Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joshua Black, Visitor, School of History, Australian National University

Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton have met for the third leaders’ debate of this election campaign, this time on the Nine network. And while the debate traversed much of the same ground as the first two, the quick-fire set up of the debate allowed for some more animated exchanges less than two weeks from election day.

Three expert authors give their analysis of how the two leaders performed.

Joshua Black, Australian National University

Tonight’s leaders’ debate was a marked improvement on the appalling spectacle Nine hosted three years ago. Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton had clearly taken advantage of the reduced campaign activity in recent days to prepare themselves for this contest.

The problem? There was nothing new worth saying. Viewers were treated instead to the greatest hits of an election campaign that has so far not been especially great. Dutton once again paid homage to Howard and Costello’s liberalism (read: “I’m not Trump”), while Albanese repeated his hardly seamless mantra: “no-one held back and no-one left behind” (read: “I’m not Dutton”).

For all of the lofty soundbites, the debate hinged on pedantry. The semantic argument from the first debate about the 2014 budget and health and education spending came up again. (Were there cuts, or did these “line items” simply not grow as fast as promised?)

Both leaders repeated banal explanations about why they were best placed to deal with the Trump White House. There was plenty of tired campaign rhetoric about looming recessions and “talking Australia down”. Even an exchange from last week between Albanese and the ABC’s moderator David Speers seemed to be repeated tonight: why isn’t the government’s energy relief for households means-tested?

At times, this debate was self-indulgent on the part of Nine Entertainment. Ally Langdon (who opened the debate by welcoming “a bit of theatre”) routinely cast her own judgement, condemning Albanese and Dutton for merely “patching cracks” and not proving their “fiscal responsibility” sufficiently.

Interestingly, media policy was one of the few things on which the two leaders could agree. Nine’s political editor Charles Croucher asked the leaders to state their attitude toward the News Media Bargaining Code, which prompts global tech giants to pay Australian news providers for access to their content. Both leaders tripped over themselves to assure the panel they were on a “unity ticket” to protect local media companies (including Nine Entertainment) from being “cannibalised” by multinational tech giants. (Of course, a fair playing field for local media providers is clearly in the national interest.)

This was Dutton’s best debate showing so far. That’s hardly a win. The prime minister managed to reel off a list of his government’s more popular policies, subtly compare his compassionate approach to leadership with Dutton’s darker obsession with order and the threat of disorder, and remind people of the opposition leader’s history of unpopular statements and policies. A modest win for Albanese, if not grounds for inspiration.

Andrea Carson, La Trobe University

Coinciding with the first day of early voting, the third leaders’ debate was more like a game of speed chess – with 60 seconds for leaders’ answers, and 30 seconds for rebuttals. The result was too often a word salad.

While voters may be feeling debate fatigue — and little wonder with a fourth showdown looming on Channel 7 on Sunday — this one could have mattered. With about half of Australians casting their votes early, these televised match-ups represent a potential last chance to shape opinions before May 3.

Instead, questions often focused on personal qualities: trust and lies, and less on policy – poorly serving viewers as answers became a tit-for-tat affair. The countdown of the clock only re-enforced leaders’ rehearsed answers to well-worn topics of cost of living, energy prices, Medicare bulk billing rates, immigration, housing crisis and tax cuts, barely exposing key policy differences for undecided voters. Even their matching blue suits and pale ties made them look less like opponents and more like political twins.

Dutton seemed more assured than Albanese from the start.

Typically, campaign messages get more negative as we move closer to polling day. Studies have shown fear campaigns can “work”, but they can also turn off voters, particularly women. So, unsurprisingly, Dutton’s emphasis was on law and order framed in the language of fear, promising to “keep people safe in their home and communities […] in very uncertain times”. He also promised to cut migration, couched as bringing down housing prices.

The former policeman seeking to be prime minister kept with the law and order theme to sway voters offering a $A750 million package to stamp out illegal drugs and tobacco.

In a similar vein, the Labor leader Anthony Albanese used every chance he had to pivot questions back to Labor’s policy home ground advantage: health, education (free TAFE and reduced HECS debt) and low-cost childcare.

Asked by journalist Deborah Knight if he was “too soft” as a leader, Albanese strove to offer voters hope over fear, replying: “kindness isn’t weakness […] we raise our children to be compassionate”, arguing he can still hold firm when dealing with autocratic leaders to protect Australia’s national interest.

As Dutton listed his top legislative priorities if elected, promising a 25% fuel levy tax, Albanese scored a zinger, pointing out that that policy expires in a year, chortling “you better do it quickly before it disappears”. Overall, it was a flat event, lacking atmosphere and detailed information.

Zareh Ghazarian, Monash University

The “Great Debate”, as it was called by the broadcaster, started on a solemn tone as both leaders mourned the passing of Pope Francis. The format of the debate was geared towards a quick-fire approach. Time limits of one minute per response to questions ensured the debate covered a lot of ground. Policies from cost of living to international affairs were discussed.

The leaders played their roles effectively. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton demonstrated a laser-like focus on critiquing the government, while highlighting the Coalition’s policies. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese defended the track record of his government while also taking opportunities to criticise the previous Morrison government. Both leaders stayed true to advancing the core messages of their campaign.

Cost of living was central to the debate and provided ample opportunity for Dutton and Albanese to put forward their views on the measures they believe would address the issues. Energy policy, and the divide between nuclear and renewable energy sources, also emerged. There was also a moment of unity as both leaders took pride that Australia had implemented a social media ban for under-16s.

After the only break of the night, the host gave both leaders the opportunity to spell out the values that underpinned their policy approach. Dutton focused on restating policy goals, such as a reduction in fuel excise. Albanese returned to “no one left behind, but no one held back” as his key message, a concept he had also mentioned in his victory speech in 2022.

On the whole, and considering the stakes, the debate was a model of civility. Both leaders presented as being in command of the details regarding their policies. Gaffes about figures, costings, and promises were virtually non-existent. Whether it added anything new about the leaders or their policy platforms, however, is debatable.

Joshua Black is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at The Australia Institute.

Andrea Carson and Zareh Ghazarian 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. Leaders trade barbs and well-worn lines in unspectacular third election debate – https://theconversation.com/leaders-trade-barbs-and-well-worn-lines-in-unspectacular-third-election-debate-254941

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

In the leaders’ third head-to-head encounter, on Nine on Tuesday, Peter Dutton’s bluntness when pressed on cuts has given more ammunition to Labor’s scare campaign about what a Coalition government might do.

“When John Howard came into power, there was $96 billion of debt from Labor at that point. John Howard didn’t outline the budget from opposition and it is not something you can do from opposition,” Dutton said.

That allowed Anthony Albanese to, once again, rewind the tape to Tony Abbott’s 2014 budget, declaring it had “ripped money out of” education and hospitals. “There will be cuts afterwards – he’s just confirmed that – but they won’t tell you what they are.”

Dutton’s reference to the 1996 budget reinforced the point that he is keeping his options very open on cuts, which will need to go well beyond the squeeze on the public service to which the Coalition is committed. It’s becoming increasingly clear full details won’t be provided before May 3.

Despite best efforts to get them to answer questions as asked, both leaders again blatantly dodged when they could not, or chose not to, give a direct response.

Dutton was asked what he would say to voters who think he is Trump-lite. The opposition leader talked down the clock – about Howard being his inspiration, about mudslinging – but didn’t actually attempt to rebut the point.

Albanese predictably had much to say about Dutton’s nuclear policy. But when he was pressed on whether, if Labor lost, it should accept the people’s verdict and reconsider its position on the nuclear moratorium, the PM rambled about nuclear as a “friendless policy” rather than giving a straight reply.

The debate’s frisson came when the leaders were asked to nominate each other’s biggest lies. The toing and froing included disputation over whether those 2014 cuts were actually “cuts” or just smaller increases than earlier budgeted for. “Prime Minister, you couldn’t lie straight in bed”, Dutton lashed out, with Albanese retorting that his “personal abuse” was “a sign of desperation”.

Who won this encounter, once again differed in the eyes of various beholders.

Pope’s death causes brief hiatus, that disadvantages Dutton

On the day that pre-polling started, both leaders cut back on their campaigning, in the wake of the death of Pope Francis.

The pontiff’s passing has further curtailed this penultimate week of the campaign, a week already shortened at one end by Easter and at the other by Anzac Day.

The hiatus disadvantages the opposition, which has been losing support in the polls, and desperately needs as much opportunity as possible to sell its message.

It also shows the risk of leaving policy releases late. The Coalition would have hoped for some clear air for Wednesdays release of its defence policy, an area where it believes it has an advantage. But news from the Vatican will overshadow local stories for a couple of days or longer.

The pope’s death has drawn attention to something noted by the Catholic Weekly earlier this month, when it said this election “may be the first in Australian history in which both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition identify as Catholics” – although, it pointed out, that didn’t extend to attending church regularly.

In Australia’s more sectarian days, Labor’s membership was heavily Catholic, with the Liberals the party of Protestants. That broke down over recent decades.

Anthony Albanese reflected on his Catholic roots at Easter and then when paying tribute to the Pope.

On Easter Sunday, when he attended mass at St Mary’s Cathedral in Sydney, he spoke about his time at the school next door. “It’s an important part of my life. When in year six the Christian Brothers heard that I was going to have to leave the school because we weren’t able to afford school fees … in an act of generosity, [they] said ‘just pay what you can’.”

Albanese told The Australian’s Troy Bramston he regarded himself as “a flawed Catholic but it’s a part of my values,”

“I go to church occasionally just by myself. That sense of who I am, it is certainly how I was raised, and those values of kindness and compassion being something that is a strength.”

Peter Dutton’s story is more complicated. His father’s family was Catholic; his mother’s Protestant. Dutton told Bramston this gave rise to “tension”. He went to an Anglican school but identifies with the Catholic church. “He argues Christian teachings align with Liberal party values,” Bramston wrote.

In Melbourne on Tuesday, Albanese joined those attending an early morning mass at St Patrick’s Cathedral. In Sydney Dutton went to St Mary’s. Then they both shifted back into campaign mode, for Tuesday night’s debate.

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. Election Diary: Dutton in third debate gives Labor ammunition for its scare about cuts – https://theconversation.com/election-diary-dutton-in-third-debate-gives-labor-ammunition-for-its-scare-about-cuts-254990

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

Pope Francis’ journey from the streets of Flores, a neighbourhood in Buenos Aires, Argentina, to the Vatican, is a remarkable tale.

Born in 1936, Jorge Bergoglio was raised in a middle-class family of Italian Catholic immigrants.

Bergoglio defied his mother’s wish for him to become a medical doctor and chose instead to pursue priesthood, a calling he felt during confession. The young man joined the Jesuits in the 1950s, attracted to the order’s vow of poverty and its ethos of serving others and living simply.

He became a priest in 1969, Archbishop of Buenos Aires in 1998, and took on the papacy in 2013. As Pope Francis, his dedication to social justice was deeply rooted in the Latin American context.

The region’s history of inequality, poverty and political upheaval greatly influenced his perspective.

The young Argentinian priest

Bergoglio, a devoted supporter of the San Lorenzo soccer team, was also a confident tango dancer, mate drinker, and an unconditional admirer of his compatriot, Jorge Luis Borges, one of the most influential writers of the 20th century.

In 1965, the two men collaborated on the publication of short stories written by Bergoglio’s literature students. The students had been inspired by a seminar led by Borges, organised by the young priest.

Borges thought highly of Bergoglio, finding him charming and intelligent. For Borges, Bergoglio was a Jesuit through and through, noting the clerics of that order had been historically transgressive as well as possessors of a good sense of humour.

While Borges never saw him transformed into Pope Francis, his observations somehow fit with the respect Bergoglio earned as a global leader.

Theology of the people

As Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he lived modestly, often taking public transport and dedicating himself to the poor and disenfranchised. He personally attended the needs of underprivileged neighbourhoods known as villas miseria (literally “misery towns”) in Argentine Spanish.

He was a vocal opponent to economic inequality. During the 2001 Argentine economic crisis he advocated for the rights and dignity of impoverished citizens.

Pope Francis hails from a region deeply influenced by the progressive movements of Catholic priests and nuns, who were significantly inspired by liberation theology during the 1960s in Latin America.

Liberation theology developed in Latin America during the latter part of the 20th century, as a reaction to significant political and theological transformations in the area. It believed in political liberation for the oppressed, inspired by the Cuban Revolution and Second Vatican Council by Pope John XXIII, both in 1959.

While Francis did not fully subscribe to the tenets of liberation theology, much of his dedication to social justice aligns with its ideals. Pope Francis’ social awareness was deeply shaped by the “theology of the people”.

Distinct to Argentina, and emerging in the 1960s, the theology of the people shared liberation theology’s focus on social justice, but is devoid of Marxist ideology, and emphasises the dignity and agency of the marginalised and the impoverished.

During Argentina’s dictatorial regime from 1976–83, Bergoglio led the Jesuits. But he did not adopt the highly dangerous stance of full opposition typical among liberation theologians elsewhere in Argentina and other parts of Latin America.

Commenting on Latin American affairs

In his early years as the Pope, he resonated with progressive Catholics across Latin America, because of his grounding in Argentinian theology and his focus on social justice. But in recent years, his popularity in some Latin American countries declined.

In Argentina, this dip in enthusiasm is partly attributed to his decision not to visit, despite travelling to neighbouring nations.

More profoundly, the decline likely stems from his fixed stance against contentious issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion. To the disappointment of many Argentines and other Latin American citizens, he refused to compromise.

Throughout his papacy, Pope Francis received all Argentine presidents – even those who were previously critical of him, such as Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.

He maintained a strong connection to his Buenos Aires roots and remained engaged with Argentina’s social and political landscape, often commenting on situations that provoke strong reactions from politicians.

He was a critic of policies instituted by the current President of Argentina, Javier Milei, particularly Milei’s libertarian model of economy and the government’s brutal response to public dissent and opposition. In September 2024, the Pope famously said:

the government put its foot down: instead of paying for social justice, it paid for pepper spray.

An alternative model of leadership

By reflecting on how Pope Francis’ theology is rooted in the Argentina he grew up in, we can better understand his actions as Pope.

He made significant contributions in the Latin American region. He played a mediating role between the United States and Cuba, supported the peace process in Colombia, and highlighted the environmental devastation caused by mining companies in the Amazon.

He publicly apologised to Indigenous peoples of Latin America for the Church’s historical complicity with colonialism, and acknowledged his inaction allowed the Chilean clergy to overlook sexual abuse cases.

He appointed clergymen from non-European countries, enhancing representation from Asia, Africa and Latin America and increased the participation of women within the Church’s leadership structures.

His landmark encyclical, Laudato Si’, underscored the moral imperative to address climate change, inspiring accolades from global leaders. His critique of Israel and the conflict in Gaza underscored his consistent opposition to war and advocacy for peace.

Despite existing tensions and contradictions within his papacy – particularly regarding the Church’s stance on LGBTQIA+ issues and women’s rights – Pope Francis’s approach to global issues remained steadfast and aligned with his core values, and the Buenos Aires he came of age in.

Francis’s leadership is a product of his upbringing and a catalyst for regional and global dialogue on social justice.

The profound influence of the Latin American region on him is well captured by long time friend, Uruguayan lawyer and activist, Guzman Carriquiry who described the Pope as:

Priest, and profoundly priest; Jesuit and profoundly Jesuit; Latin American, and profoundly Latin American.

Fernanda Peñaloza 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. To truly understand Pope Francis’ theology – and impact – you need to look to his life in Buenos Aires – https://theconversation.com/to-truly-understand-pope-francis-theology-and-impact-you-need-to-look-to-his-life-in-buenos-aires-255003

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Fitz-Gibbon, Professor (Practice), Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University

For most of this federal election campaign, politicians have said very little about violence against women and children.

Now in the fourth week of the five-week campaign, Labor has released its “commitment to women” announcement. The Coalition has also flagged it will have something to say on the topic before polling day.

Much of Labor’s announcement is about what the party has already done to address women’s safety, including funding already committed under the National Plan To End Violence Against Women and Children. The announcement concedes “there is much more to do” and highlights extra spending on financial abuse and perpetrator interventions specifically.

But the fact domestic, family and sexual violence hasn’t been more central to the election campaign is surprising. Less than 12 months ago, following rising community outrage after the killing of a number of women, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declared violence against women and children a national crisis.

Over the past week, the killing of several women in different circumstances, allegedly by men’s violence, has been a reminder of the persistence of this national crisis.

In an election that’s largely focused on cost of living, this epidemic of violence should also be front and centre.
The scale and impact of this violence is profound – cutting across culture, age, geography and class. It causes immediate and long-term harm and costs the country an estimated $26 billion annually.

Why haven’t we heard much?

An obvious explanation might be that violence against women has already been addressed by successive governments – that enough has been done. Others may argue that it’s been overshadowed by more politically “pressing” issues.

Some may even suggest it’s because of a broader political shift away from gender equality commitments, influenced by anti-DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) sentiment that has gained traction internationally.

Perhaps a more generous explanation is that the lack of political attention stems from fear of getting the response wrong. The domestic and family violence sector can be fraught with complexity, with different ideas about what should be prioritised.

The national prevention agenda has faced critique in recent months. Scrutiny of whether we are on the right path should always be welcomed, but division is unhelpful.

Complexity should never be an excuse for inaction. Instead, this moment requires political courage and clarity. A declaration of a national crisis is merely rhetoric if it’s not followed by meaningful actions and measurable commitments.

Beyond election cycles

It’s crucial the next federal government delivers a response to domestic violence that’s commensurate with the scale of the problem. This requires a significant increase in investment across the entire ecosystem to boost service availability and accessibility.

This means moving beyond one-off or short-term funding to ensure sustainability across the system, including for crisis response and early intervention initiatives. Consistency of services is needed to disrupt the cycle of intergenerational harm, to understand what works in engaging people who use violence, and to promote long-term recovery.

Read more:
What works to prevent violence against women? Here’s what the evidence says

There should also be improved collaboration between levels of government. For too long, the siloed approach has impeded progress. The National Partnership Agreement provides a solid foundation for this.

Evidence shows strengthening coordination across agencies and jurisdictions will help identify more women and families at risk of violence. Information-sharing arrangements will also help keep them safer across state and territory boundaries. System failures and blindspots can cost lives.

What else would help?

If elected, Labor has committed to focusing on ending financial abuse and expanding interventions for people who use violence. This means increased funding for perpetrator interventions, including electronic monitoring of high-risk offenders and earlier interventions for young people who use violence.

These intiatives are welcome, but the list of actions needed extends well beyond these commitments.

Fully funding frontline services is a crucial start. This must include services for children and young people experiencing and escaping violence in their own right, and services across rural and remote communities. There’s limited support available in these areas.

Ensuring access to culturally appropriate and trauma-informed services for communities disproportionately affected by violence is also key.

First Nations leaders, practitioners, academics and victim-survivor advocates should be resourced to deliver the dedicated First Nations National Plan and to fully implement the First Nations National Action Plan. This is especially important for First Nations communities, including in the Northern Territory, where calls for increased funding have long been made.

The support service workforce, which has a high turnover and burn-out rate, must be better supported, including through ongoing professional development and capability training.

In recent weeks, others have called for a national strategy for people who use violence.

Measuring progress is key

Regardless of specific policy commitments, we should be transparently monitoring and evaluating progress on addressing violence. This is the backbone of any effective policy response – without data, we are blind to what works, what doesn’t, and where to focus efforts.

The first national plan was criticised for failing to do this comprehensively. We are at risk of repeating the same mistake.

While this responsibility sits within the functions of the inaugural Commissioner for Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, it has yet to eventuate beyond the information included in the commission’s yearly reports to parliament.

Regardless of who forms government – whether majority or minority – it’s imperative domestic, family and sexual violence remains front and centre in national policymaking. This is not an issue that can wait for the “right time” or for conditions to be more favourable. Women’s and children’s lives depend on it.

The National Sexual Assault, Family and Domestic Violence Counselling Line – 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) – is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for any Australian who has experienced, or is at risk of, family and domestic violence and/or sexual assault.

Kate has received funding for research on violence against women and children from a range of federal and state government and non-government sources. Currently, Kate receives funding from Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS), the South Australian government, Safe Steps, Australian Childhood Foundation, and 54 Reasons. This piece is written by Kate Fitz-Gibbon in her role at Monash University and Sequre Consulting, and is wholly independent of Kate Fitz-Gibbon’s role as chair of Respect Victoria and membership on the Victorian Children’s Council.

Hayley has received funding for research on violence against women and children and criminal justice-related issues from a range of federal and state government and non-government sources. Currently, Hayley receives funding from ANROWS, and the ACT Justice Reform Branch.

– ref. Australia had a national reckoning over domestic violence, but where’s the focus this election? – https://theconversation.com/australia-had-a-national-reckoning-over-domestic-violence-but-wheres-the-focus-this-election-253718

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karinna Saxby, Research Fellow, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne

Last week, the federal government announced a $10 million commitment to make Medicare more inclusive for LGBTQIA+ Australians. It aims to improve their access to “inclusive, culturally safe primary care” through training and accreditation for GPs, nurses and other health-care providers.

The precise details will depend on which training provider wins the government’s grant. But they will have a strong body of evidence to draw on, which shows the challenges LGBTQIA+ people face in health care – and what it would take to make mainstream services more inclusive.

Why is this needed?

Many LGBTQIA+ Australians lead happy and healthy lives. But, unfortunately, a disproportionate number experience significantly poorer health outcomes compared to the general population.

LGBTQIA+ Australians are more likely to experience depression, anxiety and psychological distress. They also have higher rates of suicidal thoughts, self-harm and suicide.

Many of these health inequalities stem from experiences of discrimination and stigma. These can lead LGBTQIA+ people to avoid health services for routine as well as preventive care (such as screening and regular check-ups).

LGBTQIA+ Australians are also less likely to have a regular GP. And they report lower levels of satisfaction with the care they receive.

They are also more likely to live with disability or long-term health conditions and have unmet health needs. For some groups, such as trans and gender-diverse Australians, these health disparities are even getting worse.

This points to the unique and diverse needs of different groups within the LGBTQIA+ community.

For example, young people are more likely to have elevated mental health distress. Some communities have higher rates of HIV, while others face barriers to preventive care. For instance, trans men and non-binary people may miss out on cervical cancer screening.

What does ‘inclusive, culturally safe’ care look like?

Inclusive and safe health care means more than just rainbow posters in the waiting room. It’s a concrete change in how care is delivered.

At a basic level, this involves respectful communication – using a patient’s correct pronouns and chosen name, and avoiding assumptions about their body, relationships or identity.

For example, an inclusive GP will ask open-ended questions (“do you have a partner?”) rather than presume a patient’s partner is of the opposite sex. They will not assume a trans patient’s health-care needs are only related to being trans.

Training might cover how to discuss sensitive topics (such as sexual behaviour or gender dysphoria) in a non-judgmental, inclusive way, and how to handle mistakes.

Making people feel safe to disclose their LGBTQIA+ status is also crucial. This has been shown to improve continuity of care and access to high-value preventive care. It may also help people disclose other sensitive issues, such as family violence.

When GPs and others in primary care understand LGBTQIA+ health needs, they’re better placed to make appropriate referrals – for example, to psychologists with relevant expertise or to specialist gender-affirming care services.

How this funding could help

This funding is part of the government’s ten-year national action plan to improve the health and wellbeing of LGBTQIA+ people.

The plan focuses on enhancing community-led and specialist LGBTQIA+ services (such as gender-affirming care or HIV medicine) and mainstream services, so they work better in tandem.

It was developed through extensive consultations with LGBTQIA+ communities across Australia. These consultations found inclusive primary care was a top concern.

Making “mainstream” health care more inclusive is important because it is the most frequently accessed point of care for most Australians, including LGBTQIA+ Australians.

An estimated 84% of LGBTQIA+ Australians use “mainstream” medical clinics for their primary health care. Only 6% use LGBTQIA+ specific clinics – in part, because they are not widely available.

Improving mainstream primary care for LGBTQIA+ Australians is therefore particularly important for those in rural areas, where there can be reduced access to specialist health-care providers. People should not have to hide who they are or travel long distances to get the care they need.

Read more:
We tracked the mental health of trans and gender-diverse Australians for over 20 years. And we’re worried

Translation into practice

The announcement will also fund a voluntary LGBTQIA+ accreditation program for health-care providers who meet best practice standards.

This means patients will be able to easily identify services that are “safe and trusted” for LGBTQIA+ communities. It could affect the look and feel of the waiting room, but will also be reflected in policies, procedures and management.

For example, accredited services should have intake forms that meet Australian Bureau of Statistics standards. Record-keeping would reflect options for diverse genders, titles and family structures. Patients would be assured their information is kept private and confidential, so they feel safe disclosing personal information.

Existing training resources have been available and processes such as Rainbow Tick accreditation have had modest take-up in some larger hospitals and community health centres.

But primary care providers are often overwhelmed by many other essential training needs and have under-utilised these offerings to date.

This funding will be a huge incentive for many of these clinicians and services to step up, as it signals a new level of priority.

If implemented effectively, this program could mark a significant step toward a health-care system where LGBTQIA+ Australians – whether a queer teenager in the city, a Brotherboy in a remote community, or an older trans woman in aged care – can get the care they need without discrimination or fear.

The challenge now will be turning this $10 million promise into real on-the-ground change. This means accrediting a majority of clinics, training thousands of health workers, partnering with LGBTQIA+ community organisations and ultimately ensuring every patient is treated with the understanding and respect they deserve.

Karinna Saxby has previously received funding from the Department of Health and Aged Care.

Ruth McNair was part of the expert advisory group for the LGBTIQA+ health and wellbeing ten-year action plan from 2023 to 2024.

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

– ref. The government has pledged $10 million for inclusive LGBTQIA+ health care. Here’s what that means – https://theconversation.com/the-government-has-pledged-10-million-for-inclusive-lgbtqia-health-care-heres-what-that-means-254611

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fiona Macdonald, Policy Director, Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute and Adjunct Principal Research Fellow, RMIT University

The Fair Work Commission has found award pay rates in five industrial awards covering a range of female-dominated occupations and industries do not provide equal pay.

This important decision should narrow the gender pay gap.

The commission proposed significant increases to award pay rates covering thousands of workers including pharmacists, early childhood education and care workers, psychologists, physiotherapists and some other health workers.

The Fair Work Commission’s review of the five “priority” awards was undertaken following the Labor government’s changes to the Fair Work Act in 2022. The changes require the commission to take account of the need to achieve gender equality in setting modern award rates of pay.

Who is covered by the latest review?

The five priority modern awards reviewed by the expert panel are:

1. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Workers and Practitioners and Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services Award 2020

2. Children’s Services Award 2010

3. Health Professionals and Support Services Award 2020

4. Pharmacy Industry Award 2020

5. Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010.

The commission examined the evidence and found many pay rates in the five modern awards do not reflect the value of the work undertaken in these female-dominated occupations and industries.

The commission found pay rates in these awards are not equal to pay rates for comparable work, due to the work largely being done by women.

Skills typically required to work with and to provide care and support to people, sometimes referred to as “soft” skills, have not been valued as much as the so-called “hard” skills required in male-dominated technical roles.

Past attempts were not successful

Before the Labor government’s 2022 changes to the Fair Work Act, almost all attempts by unions to have industrial tribunals address gender pay inequity failed.

One major barrier to success was a requirement that discrimination be demonstrated. The need to prove gender undervaluation of work largely done by women by referring to “comparable” jobs largely undertaken by men has also been a problem.

Now, under an amended Fair Work Act, the Fair Work Commission is able to examine the skills required in feminised jobs to assess the work’s value without needing to find a male comparison.

The commission’s decision that a total increase of 14% in award rates for pharmacists is justified will take effect in three phases, starting in July 2025.

The commission’s decisions on pay increases for workers covered by the other four awards, including proposed increases of 23% for Certificate III qualified childcare workers, have been put forward as provisional views only. The expert panel will begin consultations on these views in May.

Some concerns remain

The commission’s proposal for remedying gender undervaluation in one of the awards, covering a broad range of workers in social and community services, including disability workers, is puzzling.

The remedy appears to risk undermining past pay gains won for many social and community services workers because of proposed changes in the classification structure. These changes may not take account of the complexity and diversity of skills used by workers in the wide range of roles covered by the award.

Reflecting this, unions have expressed concerns the proposals for changes to this award may have the unintended consequence of reducing pay and hurting careers for some workers.

The final pay increases and their timing for workers covered by the four awards other than the pharmacy award will be made following consultations with unions, employers and funding bodies, including federal and state governments.

Following last week’s decision, one large employer group is arguing employers in private hospitals and the early childhood education and care sectors cannot afford the proposed pay increases.

They are calling on the government to fund increases in the industries that are largely government funded, including the early childhood education and care sector.

The funding picture so far

The Labor government supported the Fair Work Commission’s gender undervaluation review when it was announced in 2024. At the time the government also made clear it was their view any large pay increases would need to be phased in.

The government did fully fund increases for aged care workers, which it said came to a total investment of A$17.7 billion.

The government has also funded a 15% pay increases for early childhood workers gained through a multi-enterprise agreement covering hundreds of centres. The first increase of 10% came into effect in December, with a further 5% increase due in December 2025.

Better pay in care and support occupations was identified by the Labor government as essential to the sustainability and growth of the care and support economy.

The Coalition has not made any commitments regarding funding for any pay increases awarded in the gender undervaluation proceedings. The Coalition spokeswoman on workplace relations, Michaelia Cash, said the Coalition would examine the decision and its implications.

The Coalition did not support the larger Same Job Same Pay legislation that included the gender equality changes.

Fiona Macdonald appeared as an expert witness in the Fair Work Commission’s hearing on the review of the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award.

– ref. A landmark ruling will tackle the gender pay gap for thousands of workers – https://theconversation.com/a-landmark-ruling-will-tackle-the-gender-pay-gap-for-thousands-of-workers-254798

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthis Auger, Research Associate in Physical Oceanography, University of Tasmania

Beneath the surface of the Southern Ocean, vast volumes of cold, dense water plunge off the Antarctic continental shelf, cascading down underwater cliffs to the ocean floor thousands of metres below. These hidden waterfalls are a key part of the global ocean’s overturning circulation – a vast conveyor belt of currents that moves heat, carbon, and nutrients around the world, helping to regulate Earth’s climate.

For decades, scientists have struggled to observe these underwater waterfalls of dense water around Antarctica. They occur in some of the most remote and stormy waters on the planet, often shrouded by sea ice and funnelled through narrow canyons that are easily missed by research ships.

But our new research shows that satellites, orbiting hundreds of kilometres above Earth, can detect these sub-sea falls.

By measuring tiny dips in sea level – just a few centimetres – we can now track the dense water cascades from space. This breakthrough lets us monitor the deepest branches of the ocean circulation, which are slowing down as Antarctic ice melts and surface waters warm.

Dense water helps regulate the climate

Antarctic dense water is formed when sea ice grows, in the process making nearby water saltier and more dense. This heavy water then spreads across the continental shelf until it finds a path to spill over the edge, plunging down steep underwater slopes into the deep.

As the dense water flows northward along the seafloor, it brings oxygen and nutrients into the abyss – as well as carbon and heat drawn from the atmosphere.

But this crucial process is under threat. Climate change is melting the Antarctic ice sheet, adding fresh meltwater into the ocean and making it harder for dense water to form.

Past research has shown the abyssal circulation has already slowed by 30%, and is likely to weaken further in the years ahead. This could reduce the ocean’s ability to absorb heat and carbon, accelerating climate change.

Our research provides a new technique that can provide easy, direct observations of future changes in the Southern Ocean abyssal overturning circulation.

Satellites and sea level

Until now, tracking dense water cascades around Antarctica has relied on moorings, ship-based surveys, and even sensors attached to seals. While these methods deliver valuable local insights, they are costly, logistically demanding, carbon-intensive, and only cover a limited area.

Satellite data offers an alternative. Using radar, satellites such as CryoSat-2 and Sentinel-3A can measure changes in sea surface height to within a few centimetres.

And thanks to recent advances in data processing, we can now extract reliable measurements even in ice-covered regions – by peering at the sea surface through cracks and openings in the sea ice.

In our study, we combined nearly a decade of satellite observations with high-resolution ocean models focused on the Ross Sea. This is a critical hotspot for Antarctic dense water formation.

We discovered that dense water cascades leave a telltale surface signal: a subtle but consistent dip in sea level, caused by the cold, heavy water sinking beneath it.

By tracking these subtle sea level dips, we developed a new way to monitor year-to-year changes in dense water cascades along the Antarctic continental shelf. The satellite signal we identified aligns well with observations collected by other means, giving us confidence that this method can reliably detect meaningful shifts in deep ocean circulation.

Cheap and effective – with no carbon emissions

This is the first time Antarctic dense water cascades have been monitored from space. What makes this approach so powerful is its ability to deliver long-term, wide-reaching observations at low cost and with zero carbon emissions – using satellites that are already in orbit.

These innovations are especially important as we work to monitor a rapidly changing climate system. The strength of deep Antarctic currents remains one of the major uncertainties in global climate projections.

Gaining the ability to track their changes from space offers a powerful new way to monitor our changing climate – and to shape more effective strategies for adaptation.

Matthis Auger receives funding from the Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative, Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science.

– ref. Tiny dips in sea level reveal flow of climate-regulating underwater waterfalls – https://theconversation.com/tiny-dips-in-sea-level-reveal-flow-of-climate-regulating-underwater-waterfalls-253940

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dominic O’Sullivan, Professor of Political Science, Charles Sturt University and Adjunct Professor Stout Research Centre, Victoria University of Wellington and Auckland University of Technology., Charles Sturt University

Time is apparently running out for the three Te Pāti Māori MPs whose haka in parliament during the Treaty Principles Bill debate last year attracted huge international attention.

Parliament’s Privileges Committee has summoned the MPs to appear on Wednesday (April 23). But given their previous resistance to fronting up, it seems unlikely they will.

The committee is investigating whether the haka broke parliament’s rules. The MPs say they don’t think they’ll get a fair hearing because the committee won’t allow legal representation or evidence from an expert in tikanga Maori.

According to Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngawera-Packer, this “is a display of power designed to silence us”.

But the case is about more than possible breaches of parliamentary protocol and standing orders. It also asks serious questions about our liberal democracy in general.

Everybody needs to express themselves freely and without fear. So, when MPs leave their seats and come close to their opponents, does it cross a line? That was certainly the ruling last year when Green MP Julie Anne Genter was censured for crossing the floor and confronting another MP.

Perhaps there is still good reason for New Zealand following the British parliamentary tradition of the government and opposition benches being two and a half sword lengths apart.

But it has already been established that haka are allowed in parliament. The real questions are how, when, why and according to which rules or tikanga?

The problem with ‘partnership’

According to the political philosopher Nancy Fraser, democracy should support every citizen to participate in public life equally:

[Justice] requires social arrangements that permit all members to participate in social interaction on a par with one another. So that means they must be able to participate as peers in all the major forms of social interaction.

If parliament and the democratic system belong equally to everyone, then everyone should be able to say this ideal matches their experience. In other words, people have one voice of equal value, not just one vote.

This is why the appropriate use of haka in parliament needs to be worked out. At one level it is about people being able to express their ideas in ways that make sense to them and the people they represent.

At a deeper level, the issue revolves around who actually “owns” parliament. Everyone? Or everyone except Māori people and their representatives? Does everyone have a voice of equal value?

Part of the problem is the notion of “partnership” between Māori and the Crown proposed by the Court of Appeal in 1987. Well intentioned as it might have been, this also created an “us and them” way of thinking.

In this sense, the Crown and its institutions are seen as separate or foreign to Māori – as belonging to other people. If that’s the case, parliament can’t then belong to everybody or reflect everybody’s customs and ways of being.

But if parliament belongs to everyone and sovereignty is not simply the oppressive authority of a distant king, but rather the shared property of every citizen, then the haka belongs as a distinctive form of political expression. It becomes part of the tikanga of the parliament.

Tikanga Māori in practice

However, tikanga is not simply about how parliamentary procedure deals with haka, waiata or the Māori language itself.

As an authority on tikanga, Hirini Moko Mead, put it, the concept is

a set of beliefs and practices associated with procedures to be followed in conducting the affairs of a group or an individual. These procedures, as established by precedents through time, are held to be ritually, are validated by usually more than one generation and are always subject to what a group or an individual is able to do.

Like parliamentary standing orders, tikanga is procedural and grounded in broader principles of justice and ethics.

Legal scholars Māmari Stephens and Carwyn Jones describe how tikanga prioritises relationships, collective obligations and inclusive decision-making. The Māori concept of wānganga or “active discussion”, Jones has written, is a framework for robust debate to enhance mutual understanding, but which doesn’t necessarily require consensus.

Tikanga Māori and deliberative democracy

The idea that political decisions should be based on reasoning, listening and serious reflection is known as deliberative democracy. It’s basically the opposite of outright majority rule based on “having the numbers”, which sometimes happens without any debate at all.

Political theorists Selen Ercan and John Dryzek define deliberative democracy as being about

putting communication at the heart of politics, recognising the need for reflective justification of positions, stressing the pursuit of reciprocal understanding across those who have different frameworks or ideologies.

If that is true, then shouting across the parliamentary debating chamber doesn’t help. Nor does using the haka to intimidate.

But using it to make a fair and reasonable point, to which others may respond, is essential to a parliament that is genuinely a “house of representatives”. Tikanga Māori and deliberative democratic processes offer complementary ways of working out what this could mean in practice.

Dominic O’Sullivan 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. Haka in the House: what will Te Pāti Māori’s protest mean for tikanga in parliament? – https://theconversation.com/haka-in-the-house-what-will-te-pati-maoris-protest-mean-for-tikanga-in-parliament-254772

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Naomi Oreskes, Professor of the History of Science, Harvard University

President Donald Trump has issued an executive order that would block state laws seeking to tackle greenhouse gas emissions – the latest salvo in his administration’s campaign to roll back United States’ climate action.

Under Trump, the US has clearly abdicated climate leadership. But the US has in fact obstructed climate action for decades – largely due to damaging actions by the powerful fossil fuel industry.

In 20 years studying attacks on climate science and the powerful forces at work behind the scenes, I’ve come to think the United States is simply not going to lead on climate action. The fossil fuel industry has so poisoned the well of public debate in the US that it’s unlikely the nation will lead on the issue in our lifetimes.

Australia, on the other hand, has enormous potential.

I recently visited Australia from Harvard University for a series of public talks. This nation is very close to my heart. I trained as a mining geologist and spent three years in outback South Australia, before returning to academia.

The vacuum Trump has created on climate policy provides a chance for other countries to lead. Australia has much more to gain from the clean-energy future than it stands to lose – and your climate action could be pivotal.

The climate crisis: a long time coming

Scientists first warned against burning fossil fuels way back in the 1950s. When the US Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, the words “weather” and “climate” were included because scientists had already explained to Congress that carbon dioxide was a pollutant with serious — even dire — effects.

In the late 1980s, scientists at NASA observed changes in the climate system that could only be explained by the extra heating effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The predictions had become reality.

When George H.W. Bush ran successfully for president in 1988, he promised to use the power of the “White House effect” to fight the “greenhouse effect”. In 1992, Bush and other world leaders gathered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to sign the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Together, 178 countries promised action to prevent “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with Earth’s climate. But that action never came.

Trump has undoubtedly been bad news for global climate action. He makes preposterous claims about science and is dismantling the federal agencies responsible for supporting climate science and maintaining climate data.

But the US has long failed to play its part in cutting dangerous greenhouse gas emissions. The reason for this lies largely outside the White House.

A long-running campaign of disinformation

The fossil fuel industry has known about climate change for as long as scientists have.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, scientists at Esso (later ExxonMobil) actively researched the topic, building climate models and coauthoring scientific papers.

The scientists informed their managers of the risk of catastrophic damage if the burning of oil, gas and coal continued unabated. They even suggested the company might need a different business model – one not so dependent on fossil fuels.

But managers at ExxonMobil made a fateful decision: to turn from information to disinformation. Working in tandem with other oil, gas and coal companies, as well as automobile and aluminium manufacturers, ExxonMobil launched an organised campaign, sustained over decades, to block climate action by casting doubt on the underlying science.

They ran ad campaigns in national and local newspapers insisting the science was too unsettled to warrant action. They created “astroturf” organisations that only pretended to be green, and funded “third-party allies” to argue that proposed remedies would be too expensive, cost jobs and damage the economy.

The company funded outlier scientists to publish papers claiming atmospheric warming was the result of natural climate variability. They pressured journalists to give equal time to “their side” of the story in the name of “balance”.

Over the next three decades, whenever any meaningful climate policy seemed to be gaining traction, the industry and its allies lobbied Congress and state legislatures to block it. So, neither Democratic nor Republican administrations were able to undertake meaningful climate action.

While people were dying in climate-charged floods and fires, the fossil fuel industry persuaded a significant proportion of the US population, including Trump, that the whole thing might just be a hoax.

Rise up Australia

In a matter of weeks after becoming president, Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming, shut down government websites hosting climate data, and withdrew support for research that dares to mention the word “climate”.

This has created a vacuum that other countries, including Australia, can step up to fill.

Few countries have more to lose from climate change than Australia. The continent has already witnessed costly and devastating wildfires and floods — affecting remote areas and major cities. It’s not unreasonable to worry that in coming years, significant parts of Australia could become uninhabitable.

Like the US, Australia has a powerful fossil fuel industry that has disproportionately influenced its politics. Unlike the US, however, that industry is based mainly on coal for export, which Australians do not depend on in their daily lives.

And Australia is truly a lucky country. It has unsurpassed potential to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.

More than 15 years ago, Australian researchers in the Zero Carbon Australia project offered a blueprint for how the country could eliminate fossil fuel use entirely. Since then, renewable energy has only become cheaper and more efficient.

South Australia has proved the point: the state was 100% reliant on fossil fuels for electricity in 2002, but now more than 70% comes from renewables.

Across Australia, the share of renewable electricity generation is growing. Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland are vying for second place after SA. It’s fascinating to watch the National Electricity Market balance supply and demand in real time, where a large proportion of the electricity comes from rooftop solar.

For decades, the fossil fuel industry has told the public our societies can’t manage without fossil fuels. Large parts of Australia have proved it’s just not so. The rest of the nation can follow that lead, and model the energy transition for the world. Here’s your chance.

Over the past two decades, Naomi Oreskes has received grant funding from various governments and non-government organisations to support the research upon which this piece is based. She serves on the board of The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, which works to protect the integrity of climate science, and climate scientists, from politically motivated attacks. The Fund is a registered 501 c(3) non-profit organisation, meaning it does not engage in political activities. She is also an emerita board member of Protect our Winters, a 501 c (3) that works with the winter sports community to educate people about climate change and the threat it poses to winter sports. Naomi serves on the board of the Kann-Rasmussen foundation (Denmark), a non-profit foundation that works “to support the transition to a more environmentally resilient stable, and sustainable planet”.
Naomi currently serves as a consultant to a number of groups pursuing climate litigation in the United States, and recently submitted an expert report to the International Court of Justice on behalf of Vanuatu. She also receives speaking fees and book royalties for talks and publications on the history of climate science and climate change denial. Co-author, with Erik M. Conway, of Merchants of Doubt (2010) and The Big Myth (2023).

– ref. Fossil fuel companies ‘poisoned the well’ of public debate with climate disinformation. Here’s how Australia can break free – https://theconversation.com/fossil-fuel-companies-poisoned-the-well-of-public-debate-with-climate-disinformation-heres-how-australia-can-break-free-251221

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Duncan Ian Wallace, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Monash University

If you’ve ever heard the term “wage slave”, you’ll know many modern workers – perhaps even you – sometimes feel enslaved to the organisation at which they work.

But here’s a different way of thinking about it: for-profit business corporations are themselves slaves.

Corporations such as Microsoft, Google and Tesla are what the law describes as “legal persons”, with many of the same rights and duties in law as individual persons have.

One right that they do not share with individuals, however, is the right not to be owned as property – the right not to be enslaved.

For though Microsoft, Google and Tesla are persons in law, they are also owned by their shareholders as property. And as legal persons that are owned as property, I argue, such corporations are slaves.

Wait, what?

As someone who’s spent years researching the history and philosophy of corporate legal personhood, I’ve done a lot of thinking about the corporation as a kind of organism, or person.

I have come to the belief that corporations are persons not only in law, but are persons also in reality. Their legal personalities are only the recognition of real, underlying, group personalities.

I am far from the only person to believe in the reality of corporate personality.

Philosophers Christian List and Philip Pettit, for example, advance the idea in their influential 2011 book, Group Agency.

In the book, List and Pettit argue that an appropriately organised social group, such as a corporation, has attitudes independent of the attitudes of the group’s individual members.

More than the sum of its parts

Such a group is more than the sum of its parts. It has its own personality, which emerges from the coordinated action of its individual members. This personality can survive changes in membership.

This shows, List and Pettit claim, such groups have “minds of their own”. They possess a sophisticated psychology enabling them to reflect on their choices and actions, make judgements on the basis of evidence and understand concepts such as right and wrong, or life and death.

In short, appropriately organised social groups really are capable of being understood as persons – “group persons”. They exist, alongside individual persons, as a normal part of human society.

And these group persons are capable of being owned as property. Consider for-profit corporations. They are traded on markets as commodities; are bought, sold and exploited; and are forced to maximise profits in the interests of their owners – their shareholders.

They are persons owned as property. They are, in other words, in the condition of slavery.

Look at Roman slave law

The idea that group persons can be slaves is an old idea. With respect to the for-profit corporation, however, it is generally rejected by modern corporate law scholars.

They argue that because corporations are persons in law, this demonstrates such entities cannot be owned.

They also point out that shareholders have limited liability for the debts of their corporations. This shows, they say, that shareholders cannot be thought of as true owners.

Such objections can be met, however, by examining the slave laws of societies where slavery was legal.

Under Roman law, for instance, slaves – though the personal property of their masters – were clearly recognised as persons in law. They were able to own property, could contract, go into debt, be held responsible for wrongs, and sue others for wrongs committed against them.

Indeed, it was common for such slaves to run businesses of their own (though ultimately for the financial benefit of the master).

And when slaves ran such businesses, their masters had limited liability for the debts of their slaves – just as shareholders have limited liability for the debts of their for-profit corporations today.

Roman slave law is no exception in these respects. The same can be found under the slave laws of Ancient Greece, medieval Islam, and in those of the 19th century American South.

4 reasons this matters

Identifying for-profit corporations as slaves matters for four reasons.

First, it highlights potential moral problems with owning corporations. When we have shares in the ownership of for-profit corporations, we are participating as masters in a system of slavery.

Second, the ability to own for-profit corporations as “slaves” is a major driver of inequality. The richest people in the world have all made their money from owning corporations, and their ability to amass such wealth would be unimaginable otherwise.

The third reason identifying for-profit corporations as slaves matters is because it provides an explanation for why corporations maximise profits in the interests of shareholders. It is because shareholders own them, and force this behaviour upon them.

Fourth, identifying corporations as slaves offers a solution to the problem of corporate profit-maximising behaviour (a behaviour causing great social and environmental harm): getting rid of shareholders.

Consider, for example, worker cooperatives like Mondragon Corporation in Spain and the John Lewis Partnership in the United Kingdom.

They are share-less corporations. They are unowned. They are corporations free from enslavement.

The effect is that they do not maximise profits. Instead, they value the wellbeing of their workers.

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

– ref. Is a corporation a slave? Many philosophers think so – https://theconversation.com/is-a-corporation-a-slave-many-philosophers-think-so-253226

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Guy C. Charlton, Adjunct Associate Professor at Auckland University of Technology and Associate Professor, University of New England

You might have recently received voting papers for your local body elections. Going by our historically low participation rates, many of those envelopes will remain unopened.

This is a shame, because New Zealand’s local authorities face major financial challenges that affect nearly everyone. Only by increasing democratic engagement and giving ratepayers more reason to vote will real change happen.

Local Government New Zealand recently estimated an extra NZ$11 billion is needed over the next seven years to meet unexpected cost increases. The credit rating agency S&P Global has downgraded 18 councils and three council-controlled organisations, and given negative outlooks to three more councils.

The auditor-general reported in February that inflation has driven up the costs of construction, insurance and debt servicing. This is putting pressure on operational expenses and capital improvements at the same time as demand for council services is increasing.

The central government problem

Central government supports councils primarily through grants, subsidies, shared revenue (such as from road taxes) and development contributions. But its main response to the financial stress now being felt has been to urge local governments to focus on “core tasks”, not “pet” and “vanity” projects.

To that end, the government has introduced annual council benchmark reports that will compare rates, debt levels, capital spending breakdowns and road conditions. It is also amending in the Local Government Act to remove references to the social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of communities.

It also wants to encourage inter-council cooperation with its Regional Deals Strategic Framework and streamline resource management requirements that it believes hinder economic development.

It is unlikely these measures will be enough. Government contributions to councils have averaged around 10% of local government operating income since 2000, not enough to meet increasing legal and infrastructure costs.

Other OECD countries transfer significantly higher proportions of central taxes to local governments. In New Zealand, this might include central government reimbursing taxes and other revenues it captures due to local government activity (such the GST on rates).

The government could also pick up local costs that have national benefits, such as water and wastewater capacity at prime international tourism destinations. But more fundamental reform is needed.

Rates aren’t enough

At the moment, councils generate about 80% of their income from general and targeted rates, with the rest coming from things such as parking fines, amenities fees and investment interest.

This heavy reliance of rates is clearly inadequate to pay for local operational and infrastructure costs. This is despite recent court decisions giving councils more leeway to set, raise and target rates.

But to really make a difference, councils must also be given the legal authority to raise additional revenue themselves. This could include excise taxes on petrol and visitor accommodation, sales taxes and stamp duties.

As the recently repealed Auckland regional fuel tax demonstrated, excise taxes can be an effective way to raise funds for specific activities. The roughly $780 million it raised helped pay for the Eastern Busway ($272 million) and new commuter train cars ($330 million).

Room or lodging levies on overnight stays in hotels, motels, campgrounds, Airbnb and other short-term visitor rentals can help mitigate the impacts of tourism on local infrastructure and services.

In the Queenstown Lakes district, for example, a 5% levy on the estimated $413 million spent on accommodation in 2023 would generate $210 million over ten years, about 30% of the $756 million cost attributed to tourism.

Councils could also add a small extra levy on GST in their regions, a common practice in many large American cities and counties. Or they could apply a stamp duty on things like real estate transactions as Australia does.

Stamp duties might be a political non-starter in New Zealand. But what are known as “tax incremental districts” could be an effective way of offsetting the infrastructure and public facilities costs of new developments or economic revitalisation projects.

These schemes work by applying incremental increases in rates during the private development of an area. Done properly, they can be useful in brownfield redevelopment sites, as well as speeding up housing developments on city fringes.

Reinvigorating local democracy

New taxes are rarely popular, and selling the idea of local governments levying other sources of revenue to already stretched ratepayers will be difficult. But infrastructure and other costs cannot simply be ignored and passed down to future generations.

On top of more funding from central government, local authorities need the flexibility to creatively address their financial and infrastructure needs. The decision on whether and how they do this ultimately resides with ratepayers and electors.

Having more authority would also create more accountability in local government, reinvigorate local democracy and encourage overall policy innovation.

Without greater funding authority and fewer constraints on their activities, elected community representatives risk becoming mere administrators of central government policy rather than truly reflecting and shaping their electorates.

The author thanks Avi Charlton Diesch, a post-graduate student in finance at the University of Hong Kong, for his help with the preparation of this article.

Guy C. Charlton 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. Rates will never be enough – councils need the power to raise money in other ways – https://theconversation.com/rates-will-never-be-enough-councils-need-the-power-to-raise-money-in-other-ways-252718

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zareh Ghazarian, Senior Lecturer in Politics, School of Social Sciences, Monash University

More than 18 million Australians are enrolled to vote at the federal election on May 3.

A fair proportion of them – perhaps as many as half – will take advantage of early voting, which starts Tuesday April 22.

Hundreds of locations around Australia will morph into pre-polling centres for the next couple of weeks as we enter the final phase of the campaign.

Australians have enthusiastically embraced the opportunity to vote early in recent elections. But there are some risks for voters if they jump the gun too quickly. And it’s upending the way parties and other candidates organise their campaigns.

Go early

The popularity of voting early has been on an upward trajectory in recent decades.

Research shows that in 2004, for instance, over 80% of Australians waited until polling day to cast their ballots.

But at the 2022 federal election, almost half of all Australians on the electoral roll voted early.

There were variations across jurisdictions. Queensland had the highest rate of pre-poll voting at 56.6%, while Tasmanians had the lowest at just 36.8%.

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) was actively encouraging people to vote early due to COVID concerns. Nonetheless, the trend is unmistakable. Voters want to skip the queues on election day.

Logistical problems

Early voting has been the subject of much scrutiny, especially the length of time it is available to voters. The major political parties have expressed concern about the impact it has on campaign planning and logistics.

In its submission to a parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of the 2019 election, the Liberal Party highlighted how pre-poll voting placed “significant pressure on political parties” and their ability to provide booth workers for the entire early voting period, which was almost three weeks long.

Similarly, Labor acknowledged “significant practical implications for political parties and campaign managers”. The Greens also indicated they were in favour of limiting the pre-poll period.

Following the rise in early voting at the 2016 and 2019 elections, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommended pre-polling be restricted to a fortnight before election day.

The committee noted:

a two week period best balances the opportunity to participate in an election as a voter, with the logistic demands placed on those who participate as contestants.

The electoral laws were subsequently changed by the Morrison government in 2021.

But given Easter Monday and Anzac Day both fall within the fortnight preceding May 3, the early polling window for this election will be further reduced.

Campaign disruption

The rising popularity of early voting plays havoc with the campaign plans of all candidates.

In the past, when the overwhelming majority of voters waited for election day, it made sense for the major parties in particular to continually drip feed promises and announcements until the last day of voting.

Parties now have less time to pitch for support during the campaign. The critical window of opportunity to appeal to voters is the time between the election being called and when Australians flock to the polls at the start of early voting.

It is highly likely we have already seen all the major policies in this election, including the voter-friendly cost-of-living measures.

But the parties are in a bind, because they must continue to appeal to the significant number of voters who will be considering who to vote for right up until election day itself.

Skip the queue

While many people will be tempted to vote early, the Australian Electoral Commission’s website reminds us there are some conditions for pre-poll voting.

You can only vote early, either in person or by post, if on polling day you are:

• travelling or unable to leave your workplace to vote
• sick or due to give birth, or caring for someone who is
• a person with a disability, or caring for someone who is
• in prison serving a sentence of less than three years
• prevented by religious beliefs from attending on election day
• a silent elector, or reasonably fearful for your safety or wellbeing.

Aware of the temptation to pre-poll, the AEC says people who wait until election day won’t have to battle long queues. In fact, 75% of them will be in and out of the polling place in under 15 minutes.

Voter beware

The numbers don’t lie. More and more voters are keen to participate in the democratic process before election day.

However, voting early could be a double-edged sword. It may be convenient, but there is always the risk candidates or parties could say or do something that antagonises a voter after they have cast their ballot.

As there is no way to withdraw an original vote or cast a new one if they change their minds, early voters are taking a risk.

Moreover, by voting early, people may be missing out on the sausage sizzle, the craft stands, and the bake sales that many communities hold on voting day. These election day traditions raise funds and add a special community feeling to the ultimate exercise of democracy – choosing a government.

Zareh Ghazarian 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. Early voting opens in the federal election – but it brings some problems for voters and parties – https://theconversation.com/early-voting-opens-in-the-federal-election-but-it-brings-some-problems-for-voters-and-parties-254172

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Houlihan, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, University of the Sunshine Coast

If you ever find yourself stuck in repeated cycles of negative emotion, you’re not alone.

More than 40% of Australians will experience a mental health issue in their lifetime. Many are linked to deep-rooted feelings that develop from childhood experiences.

Changing these lifelong patterns takes time, energy and support. For some people, schema therapy can help.

What is schema therapy?

Schema therapy was developed in the 1990s by psychologist Jeffrey Young as an extension of cognitive behaviour therapy.

Cognitive behaviour therapy is a popular psychotherapy that helps people change problematic patterns in their thoughts and behaviour, improving how they feel.

Among psychological interventions, cognitive behaviour therapy has the strongest evidence for successfully treating the majority of mental health problems.

However, not all conditions benefit from it.

Cognitive behaviour therapy is brief (usually delivered across 10–12 sessions) and focuses on changing the “here and now”. But more complex issues – or those tied strongly to past experiences, such as multiple traumas – may need longer-term therapy.

Like cognitive behaviour therapy, schema therapy aims to help reframe unhelpful ways of thinking through regular sessions with a psychotherapist.

But instead of prioritising everyday challenges, it uncovers deep-rooted beliefs, explores how and why they formed, and how they affect day-to-day life and people’s perceptions of themselves.

What are schemas?

“Schemas” are mental blueprints that filter how we see ourselves, others and the world. Most of us are not consciously aware of them.

Yet schemas run deep. Problematic ones – such as “I am a failure” or “others can’t be trusted” or “the world is scary and unsafe” – can affect our mental health and lead us to destructive patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving.

For example, someone with a “failure” schema may be highly sensitive to criticism, experience crippling anxiety, and have low self-worth. Having a “mistrust” schema may cause issues with forming close relationships and lead to loneliness and depression.

How does schema therapy work?

Therapists may specialise in schema therapy through additional training and supervision, which can lead to accreditation with the International Society of Schema Therapy.

During schema therapy you and your therapist will discuss your current concerns and develop a safe and trusting relationship before exploring the problematic schemas that are affecting you today. Schema therapy may involve talking, completing a schema questionnaire, and engaging in therapeutic activities during and in between sessions.

These activities are tailored to your situation, once you’ve explored which schemas affect you and what negative emotions arise. They are designed to help you process and heal from negative feelings such as helplessness, anger and shame.

One such activity involves using mental imagery to revisit challenging experiences in your past and to reframe how you think about them.

Another is to use empty chairs in the therapy room to speak to the different parts of yourself that are connected to the negative emotions. For example, talking to your child self, or to the side of you that tries to hide your feelings from others.

After this you will work with your therapist to come up with positive behaviour change strategies and apply them in daily life. These could include things such as reducing procrastination and self-sacrificing behaviour (prioritising others’ needs over your own), regulating emotions, and setting healthy boundaries in relationships.

Who does it work for?

Schema therapy was specifically designed to help conditions that don’t respond to cognitive behaviour therapy. Since the early nineties, it has shown promise among people experiencing chronic depression and personality disorders, and people in prisons.

Schema therapy is increasingly being used with children and adolescents, as it can effectively be adapted to suit younger age groups and help them understand the complex psychological processes involved.

Schema therapy can take more time than some other approaches, including cognitive behaviour therapy. You may be working with your therapist for several months to a year before seeing real results.

It is likely to benefit people who can commit to the time needed and prioritise their therapy tasks over other things.

Like all therapies, schema therapy will take emotional energy. As you implement changes planned in therapy, enlisting the support of close friends or family may help you achieve long-lasting change.

I’m interested in schema therapy – what next?

Maybe you are experiencing a problem that short-term therapies don’t easily address.

Perhaps you have already tried cognitive behaviour therapy and have noticed some improvements in your mental health, but realise you still have some way to go. Or it’s possible you have exhausted self-help options and are looking for something that will change the deep-rooted feelings you think are connected to your past.

Learning about different therapy approaches is the first step in finding the right help for you.

The Schema Therapy Institute Australia has a list of schema therapists practising around the country.

You may see “schema therapy” listed as a therapy approach on your local psychology practices’ web pages. You can also ask your GP about referrals using Medicare options.

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. ‘I’m a failure’: how schema therapy tackles the deep-rooted beliefs that affect our mental health – https://theconversation.com/im-a-failure-how-schema-therapy-tackles-the-deep-rooted-beliefs-that-affect-our-mental-health-250789

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Penny Van Bergen, Associate Professor in the Psychology of Education, Macquarie University

If you have a child born at the start of the year, you may be faced with a tricky and stressful decision. Do you send them to school “early”, in the year they turn five? Or do you “hold them back” and send them in the year they turn six?

Media reports refer to parents who want to “hold children back”. This is particularly the case for boys. Some parents express concerns boys may develop more slowly and school activities may favour girls.

Our new study surveyed Australian parents to understand their reasons for sending children to school early or on time or holding them back.

School entry in Australia

State regulations for the age of starting school vary across Australia, and between public, Catholic and independent schools.

Typically, however, children born in the first part of the year can be sent to school in either the year they turn five or the year they turn six. This can lead to big age caps in a school year level.

Public school cutoff dates are April 30 in Victoria, May 1 in South Australia, June 30 in Queensland and July 31 in New South Wales.

A 2019 study of more than 160,000 NSW students showed overall, 26% of children were held back, although there was variation between different regions. This is much higher than in many other countries. For example, delayed entry is as low as 5.5% in the United States and 6% in Germany.

Read more:
A push to raise the school starting age to 6 sounds like good news for parents, but there’s a catch

Our research

In our research published in Early Education and Development, we surveyed 226 Australian parents who had a choice about whether to send their child to school in the year they turned five or six. Parents were from a mix of states and recruited via social media and a variety of other media, including parenting magazines.

We found 29% of parents intended to send their child to school in the first year they were eligible and 66% planned to start later. About 5% were unsure. Consistent with trends in other countries, parents were almost four times as likely to report they intended to start boys later than girls.

There were five key factors guiding their decisions.

1. Money and work

One group of factors, which we labelled “practical realities”, meant parents were more likely to send a child on time or early.

This included high early childhood education costs (it is much cheaper to send a child to a government school than pay for daycare) and parents’ work demands (and the benefits of regular school hours). As one parent said:

School is a cheaper option for many parents and community preschool (which is cheaper, depending on the number of days) is not a practical option for many working families.

2. A child’s size

Parents also considered their child’s physical size relative to their peers. Other studies suggest parents worry smaller boys will be bullied and will struggle to demonstrate sporting prowess.

Reflecting on this trend, one parent said:

I would prefer that my child wasn’t starting school with children well over a year older just because other parents think boys need a bit more time to mature. They are then significantly older and bigger by then.

3. Social readiness

Another group of factors involved children’s social, emotional and behavioral readiness for school. This includes their ability to pay attention and sit still, follow instructions, regulate and manage emotions and show empathy and consideration for others.

One parent sending their child to school in the year they turn five said:

Our child will be fine […] He is able, social and confident and hopefully this will mean he will have a positive school experience irrespective of what year he starts.

Another who chose to hold their child back suggested:

I want my child to be introduced to formal schooling as late as possible to ensure his brain development and emotional regulation are mature enough to handle the transition.

4. Family time

Another set of reasons influencing parents’ decisions was a desire to spend time together with their child before formal schooling. As one parent said:

I always hear that no one ever regrets sending their child a bit later but they often regret sending early. I can afford for her to have an extra year of preschool and time at home and that is a luxury I acknowledge not everyone has.

5. Milestones

Parents also looked to the future and considered their child’s age relative to peers. This included when they would be starting high school or completing teenage milestones, such as driving, drinking, managing friendships and finishing school. This might explain why rates of holding children back vary by region. As one parent told us:

The people around me having a choice (and holding their children back) ended up influencing my choice. She [my daughter] could have started school but would have been in a peer group that had been held back.

What about academic concerns?

Interestingly, parents did not typically express academic concerns or motivations (such as a desire to see their child move ahead of others academically) as a factor in their decision. Indeed, as one parent said:

I have very strong beliefs about what school readiness means and for me it is much more than just being academically ready.

Although there is evidence older children have a developmental advantage over younger children when entering school, academic benefits dissipate over time. For example, older children do better on Year 3 and 5 NAPLAN numeracy and literacy tests, but benefits fade or disappear by Year 9.

What does this mean?

Our research suggests the reasons why parents start a child early or hold them back are complex – and very much based on the needs of individual families and children.

Taken together they suggest teachers not only need to accommodate a wide range of ages starting school but a sizeable portion of families who will have “delayed” school for a variety of personal reasons.

Penny Van Bergen receives funding from the ARC, Google and the Marsden Fund.

Naomi Sweller receives funding from the ARC.

Rebecca Andrews receives funding from NSW Department of Education and the Australian Children’s Early Childhood Quality Authority.

Anne McMaugh and Kay Bussey 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. Parents delay sending kids to school for social reasons and physical size. It’s not about academic advantage – https://theconversation.com/parents-delay-sending-kids-to-school-for-social-reasons-and-physical-size-its-not-about-academic-advantage-254076

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dan Golding, Professor and Chair of the Department of Media and Communication, Swinburne University of Technology

Premiering today, the second and final season of Star Wars streaming show Andor seems destined to be one of the pop culture defining moments of the second Trump presidency.

Andor, which began airing in 2022, tells the story of the early days of the Rebel Alliance before the adventures of Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia. The series is the most politically articulate of the Star Wars franchise.

Where older Star Wars entries focused on lightsaber battles and dogfights in space, Andor shows a world of political manifestos, fractious alliances between rebel groups, and surreptitious fundraising for revolution.

Season one of the show followed the political awakening of the titular Cassian Andor (Diego Luna), who progresses from troubled thief to total ideological commitment to fighting the Empire. The show also follows a covert revolutionary leader (Stellan Skarsgård), an ineffective politician who secretly finances the rebellion (Genevieve O’Reilly), and two Imperials manoeuvring for power (Denise Gough and Kyle Soller).

Showrunner Tony Gilroy has so far taken inspiration for Andor from a variety of real historical revolutionary events, from Stalin’s bank robbery in Tiflis of 1907 to the Baader-Meinhof group in West Germany.

Aesthetically, Andor has more in common with the political filmmaking of the likes of The Battle of Algiers (1966), the films of Costa-Gavras, or early Paul Greengrass than the central Flash Gordon-inspired Star Wars saga.

As authoritarian governments and conflicts loom large globally, the final season of Andor in 2025 is perfectly timed to articulate anxieties much closer to home than the galaxy far, far away.

Star Wars has always been political

Andor is far from the first time that Star Wars has captured the political zeitgeist. In fact, much of the franchise’s success stems from the way it provides us with a pop culture language to talk about politics.

In 2016, Trump’s first election win coincided with the release of Rogue One, the Star Wars precursor to Andor.

Within days, two Star Wars creatives made public comparisons between Trump and Rogue One’s villains, with writer Chris Weitz posting on Twitter “the Empire is a white supremacist (human) organization”. Writer Gary Whitta replied: “Opposed by a multi-cultural group led by brave women”.

They were officially reprimanded by the studio. “This is a film that the world should enjoy,” said Disney CEO Bob Iger at the time. “It is not a film that is, in any way, a political film.”

Under the ownership of a risk averse corporation like Disney, Star Wars is supposed to be family friendly, apolitical entertainment.

However, since its very conception, Star Wars has been political.

Inspired by anti-Vietnam war protests, director George Lucas described Darth Vader and the Empire as “Nixonian gangsters” in early drafts of the original film’s script. Lucas, who had developed Apocalypse Now before Francis Ford Coppola ultimately directed the film, has consistently claimed to have thought of the Rebel Alliance as similar to North Vietnamese fighters resisting United States forces.

When it came time for the prequel trilogy in the 2000s, Lucas told a story of democracy willingly falling to dictatorship (beginning with a trade war, something not lost on contemporary observers). In 2005, Lucas even had Darth Vader paraphrase George W. Bush.

It has also shaped politics. Scholars and critics like Andrew Britton and Robin Wood argued Star Wars was so escapist and disconnected from politics here on earth that it set the scene for Ronald Reagan’s good-versus-evil rhetoric.

A galaxy not so far away

It is precisely Star Wars’ apolitical image that gives it so much political utility. A series with such strong heroes and villains inevitably invites comparison.

Almost immediately after its release in 1977, Star Wars became a pop culture language for understanding politics.

When Maggie Thatcher won government in the United Kingdom on May 4 1979, the Conservative Party took out an advertisement in the London Evening News congratulating her with the words “May the Fourth Be With You”.

When Ronald Reagan proposed a “Strategic Defense Initiative” missile system in 1983, critics immediately and famously labelled it “Star Wars” (something Lucas tried unsuccessfully to stop). Reagan himself eventually joined in, too, claiming in a speech in 1985 that “the Force is with us”.

It is easy to find examples of politicians of all stripes being likened to Star Wars villains like Darth Vader (most enduring was Dick Cheney who claimed to not mind the comparison).

Composer John Williams’ Imperial March has even been played at protests as a way to antagonise opponents.

The enduring currency of the political language of Star Wars is in part due to its generalities. In any political conflict it helps to have a way to describe an archetypal evil puppet master (the Emperor), his henchman (Darth Vader), and the soulful heroes putting their lives on the line (the Jedi).

The real trick to Star Wars’ ongoing relevance, however, lies in its very real inspirations. Whether it is George W. Bush, the Viet Cong, or the Bolsheviks, Star Wars has time and again turned the specifics of political history into mythology.

At a time where many see global politics as having set the stage for the Empire to Strike Back, the final season of Andor may give many a language to articulate A New Hope.

Dan Golding 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. Since its very conception, Star Wars has been political. Now Andor will take on Trump 2.0 – https://theconversation.com/since-its-very-conception-star-wars-has-been-political-now-andor-will-take-on-trump-2-0-254208

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

The imbroglio over the reported Russian request to Indonesia to base planes in Papua initially tripped Peter Dutton, and now is dogging Anthony Albanese.

After the respected military site Janes said a request had been made, the Australian government quickly obtained an assurance from the Indonesians there would be no Russian planes based there.

Moreover, the government was able to score a hit on Dutton, who had wrongly named Indonesian president Prabowo Subianto as having said there’d been a Russian approach. Later, Dutton admitted he’d stuffed up.

One might have thought the story would have died as the election caravan moved on. But it continued when it became obvious the government would not say, despite repeated questions, whether it knew a request had in fact been made to the Indonesians.

Then Russia’s ambassador to Indonesia, Sergei Tolchenov, leapt into the fray. Tolchenov wrote a letter to The Jakarta Post, responding to an article by Australian academic Matthew Sussex on The Conversation, which was republished in the Post.

His letter dripping with sarcasm, the ambassador wrote:

It is hard to imagine that any ordinary Australians should be concerned about what is happening 1,300 kilometers from their territory, about matters that concern relations between other sovereign states and have nothing to do with Australia. Perhaps it would be better for them to pay attention to the United States’ Typhon medium-range missile system in the Philippines, which will definitely reach the territory of the continent?

It is clear that the leaders of the two main political parties, replacing each other in power and calling it democracy, are now trying to outdo each other, heating up the situation. They stop at nothing, and the time has come to play the so-called ‘Russian card’. This means to show to overseas mentors who is more anti-Russian and Russophobe. In this regard, I would like to remind them of the words of US President Donald Trump, which he pronounced in the White House on Feb. 28, 2025, to the Ukrainian citizen ‘Z’: ‘You have no cards’.“

Read more:
Russia has long had interest in Indonesia. Australia must realise its partners may have friends we don’t like

Meanwhile, Employment Minister Murray Watt strayed off the government’s script of diplomatic silence when he told Sky on Sunday, “There is no proposal from Russia to have a base anywhere in Indonesia in the way that Peter Dutton and his colleagues have been claiming”.

The questioning intensified.

Late Monday, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles was back on Sky to impose the official blackout over what the government knew of the alleged discussions between Russia and Indonesia.

“What we know about that, and when we knew about it, is obviously not something I’m going to ventilate in the public domain.

“What matters here is that the Indonesians have made it completely clear to us that they have absolutely no intent of having Russian aircraft operating from their nation,” Marles said.

Another instalment of “What the Russians Asked” may come in Tuesday night’s third leaders debate on Nine.

A possible chance for real reform

We keep getting lectured in this campaign about various significant issues (such as tax reform) that are being pushed under the carpet. But there’s something else that’s being overlooked: whether our institutions are in need of a big overhaul.

With public trust low, accountability vital but often wanting, and our democracy sometimes resembling a car urgently needing a service, there are plenty of reforms that could be considered.

John Daley (formerly of the Grattan Institute and now an independent consultant) and Rachel Krust, in a report released Monday and titled Institutional reform stocktake, propose a rich agenda for change. The stocktake was sponsored by the Susan McKinnon Foundation, a non-partisan body committed to promoting all aspects of better government.

The report identifies short-term priority reforms as well as ones that would take longer to achieve.

Parliamentarians often claim we’d be better governed with four-year terms. But given that would require a referendum, it is effectively out of reach. So the stocktake advocates a next-best option: fixed three year terms, which could be legislated. Four year terms would be a more distant aim.

The advantage of fixed terms is they’d stop the disruption of months of speculation about the timing (that we saw before the current election). The disadvantage to the party in power is the prime minister can’t choose the day best suiting them.

The Albanese government recently brought in caps for political donations and spending, to take effect in the coming term. Daley and Krust advocate these be revisited. The donation and disclosure caps should be lowered, they argue, and an expert commission should consider the caps on spending (which were criticised by some as limiting small and new players).

Other priority recommendations are to beef up civics education, enhance parliamentary committees, put more structure around the appointment and termination of departmental secretaries, and better resource independent members of parliament, particularly if they hold the balance of power.

One reason institutional reform is important is to achieve better policy outcomes, the report says. “Australian governments are getting worse at delivering policy changes that make a big difference to long-term problems.”

While identifying a prospective advantage for policy, the report puts its finger on why such reform faces resistance.

Institutional reforms have often not progressed in Australia because they would not serve the interests of incumbent parties. Many of the suggested changes would leave members of the government more exposed to questioning, challenge or censure, reduce the advantages of established political parties relative to new entrants, reduce the power of party officials relative to rank-and-file members, or reduce employment opportunities after a political career.

The report says if the election produces a hung parliament this “may widen the window for reform”.

“Crossbenchers usually have strong electoral incentives to prosecute institutional reforms, because they are usually both popular and not supported by incumbent parties.”

But the crossbenchers need to be quick. “This window of opportunity may narrow again. The power of independents to push for institutional change is greatest during negotiations immediately following an election.”

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. Election Diary: Albanese government stays mum over whatever Russia may have said to Indonesia – https://theconversation.com/election-diary-albanese-government-stays-mum-over-whatever-russia-may-have-said-to-indonesia-254201

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mathew Schmalz, Professor of Religious Studies, College of the Holy Cross

With the death of Pope Francis, attention now turns to the selection of his successor. The next pope will be chosen in what is called a “conclave,” a Latin word meaning “a room that can be locked up,” or, more simply, “a closed room.”

Members of the College of Cardinals will cast their votes behind the closed and locked doors of the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel, famous for its ceiling frescoes painted by Michelangelo. Distinguished by their scarlet robes, cardinals are chosen by each pope to elect future popes. A cardinal must be under the age of 80 to be eligible to vote in the conclave. Of the 252 members of the College of Cardinals, 138 are currently eligible to elect the new pope.

As a scholar of global Catholicism, I am especially interested in how this will be the most diverse conclave in the history of the Catholic Church.

For many centuries, the College of Cardinals was dominated by Europeans – Italians, in particular. In fact, the first time a non-European cardinal actually cast a ballot in a conclave was only in the 20th century, when Baltimore’s archbishop, James Gibbons, voted in the 1903 papal election. Now, the College of Cardinals has members from over 90 countries, with Francis having appointed nearly 80% of them.

Holding a conclave to elect a pope is a tradition that goes back centuries. The practice was established in 1274 under Pope Gregory X in reaction to the chaos surrounding his own election, which lasted nearly three years. The tradition is old, but the results can be surprising, as when Francis himself was elected in 2013 as the first non-European pope in almost 1,300 years and the first Jesuit pope ever.

The conclave begins

Before the conclave, the College of Cardinals will meet in what are called “general congregations” to discuss issues facing the church. These general congregations will also be an opportunity for new cardinals and those from distant geographical locations to get to know their fellow cardinals.

This can be a time for politicking. In times past, the politicking was rumored to include bribes for votes, as was alleged in the election of Alexander VI, a Borgia pope, in 1492. Nowadays, it is considered to be bad form – and bad luck – for a cardinal to lobby for himself as a candidate. Buying votes by giving money or favors to cardinals is called “simony” and is against church law.

Two to three weeks after the papal funeral, the conclave will begin. The cardinals will first make a procession to the Sistine Chapel, where electronic jamming devices will have been set up to prevent eavesdropping and Wi-Fi and cellphone use. As they file into the chapel, the cardinals will sing, in Latin, the hymn “Come Holy Spirit.” They will then vow on a book of the Gospels to keep the conclave proceedings secret.

After these rituals, the Master of Papal Liturgical Celebrations will say out loud, in Latin, “Extra Omnes,” which means “Everyone Out.” The doors of the Sistine Chapter will then be locked, and the conclave will begin.

The voting process

The cardinals electing the pope will be seated in order of rank.

Usually, the dean of the College of Cardinals is seated in the first position. But the current dean – Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re – is over the eligible voting age and will not participate in the conclave. Instead, this papal election will be led by the Vatican’s secretary of state, Cardinal Pietro Parolin.

When the cardinals have assembled, nine will be chosen at random to run the election, with three of them being “scrutinizers” who will examine the ballots and read them aloud.

After writing down the name of their chosen candidate, the cardinals will bring their ballots to the front of the chapel and place them on a plate that is set on top of an urn in front of the scrutinizers. Using the plate to drop their ballot into the urn, they will say, “I call as my witness Christ the Lord who will be my judge, that my vote is given to the one who before God I think should be elected.”

A new pope is elected by a two-thirds majority. If this majority is not reached during the first ballot, the ballots will be burned in a stove. Black smoke rising through the Sistine Chapel’s chimney will signal to the outside world that the election is still ongoing, a tradition that began with the election of Benedict XV in 1914. Chemical additives are used to make sure the smoke is black because during the election of John Paul II, there was confusion over the smoke’s color.

Following the first day – and on the days thereafter – there will be up to four ballots a day if a two-thirds majority is not reached. Both Benedict XVI and Francis were elected after relatively few ballots: four in the case of Benedict; five with Francis. According to rules set by Benedict, if a new pope is not chosen after 13 days, there will be a day of prayer and reflection. Then the election will be between the top two candidates, one of whom must receive a two-thirds majority.

This new rule, some commentators have suggested, could lead to a longer, or even deadlocked, conclave because a compromise candidate is less likely to emerge.

The Room of Tears

Conclaves are usually short, such as the three-ballot election that chose Pope Pius XII in 1939. On a few occasions, deliberations have been quite long – the longest being the 1740 papal conclave, which elected Benedict XIV and lasted 181 days.

But regardless of the time frame, a new pope will be chosen. Once a candidate receives enough votes, he is asked, “Do you accept your canonical election as Supreme Pontiff?” By saying “Accepto,” or “I accept,” he becomes the new leader of the Catholic Church. This time, the ballots will be burned to create white smoke that will tell the world that the conclave has ended and that a new pope has been chosen.

Immediately after being elected, the new pope decides on his name, as Jorge Maria Bergoglio did when he was the first pope to choose the name Francis. The choice of a name – especially one of an immediate predecessor – often indicates the direction of the new pope’s pontificate. In Francis’ case, his name honored St. Francis of Assisi, a 13th century mystic known for his simplicity and love for nature.

The new pope is then led to the “Room of Tears.” In this chamber, off the Sistine Chapel, he will have moments to reflect on the burdens of his position, which have often brought new popes to tears. He will put on a white cassock and other signs of his office. His election will be announced from the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica.

From the balcony, the new pope will greet the crowd below and deliver his first blessing to the world. A new pontificate will have begun.

Mathew Schmalz is Roman Catholic and a political independent.

– ref. How the next pope will be elected – what goes on at the conclave – https://theconversation.com/how-the-next-pope-will-be-elected-what-goes-on-at-the-conclave-164363

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Reardon, Postdoctoral Researcher, Pulsar Timing and Gravitational Waves, Swinburne University of Technology

With the most powerful radio telescope in the southern hemisphere, we have observed a twinkling star and discovered an abundance of mysterious plasma structures in our cosmic neighbourhood.

The plasma structures we see are variations in density or turbulence, akin to interstellar cyclones stirred up by energetic events in the galaxy.

The study, published today in Nature Astronomy, also describes the first measurements of plasma layers within an interstellar shock wave that surrounds a pulsar.

We now realise our local interstellar medium is filled with these structures and our findings also include a rare phenomenon that will challenge theories of pulsar shock waves.

What’s a pulsar and why does it have a shock wave?

Our observations honed in on the nearby fast-spinning pulsar, J0437-4715, which is 512 light-years away from Earth. A pulsar is a neutron star, a super-dense stellar remnant that produces beams of radio waves and an energetic “wind” of particles.

The pulsar and its wind move with supersonic speed through the interstellar medium – the stuff (gas, dust and plasma) between the stars. This creates a bow shock: a shock wave of heated gas that glows red.

The interstellar plasma is turbulent and scatters pulsar radio waves slightly away from a direct, straight line path. The scattered waves create a pattern of bright and dim patches that drifts over our radio telescopes as Earth, the pulsar and plasma all move through space.

From our vantage point, this causes the pulsar to twinkle, or “scintillate”. The effect is similar to how turbulence in Earth’s atmosphere makes stars twinkle in the night sky.

Pulsar scintillation gives us unique information about plasma structures that are too small and faint to be detected in any other way.

Twinkling little radio star

To the naked eye, the twinkling of a star might appear random. But for pulsars at least, there are hidden patterns.

With the right techniques, we can uncover ordered shapes from the interference pattern, called scintillation arcs. They detail the locations and velocities of compact structures in the interstellar plasma. Studying scintillation arcs is like performing a CT scan of the interstellar medium – each arc reveals a thin layer of plasma.

Usually, scintillation arc studies uncover just one, or at most a handful of these arcs, giving a view of only the most extreme (densest or most turbulent) plasma structures in our galaxy.

Our scintillation arc study broke new ground by unveiling an unprecedented 25 scintillation arcs, the most plasma structures observed for any pulsar to date.

The sensitivity of our study was only possible because of the close proximity of the pulsar (it’s our nearest millisecond pulsar neighbour) and the large collecting area of the MeerKAT radio telescope in South Africa.

A Local Bubble surprise

Of the 25 scintillation arcs we found, 21 revealed structures in the interstellar medium. This was surprising because the pulsar – like our own Solar System – is located in a relatively quiet region of our galaxy called the Local Bubble.

About 14 million years ago, this part of our galaxy was lit up by stellar explosions that swept up material in the interstellar medium and inflated a hot void. Today, this bubble is still expanding and now extends up to 1,000 light-years from us.

Our new scintillation arc discoveries reveal that the Local Bubble is not as empty as previously thought. It is filled with compact plasma structures that could only be sustained if the bubble has cooled, at least in some areas, from millions of degrees down to a mild 10,000 degrees Celsius.

Shock discoveries

As the animation below shows, the pulsar is surrounded by its bow shock, which glows red with light from energised hydrogen atoms.

While most pulsars are thought to produce bow shocks, only a handful have ever been observed because they are faint objects. Until now, none had been studied using scintillation.

We traced the remaining four scintillation arcs to plasma structures inside the pulsar bow shock, marking the first time astronomers have peered inside one of these shock waves.

This gave us a CT-like view of the different layers of plasma. Using these arcs together with an optical image we constructed a new three-dimensional model of the shock, which appears to be tilted slightly away from us because of the motion of the pulsar through space.

The scintillation arcs also gave us the velocities of the plasma layers. Far from being as expected, we discovered that one inner plasma structure is moving towards the shock front against the flow of the shocked material in the opposite direction.

While such back flows can appear in simulations, they are rare. This finding will drive new models for this bow shock.

Scintillating science

With new and more sensitive radio telescopes being built around the world, we can expect to see scintillation from more pulsar bow shocks and other events in the interstellar medium.

This will uncover more about the energetic processes in our galaxy that create these otherwise invisible plasma structures.

The scintillation of this pulsar neighbour revealed unexpected plasma structures inside our Local Bubble and allowed us to map and measure the speed of plasma within a bow shock. It’s amazing what a twinkling little star can do.

Daniel Reardon receives funding from the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Gravitational Wave Discovery (OzGrav).

– ref. Twinkling star reveals the shocking secrets of turbulent plasma in our cosmic neighbourhood – https://theconversation.com/twinkling-star-reveals-the-shocking-secrets-of-turbulent-plasma-in-our-cosmic-neighbourhood-243022

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joel Hodge, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Theology and Philosophy, Australian Catholic University

Pope Francis has died on Easter Monday, aged 88, the Vatican announced. The head of the Catholic Church had recently survived being hospitalised with a serious bout of double pneumonia.

Cardinal Kevin Farrell’s announcement began:

Dearest brothers and sisters, with deep sorrow I must announce the death of our Holy Father Francis. At 7:35 this morning, the Bishop of Rome, Francis, returned to the house of the Father.

There were many unusual aspects of Pope Francis’ papacy. He was the first Jesuit pope, the first from the Americas (and the southern hemisphere), the first to choose the name “Francis” and the first to give a TED talk. He was also the first pope in more than 600 years to be elected following the resignation, rather than death, of his predecessor.

From the very start of his papacy, Francis seemed determined to do things differently and present the papacy in a new light. Even in thinking about his burial, he chose the unexpected: to be placed to rest not in the Vatican, but in the Basilica of St Mary Major in Rome – the first pope to be buried there in more than 300 years.

Vatican News reported the late Pope Francis had requested his funeral rites be simplified.

“The renewed rite,” said Archbishop Diego Ravelli, “seeks to emphasise even more that the funeral of the Roman Pontiff is that of a pastor and disciple of Christ and not of a powerful person of this world.”

Straddling a line between “progressive” and “conservative”, Francis experienced tension with both sides. In doing so, his papacy shone a spotlight on what it means to be Catholic today.

Between a rock and a hard place

Francis was deemed not progressive enough by some, yet far too progressive by others.

His apostolic exhortation (an official papal teaching on a particular issue or action) Amoris Laetitia, ignited great controversy for seemingly being (more) open to the question of whether people who have divorced and remarried may receive Eucharist.

He also disappointed progressive Catholics, many of whom hoped he would make stronger changes on issues such as the roles of women, married clergy, and the broader inclusion of LGBTQIA+ Catholics.

The reception of his exhortation Querida Amazonia was one such example. In this document, Francis did not endorse marriage for priests, despite bishops’ requests for this. He also did not allow the possibility of women being ordained as deacons to address a shortage of ordained ministers. His discerning spirit saw there was too much division and no clear consensus for change.

Francis was also openly critical of Germany’s controversial
“Synodal Way” – a series of conferences with bishops and lay people – that advocated for positions contrary to Church teachings. Francis expressed concern on multiple occasions that this project was a threat to the unity of the Church.

At the same time, Francis was no stranger to controversy from the conservative side of the Church, receiving “dubia” or “theological doubts” over his teaching from some of his Cardinals. In 2023, he took the unusual step of responding to some of these doubts.

Impact on the Catholic Church

In many ways, the most striking thing about Francis was not his words or theology, but his style. He was a modest man, even foregoing the Apostolic Palace’s grand papal apartments to live in the Vatican’s simpler guest house.

He may well be remembered most for his simplicity of dress and habits, his welcoming and pastoral style and his wise spirit of discernment.

He is recognised as giving a clear witness to the life, love and joy of Jesus in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council – a point of major reform in modern Church history. This witness has translated into two major developments in Church teachings and life.

Love for our common home

The first of these relates to environmental teachings. In 2015, Francis released his ground-breaking encyclical, Laudato si’: On Care for Our Common Home. It expanded Catholic social teaching by giving a comprehensive account of how the environment reflects our God-given “common home”.

Consistent with recent popes such as Benedict XVI and John Paul II, Francis acknowledged climate change and its destructive impacts and causes. He summarised key scientific research to forcefully argue for an evidence-based approach to addressing humans’ impact on the environment.

He also made a pivotal and innovative contribution to the climate change debate by identifying the ethical and spiritual causes of environmental destruction.

Francis argued combating climate change relied on the “ecological conversion” of the human heart, so that people may recognise the God-given nature of our planet and the fundamental call to care for it. Without this conversion, pragmatic and political measures wouldn’t be able to counter the forces of consumerism, exploitation and selfishness.

Francis argued a new ethic and spirituality was needed. Specifically, he said Jesus’ way of love – for other people and all creation – is the transformative force that could bring sustainable change for the environment and cultivate fraternity among people (and especially with the poor).

Synodality: moving towards a Church that listens

Francis’s second major contribution, and one of the most significant aspects of his papacy, was his commitment to “synodality”. While there’s still confusion over what synodality actually means, and its potential for political distortion, it is above all a way of listening and discerning through openness to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

It involves hierarchy and lay people transparently and honestly discerning together, in service of the mission of the church. Synodality is as much about the process as the goal. This makes sense as Pope Francis was a Jesuit, an order focused on spreading Catholicism through spiritual formation and discernment.

Drawing on his rich Jesuit spirituality, Francis introduced a way of conversation centred on listening to the Holy Spirit and others, while seeking to cultivate friendship and wisdom.

With the conclusion of the second session of the Synod on Synodality in October 2024, it is too soon to assess its results. However, those who have been involved in synodal processes have reported back on their transformative potential.

Archbishop of Brisbane, Mark Coleridge, explained how participating in the 2015 Synod “was an extraordinary experience [and] in some ways an awakening”.

Catholicism in the modern age

Francis’ papacy inspired both great joy and aspirations, as well as boiling anger and rejection. He laid bare the agonising fault lines within the Catholic community and struck at key issues of Catholic identity, triggering debate over what it means to be Catholic in the world today.

He leaves behind a Church that seems more divided than ever, with arguments, uncertainty and many questions rolling in his wake. But he has also provided a way for the Church to become more converted to Jesus’ way of love, through synodality and dialogue.

Francis showed us that holding labels such as “progressive” or “conservative” won’t enable the Church to live out Jesus’ mission of love – a mission he emphasised from the very beginning of his papacy.

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. Pope Francis has died, aged 88. These were his greatest reforms – and controversies – https://theconversation.com/pope-francis-has-died-aged-88-these-were-his-greatest-reforms-and-controversies-229111

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

As it seeks to gain some momentum for its campaign, the Coalition on Monday will focus on law and order, announcing $355 million for a National Drug Enforcement and Organised Crime Strike Team to fight the illicit drug trade.

A Dutton government would put Australian Federal Police teams into the states and territories, which would be nationally led and supported by specialist financial investigative and prosecutorial teams.

This would bring an anticipated “significant increase in the seizure of criminal assets and proceeds of crime, which we will reinvest into communities,” Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and shadow ministers said in a statement.

“This means every dollar seized from drug dealers and criminal cartels will go towards helping the families and communities devastated by their crimes.”

In what it dubs a crackdown on crime from “the border to the backyard” the opposition has brought together its various initiatives in a $750 million “Operation Safer Communities” package. Apart from the taskforce, other measures have been previously announced.

The initiatives include:

• new laws to disrupt organised criminal syndicates

• upgrading border screening to intercept drugs and cracking down on the importation of date-rape drugs used in drink spiking

• extra funding for Crime Stoppers

• more money for the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation, and piloting a national child sex offenders disclosure scheme that would provide more information to parents about the risks in their communities

• investment in e-safety education through the Alannah and Madeline Foundation

• introducing national “post and boast” laws making it illegal to post social media material glamorising involvement in crime

• working with other jurisdictions to standardise knife crime laws, and funding a national rollout of detector wands

• restoring the Safer Communities Fund to support local projects to improve social cohesion

• reintroducing fast track processes for visa appeals to deal with bad actors overstaying.

The Coalition is also promising stronger action against antisemitism and against corruption and crime in the construction industry.

Dutton said the community felt less safe than three years ago.

“I have the experience and determination to stand up to the outlaw motor cycle gangs and organised crime syndicates which are wreaking havoc on our streets and in our communities.”

Opposition defence spending announcement this week

The Coalition this week will release its long-awaited defence policy.

The Australian Financial Review is reporting it will be based on two stages. The first would be a target above Labor’s proposed spending over the forward estimates. A second stage would be a target of spending at least 2.5% of gross domestic product annually in the early 2030s.

Greens say public service should prepare a brief on their policies too

The major parties are always saying they don’t want to get ahead of themselves – being seen to assume the outcome before the election is decided. The Greens have no such inhibition.

Greens leader Adam Bandt has written to the Secretary of the
Prime Minister’s Department, Glyn Davis, declaring minority government looks probable.

“It is increasingly clear that whoever forms government will likely rely on crossbench support, and in turn need to be in a position to discuss in detail the policy proposals put forward by members of the crossbench,” he said in his letter, sent on Thursday.

So Bandt wants the public service to prepare a brief on Greens’ policies, to assist any such negotiations.

The context is that the bureaucracy prepares so-called “red” (Labor) and “blue” (Coalition) books, which contain briefs on the policies of each side. The appropriate book is ready for whoever wins.

Bandt wants a “green book” prepared. “This will enable an incoming government to discuss and begin to implement key policy priorities of the Australian Greens, should they agree to them during negotiations in relation to the formation of government.”

Bandt said as a “top priority” in this exercise, the public service should prepare in-depth work on reforming negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. This should cover reducing these concessions for investors owning more than one property, which the Greens support.

Bandt referred the bureaucracy to work done by the Australia Institute, a progressive think tank, and to the views of various economic commentators who have advocated reform.

He also pointed to Treasury advice on the subject, over which debate flared last week, when Anthony Albanese claimed the government had not asked for modelling. Treasurer Jim Chalmers said he had asked for a “view ” from Treasury. The government says it has no plans to change negative gearing arrangements.

Albanese has repeatedly ruled out negotiating with the Greens if he was forced into minority government. But he wouldn’t need to – the Greens have said they would not have a bar of giving support to a Dutton minority government.

How important the Greens were when it came to particular pieces of legislation in a hung parliament would depend on the actual numbers. including how many crossbenchers a minority government needed to pass bills and how big the crossbench was. The bigger the crossbench, potentially the more choice of dancing partners for the government.

The importance of the lower house Greens if there was a minority government would also depend on how many of them there were. Bandt is safe in his seat of Melbourne, but the other three Greens, all from Queensland, won their seats in 2022 and these electorates are being strongly targeted by the major parties.

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. Election Diary: Coalition makes ‘law-and-order’ pitch, with plan to invest proceeds of drug crime into communities – https://theconversation.com/election-diary-coalition-makes-law-and-order-pitch-with-plan-to-invest-proceeds-of-drug-crime-into-communities-254588

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

With less than two weeks to go now until the federal election, the polls continue to favour the government being returned.

Newspoll was steady at 52–48 to Labor, but primary vote changes indicated a gain for Labor as both leaders dropped on net approval. A Redbridge marginal seats poll had Labor gaining two points since the previous week for a 54.5–45.5 lead, a 3.5-point swing to Labor in those seats since the 2022 election.

A national Newspoll, conducted April 14–17 from a sample of 1,263, gave Labor a 52–48 lead, unchanged on the April 7–10 Newspoll. Primary votes were 35% Coalition (steady), 34% Labor (up one), 12% Greens (steady), 7% One Nation (down one) and 12% for all Others (steady).

In the last two Newspolls, Labor has been a little lucky to get a 52–48 lead as this would have been given by 2022 election preference flows, and Newspoll is making a pro-Coalition adjustment to One Nation preferences. This time the 2022 election flow method would give Labor about a 53–47 lead.

This Newspoll is the only new national poll since Friday’s update. The fieldwork dates were nearly the same as for the Freshwater poll that had Labor ahead by just 50.3–49.7 (April 14–16 for Freshwater). Other polls indicate that Freshwater is likely the outlier. Here’s the Labor two-party vote chart.

In-person early voting begins on Tuesday ahead of the May 3 election, so there isn’t much time for the Coalition to turn around their deficit, if the polls are accurate.

Anthony Albanese’s net approval in Newspoll was down five points to -9, with 52% dissatified and 43% satisfied. Peter Dutton’s net approval was down three points to -22, a record low for him. Albanese led Dutton as better PM by 52–36 (49–38 previously). This is Albanese’s biggest lead since May 2024.

Here’s the graph of Albanese’s net approval in Newspoll this term. The plus signs are data points and a smoothed line has been fitted.

Albanese and Labor were preferred to Dutton and the Coalition on helping with the cost of living by 31–28. Labor also led on dealing with uncertainty caused by Donald Trump (39–32), lowering taxes (33–26) and helping Australians buy their first home (29–24). The Coalition led on growing our economy by 34–29.

For so long, it had appeared that the cost of living issue would sink Labor at this election, so this result will please Labor.

Labor surges further ahead in Redbridge marginal seats poll

A poll of 20 marginal seats by Redbridge and Accent Research for the News Corp tabloids was conducted April 9–15 from a sample of 1,000. It gave Labor a 54.5–45.5 lead, a two-point gain for Labor since the April 4–9 marginal seats poll. Primary votes were 35% Labor (steady), 34% Coalition (down two), 14% Greens (up two) and 17% for all Others (steady).

The overall 2022 vote in these 20 seats was 51–49 to Labor, so this poll implies a 3.5-point swing to Labor from the 2022 election. If applied to the national 2022 result of 52.1–47.9 to Labor, Labor would lead by about 55.5–44.5. Since the first wave of this marginal seats tracker in early February, Labor has gained 6.5 points.

Albanese’s net favourability improved three points since last week to -5, while Dutton’s slumped six points to -22. By 36–26, voters thought Albanese and Labor had better election promises for them than Dutton and the Coalition.

By 56–13, voters agreed with Labor’s attack line that Dutton’s nuclear plan will cost $600 billion, and he will need to make cuts to pay for it. By 42–16, voters agreed with the Coalition’s attack line that this is the highest spending government in the past 40 years.

Additional Resolve questions and a right-wing poll of Wentworth

I previously covered the April 9–13 Resolve poll for Nine newspapers that gave Labor a 53.5–46.5 lead. Asked their biggest concerns about voting Labor, 47% said cost of living (down five since February), 36% economic management (down nine), 31% lack of progress in their first term (steady), 27% union ties (up two) and 24% Albanese’s personality (down six).

Asked their biggest concerns about voting for the Coalition, 45% said Dutton’s personality (up ten), 36% lack of policy detail (up eight), 34% that the Coalition would follow Donald Trump’s example (up six), 32% the performance of the Scott Morrison government (up four) and 31% their nuclear power plan (up five).

The February Resolve poll was the 55–45 to Coalition outlier, so responses in the prior survey were probably too Coalition-friendly.

The Poll Bludger reported Saturday that a seat poll of Wentworth, which teal Allegra Spender holds by a 55.9–44.1 margin over the Liberals after a redistribution, gave the Liberals a 47–28 primary vote lead over Spender with 15% for Labor and 10% for the Greens. This poll was taken by the right-wing pollster Compass.

Canadian election and UK local elections

I covered the April 28 Canadian election for The Poll Bludger on Saturday. The centre-left governing Liberals are down slightly since my previous Poll Bludger Canadian article on April 10, but are still likely to win a parliamentary majority. Debates between four party leaders occurred Wednesday (in French) and Thursday (in English), and we’re still waiting for post-debate polls.

United Kingdom local elections and a parliamentary byelection will occur on May 1. Current national polls imply that the far-right Reform will gain massively, with the Conservatives and Labour both slumping. Two seat polls give Reform a narrow lead over Labour for the parliamentary byelection in a safe Labour seat.

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

– ref. Newspoll steady as both leaders’ ratings fall; Labor surging in poll of marginal seats – https://theconversation.com/newspoll-steady-as-both-leaders-ratings-fall-labor-surging-in-poll-of-marginal-seats-254715

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Whittaker, Senior Lecturer in Physics, Nottingham Trent University

What do you think of when it comes to extra terrestrial life? Most popular sci-fi books and TV shows suggest humanoid beings could live on other planets. But when astronomers are searching for extra-terrestrial life, it is usually in the form of emissions from bacteria or other tiny organisms.

A new research paper in the Astrophysical Journal suggests that Cambridge scientists have managed to find this type of emission with a certainty of 99.7% from a planet called K2-18b, 124 light years away. They used Nasa’s James Webb Space Telescope to analyse the chemical composition of the planet’s atmosphere and say they found promising evidence K2-18b could host life.

It’s an exciting breakthrough but it doesn’t confirm alien life.

Let’s look at why scientists largely do not accept the paper as proof of alien life.

Why it’s so hard to detect to alien life

Exoplanet hunting fell out of public interest quickly due to the staggering number of planets scientists are discovering. The first convincing exoplanet around a sun-like star was discovered in 1995 via radial velocity, where you don’t look at the planet but instead observe its effect on its nearest star. As the star wobbles back and forth it causes a tiny shift in the wavelength of the light it emits, which we can measure. We already know of roughly 7,500 planets.

Only 43 (to date) have been observed directly (about 0.5% of them). Most are discovered through indirect means, such as radial velocity or the transit method. The transit method is where you look at how the brightness of the star decreases as the planet passes in front of it. It will block a tiny amount of the light.

An exoplanet atmosphere

Looking at the atmosphere of an exoplanet is even more difficult. Scientists use spectroscopy to do this. The light coming out of the star can be observed directly and a small amount of it will also pass through the atmosphere of the planet. Researchers can estimate what an exoplanet’s atmosphere is made of by studying which light from the star is emitted or absorbed in the atmosphere.

Let’s try an analogy. You have a desk lamp at one end of a long table and you are standing at the other end, looking at the lamp. There is a glass of liquid in between you and the lamp. In very simple terms, the glass of liquid acting as the exoplanet and atmosphere, looks slightly blue, which allows you to identify it as water. In reality for scientists though, it’s more like the glass of water is a tiny glass bead which is rolling around while someone is messing around with a dimmer switch on the lamp. Then, freak weather results in a gentle mist forming on the table. The liquid is 99% pure water and 1% mineral water and the scientist is trying to see what minerals are in the water.

You can see that the expertise required to be perform this work is incredible. They observed molecules with a 99.7% confidence rate, which is a remarkable achievement.

The data from JWST and K2-18b

The key data in this study is in a graph fitting light absorption rates to which kind of molecules could be there and working out how abundant they are. It features in this short film about the discovery.

The graph produced by the study’s authors shows evidence for dimethyl sulphide and dimethyl disulphide (DMS).

Some scientists think of DMS as a biomarker – a molecular indicator of life on Earth. However DMS is not only produced by bacteria, but has also been found on comet 67P and in the gas and dust of the interstellar medium, the space between stars. It can even be generated by shining UV light onto a simulated atmosphere. The authors acknowledge this and claim the amount they determined was present cannot be produced by any of these conditions.

Similar to other claims of life?

Multiple studies have shown indicators for DMS and life in general on K2-18b and there are many other claims for other exoplanets.

The most recent is the idea that phosphine (another biomarker) was discovered in the Venusian atmosphere, so there must be bacteria in the clouds. This claim was quickly refuted by other researchers. Scientists pointed that a tiny error in the matching of data created results that showed a larger abundance of phosphine than was accurate. The Cambridge study is more rigorous and has more certainty in the result. But it is still not strong enough to convince the academic community, which needs 99.999% certainty.

The study authors suggest their findings indicate liquid oceans and a hydrogen atmosphere but others have countered it could be a gas giant, or a volcanic planet full of magma.

The Cambridge study is not proof of life, but it is an important step forward to characterising what other planets might be like and determining if we are alone or not. The study presented the best result yet and should inspire other scientists to take up the challenge.

Ian Whittaker 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. Indicators of alien life may have been found – astrophysicist explains what the new research means – https://theconversation.com/indicators-of-alien-life-may-have-been-found-astrophysicist-explains-what-the-new-research-means-254843