Dutton has ventured further, saying (and re-confirming on the podcast) that insurance companies could also face divestiture.

But on the insurance issue there has been open division and confusion.

Some Liberals were unhappy with the supermarket divestiture policy, which was substantially driven by the Nationals.

On insurance companies, shadow treasurer Angus Taylor and deputy leader Sussan Ley both asserted divestiture was not opposition policy, before Dutton brought the team into line.

That raises another problem Dutton has. His team remains weak. Taylor still can’t stack up effectively against treasurer Jim Chalmers. This is a potential vulnerability in the election campaign.

Politicians facing elections often liken their situation to climbing Everest. For Dutton the last stage will be treacherous.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Will voters fear PM Peter Dutton would be a surprise packet? – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-will-voters-fear-pm-peter-dutton-would-be-a-surprise-packet-252174

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amy Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, Professor of Sustainability, Environment & Education, Southern Cross University

Many children in Queensland and northern New South Wales have had their lives disrupted by ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred.

Schools were closed (about 14 were still shut as of Thursday afternoon), families hunkered down and then the clean-up and repair efforts began.

For students in Lismore, the past week will have likely brought back memories of the catastrophic floods in the area in 2022.

Our research on the Lismore floods (which is awaiting publication in two peer-reviewed journals) contains key lessons for how communities and schools can support young people after Cyclone Alfred and other disasters.

---

Read more:
How can parents talk to their kids about Cyclone Alfred?

---

Our research

Between late February and March 2022, the northern NSW town of Lismore and surrounding region faced two catastrophic flooding events. Almost 1,000 schools in the broader area were temporarily closed and in some cases, schools were relocated or permanently shut.

In the Floods + Me project, we worked with young people in Lismore to understand the impact of the floods on their lives and education.

Twenty-nine young people aged five to 17 documented their experiences through art, poetry and stories. The project also surveyed 107 students (aged 11–17) at a Lismore school in December 2024.

Profound experiences

Young people told us how their worlds were upended by the floods. As Aisha said:

My mum told me to pack a bag, and we went to my aunty’s house for a couple of hours as we had nowhere to go. We then stayed at my grandma’s house in Alstonville for around three-four months.

Lovely told us how the flood made its way up to the second level of the home, and her Dad and dog had to escape through the roof.

Until evening, we kept going back to the last reachable place near our house on the hill to observe the flood level. I went to bed with a lot of stress and couldn’t sleep properly.

Wanting more emotional support

The young people in our study said there were many kinds of support after the flooding. This ranged from rebuilding and cleaning houses to donations of food and clothes. But almost a quarter of those in the survey said they didn’t observe any support.

Young people also said they wanted more emotional and mental support. Or, as one young person put it:

comfort, counselling, trauma management, therapy, hugs, kindness, love.

Others said they wanted specific training:

I don’t know how to be resilient – I need to be taught how to be. Don’t just tell me to be it.

There were differing experiences of “bouncing back”. While many reported being able to recover with little difficulty (36%), almost the same number reported the opposite (32%). About one fifth (21%) of respondents were unsure and 11% did not respond.

Wanting more school support

In the Lismore floods, some students reported 2022 as a “lost year” at school. As Erika told us:

There were a lot of things going on, lots of things not working, even as we tried to still get education.

Our participants said more financial and educational support such as tutoring and online schooling would have helped to fill the gaps in their learning.

Taking time to recover

Young people told us they didn’t necessarily want to rush back to “normal”.

They said they didn’t want to ignore what had happened. This suggests the return to learning should be well planned and structured. And include consultation with students about what they need.

Floods and their aftermath can be unsettling, frightening and sometimes traumatic. These experiences need to be processed in healthy and constructive ways.

Our participants wanted more information about disasters to be included in their formal education. About 80% of the survey respondents said teaching about flooding and disasters in schools was necessary.

The majority of students reported being worried about climate change, but this was more pronounced among girls. Half (50%) of female respondents said they were concerned, compared to 24% of boys and 3% of non-binary/gender-diverse students and those who do not disclose a gender.

Listen to young people

A key theme in our research is young people want to be listened to and want to be included in recovery and future planning efforts.

As one young person told us:

Give us hands-on jobs in the moment so we don’t feel helpless. A lot of my friends felt this, and I felt lucky that I got to help; it helped me recover.

They also raised caring for pets during floods as a key issue for communities to plan for.

As another participant explained:

there was an evacuation the night before, but we said ‘we’re not leaving unless we know our pets are going to be safe’.

What’s next?

Unfortunately, climate change means young people are increasingly likely to face disruptions to their education and their communities in the form of floods, heatwaves, bushfires and storms.

According to a 2025 UNICEF analysis, at least 242 million children and young people in 85 countries had their schooling disrupted by extreme climate events in 2024.

This means schools, teachers and communities need plans to empower children to face these crises and recover in healthy ways.

In the meantime, for those now rebuilding from ex-Cyclone Alfred, our participants advise it is important not to rush the recovery phase. As one told us:

We took a long time to come back to feeling normal.

---

The Floods + Me project team also includes Chantelle Bayes, Katie Hotko, Yaw Ofosu-Asare, Helen Widdop Quinton, David Rousell, Lauren Rickards, Lisa Kleyn and Blanche Verlie.

Professor Amy Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles received funding from Southern Cross University’s VC Flood Recovery Project Scheme for Floods + Me.

Alexandra Lasczik received funding from Southern Cross University’s VC Flood Recovery Project Scheme for Floods + Me.

Jeanti St Clair received funding from Southern Cross University’s VC Flood Recovery Project Scheme for Floods + Me.

Liberty Pascua de Rivera received funding from Southern Cross University’s VC Flood Recovery Project Scheme for Floods + Me.

Simone M. Blom received funding from Southern Cross University’s VC Flood Recovery Project Scheme for Floods + Me.

– ref. We spoke to kids after the Lismore floods. To recover, they told us they need support, time and hugs – https://theconversation.com/we-spoke-to-kids-after-the-lismore-floods-to-recover-they-told-us-they-need-support-time-and-hugs-251911

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

On current opinion polls, we are looking at a very close race at the May election. As voting day draws near, Peter Dutton will face more forensic questioning about his policies and how he would run government.

At the same time, he’s fending off Labor’s attempt to define him as Trumpian.

The opposition leader joined the podcast to discuss what a Dutton government would look like and how he would tackle problems both domestically and abroad.

On his main priorities would be, Dutton says;

I want to be a Prime Minister for home ownership. We’ve announced a plan which will create 500,000 new homes. I want young Australians to be able to achieve that dream of home ownership.

I want to make sure that we have a safe and secure country. Not much else matters if people don’t feel safe in their own homes and if we feel vulnerable as a country.

I want to make sure that we’ve got a back to basics economic agenda so that people can afford to pay the bills in their own households and small businesses can stay afloat and help contribute to growth in the economy. So, they would be three areas that I would see as a priority and ways in which we could change the country for the better.

Asked if Australians would be better off in three years’ time under a Dutton government, Dutton says,

The short answer is “yes”.

On government waste, Dutton outlines the need to reduce the size of government:

there’s been phenomenal growth in the public service. Why? Because the Government’s trying to please the Commonwealth Public Service Union. It’s not about service delivery or outcome. There are 36,000 new public servants at a cost of about $6 billion a year. Now, that is a staggering amount of money that is going into the economy, and it should be spent on either debt reduction or helping get the budget back into balance.

We’ve supported the government in cutting back on some of the concerns in [the] NDIS and making aged care more sustainable so that there is a recurrent built-in save year-on-year compounding in those two areas. […] And so we can identify areas where we can have better outcomes, and I think Australians, frankly, expect that from a Liberal government, and that’s what we would do.

Wouldn’t consultancy fill any gap left by cutting public servants?

If you’ve got a good skill set within the public service, then there’s no need to bring in additional outside support. But if you can spend money more efficiently by investing in an efficient delivery mechanism, then that is something that you would do.

On the government’s relationship with the Trump administration, Dutton leaves the door open to replacing current US Ambassador Kevin Rudd, and doesn’t scotch the idea of appointing Scott Morrison,

Well, I’m interested in making sure that the incumbent can do his job to the best possible degree and making sure that that’s in our country’s best interests. I think that’s the default position. We’ve got an incumbent in the position. I think the Ambassador’s there for another 18 months or so, and I hope for our country’s sake, that he’s able to achieve what he hasn’t been able to achieve to date and I hope that there can be engagement. It is quite remarkable that neither the Prime Minister nor Ambassador Rudd have been able to secure even a phone call

So what about the possibility of making Morrison ambassador?

Well, I’ve got a high regard for Scott Morrison. I’ve got a high regard for a number of other colleagues and others. If there was a vacancy, then you could consider other applicants or other people for that job – but at the moment, there is no vacancy. I think the important aspect is to lend every assistance to the Ambassador because obviously he’s struggling at the moment.

Talking about the criticism from Labor and others that he is aping Donald Trump, Dutton says.

I’m my own person […] I was able to stand up to Trump [after Trump’s criticism of President Zelensky] and I think that’s one of the important qualities in the next Prime Minister of our country. I want to make sure that I stand up for my values.

I base my political instinct more on John Howard and Peter Costello than I do on President Trump, with all due respect to him and to other world leaders.

On fears that the American economy could fall into recession, Dutton outlines why Australia should adapt to the changing global realities,

As we know from history, if America has a cold, it’s pretty contagious and economically, that can be devastating for jobs and economic growth in our own economy.

So we have to deal with whatever the prevailing economic conditions are, whether the US strengthens or it weakens. That’s been the approach of every predecessor of the Prime Minister, but it seems that our Prime Minister is not up to the task of being able to adapt to the prevailing conditions and the Prime Minister of the day, the Government of the day, has to deal with whatever is laid out before him or her and that would be the approach I would take.

— TRANSCRIPT E&OE —

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

The formal election campaign was delayed by Cyclone Alfred, but the faux campaign continues at full bore, with the opinion polls showing a very close race, and now Donald Trump’s tariffs throwing a new issue into the mix.

A few weeks ago, we brought you an interview with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, on today’s podcast, we catch up with Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.

Peter Dutton, Paul Keating used to say, ‘change the government, you change the country’. How would Australia be different under a Dutton Government? Can you talk about, say, just three big changes we’d see in a first term?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, Michelle, I want to be a Prime Minister for home ownership. We’ve announced a plan which will create 500,000 new homes. I want young Australians to be able to achieve that dream of home ownership. I want to make sure that we have a safe and secure country. Not much else matters if people don’t feel safe in their own homes and if we feel vulnerable as a country. I want to make sure that we’ve got a back to basics economic agenda so that people can afford to pay the bills in their own households and small businesses can stay afloat and help contribute to growth in the economy. So, they would be three areas that I would see as a priority and ways in which we could change the country for the better.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Well, just taking up the last one, you’re saying to voters that they’re worse off financially than three years ago. But can you realistically promise that they’ll be better off under a Dutton Government in three years’ time? Apart from anything else, the world is just becoming incredibly uncertain.

PETER DUTTON:

The short answer is yes, and I’d say to people, don’t look just at what politicians say, but what they do. Our track record as a Coalition in government has been a very successful one. John Howard was able to clean up Labor’s mess in 1996, and we were able to do it again after the Rudd-Gillard years, and we’ll have to do it again after the Albanese Government. We make rational economic decisions that are in the country’s best interests.

There are 27,000 small businesses who have closed their doors under this Government’s watch. That didn’t happen when we were in government. So, I think look at the report card and make judgements about who is best able to manage the economy, as you say, in very uncertain times. I honestly believe that the Coalition has a much greater capacity to manage the economy effectively, and that’s what we’ll do if we’re elected.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

The Trump Administration is now warning that its policies could produce a recession in the United States in the transition period to its new protectionism. What would be the implications of this for the international economy and for Australia, in particular?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, as we know from history, if America has a cold, it’s pretty contagious. Economically, that can be devastating for jobs and economic growth in our own economy. The Government’s ramped up spending dramatically. I don’t think inflation has been dealt with in our country by any stretch of the imagination, and there’s a great prospect of interest rates going up again under a Labor-Greens Government because they’ll spend a lot of money, which will be inflationary.

So, we have to deal with whatever the prevailing economic conditions are, whether the US strengthens or it weakens. That’s been the approach of every predecessor of the Prime Minister, but it seems that our Prime Minister is not up to the task of being able to adapt to the prevailing conditions. The Prime Minister of the day, the Government of the day, has to deal with whatever is laid out before him or her. That would be the approach I would take. We would default back to our instinctive economic management skills and that’s something that I’m very proud of.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

But this does make it hard to give promises and guarantees of things getting better, doesn’t it?
PETER DUTTON:

Well, I think we have to have an honest conversation with the Australian public about the times in which we live. I think people instinctively get it. People know that China is in a very different place today. The Prime Minister talks about the risk of China, and he talks about the most precarious position since the Second World War, and then he takes money out of Defence. We don’t have the urgency that you would expect from a Prime Minister having made that comment.

We live in the most difficult economic circumstances if the tariffs continue to be applied and there could be another wave of tariffs against Australia. We don’t know the answer to that yet. All of that makes for an uncertain period that needs a steady hand and a reliable approach. I believe that that’s what I can deliver as Prime Minister and what a Coalition Government can deliver over the course of the term.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

So, on those tariffs, if you were elected, would you make an early trip to Washington? And what would you offer President Trump? And do you think you could obtain an exemption where this Government has obviously not been able to, or indeed any other government?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, the United States is our most important military partner. I don’t agree with what President Trump has done in relation to the tariffs, and I vehemently oppose the tariffs. But the Government has to deal with the realities before it. For the Prime Minister at the moment, not to be able to get a phone call or a detail agreed about a visit to the United States is quite remarkable.

So, absolutely, I would make it a priority to engage quickly with the Administration and not just with the President, but with others with whom we have a relationship in the Administration. We need to make sure that we’ve got every touch point covered, as we did in 2018 when the Coalition Government was able to negotiate with President Trump in his first Administration to gain an exemption.

We’re a country with a trade surplus and we have a unique circumstance because of the military alliance and the Prime Minister hasn’t been able to leverage any of that into an outcome where Australia has been exempted this time. Unfortunately, it’s jobs and economic activity that suffer in our country. So, the short answer is yes, early engagement and an early visit to discuss what a deal looks like with the US. I would make it an absolute priority in my Government.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Now, Labor says that in its research, people see you as being Trumpian, and don’t some of your policies, for example, your attacks on the public service and the like, reinforce this perception? And indeed, won’t your attacks on the Government over the tariff policy play into Labor’s attempt to paint you as a cheerleader for Donald Trump?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, Michelle, firstly, I’m my own person, and I think you wrote a very good piece, if I might say, the other day, talking about this issue. I think the point, in part, that you made is that I was able to stand up to Trump, and I think that’s one of the important qualities in the next Prime Minister of our country. I want to make sure that I stand up for my values.

The most important influence in my life and the values that I obtained first up in politics came from John Howard and Peter Costello and that was to spend prudently, to make sure that you manage the economy well, that you spend within your means and that you make sure that you can prepare for a rainy day. This Government has spent a lot of money, it’s why we’re behind other OECD countries, it’s why interest rates have already started to come down six or eight months earlier than what they did in Australia and it’s why the Reserve Bank Governor has pointed out that there is a spending problem with Labor in Australia, both at a state and federal level, which is fueling inflation.

So, I base my political instinct more on John Howard and Peter Costello than I do on President Trump, with all with all due respect to him and to other world leaders. That’s been my experience.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

You did call Trump a ‘big thinker’ initially. What are your views on him now?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, the President obviously has an America First policy, and people think that that’s an election slogan or that it’s rhetoric, but I think that they now realise that it’s being played out and that that is what we will have to negotiate over the course of the next four years. We have to make sure that we’re making decisions in our country’s best interests, that we’re respectful of the points of difference between our two Governments, but ultimately find common ground and alignment in relation to national security matters and economic matters and other matters of mutual interest.

You need the personal relationships to make that happen. Part of the reason that the Government’s faltered in the relationship is because the key players, every one of them, including the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, the Ambassador to the United States, have all made consistent derogatory remarks about the President. I don’t think that has allowed them to have the conversation that I would be able to have with President Trump or my colleagues.

In 2018, we found every point of influence within the Administration, within the private sector, within think tanks to try and influence the outcome that ultimately we were able to achieve to exempt Australia from the tariffs at that point. So, I think we can have a constructive and productive relationship with the President under a new government here in Australia. I know one thing for sure, we have to, in an uncertain time, strengthen the relationship, not weaken it. And unfortunately, through their own words, that’s exactly what Penny Wong and Anthony Albanese have done.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Well, on personal relationships, obviously Scott Morrison’s got a pretty close relationship with Donald Trump. Would you consider making him ambassador to the United States, if he wanted the job?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, I’ve made comment before in relation to making sure that we can put every support behind Ambassador Rudd because he’s in the job at the moment and we need to make sure that he is armed with every possible tool to see Australia exempted from the tariffs. Now, obviously that has failed and the Government needs to double down on its efforts and I hope that the Prime Minister, on our country’s behalf, is able to achieve success and that will happen if doors are opening for Ambassador Rudd.

I’m just not close enough to knowing what has been said to Ambassador Rudd and whether he’s persona non grata or whether he does have access to the Administration. I think all of that would be influential in any decision that you were making around how the Ambassador was being effective or there was a problem in the relationship. I think it’s a discussion probably for another day.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

So, would you be interested in putting Scott Morrison in there at some point?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, I’m interested in making sure that the incumbent can do his job to the best possible degree and making sure that that’s in our country’s best interests. I think that’s the default position. We’ve got an incumbent in the position. I think the Ambassador’s there for another 18 months or so, and I hope for our country’s sake, that he’s able to achieve what he hasn’t been able to achieve to date and I hope that there can be engagement.

It is quite remarkable that neither the Prime Minister nor Ambassador Rudd have been able to secure even a phone call. There wasn’t even a courtesy phone call to the Government to say that this decision was being handed down. Penny Wong has confirmed that she found out about this through the press sec at the White House Briefing Room. That is quite remarkable. That is a real thumbing of the nose, and I think the Prime Minister’s got a real problem of his own making.

I want to make sure that we can get a better outcome for our country because we need to provide support to Australian steel workers and to economic activity in our country.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

As we move on, I just note that you’re not saying Scott Morrison is a ridiculous suggestion.

PETER DUTTON:

Well, I’ve got a high regard for Scott Morrison. I’ve got a high regard for a number of other colleagues and others. If there was a vacancy, then you could consider other applicants or other people for that job – but at the moment, there is no vacancy. I think the important aspect is to lend every assistance to the Ambassador because obviously he’s struggling at the moment.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Now, a Newspoll has found that more than half the voters doubt that the Coalition is ready for government. Now, you say you’re holding policies back, essentially so they have maximum impact when they’re announced, that people don’t forget them. But isn’t the risk that this delay adds to this perception that you’re not prepared for office yet?

PETER DUTTON:

Michelle, all I can say is that, again, look at the track record. The track record is that in relation to the Voice, we had lots of critics to say that the Coalition should come out immediately and declare support for or against the Voice. We took our time, and in the end, we got the outcome that was the best outcome for our country. We went through it methodically.

I can point to the policies that we’ve announced already, which have been significant – a $5 billion plan to create 500,000 new homes so young Australians can achieve the dream of home ownership again. Our plan to stop foreign ownership of Australian houses so that we can put Australians first in buying those houses. The effort that we’ve done in relation to the energy policy, which would be the most significant policy an Opposition has ever taken to an election in relation to nuclear firming up renewables – that is revolutionary. We’re paying almost the highest cost for electricity in the world and the Government’s renewables only policy is a disaster.

The final point I’d make in relation to policy is that we have been working day and night over the course of the last almost three years looking at policies. We’ve had different policies costed backwards and forwards with the Parliamentary Budget Office, and we will have significant policies to announce at the right time. But we also don’t want to pretend that we’re going to rewrite the tax system or rewrite large swathes of government policy from opposition. That is not the way to achieve success at the election. We are going to have one hell of a mess to clean up given the wreckage that Labor will leave behind, but we’re going to do it in a sensible way and we’re going to get our economy and our country back on track through a proven formula that Coalition Governments always bring to the table. We’ll do that through prudent economic decisions that we can make, and we’ll make them quickly.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

That does, however, leave many people with the feeling that maybe they don’t really know what a Dutton Government would be like. That we could be in the situation where we were with the Abbott Government where he came in with a certain platform and reassurances and then we got the 2014 Budget. Are we at risk of another 2014 Budget which produces many shocks?

PETER DUTTON:

No, Michelle, I think people again can look at my track record. As Defence Minister, we negotiated the AUKUS outcome, which will underpin security for our country for the next century. As Health Minister, I invested a record amount into hospitals, established the $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund, and we had the ability to put more money into general practice through training places, many of those doctors graduating and out practicing now. As Home Affairs Minister, I kept our country safe by deporting violent criminals and managing our borders effectively. As Assistant Treasurer to Peter Costello, I was part of an economic team which was the most successful in recent history here in Australia. So, I have a skill set to bring to the role of Prime Minister, but I’ve also learnt the lessons of Prime Ministers, both Liberal and Labor, over my term in Parliament and I intend to learn from all of that.

We’re at a period where families are cutting back in their own household budgets. As I say, there’s a record number of small businesses that have gone broke on this Government’s watch. People are tightening their belts and people are cutting the fat out of their budgets and they’re struggling to pay their bills. I think at that time, more than any other time, people expect the government to cut back on wasteful spending as well. So, we’re not going to have families who are really struggling to pay their bills working harder than ever paying their taxes and allowing waste to take place.

I want government services to be efficient so that we can get more money onto frontline services and have more GPs and have more educators and have a better outcome in terms of defence and national security in a very uncertain time.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

But you wouldn’t have big shocks for the community post-election?

PETER DUTTON:

No, but we do want to identify where there is waste in the system, and I think Australians would expect us to do whatever we can to cut back on waste so that we can provide support to those Australians who are most in need.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Well, let’s just go through the areas of waste. Can you give some specific examples?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, in relation to the Canberra Public Service, as we’ve pointed out, there’s been phenomenal growth in the public service. Why? Because the Government’s trying to please the Commonwealth Public Service Union. It’s not about service delivery or outcome. There are 36,000 new public servants at a cost of about $6 billion a year. Now, that is a staggering amount of money that is going into the economy, and it should be spent on either debt reduction or helping get the budget back into balance or making sure that we can meet the costs that we’ve got. That is one area and…

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Now, that’s the figure you would cut. Is that right? The 36,000?

PETER DUTTON:

That’s correct, and we’ve been very clear about that. We supported the Government, for example, as John Howard did with Paul Keating over the course of this term. We’ve supported the Government in cutting back on some of the concerns in NDIS and making aged care more sustainable so that there is a recurrent built in save year on year compounding in those two areas. That’s something that the Labor Party never did when they were in opposition.

So, we can identify areas where we can have better outcomes and I think Australians, frankly, expect that from a Liberal government and that’s what we would do.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

How would you stop the consultancies just moving back in to fill the gap, because that’s what we saw before?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, again, if you’ve got a good skill set within the public service, then there’s no need to bring in additional outside support. But if you can spend money more efficiently by investing in an efficient delivery mechanism, then that is something that you would do. I want to make sure that we empower our public servants to be able to make decisions. I think sometimes, and certainly this has been my experience, if there’s not good direction and leadership from the Prime Minister and Minister, then you end up with a situation where public servants are at sixes and sevens about what they think is the government’s direction. So, providing that clarity and that understanding of purpose gives a much more efficient outcome to the public service activity as well.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

On the skill set in the public service, Steven Kennedy, the head of Treasury, has been involved in some controversy with some of your front benchers. Would he be safe under a Dutton Government?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, I think you’re about 10 steps down the track, Michelle. We’ve got to win the election first, and then we have to work out the key appointments. I’ve worked very closely with Steven Kennedy, particularly over the COVID period, and I have a great deal of respect for him. I think he’s a very capable public servant, and I think he’s done a good job, particularly over that period when we were in government. But in relation to personnel changes and who would be secretary for what department, I think that’s all saved for another day.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Your working from home policy has created some controversy. Is your aim that almost all federal public servants should return to five days in the office? And if there are to be carve outs, what would be the circumstances?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, Michelle, we want to bring it back to something akin to where it was pre-COVID. About one in five public servants, or about 21 per cent of Canberra public servants, were working from home, and it provided that flexibility. At the moment, it’s over 60 per cent. There are people who are in important roles, who have been asked to come back to work, who refuse to come back to work. Now, that is not an acceptable position when taxpayers, who are paying the wages of our public servants are out working second and third jobs just to be able to afford to pay the grocery bill. They’re seeing their tax dollars not being spent efficiently.

So, there’s a sensible approach to it. There’s an accommodation of flexible work arrangements for women and women returning back to work or taking time off – and we can accommodate that. But at the moment, six out of 10 public servants working from home in Canberra is not an efficient public service. I want to make sure that we can drive the efficiencies, and therefore, drive the better outcomes for Australians.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Now, your tax policy is on the wait and see list, but just in general, do you think that Australia’s taxation system needs a thorough overhaul or just some tinkering at the edges? And are more tax cuts inevitable in the next term of government, whoever wins because of inflation, putting people into higher brackets?

PETER DUTTON:

Michelle, I don’t think they’re inevitable because in government, we introduced stages one, two and three. So that was a comprehensive reform of the way in which the tax brackets operated and the tax rates as they applied, trying to address anomalies within the system, including bracket creep. So, there was a genuine and concerted effort.

Now that’s what we did when we were in government, the Labor Party didn’t do that when they were in government. The Labor Party under Anthony Albanese tweaked the stage three, but hasn’t introduced any of their own tax cuts otherwise.

So again, it’s not inevitable that there would be tax cuts under a Labor government, and the Government’s objective, it seems, is similar to what is happening in Melbourne and in Victoria under Jacinda Allan, as it happened under Palaszczuk and Miles in Queensland, they will tax and spend, and they keep spending, and therefore they need to find new things to tax.

That is not the approach of a Coalition government. We spend efficiently, we tax at the lowest possible rate and we try and simplify the system. If we can introduce tax cuts and make the system simpler and fit for purpose, then that’s our every instinct.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

On health, you took over the government’s bulk billing policy, holus bolus, but isn’t that just tactical expediency rather than good policy formation? Surely the Coalition should have some ideas on health policy itself rather than just adopting what’s been put out there?

PETER DUTTON:

Michelle, a couple of points. Firstly, I’m very proud that when I was Health Minister, we increased hospital funding, we created the $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund, as I mentioned, we invested into GP training, into regional health, and the bulk billing rate was 84 per cent when I was Health Minister, it’s now 78 per cent under Labor. So, we’ve got a good track record in relation to health.

Next point is that we have done a lot in terms of policy offering in the health space, well before the Government made its most recent announcement on Medicare. We promised an overhaul and additional investment in relation to women’s health, particularly around endometriosis and a number of other areas, including GP training – a commitment of $400 million. That was picked up, actually, by the Government in their Medicare announcement most recently.

We believe in a strong general practise Network, because primary care and early detection means that we have greater survival rates from cancers, etc, and it also means that we’re saving money down the line when people otherwise turn up with higher acuity and greater health needs in the health system, particularly in the tertiary part of the health system.

So we have seen fit to invest significantly – as we’ve announced – into general practice and into Medicare, but also we believe that mental health is a very important area of investment in the health system. The Government hasn’t yet matched the $500 million additional dollars that we say we will invest into mental health. I hope that they do, because I think there are many people who are missing out on services at the moment, because the Government cut back on mental health and we’ve restored that funding that they cut out of Medicare.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

We haven’t heard a great deal on education policy from your spokeswoman. What changes do you think are needed to the higher education system, or indeed the education system more generally that the federal government can drive?

PETER DUTTON:

Michelle, I think this is one of the most important areas, obviously, of public policy. We’ve got one in three children at the moment failing to meet basic proficiency levels in reading, writing and maths under NAPLAN, the average year 10 student is one year behind in his or her learning compared to two decades ago, the year 12 completion rates have declined from 82 per cent in 2019 under our Government to 78.7 per cent now.

So, we do need to invest, and this is why, when I spoke before about having an efficient public service and getting more money back to frontline services, this is one area that we should be looking at, where we can provide support to teachers. But we also have to have a focus on curriculum and we have to make sure that our teachers are teaching our young children the basics through explicit instruction and making reading, writing, maths and science a priority. We’ve invested more into school funding and we’ll continue to do that into the future.

So, there is a real focus, and not just on primary and secondary education, but also on apprentices and trainees. We have to make sure that we’ve got incentives and that we develop a culture again, that it’s acceptable to do a trade or a traineeship, whereas the Government’s focus seems to be solely on getting people into university degrees, which is fine if that’s the choice people make, but for a lot of young Australians, they would be probably better in a pathway with a trade.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

The Opposition recently has got rather tangled – to put it mildly – on the question of what it would do about insurance companies. Can you just very briefly clarify what your policy is on this? Would you go down the divestiture road if that was necessary?

PETER DUTTON:

Michelle, I think we’ve been very clear in relation to it, and I’ll spell it out very clearly now. As I move around the country, there are countless stories I’ve heard of what’s happening in the insurance space. Now, we know that people can’t get insurance coverage, we know that people are paying astronomical prices for premiums, and it is one of the great grievances that people have in their own household budgets. So, there is a significant problem.

Now, the Government says that they can’t do anything about it, and our argument is that if, in government, we’re presented with evidence that because of a concentration of market share within a big player or big players within the insurance market, and that is what is leading to a significant spike in premiums or a lack of competition in the marketplace or the inability for people to get insurance coverage, then we will act, and that does include the prospect of divestiture, because that is what happens in the United States, in the United Kingdom and frankly, it’s a statement of the obvious, that if you’ve got a market failure that is leading to people not being able to afford insurance premiums or that they’re being denied insurance, then that is a complete and catastrophic failure of the system that would need to be addressed. I’m absolutely astounded that the Government wouldn’t agree to that.

I’d also make this point, if two insurance companies decided to merge today, the ACCC would make a decision about whether or not that was in the market’s best interests. My Government will be there to serve the Australian community, not to serve the big business community or anyone else. I want outcomes for consumers, and I want to make sure that our policies are helping, not hurting consumers. If the ACCC made a decision that those two companies merging was going to compromise on competition in the marketplace and drive up the cost of premiums or make it difficult for people to get insurance cover, they wouldn’t allow the merger to take place. It’s simply an extension of that principle.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Now on climate change, now that the U.S. is out, are you still definitely committed to staying in the Paris Agreement and to the net zero by 2050 target?

PETER DUTTON:

Yes, we are, and I believe that we’re the only major Party going into this election with a credible policy to achieve net zero by 2050. The Government, as they turn off coal and gas, is relying on green hydrogen. Nobody can tell you when green hydrogen will be a commercial reality, and in actual fact, all of the indicators at the moment are that money is being withdrawn from green hydrogen. So, I think the Government’s prospects of net zero by 2050 diminish as each day goes by.

The Coalition – like the United Kingdom, where the Labour Party has signed up to more nuclear, like the United States, where the Democrats and Republicans have both signed up to more nuclear – we have a credible pathway to net zero by 2050, we can bring electricity prices down. The Government’s policy of relying on green hydrogen and more hydro projects – that have not even been identified, let alone construction started – their recipe, I think, is for higher emissions and an inability to achieve net zero by 2050, which is a stark contrast to where a Coalition government would be able to take our country.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

But on this question of bringing prices down, isn’t this really pie in the sky hypothetical, because you’re talking decades on with nuclear. There are all sorts of variables in the years to come, so where prices go is surely unforeseeable, it’s no good just using modelling?

PETER DUTTON:

But that argument can apply to the Government’s renewables only policy…

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Well, precisely. Both sides.

PETER DUTTON:

Well, and if you look at the expert analysis, which we’ve had undertaken by Frontier Economics – the most preeminent energy economist in the country, used by Labor Governments, including in South Australia – their judgement is that the Coalition’s policy compared to Labor’s policy would be 44 per cent cheaper. It is quite a remarkable figure. But that’s the independent analysis, not analysis that we paid for, but analysis that was undertaken by a modeller used by the Labor Party.

Importantly, Michelle – I think this is a really important point, we’ve now had, what, two, three months since that analysis was handed down, since that report was released? The Government has not made one criticism of the assumptions or the outcomes. They’ve never disputed that 44 per cent figure. I think it’s telling. I think it also demonstrates that the policy we’ve put together has been thought through, it has been robustly tested and it is in our country’s best interest.

We also, in the near term, need to invest a lot more into gas and I think the Government’s starting to realise this as well. We have to make sure that there is more gas to allow for electricity production and that is how we can have some downward pressure on prices in the near term.

Also – just to pick you up on one of the points you made – the Government now is investing in an overbuilding of the system, a cost that consumers are bearing now in their electricity prices. So, the government’s renewable only policy over the period between now and 2050, the fact is that that is contributing to an increase in the cost of electricity and gas prices that consumers are paying right now.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Just on your 44 per cent figure, though, we’re talking here decades on. The Government used, before the last election, another reputable modeller, and as it turned out, it couldn’t even produce a figure that stuck for two or three years. So, it does suggest, does it not, that trying to put precision into these undertakings is a very dubious proposition?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, let’s look at the world experience – the international experience, so in Ontario, use of nuclear underpinning renewables in that system, they’re paying about a third of the electricity costs we are in this country. In Tennessee, similar story in the United States. In the United States, in towns like in the Hunter Valley or like in Collie that have no future after coal goes, they are revitalising and rejuvenating those regional centres, and we can do that here in Australia.

Out of the top 20 economies in the world, Australia is the only one that isn’t using or hasn’t signed up to nuclear. Indonesia has committed to significant investments into nuclear. I pose this question, why is it that of the top 20 economies in the world, 19 of them see the economic and environmental benefit out of using nuclear, but the Albanese Government is the only one that doesn’t? So we’re not trying to reinvent the wheel here, we’re looking at a proven technology.

The Government has no concerns about safety or disposal of waste, because they signed up to the AUKUS submarine deal, which has a nuclear propulsion system, and no Prime Minister in his or her right mind would do that if they thought there was a safety concern for our sailors and the defence force personnel who will crew these submarines.

So, the only criticism that I think commentators frankly can make in relation to the nuclear debate at the moment is of the Labor Party, and why isn’t there a bipartisan position in relation to nuclear so that we can achieve it more quickly? I think Peter Malinauskas in South Australia is biting at the bit to be involved in the creation of a civil nuclear industry and he’s been very supportive of nuclear in past, as is Keir Starmer in the US, as is Joe Biden and many other significant figures who would be cited on most other days by members of the Labor Party, including Anthony Albanese and Chris Bowen.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

I want to turn to the broad area of defence and foreign policy. Malcolm Turnbull’s organising a conference to look at where Australian strategic policy should be in the new Trump era. Do you think that a realignment of Australia’s security and strategic policy is needed, now that President Trump is treating alliances in Europe in a very different way than the past? Or do you have confidence in the strength of the alliance we have with the United States? And if you take the latter view, what do you base that on?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, I have total confidence in the relationship with the United States when it comes to our military alliances, and I believe very strongly that our stars align with the United States as they have done historically and will do into the future, and not just the United States, but our Five Eyes partners otherwise, and new partners, particularly I speak of Japan and of India.

We live in a precarious period, there’s no question of that, and we have to do everything we can to keep our country safe, and we need strong leadership to be able to do that. The Prime Minister talks about the threats in this century and then takes money out of defence. It’s anomalous and it’s dangerous.

So, we have, what I believe is a sensible approach to the relationship, we have relationships with key players within the Administration, long standing supporters within the Congress on both sides of the aisle, and we can have, I think, a very productive relationship going forward. But it is a new world under President Trump, there’s no question, and we have to consolidate the relationships that we have. But it’s hard for relationships to be built when the United States doesn’t have any respect for our Prime Minister and when the Prime Minister and key Ministers have repeatedly used derogatory language about the President. That is not conducive to a productive relationship.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

I think to be fair, we have to point out that no country’s got an exemption from the tariffs, so we don’t know that…

PETER DUTTON:

Well, Australia did in 2018.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Yes, but no countries now.

PETER DUTTON:

Well, again, we did that as a Coalition Government, and there’s no doubt in my mind that we could do it again as a Coalition Government. That is exactly the task that I set myself.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

I see the other day that Kim Beazley said Australia should boost its defence spending to 3 or 3.5 per cent of GDP. Do you think we need to go above 3 per cent of GDP?

PETER DUTTON:

Well Michelle, firstly, I have a great deal of respect for Kim Beazley, and I have met with him and discussed defence matters before, and he was a great Ambassador for our country in Washington. I think the Labor Party, frankly, probably misses not having him in Washington at the moment. He is one of the most astute observers of matters defence here and globally. I do think we should listen to his warnings about the threats that could face Australia over the course of the next decades or century.

There is a compelling argument to invest more into defence. What that number is, that has to be considered in time, and in part, it’s a discussion that we would have to have in government with the agencies, not just defence, but with the central agencies as well, and that’s exactly what we would do.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

So you won’t put a number on it before the election?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, we’ll have more to say in relation to defence, and we’ve done a lot of work in defence policy during our period in opposition. But, again, I think look at the track record in government, and in government, we were able to invest more into defence, we put $10 billion into REDSPICE, which was the beefing up of the Australian Signals Directorate and the Australian Cyber Security Centre, and not just our defensive capability, but also our offensive capability in cyber, which makes the calculation for an adversary much different if they know that we have the ability to strike in the cyber world. We do have a lot of capability that we have enhanced through that investment into Operation REDSPICE, and I’m proud to have been the Minister that made that decision. We also had, obviously, the ability, the capacity, to negotiate AUKUS, which I think has been revolutionary for our country.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

You were quite forward leaning in criticising Donald Trump over his treatment of the Ukraine President, but unlike Anthony Albanese, you’re reluctant to contemplate Australia contributing to a peacekeeping force if one comes into being for Ukraine. Why is that?

PETER DUTTON:

Michelle, I think the Prime Minister has shot from the hip here, because it’s quite telling the Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister, as well as the Assistant Defence Minister, have both walked back what the Prime Minister had said. No European nation has decided to put troops on the ground in Ukraine, and yet the Australian Prime Minister is making that pledge. Now, it’s why the Prime Minister hasn’t really spoken about it since then, he hadn’t spoken to the Chief of the Defence Force about our capabilities or what that would look like, and ironically, it came at a time when the Australian Government had to rely on a Virgin pilot to advise it of naval operations from the the People’s Liberation Army Navy in our own waters and yet the Prime Minister’s talking about sending our troops to Europe. It just doesn’t make any sense.

So, we’re a strong supporter and ally of Ukraine, and I’m very proud of that and proud of the fact that as Defence Minister I was able to work with the Ukrainian Ambassador to deliver the Bushmasters, which have saved lives – the lives of Ukrainian soldiers and men and women in that country as well.

So, we’ve got a lot to work on and a lot to contribute to in relation to peace and stability and restoration of life in Ukraine, but putting boots on the ground, I think was an off the cuff remark by the Prime Minister and it just shows his lack of experience in the national security space.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Now, just finally, people of course these days have little trust in politicians, we see that in survey after survey, and many people probably listening to this podcast will think, ‘well, politicians don’t keep their promises and how can I believe what Peter Dutton says’. So, we will hear a lot of promises, a lot of commitments, from both sides during this election campaign. In what circumstances do you think a leader is justified in breaking a promise, a core promise, that they made during the campaign?

PETER DUTTON:

Well Michelle, the first point I should make is it’s not just politicians, it’s also, I think, journalists and used car sales people…

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Point taken.

PETER DUTTON:

…Real estate agents and others who don’t bear up too well under that same scrutiny, but I think politicians, Members of Parliament, by and large, want the best for their country and whether they’re Labor or Liberal, I think people have a desire to see the best outcome for their community and their country. Sometimes they make mistakes and they should be held to account for that, but by and large people do their very best for our country and I think we recognise that.

In terms of the question you ask, I think it’s very difficult to see a circumstance where there is an excuse for breaking a promise – perhaps a national security reason, if we had to make a decision that was in our country’s best interests to save lives, that went against something we’d committed for or against before an election, then that obviously would be a circumstance where you could conceive of that. But I think if people make a commitment, as the leader of a major Party, or indeed a teal or whoever it might be, then there is a reasonable expectation that they follow through on that commitment.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Peter Dutton, thank you very much for talking with us today, as we approach the more intense part of what’s been an election campaign that seems to have gone on forever!

That’s all for today’s Politics Podcast. Thank you to my producer, Ben Roper. We’ll be back with another interview soon, but goodbye for now.

[ends]

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Peter Dutton on why he’s not Australia’s Trump – ‘I’m my own person’ – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-peter-dutton-on-why-hes-not-australias-trump-im-my-own-person-252156

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Noel Morada, Visiting Professor, Nelson Mandela Centre, Chulalongkorn University; and Research Fellow, Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, The University of Queensland

Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte is now in the custody of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Netherlands, to face charges of alleged crimes against humanity for his brutal war on drugs in the Philippines.

Duterte and his allies attempted to fight the arrest warrant and claimed his transfer to The Hague was an “illegal act”. Yet, the former strongman could now become the first Asian head of state to be tried by the ICC.

The news has left the Philippines reeling at a critical time for the country. Some of Duterte’s supporters have rallied behind him, while other Filipinos have remembered his dark legacy.

The country is also in the midst of intense campaigning for midterm elections in May that could be pivotal for the government of the current president, Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Marcos had been allied with Duterte’s daughter, Sara, the country’s vice president, before they dramatically fell out last year after she publicly threatened to assassinate him. Sara Duterte was then impeached by the House of Representatives by Marcos’ allies in February.

Now, there are questions whether Marcos’ decision to sideline his chief rival and cooperate with Interpol’s arrest of her father could backfire in a country where the Dutertes still hold tremendous sway.

A long-simmering political feud

At stake in May’s election are over 18,000 national and local positions, including 12 seats in the 24-member Senate, 250 seats in the House of Representatives and 63 party-list representatives, as well as 82 governorships and other local government positions across the country.

The results will certainly have significant implications for the Philippines in the short term.

In the Senate, it could determine the outcome of Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial later this year. So far, eight of the Marcos administration’s candidates are likely to win, based on the latest polls. If at least two-thirds of the senators vote to convict Duterte, she will be ineligible to run for president herself in 2028 – or hold any public office.

Both Marcos and Sara Duterte have seen their public trust and approval ratings decline in recent months. Duterte’s ratings declined even further after her impeachment in the lower chamber, although she still enjoys high ratings in her home base of Mindanao.

These latest developments, however, have not stopped her from hinting at plans to run for president in 2028. She made these comments on a trip to Hong Kong over the weekend with her father, where they met with overseas Filipino supporters.

It remains to be seen whether the elder Duterte’s arrest and trial at the ICC would generate enough public sympathy for the family dynasty to boost Sara Duterte in both her impeachment trial and any future political races.

Some of the family’s die-hard supporters still view them as “underdogs” suffering from sustained political persecution by the Marcos administration. Social media posts by supporters have denounced the haste with which the government complied with the arrest warrant.

Sara Duterte will seek to rally these supporters even further as she travels to The Hague to stand by her father’s side. She has called his arrest an “affront to national sovereignty”.

A step towards ending the culture of impunity

Beyond the Marcos-Duterte rivalry, Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest and impending trial represents a sizeable moment for Filipinos at home and abroad. It shows that a former leader of the country can be held accountable for alleged crimes, no matter how popular they are or how much influence they wield.

New witnesses may surface who were reluctant to testify in trials related to Duterte-era killings in local courts. Some witnesses also refused to participate in the marathon hearings held by a House committee investigating drug-war killings.

This committee has said it would not cooperate with the ICC, as the Philippines withdrew from the court under Duterte’s rule in 2019. Nevertheless, its hearings can still be accessed by the ICC since they have all been posted online.

The ICC trial may also expose the weaknesses and inadequacies of the Philippine justice system, including the limitations of existing laws that are supposed to protect human rights, ensure the rule of law, and guarantee the accountability of government officials and law enforcers in the country.

Duterte’s trial may also persuade the Marcos administration to reconsider his predecessor’s decision to leave the ICC. (The court says it retains jurisdiction in the case against Duterte because the alleged crimes occurred when the Philippines was still a member.)

The arrest of the former strongman may not end the “culture of impunity” that has long existed in Filipino politics. Yet, it is an important milestone in building public awareness about the importance of upholding human rights protections.

It will also no doubt provide the many families of those killed during Duterte’s time in office a measure of relief.

Noel Morada has received funding from the Australian government for research on atrocities prevention.

– ref. Will Rodrigo Duterte be seen as a martyr – or a symbol of justice finally being carried out? – https://theconversation.com/will-rodrigo-duterte-be-seen-as-a-martyr-or-a-symbol-of-justice-finally-being-carried-out-252020

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julie Old, Associate Professor in Biology, Zoology and Animal Science, Western Sydney University

It was hard to watch. In a now-deleted Instagram reel, American influencer Sam Jones is filmed picking up a young wombat, separating it from its mother, and running with it back to the car for a pose. In the background, the distressed mother tries to follow. At one point, Jones says: “Momma’s right there and she’s pissed. Let’s let him go.”

We have spent our careers working with wildlife. Seeing a joey separated from her mother for social media content was unsettling. The encounter will have made stress levels soar for the baby and mother.

Unfortunately, we are seeing a rise in people directly interacting with wildlife through feeding them or taking risks to get close to them, often driven by the pursuit of social media attention. These interactions can hurt wildlife in many different ways.

While there’s a natural tendency to want to connect with wildlife, wild animals often see humans as a threat. When we get too close, we can trigger fear responses such as increased heart rates and heightened stress hormones. Indeed, the consequences of interfering with wildlife can be far-reaching.

Jones was lucky not to have been injured – wombats weigh up to 40 kilograms and have teeth and claws they can use for defence. She could still come down with scabies – wombats often have mange, caused by the parasitic mite which gives us scabies.

Others have been less lucky. People feeding dingoes on K’Gari has brought these wild canids closer to people, leading to attacks. In response, authorities have occasionally opted to kill dingoes.

Official approvals are required to capture and handle wildlife. Engaging in these activities without the necessary permits is typically illegal. These regulations are to safeguard wildlife from harm and protect humans as well.

What was wrong with the influencer’s behaviour?

What many people found difficult to see in the clip was the clear distress seen in both joey and mother.

Wombat joeys are fully dependent on their mothers for between 18 months and two years – one of the longest periods for any marsupial. Interfering with this bond stresses both animals.

The incident also took place on a road, increasing their risk of being hit by a vehicle – one of the biggest threats to wombats.

Wildlife are exactly that – wild life. When we interact with wild creatures, we interrupt what they are doing. This can harm the individual – and often, the group – by inducing physical or psychological stress, and changes in behaviour.

We want to connect – but it’s bad for the animals

Many of us draw a mental line between our pets and wild animals. Our cats and dogs jump up for a pat and seek our affection. Wouldn’t wild creatures enjoy the same thing?

It took thousands of years to domesticate dogs, cats and other animals. Wild animals, on the other hand, perceive us very differently – often as a potential threat.

When we feed wildlife food they are not used to, it can make them sick, or contribute to long term metabolic issues.

Visitors often feed chips to quokkas on Rottnest Island, but these salty snacks can sicken the animals, which should be eating grasses, stems and leaves.

Tourists flock to areas with wild kangaroos and often offer them food. But as they become used to our presence, they can still lash out. People have been injured, some badly.

Touching animals comes with risks, from being scratched by koalas to being bitten by snakes. When a US wildlife expert was filmed touching a huge great white shark off Hawaii, dozens of people tried to follow suit – despite the risks.

Then there’s the disease risk. Wombats suffer from sarcoptic mange, while other marsupials may have toxoplasmosis, which can trigger miscarriages and neurological issues. Handling wild birds can give us the dangerous disease psittacosis.

If you don’t have a permit, you should stay at a safe distance and watch the animal. The goal is to avoid interfering, and respect the animal’s autonomy and what it’s trying to do, whether that’s finding food, finding a mate, sleeping, or just lounging about.

Are more people trying to interact with animals?

After the COVID pandemic, many of us have been seeking outdoor experiences. Camping is on the rise, as is ecotourism.

At the same time, some influencers are trying to interact with wildlife, perhaps mimicking famous figures such as the late Steve Irwin. Irwin’s father, Bob, recently called for harsher penalties for influencers entering crocodile territory after many close calls.

Watching trained wildlife handlers can give us false confidence. We might think: if they do it, why can’t I?

The problem is, wildlife handling is risky. Bites are common, even for trained experts. When we undertake wildlife research, we use gloves, cages, hoods and so on to reduce the risk to us and the stress to the animal.

Wildlife carers who take on the role of rearing wombat joeys have to be well trained – and dedicated. Joeys need to be fed special milk suited to marsupials – cow’s milk is no good. They have to be fed round the clock in the early months.

In many cases we are aware of, untrained individuals have attempted to rescue wombats or kangaroo joeys only to discover they can’t meet their specific care needs. Unfortunately, this often results in the joeys being abandoned or handed over to wildlife carers in poor condition.

This doesn’t mean that interactions with animals are off-limits. Zoos and wildlife sanctuaries provide opportunities to handle captive animals under expert supervision. Volunteering with wildlife carers or training to become a carer are viable ways to engage with animals responsibly.

Influencers don’t have to grab an animal from the wild to show how amazing it is. You can show natural behaviour by following an animal from a safe distance or use existing footage.

If you can’t captivate an audience with the wonders of wildlife without harassing a wild animal, then perhaps it’s time to rethink and refine your social media strategy.

When we are out in the bush, it’s natural to be fascinated by the presence of wild creatures. But we must find ways of building our connection with nature without harming what we see – and without risking harm to ourselves.

Julie Old is a Director on the Board of The Wombat Foundation, and a member of the Australian Mammal Society.

Dale Nimmo is a member of the Ecological Society of Australia, and receives funding from the Australian Research Council

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

– ref. Yes, it’s a terrible idea to pick up or interfere with wild animals – especially baby wombats. Here’s why – https://theconversation.com/yes-its-a-terrible-idea-to-pick-up-or-interfere-with-wild-animals-especially-baby-wombats-heres-why-252164

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Martín-Francés, Postdoctoral Fellow, PalaeoDiet Research Lab, Monash University

In a system of caves in the Atapuerca Mountains in Spain, nearly 50 years of systematic archaeological excavations have unearthed evidence of increasingly ancient human occupation.

The result of this systematic work has yielded human traces stretching from the Bronze Age to hundreds of thousands of years into the past – before modern humans like us (Homo sapiens) even existed.

In new research published in Nature, our team shares another find from Atapuerca: the earliest human remains ever found in Western Europe. We discovered fragments of face bones from a species of extinct human previously unknown in this region, dating from between 1.2 million and 1.4 million years ago.

Sima del Elefante

Back in 2022, during our annual field season, our team unearthed a series of bone fragments from a cave called Sima del Elefante (Pit of the Elephant). The fragments are from the left side of the mid-face of an adult human.

In 2008, a human jawbone more than 1.1 million years old had been found at the same site. The new fragments were found around two metres deeper than the jawbone, which suggests they are even older.

Since the discovery, our team has spent more than two years meticulously studying the remains. We wanted to find out which species of ancient human they belonged to, and understand the lives and environment of these long-extinct cousins.

Which species does the face belong to?

Evidence from the Gran Dolina site, not far from Sima del Elefante, has shown that a species of ancient humans known as Homo antecessor once populated the Atapuerca region. Direct dating of H. antecessor fossils has shown they lived in the region around 850,000 years ago.

The first question we asked about the new face fossil was whether it belonged to H. antecessor. This species had a relatively modern-looking face: quite vertical, rather than the strongly sloping shape often seen in older species.

The shape of our new face bones was not a match for H. antecessor, so what could it be?

We compared the remains to those of other earlier hominin groups, including ones from the Dmanisi site in the Republic of Georgia, which have been dated to around 1.8 million years ago. The Sima del Elefante face differs from the Dmanisi hominins, especially in the area around the nose.

However, it does share some similarities with Homo erectus, the first human species to spread from Africa to Asia, beginning around 2 million years ago, and now also found in Western Europe. The similarities include the lack of a projecting nose and the forward-projection of the midface.

However, key details about the Sima del Elefante face are still missing. For now, we are classifying it as Homo aff. erectus, which means it appears to be closely related to H. erectus but lacks some defining features.

Beyond the hominin fossils

At Sima del Elefante, we recovered stone tools and the remains of animals alongside the hominin fossils. The marks of use on the tools as well as the cut marks found in the animal remains suggest that this species practised butchery in the cave.

We also know, thanks to pollen and the remains of small animals, that the ancient humans lived in an environment dominated by a humid forest landscape.

Our discovery opens new possibilities for understanding the origins and population dynamics of the earliest human settlements in Western Europe.

From the fossils at Dmanisi, we know that hominins had left Africa at least 1.8 million years ago. Now, the Sima del Elefante finding tells us that within a few hundred thousand years, hominins had made it to the westernmost part of Europe. What’s more, the shape of their faces had evolved during that time.

The finding also raises questions about whether there were two populations of different hominins living in the Atapuerca region at the same time. Did H. antecessor and H. aff. erectus coexist? Or had H. aff. erectus died out by the time H. antecessor arrived?

If the latter is true, what drove one species to extinction while another flourished? In this second scenario, we need to consider the factors behind both the extinction of the species and their dispersal.

Earlier research has suggested that hominin populations were strongly affected by climate and other environmental conditions. Hominins may have spread into Europe when conditions were kind, and died out when the climate became less hospitable.

There is still much work ahead of us. Year after year, we return to Atapuerca to continue unearthing evidence that pieces together the story of our origins. Each new discovery is a step forward in understanding our past.

We acknowledge all the members of the Atapuerca research team involved in the recovery and study of the archaeological and palaeontological record from Sima del Elefante site.

The research of the Atapuerca sites is funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation and European Regional Development Fund “ERDF A way of making Europe”.

Fieldwork at Sima del Elefante is supported by the Junta de Castilla y León and the Fundación Atapuerca.

Laura Martín-Francés receives support from the EU-Horizon Program – Marie Sklodowska-Curie.

– ref. Fragments of a million-year-old face found in Spain shed new light on ancient human migrations – https://theconversation.com/fragments-of-a-million-year-old-face-found-in-spain-shed-new-light-on-ancient-human-migrations-252146

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milad Haghani, Associate Professor & Principal Fellow in Urban Risk & Resilience, The University of Melbourne

The recent rollover of two army trucks carrying Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel responding to ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred was unprecedented for a domestic emergency operation.

Thirty-two soldiers were hospitalised in the twin incidents, which occurred when a convoy of military vehicles was en route to assist flood-affected residents of Lismore. The accident reignited debate over the sustainability of the ADF’s expanding role in disaster response.

We are relying on the military more frequently because Australia’s renowned voluntary emergency workforce is shrinking. Not enough people are fronting up to fight the fires and floods, and other calamities that regularly blight the Australian landscape.

Unless the volunteer army is revitalised, the burden on the ADF will continue to grow, as will the related risk of compromising Australia’s national security.

Response and recovery model

Australia’s disaster response system operates as a multi-agency model, combining career emergency personnel, trained volunteers, and when necessary, ADF assets.

Each state and territory manages its own emergency response through a multitude of agencies. In Victoria, the State Emergency Service (SES) specialises in floods, storms and tsunamis while the Country Fire Authority (CFA) is responsible for fire suppression and rescues across most of the state.

These agencies have career personnel who oversee operations, manage logistics, coordinate mobilisations, and provide leadership. However, the vast majority of frontline responders are volunteers.

In New South Wales, the Rural Fire Service (RFS) has over 70,000 volunteers across approximately 2,000 brigades, making up the vast majority of its workforce. The service has only around 1,200 paid staff. The NSW SES is also heavily volunteer-driven, with around 10,000 volunteers, supported by approximately 460 paid staff.

Volunteers form the backbone of these emergency services.

Major distraction

When disasters exceed the capacity of emergency services, the ADF is called in to provide additional support.

Operation Bushfire Assist for example, involved more than 6,500 ADF personnel, including 3,000 reservists who were deployed to tackle the 2019–2020 Black Summer bushfires. It was the largest ADF mobilisation for domestic disaster relief in Australian history.

The defence force serves Australian communities during times of need. But it is not a civilian disaster agency.

The ADF’s core mission is defence and combat capabilities, not firefighting, flood rescues, or storm recovery. Requests for assistance have traditionally had to be balanced against military priorities.

Last year, a Senate inquiry into Australia’s Disaster Resilience warned this growing reliance may not be sustainable.

ADF disaster assistance also comes at a financial cost. It is estimated the relief work during the 2022 floods in Queensland and NSW as well as the 2019–2020 bush fires exceeded $90 million.

Every time the ADF is deployed for disaster relief, it diverts personnel and resources from other defence priorities.

Fewer volunteers

The ADF keeps getting called up because there is often no one else to do the work.

The number of operational CFA volunteers in Victoria has plummeted from 36,823 in 2014 to 28,906 in 2024. The pattern is repeated to varying degrees across all emergency services, including the SES and CFA.

The current volunteer base is also ageing, and younger Australians are not stepping up at the same rate.

Australians aged 55 years and over are more likely to volunteer than younger Australians.

To reduce the burden on the military, there is no other option than an all out effort to revitalise the volunteer emergency workforce.

Boosting emergency volunteering

Awareness is an issue. Many young people have no exposure to emergency services volunteering.

Recruitment efforts may not be reaching them effectively. Traditional, long-term volunteer commitments may not suit younger generations. The solution could be more flexible, short-term, or event-based volunteering options.

A national campaign to highlight the role and importance of emergency volunteers as a social responsibility
could help shift attitudes and increase participation and retention.

Incentives could help too, starting with tax deductions on costs incurred while volunteering such as mileage, travel and uniforms. And consideration should be given to a proposal in the United Kingdom to offer council tax discounts to residents who engage in community volunteering.

Removing barriers is also important. Some volunteers leave due to excessive paperwork, slow on-boarding or financial burden. Reducing red tape while maintaining safety standards could improve retention.

Beyond recruitment, creating a positive experience for volunteers would also make a difference.

Businesses and higher education also have a role to play.

Corporate volunteer programs that allow employees to assist emergency services during work hours could expand the volunteer pool. More universities should be incorporating volunteering into their personal development programs.

Finally, promoting volunteerism as a core Australian value, especially through the education system, would be helpful. It would shape attitudes early and make generational differences.

A strong volunteering culture helps keep us safe. Without it, we risk becoming even more vulnerable to deadly natural disasters.

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

– ref. We can’t keep relying on the ADF to respond to natural disasters – how to rebuild our emergency volunteer workforce – https://theconversation.com/we-cant-keep-relying-on-the-adf-to-respond-to-natural-disasters-how-to-rebuild-our-emergency-volunteer-workforce-251907

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shima Ziajahromi, Advance Queensland Research Fellow, Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University

Compost applied to agricultural soils in Australia each year contains tonnes of microplastics, our research has revealed.
These microplastics can harm soil and plant health and eventually enter food crops, potentially posing a risk to humans.

In Australia, more than 51% of organic waste – including garden and food waste from households – is recovered and processed. Much of it is turned into compost.

However, every kilogram of compost we sampled in our study contained thousands of tiny pieces of plastic, invisible to the naked eye. They come from a range of potential sources, including compostable waste bags used by households to store food scraps.

Without swift and effective action, composting may become an environmental crisis, rather than a solution.

The problem with microplastics in compost

As Australia’s landfill sites become exhausted, finding new uses for organics waste has become crucial.

Composting is widely promoted as a solution to managing organic waste. It is comprised of decomposed plant and food waste and other organic materials, which is applied to farms and gardens to enrich the soil and improve plant growth.

Many local councils provide residents with kitchen caddies and “compostable” plastic bags to collect food waste. These bags can also be bought from supermarkets.

These bags usually contain some plant-based substances. However, some contain fossil-fuel based material. Others may contain “bioplastics” such as that made from corn starch or sugarcane, which require very specific conditions to break down into their natural materials.

Research shows some compostable bags are a source of microplastics – plastic particles smaller than 5 millimetres.

Once applied to soil, microplastics can accumulate over time, posing risks to soil health. For example, research shows microplastics can alter soil structure, limit plant growth, hinder the cycling of nutrients and disrupt microbial communities. This in turn may affect farm productivity.

Microplastics can also further degrade into “nanoplastics” small enough to be absorbed by plant roots. From there they can enter stems, leaves, and fruits of agricultural products consumed by humans, posing potential health risks.

Internationally, evidence is growing that compost can introduce significant amounts of microplastics into soil. However, little is known about whether organics applied to farm soils in Australia contain microplastics. This study sought to shed light on this.

What we found

My colleagues and I investigated microplastics in processed organic waste. We took samples from 11 composting facilities in Victoria.

We found every kilogram of compost contains between 1,500 and 16,000 microplastic particles. In weight, this equates to between 7 and 760 milligrams of microplastics per kilogram of compost.

In Australia, about 26% of compost produced at organic waste processing facilities is used in agriculture. So, we estimate that between 2.7 and 206 tonnes of microplastics is being transported to Australian agricultural land from compost each year.

Most microplastic particles we found were “microfibres” and “microfragments”. Microfibres usually derive from synthetic fabrics. Microfragments come from larger plastics, such as packaging material.

We then analysed bin bags marketed as compostable or biodegradable, and found their physical and chemical characteristics were very similar to some microfragments we found in organic waste.

The microfragments may be coming from other sources as well, such as plastic containers and bags, and plant string scooped into the bin when people collect garden waste.

Where to now?

This study provides the first evidence of microplastics in processed organic waste in Australia. It underscores the need to better understand what happens to microplastics during the composting processes, and how microplastics affect soil health.

Policies such as the National Plastic Plan and the National Waste Policy Action Plan promote composting as a key strategy for reducing landfill waste and supporting a circular economy.

But these policies do not adequately address the risks of contaminants such as microplastics. In fact, there are no national standards in Australia regulating microplastics in processed organics.

The absence of clear guidelines leaves composting facilities, waste processors, and end users vulnerable to unintended plastic pollution.

To address this serious environmental issue, urgent action is needed.

Authorities should take steps to limit the flow of microplastics into compost, including developing guidelines for composting facilities, waste management companies and households.

Monitoring should also be used to track microplastic levels in processed organics, identify their sources and assess the impact on soils and food safety.

Shima Ziajahromi receives funding from EPA Victoria, EPA NSW, Water Research Australia, Queensland Government through an Advance Queensland Industry Research Project, co-sponsored by Urban Utilities, Sydney Water, SA Water, Water Corporation (WA) and Eurofins Environment Testing Australia. This project was funded by EPA, Victoria.

Frederic Leusch receives funding from the Australian Research Council, EPA Victoria, EPA NSW, Qld DESTI, Water Research Australia, Seqwater, Urban Utilities, Sydney Water, SA Water, Water Corporation and the Global Water Research Coalition. This project was funded by EPA Victoria.

Hsuan-Cheng Lu receives funding from EPA Victoria. This project was funded by EPA, Victoria.

– ref. Tonnes of microplastics infiltrate Australia’s agricultural soils each year, study shows – https://theconversation.com/tonnes-of-microplastics-infiltrate-australias-agricultural-soils-each-year-study-shows-250624

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ferdi Botha, Senior Research Fellow, Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic & Social Research, The University of Melbourne

Australia already has the highest gambling losses globally. Now, new data show that between 2015 and 2022, the number of Australian men involved in sports betting has increased substantially. And for younger men, the rate of betting has surged more than 60%.

The latest data from the comprehensive Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey shows that in 2015, 5.9% of all men bet on sports. By 2022, 9.3% of men did. This represents a 57.6% increase in seven years. And among men who gamble, almost a quarter bet on sports, up from 14% in 2015.

The HILDA survey follows about 17,000 people every year and collects information on various aspects of their lives. The survey asked several questions in 2015, 2018, and 2022 related to gambling – including gambling types, spending, and gambling harm.

As more men gamble on sports, spending on sports betting has also risen. In December 2022 prices, men’s typical average self-reported monthly spend sports betting climbed from A$85.95 in 2015 to almost $110 in 2022.

The rising trends in sports betting are especially concerning given evidence gambling is strongly associated with undesirable consequences such as poor social, financial and psychological outcomes.

Younger people are betting more

Underlying the increase in sports betting are notable differences across age groups, shown in the figure below.

The increase in sports betting over this period occurred mainly among younger Australians. In fact, the rate of sports betting jumped by between 62% and 66% in men aged 18 to 44.

Because younger people tend to gamble more online than in venues like a casino or the pokies, aggressive online advertising on social media and the use of betting apps make sports betting easier and more accessible.

In all three survey years, the prevalence of sports betting is lower among older age groups, especially people aged 45 and older. In 2022, for example, 2.7% of Australians 65 and older reported betting on sports, whereas 14.9% of people aged 25–34 did.

Gambling harm is becoming worse

There are also worrying trends regarding gambling harm.

Gambling harm is measured using the Problem Gambling Severity Index, which is constructed from responses to nine questions about the frequency of gambling-related risks or harms over a 12-month period. Respondents’ gambling behaviours are then classified as either “non-problem”, “low-risk”, “moderate-risk” or “high-risk”.

Among those men engaged in at least some sports betting, the proportion reporting high-risk gambling problems grew from 6.3% in 2015 to 8.7% in 2022. Based on 2022 population estimates from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, this suggests that among male sports gamblers, just over 105,000 are high-risk gamblers – a significant minority.

And while more young men engage in sports betting, younger age groups are also increasingly likely to experience gambling harm. In 2022, almost one in five of all Australian men aged 18 to 34 reported at least some gambling harm.

What can be done?

Gambling behaviours are based on self-reported data so tend to be under-reported. The estimates reported in this article, although higher than existing estimates, are likely even higher in reality.

Living in the same household as a high-risk gambler negatively affects the health and well-being of other people in the household. The adverse effects of high-risk gambling therefore extend indirectly to many other Australians beyond the gambler.

The significant increase in sports gambling advertisements has coincided with more (especially younger) people engaging in this gambling type. Exposure to such advertising encourages earlier initiation of sports betting and more extreme betting behaviours.

Sports betting is done almost entirely online and younger people encounter advertising mostly online. This is one reason why younger groups are more at risk and why urgent intervention is required.

Initiatives to completely ban gambling advertisements have been proposed. Such measures have support from the public and from advocacy groups.

The findings reported here underscore the urgent need to protect younger Australians and in particular men, who are at greatest risk of gambling harm. To do so requires a reversal of the rising trend in sports betting. Banning sports betting advertising is one effective way this can be achieved.

Ferdi Botha is affiliated with ARC Centre of Excellence for Children and Families over the Life Course.

– ref. The rate of sports betting has surged more than 57% – and younger people are betting more – https://theconversation.com/the-rate-of-sports-betting-has-surged-more-than-57-and-younger-people-are-betting-more-251902

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tanya Hill, Honorary Fellow at University of Melbourne and Senior Curator (Astronomy), Museums Victoria Research Institute

As the full moon rises tomorrow (Friday March 14), it will be a special sight for those in Aotearoa New Zealand. It will also be worth a look for people along the east coast of Australia.

Rather than being full and bright, the Moon will be partway through a lunar eclipse, the first of two lunar eclipses to occur this year.

New Zealand is in for a treat as the Moon will rise during totality – when the Moon passes completely into Earth’s shadow. Instead of turning dark, the Moon takes on a reddish glow that’s colloquially referred to as a “blood moon”.

Along the east coast of Australia, totality will happen while the Moon is still below the horizon; by the time the Moon rises, it will be in part-shadow.

A red Moon in Earth’s shadow

When it’s a full moon, the Sun and the Moon are located on opposite sides of the sky. With Earth in the middle, it can cast a large shadow blocking the Sun’s light from reaching the Moon.

However, during most full moons we don’t see an eclipse because the Moon’s orbit is slightly tilted – by just five degrees – compared to Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Most months the full moon passes either above or below Earth’s shadow. But twice a year, the path of the Moon takes it through the shadow instead.

When the Moon is fully immersed in shadow, the reason it turns red is entirely due to Earth’s atmosphere.

The first eclipse from the Moon

The Blue Ghost Mission 1, which successfully landed on the Moon on March 2, will be the first to image an eclipse from the Moon. As we experience the lunar eclipse, the Blue Ghost 1 lander will see a total eclipse of the Sun thanks to Earth moving in front of it.

Being on the Moon during totality and looking up at the Earth, it should see the atmosphere lit up as a ring of red.

Only the low-wavelength red sunlight passes through the atmosphere because the bluer light is scattered away. This is also the reason why sunsets have red, orange and pink hues.

Importantly, the atmosphere also refracts or bends the light, redirecting it into Earth’s shadow and making the Moon appear red.

When and where to look

Lunar eclipses are brilliant to watch – they are perfectly safe and you don’t need special equipment. Since the Moon will be low in the sky, you will need a clear view of the eastern horizon, perhaps from somewhere high up. It’s a leisurely event, so it’s also great to have good company.

Since this eclipse happens at moonrise, you can use the website timeanddate.com to check the moonrise time for your location and also to determine the eclipse magnitude, which is a measure of how much of the Moon is in shadow.

An eclipse magnitude of 1 or more means the Moon is fully in shadow or has reached totality.

If it is less than 1, it refers to the greatest fraction of the Moon’s diameter that is eclipsed. Imagine a diameter line across the Moon: where the edge of the shadow falls along that line will denote the magnitude of the eclipse.

Across New Zealand, the Moon will rise during totality. The farther north, the longer totality will be. By the time the Moon moves out of the shadow, twilight will have ended and the sky will be lovely and dark for the later part of the eclipse.

On the east coast of Australia, the eclipse will be visible against the bright twilight sky. This will make it much harder to see from southern New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania, since only a small part of the Moon will be in shadow.

Trick of the eye

But wait, there’s more. Watching the Moon when it’s low on the horizon also creates an interesting effect called the Moon illusion.

Our brains trick us into thinking the Moon is much bigger than it usually is. But if you use your thumb to cover up the Moon when it’s low in the sky and then measure it again later in the evening when the Moon is up higher, you’ll see the Moon hasn’t really changed in size at all.

The illusion likely occurs because we instinctively think the sky is shaped like a dome and that the Moon is closer to us when it’s overhead and farther away when it’s near the horizon. After all, that’s what happens when a bird flies off into the distance.

But the Moon is much farther away than a bird; its distance doesn’t change over the course of a night.

If our brains are telling us the Moon is farther away when it’s on the horizon, the Ponzo illusion demonstrates why we are tricked into thinking it appears bigger. In the image below the two moons are exactly the same size, but the perspective provided by the railway tracks makes us see the horizon one as larger.

If you aren’t able to see this eclipse, the second total lunar eclipse for 2025 will happen during the early hours of September 8.

It will be visible from across Australia, while New Zealand will see the eclipsed Moon setting at sunrise: almost an exact opposite to tomorrow’s eclipse.

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

– ref. A lunar eclipse is on tomorrow – NZ and parts of Australia are in for a spectacle – https://theconversation.com/a-lunar-eclipse-is-on-tomorrow-nz-and-parts-of-australia-are-in-for-a-spectacle-251369

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bethany Butchers, Associate Lecturer in Law, University of Newcastle

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains the name of a deceased person.

---

The High Court of Australia has handed down a landmark judgement on native title law in Australia.

Commonwealth vs Yunupingu was about whether the Gumatj Clan in the Northern Territory would be entitled to compensation from the Commonwealth for acts that affected their native title rights and interests.

The court ultimately found the Gumatj Clan was eligible for compensation, holding the Commonwealth liable.

The case has been described as one of the most significant tests of native title since the famous Mabo proceedings in 1992.

Where did the case come from?

The late Yunupingu, on behalf of the Gumatj Clan of the Yolngu People in North-East Arnhem Land, sought compensation for land subject to bauxite mining in the Gove Peninsula.

The clan is seeking an estimated $700 million in compensation as the mining activity winds up, leaving their land damaged.

The Crown authorised the mining in the area without the Gumatj Clan’s consent between the 1930s and ‘60s.

The mining lease, originally granted to Nabalco, is now held by Swiss Aluminium and operated by Rio Tinto.

What were the laws at play?

Commonwealth vs Yunupingu deals with how native title and constitutional law overlap.

Native title law recognises the connection Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples have to their lands. It is based on their traditional laws and customs dating back long before British invasion, and continues today. It’s governed by the Native Title Act, which includes provisions for compensation when native title rights or interests are impaired or taken away.

Under section 51 of the Constitution, the Commonwealth must pay an owner fairly if they acquire their property. This is called the “just terms” guarantee.

This section was famously the subject of the film The Castle, with lawyers arguing it was about “the vibe” of the Constitution.

The case was also about section 122, which concerns how the territories are governed.

There were three main issues that were debated before the High Court: whether native title land can be acquired, whether the just terms guarantee applies to the territories, and what role pre-Constitutional mining agreements play.

What were the legal arguments?

The Commonwealth told the High Court it doesn’t have to pay for taking away native title rights because those rights are “inherently defeasible” and therefore not property able to be “acquired”. Defeasible means it can be cancelled.

It’s a technical legal point, but amounts to arguing native title rights can’t be transferred and therefore can’t be acquired by the Commonwealth.

It also argued the just terms guarantee doesn’t apply to the territories in the constitution, except in specific circumstances.

Finally, the Commonwealth said it took ownership of the minerals found in the area before the Constitution was created by granting leases that “reserved” mineral rights to the Crown. This meant, the Commonwealth said, it could have these rights without having to pay native title holders.

Lawyers for the Gumatj Clan countered these points.

They told the court native title rights are covered by the just terms guarantee.

They said to make sense of the Constitution, it must be read as a whole. Therefore, laws about the territories are also subject to the guarantee.

People living in the territories of Australia should still be entitled to fair compensation for property that is acquired and not be excluded because they are in a territory rather than a state.

Lawyers for the Gumatj Clan submitted that “reserving” of minerals within the early pre-Constitution leases meant the leaseholders were given rights to everything except the minerals in the ground. No rights to minerals were granted at all – not to the leaseholders and not to the Crown.

This would mean native title holders with rights to the minerals in those lands would continue to have those rights. As the Commonwealth affected these rights through legislation and mining leases, they must pay the owners fairly.

What did the court find?

In getting to this point, the Federal Court has sided with the Gumatj Clan, but the Commonwealth appealed to the High Court.

After hearing detailed arguments over three days in August, the High Court Justices dismissed the appeal.

In doing so, it found that taking away native title rights is like taking property. As a result, the just terms guarantee applies and means the Gumatj Clan should be fairly compensated.

It also agreed with the clan that the guarantee applies to territories as well as the states.

The court found the early pre-Constitution pastoral leases did not have the effect of taking away any non-exclusive native title rights over minerals, meaning the Gumatj Clan continued to have their rights until the legislation and mining leases took place in the 1930s to ’60s.

The matter will return to the Federal Court to resolve the remaining legal issues.

What does all this mean?

Ultimately, the decision by the High Court is significant. It will allow for some acts that have caused profound harms to First Nations people from 1911 to be covered by compensation.

This decision follows a 2019 High Court judgement, commonly referred to as Timber Creek, which awarded compensation under the Native Title Act for the first time. The case was described as the most significant native title case to follow Mabo, opening the door for “billions of dollars” to be claimed by First Nations Peoples for impacts on their lands.

This case solidifies that precedent and takes it further by formally expanding the range of acts for which native title holders could apply for compensation.

Until now, there has been a widespread assumption that compensation under the native title system would only be available for acts that occurred after the introduction of the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975, but this case proves otherwise.

This is limited to acts done by the Commonwealth, which may mean this will largely have implications for acts done in the territories, because the Commonwealth managed the Territories after federation until 1978 (NT) and 1988 (ACT).

Beth Butchers is the recipient of an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. Beth is a researcher and teacher at the University of Newcastle School of Law and Justice, Australia.

– ref. The High Court made a landmark decision on native title law. Here’s what it means – https://theconversation.com/the-high-court-made-a-landmark-decision-on-native-title-law-heres-what-it-means-236507

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mary Iliadis, Associate professor, Deakin University

The Australian Law Reform Commission has launched its final report on how the justice system deals with sexual violence. The Safe, Informed, Supported: Reforming Justice Responses to Sexual Violence report found there are widespread barriers to victim-survivors’ access to, and engagement with, the justice system.

More than a year in the making, the report makes 64 recommendations to improve victim-survivors’ experiences and outcomes.

These include recommendations that centre safe, informed and supportive services, such as justice system navigators, independent legal services, and safe places to disclose.

Importantly, the inquiry also recommended independent legal advisers be introduced to help victim-survivors navigate the court system and advocate for their rights. It’s a measure supported by academic research, including my own, soon to be published by the Australian Institute of Criminology.

High rates of sexual violence

More than one in five women have experienced sexual violence since the age of 15.

Women experience sexual violence at greater rates than men, but research suggests non-binary and transgender people are victimised at similar or higher rates than cisgender women.

The justice system relies on victim-survivors’ confidence that they’ll be kept safe if they report sexual violence.

In reality, however, many will avoid or delay reporting because they fear police and justice system responses.

So as stark as the statistics above are, they only reflect reported sexual violence. Actual rates are likely much higher.

The Personal Safety Survey found that 92% of women did not report their most recent experience of sexual violence to police. This suggests there continues to be low reporting rates and a reluctance for victim-survivors to engage the justice system.

Even if they do report, the criminal justice system has been found to re-traumatise victim-survivors, leading to unsatisfactory experiences and outcomes.

Humiliated and confused

The Australian Law Reform Commission set out to inquire into justice system responses to sexual violence in August 2023.

This inquiry formed part of the government’s $14.7 million 2023–24 budget commitment to strengthen and harmonise consent laws and transform experiences and outcomes for victim-survivors.

The commission heard from victim-survivors, practitioners, ministers and other experts which informed the terms of reference.

The commission’s report is the latest piece of evidence in a growing body examining victim-survivors’ negative experiences in the courts. My forthcoming report shows they feel violated, scared, humiliated and confused when engaged with the justice system.

A key reason for this is because they have no independent lawyer advocating for them in court. They are often surprised to learn the prosecutor represents the public’s interests and not their own, which has contributed to feelings of alienation and exclusion from the justice process.

The commission heard victim-survivors are frequently exposed to character attacks at trial. In my study, 77% stated they are commonly asked about their prior sexual experiences, digital communications and counselling/medical records in court.

This made many victims feel like they were on trial rather than the perpetrator.

The Australian Law Reform Commission’s report seeks to address these problems. Recommendation nine calls for independent legal advisers to provide legal advice – and, to a more limited extent, representation – throughout criminal proceedings.

Having legal representation would enable the victim’s lawyer to challenge any request from either the prosecution or defence counsel to access and question victim-survivors’ private records, such as sexual assault counselling communications.

What can be done?

The criminal justice system already has legislation in place restricting the sorts of questions that can be asked of victims in court, such as in relation to their counselling records or prior sexual experiences.

However, my research shows these restrictions are not well enforced, exposing victim-survivors to offensive and humiliating questioning at trial. Independent lawyers for victim-survivors would better protect against this.

---

Read more:
New research shows 1 in 5 Australians have perpetrated sexual violence in their adult lives. The true rate might be even worse

---

Victim lawyers already exist in New South Wales and Queensland to offer protections of victims’ counselling records. Federal government pilots for victims’ lawyers are also underway in Victoria, the Australian Capital Territory and Western Australia.

Evidence shows introducing lawyers for victim-survivors does not compromise the rights of the accused perpetrator. Instead, it allows victim-survivors to give better evidence in court, to feel more empowered, and to stay engaged in a process that has been known to re-traumatise them.

There is strong support for the introduction of independent lawyers for victim-survivors of sexual violence in research and practice evidence, and among lived experience advocates.

To ensure the promises of the inquiry are fulfilled, the government must continue to be guided by expert research evidence and the lived experience advisory group it appointed to support the implementation of the recommendations.

---

The author would like to acknowledge the work of researchers Michael Salter, Delanie Woodlock, Zarina Vakhitova, Andi Brown and PhD candidate Jessica Woolley for collaborating on the research this article reports.

Mary Iliadis receives funding from the Australian Institute of Criminology, the eSafety Commissioner, Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Department of Justice and Attorney-General Queensland.

– ref. Victims of sexual violence often feel they’re the ones on trial. Independent lawyers would help – https://theconversation.com/victims-of-sexual-violence-often-feel-theyre-the-ones-on-trial-independent-lawyers-would-help-247688

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University

False and misleading health information online and on social media is on the rise, thanks to rapid developments in deepfake technology and generative artificial intelligence (AI).

This allows videos, photos and audio of respected health professionals to be manipulated – for example, to appear as if they are endorsing fake health-care products, or to solicit sensitive health information from Australians.

So, how do these kinds of health scams work? And what can you do to spot them?

Accessing health information online

In 2021, three in four Australians over 18 said they accessed health services – such as telehealth consultations with doctors – online. One 2023 study showed 82% of Australian parents consulted social media about health-related issues, alongside doctor consultations.

However, the worldwide growth in health-related misinformation (or, factually incorrect material) and disinformation (where people are intentionally misled) is exponential.

From Medicare email and text phishing scams, to sales of fake pharmaceuticals, Australians are at risk of losing money – and damaging their health – by following false advice.

What is deepfake technology?

An emerging area of health-related scams is linked to the use of generative AI tools to create deepfake videos, photos and audio recordings. These deepfakes are used to promote fake health-care products or lead consumers to share sensitive health information with people they believe can be trusted.

A deepfake is a photograph or video of a real person, or a sound recording of their voice, that is altered to make the person appear to do or say something they haven’t done or said.

Up to now, people used photo- or video-editing software to create fake images, like superimposing someone’s face on another person’s body. Adobe Photoshop even advertises its software’s ability to “face swap” to “ensure everyone is looking their absolute best” in family photos.

While creating deepfakes isn’t new, healthcare practitioners and organisations are raising alarm bells about the speed and hyper-realism that can be achieved with generative AI tools. When these deepfakes are shared via social media platforms, which increase the reach of misinformation significantly, the potential for harm also increases.

How is it being used in health scams?

In December 2024, for example, Diabetes Victoria called attention to the use of deepfake videos showing experts from The Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute in Melbourne promoting a diabetes supplement.

The media release from Diabetes Australia made clear these videos were not real and were made using AI technology.

Neither organisation endorsed the supplements or approved the fake advertising, and the doctor portrayed in the video had to alert his patients to the scam.

This isn’t the first time doctors’ (fake) images have been used to sell products. In April 2024, scammers used deepfake images of Dr Karl Kruszelnicki to sell pills to Australians via Facebook. While some users reported the posts to the platform, they were told the ads did not violate the platform’s standards.

In 2023, Tik Tok Shop came under scrutiny, with sellers manipulating doctors’ legitimate Tik Tok videos to (falsely) endorse products. Those deepfakes received more than 10 million views.

What should I look out for?

A 2024 review of more than 80 scientific studies found several ways to combat misinformation online. These included social media platforms alerting readers about unverified information and teaching digital literacy skills to older adults.

Unfortunately, many of these strategies focus on written materials or require access to accurate information to verify content. Identifying deepfakes requires different skills.

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner provides helpful resources to guide people in identifying deepfakes.

Importantly, they recommend considering the context itself. Ask yourself – is this something I would expect this person to say? Does this look like a place I would expect this person to be?

The commissioner also recommends people look and listen carefully, to check for:

• blurring, cropped effects or pixelation

• skin inconsistency or discoloration

• video inconsistencies, such as glitches, and lighting or background changes

• audio problems, such as badly synced sound

• irregular blinking or movement that seems unnatural

• content gaps in the storyline or speech.

How else can I stay safe?

If you have had your own images or voices altered, you can contact the eSafety Commissioner directly for help in having that material removed.

The British Medical Journal has also published advice specific to dealing with health-related deepfakes, advising people to:

• contact the person who is endorsing the product to confirm whether the image, video, or audio is legitimate

• leave a public comment on the site to question whether the claims are true (this can also prompt others to be critical of the content they see and hear)

• use the online platform’s reporting tools to flag fake products and to report accounts sharing misinformation

• encourage others to question what they see and hear, and to seek advice from health-care providers.

This last point is critical. As with all health-related information, consumers must make informed decisions in consultation with doctors, pharmacists and other qualified health-care professionals.

As generative AI technologies become increasingly sophisticated, there is also a critical role for government in keeping Australians safe. The release in February 2025 of the long-awaited Online Safety Review makes this clear.

The review recommended Australia adopts duty of care legislation to address “harms to mental and physical wellbeing” and grievous harms from “instruction or promotion of harmful practices”.

Given the potentially harmful consequences of following deepfake health advice, duty of care legislation is needed to protect Australians and support them to make appropriate health decisions.

Lisa M. Given receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia and the Association for Information Science and Technology. She is an Affiliate of the International Panel on the Information Environment.

– ref. Generative AI and deepfakes are fuelling health misinformation. Here’s what to look out for so you don’t get scammed – https://theconversation.com/generative-ai-and-deepfakes-are-fuelling-health-misinformation-heres-what-to-look-out-for-so-you-dont-get-scammed-246149

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacquie Rand, Emeritus Professor of Companion Animal Health, The University of Queensland

Cats and milk often go hand in hand in popular culture. But on dairy farms, cats do much more than enjoy a saucer of milk – their mousing skills are essential. That’s because dairy farms often have a problem with rats and mice due to their large grain and feed stores and a continuous supply of water and shelter.

Cats are thought to have been domesticated to protect granaries from rodents some 9,000 years ago. In our time, cats are widely used to keep rat and mouse numbers down around houses, farms, horse barns and factories.

But while you can make tax deductions on the upkeep of your working cats in the United Kingdom and United States, Australia’s thousands of working farm cats are not eligible. By contrast, farm dogs and horses in all three countries are recognised for the work they do. Their care is a tax-deductible business expense.

Our new research explores how cats are used as working animals on dairy farms. We found many dairy farmers preferred using cats over using poison for rodent control. For all farmers, the cost of sterilisation was too much, which can create problems of unchecked breeding. Registration fees are also a barrier.

If the care and upkeep of working cats was tax deductible, Australian farmers could manage their cats better without extra financial strain.

Why are working cats needed?

Dairy farming is Australia’s third-largest agricultural industry after cattle and wheat, and Australia is the world’s fourth-largest dairy exporter.

Within the industry, there are major changes underway. Small dairy farms are declining due to economic pressures. Financial returns are dropping and recent natural disasters have taken their toll.

To find out about how small and medium scale dairy farms rely on cats, we interviewed 15 dairy farmers in New South Wales and Queensland who had between three and 60 cats on their farms. Our sample of farmers is not representative, as we restricted the study to dairy farmers who had enrolled their cats in a free desexing program.

The dairy farmers we interviewed had come to rely heavily on their cats for ratting and mousing. Cats were not optional – they were essential for pest control.

Dairy farms are increasingly automated, with automatic milking machines taking over from humans. But rodents can cause real problems by nibbling through crucial wiring and rubber hosing, causing expensive and disruptive equipment breakdowns. As one farmer told us:

cats are cheaper than an electrician bill.

Another said:

we haven’t had [an equipment] breakdown in seven years since the cats turned up […] That on its own is worth thousands, plus no [downtime] with the milking machines out of action […] yeah, the pluses are just massive.

Rodents also eat and contaminate cattle feed and can spread diseases to livestock and humans. More mice and rats means more snakes, posing risks to humans, working dogs and cattle.

One farmer told us:

the cats […] work everyday where baits are only ever any good while you’ve got bait out.

Most of the farmers we interviewed said they would never farm without cats. “We couldn’t do without them now. Otherwise, you’d be overrun with rats”, one said.

Of our 15 interviewees, ten had previously relied on rat poison. The farmers told us poison was less effective, expensive and unsafe. Rat poison poses risks to wildlife, working dogs, pets and children. Rats and mice are also developing resistance to some poisons. Rat poison has to be continuously applied and can be expensive.

One farmer said:

baiting’s not great for the other wildlife, and we’ve got dogs and I’d prefer not to use the baits.

By contrast, the farmers told us working cats offered a long-term, low-maintenance solution. Farmers reported fewer rodents and fewer snakes.

Farmers clearly saw their cats as working animals. As one said:

they’re dead set working cats because of […] the saving on repairs, the saving on baiting and yeah, the cats are doing their job, they’re basically working for
me.

While some farmers saw the cats as purely functional, others appreciated their companionship, especially during solitary early morning milking.

Is it time for cat deductions?

While our interviewees reported strong upsides to using working cats, there are downsides.

Registration fees and permits can cost thousands of dollars, as an average sized dairy might have 20 or more working cats. There are other costs too, from desexing to tick treatment to vaccination to microchipping. Our recent research suggests desexing would reduce the risk from cats going feral.

As one farmer said:

the cost is too great to have to get all those cats done [sterilised] ourselves.

For farmers, these fees may be having unintended consequences such as added stress from financial worries and damage to mental health if farmers are forced to euthanise cats and kittens for population control. Waiving registration costs for working cats and providing funding to ensure cats are desexed would reduce the impact on wildlife.

At present, the Australian Tax Office recognises horses and dogs as working animals – provided they have been “trained for their role from a young age” and are not pets.

State and federal laws would have to be updated so working cats would be considered domestic cats, not feral cats, and biosecurity laws in states such as Queensland would have to be clarified. Tax rules would have to be changed too, as working cats would not meet the training requirement for working animals, given cats are natural predators of rodents.

But if these changes were made and farm cats were legally recognised, dairy farmers would have clear incentives to ensure their working cats are desexed, vaccinated and cared for.

Jacquie Rand is a registered specialist veterinarian in small animal internal medicine and has an honorary position at the University of Queensland. She is the executive director and chief scientist of the Australian Pet Welfare Foundation, which is largely funded by philanthropic gifts but also receives funding from the Queensland government’s Gambling Community Benefit Fund, the city of Ipswich and from many state, national and international granting bodies. She is affiliated with the Australian Veterinary Association and the Australian and New Zealand College of Veterinary Scientists,

Caitlin Crawford is employed by the Australian Pet Welfare Foundation as a research officer.

Rebekah Scotney is affiliated with the Veterinary Nurses Council of Australia, the Australian and New Zealand Laboratory Animal Association and the Australian Psychological Society.

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

– ref. Working dogs and horses have tax-deductible upkeep. But Australia’s thousands of working cats go unrecognised – https://theconversation.com/working-dogs-and-horses-have-tax-deductible-upkeep-but-australias-thousands-of-working-cats-go-unrecognised-248675

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nic Rawlence, Associate Professor in Ancient DNA, University of Otago

What actually was the biggest dinosaur?

– Zavier, 14, Tauranga, New Zealand.

Great question Zavier, and one that palaeontologists (scientists who study fossil animals and plants) are interested in all around the world.

And let’s face it, kids of all ages (and I include adults here) are fascinated by dinosaurs that break records for the biggest, the longest, the scariest or the fastest. It’s why, to this day, one of most famous dinosaurs is still Tyranosaurus rex, the tyrant king.

These record-breaking dinosaurs are part of the reason why the Jurassic Park movie franchise has been so successful. Just think of the scene where Dr Alan Grant (played by New Zealand actor Sam Neill) is stunned by the giant sauropod dinosaur rearing up to reach the highest leaves in the tree with its long neck.

But how do scientists work out how big and heavy a dinosaur was? And what were the biggest dinosaurs that ever lived?

Calculating dinosaur size

In an ideal world, calculating how big a dinosaur was would be easy – with a nearly complete skeleton. Standing next to the remarkable Triceratops skeleton on permanent display at Melbourne Museum makes you realise how gigantic and formidable these creatures were.

By measuring bone proportions (such as length, width or circumference) and plugging them into mathematical formulas and computer models, scientists can compare the measurements to those of living animals. They can then work out the likely size and weight of dinosaurs.

Every palaeontologist has their own favourite formula or computer model. Some are more accurate than others, which can lead to heated arguments!

In palaeontology, however, we are not always blessed with nearly complete skeletons. In a process called “taphonomy” – basically, what happens to the bones after an animal dies – dinosaur skeletons can be broken up and bones lost.

The more fragmented the remains of a dinosaur are, the more error is introduced into size and weight estimates.

Enter the titanosaurs

If we could travel back in time to South America during the Cretaceous period (about 143 million to 66 million years ago), we’d find a land ruled by a group of four-legged, long-necked and long-tailed, plant-eating sauropods. They would have towered over us, and the ground would shake with every step they took.

These were the titanosaurs. They reached their largest sizes during this period, before an asteroid crashed into what is now modern day Mexico 66 million years ago, making them extinct.

There are several contenders among the titanosaurs for the biggest dinosaur ever. Even the list below is controversial, with my palaeontology students pointing out several other possible contenders.

But based on six partial skeletons, the best estimate is for Patagotitan, which is thought to have been 31 meters long and to have weighed 50–57 tonnes.

A couple of others might have been as big or even bigger. Argentinosaurus has been calculated to be longer and heavier at 30–35 metres and 65–80 tonnes. And Puertasaurus was thought to be around 30 metres long and 50 tonnes.

But while the available bones of Argentinosaurus and Puertasaursus suggest reptiles of colossal size (the complete thigh bone of Argentinosaurus is 2.5 metres long!), there is currently not enough fossil material to be confident of those estimates.

Spinosaurus rules North Africa

An ocean away from South America’s titanosaurs, Spinosaurus lived in what is now North Africa during the Cretaceous period.

By a very small margin, Spinosaurus is currently thought to have been the largest carnivorous (meat-eating) dinosaur, weighing in at 7.4 tonnes and 14 meters long. Other Cretaceous giants are right up there, too, including Tyranosaurus rex from North America, Gigantosaurus from South America, and Carcharodontosaurus from North Africa.

Spinosaurus is unique among predatory dinosaurs in that it was semi-aquatic and had adapted to eating fish. You can see in the picture above how similar its skull shape was to a modern crocodile.

Palaeontology is now more popular than ever – maybe because of the ongoing Jurassic Park series – with a fossil “gold rush” occurring in the Southern Hemisphere.

Members of the public (known as “fossil forecasters”) are making new discoveries all the time.

So, who knows? The next discovery might turn out to be a new record holder as the biggest or longest dinosaur to have ever lived. There can be only one!

---

Hello curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au

Nic Rawlence receives funding from the Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund.

– ref. Curious Kids: what was the biggest dinosaur that ever lived? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-what-was-the-biggest-dinosaur-that-ever-lived-250885