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

Australians strongly disagree with key policies of US President Donald Trump, and have overwhelmingly lost trust in the United States to act responsibly in the world, according to the Lowy Institute’s 2025 poll.

Despite this, 80% of people say the alliance is “very” or “fairly” important for Australia’s security, only fractionally down on last year’s 83%.

The poll also found people nearly evenly divided on whether Peter Dutton (35%) or Anthony Albanese (34%) would be the better leader to manage Australia’s relations with Trump.

But Albanese rated much more strongly than Dutton as better able to manage Australia’s relationship with China and President Xi Jinping (45% to 25%).

Albanese was also well ahead (41%-29%) when people were asked who would be more competent at handling Austrlaia’s foreign policy over the next three years.

The poll comes as the “Trump effect” has overshadowed the campaign, and increasingly worked against Dutton. Labor has cast Dutton as having looked to the US for policies, such as his proposed cuts to the public service. It has labelled him “DOGEy Dutton”, a reference to Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The Lowy poll of 2,117 people was taken between March 3 and 16. This was after Trump had announced plans for a 25% tariff on steel and aluminium imports, and other tariffs, but before his “Liberation Day” regime which saw a 10% general tariff hitting all countries.

Trust in the US has plummeted since the last Lowy poll in 2024, with nearly two-thirds of respondents (64%) having little or no trust in the US to act responsibly in the world, compared with 44% a year before.

This is a new low in the poll’s two-decade history. Trust fell dramatically among older voters. Trust was already relatively low among younger voters, and fell by a smaller margin.

On various Trump stances, the poll found Australians most disapproving (89%) of Trump’s pressure on Denmark to sell or or hand over its self-governing territory of Greenland to the US.

More than eight in ten (81%) disapproved of Trump’s use of tariffs to pressure other countries to comply with his administration’s objectives.

Three-quarters disapproved of the US withdrawing from the World Health Organization (76%) and from international climate change agreements (74%).

In addition, three-quarters (74%) disapproved of Trump negotiating a deal on the future of Ukraine with Russian President Vladimir Putin that might require Ukraine to accept a loss of territory. The dramatic Oval Office showdown between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US Vice President JD Vance took place just before the survey.

Australians also disapproved of the US cutting spending on foreign aid (64%) and undertaking mass deportations of undocumented migrants (56%).

On Trump’s demand that US allies spend more on defence people were, however, evenly divided (49% approved/disapproved).

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. Poll shows Australians hate Trump policies and have lost trust in US, but still strongly believe in alliance – https://theconversation.com/poll-shows-australians-hate-trump-policies-and-have-lost-trust-in-us-but-still-strongly-believe-in-alliance-254587

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra

We now have the competing bids for our votes by the alternative governments on income tax policy.

From Labor, future cuts to the lowest marginal tax rate and new standard deductions for work expenses. From the Coalition, a one-off return to a tax offset for low and middle income earners that was previously nicknamed the “lamington”.

Our modelling shows slightly higher benefits for low- and middle-income earners from the Coalition’s proposals compared to Labor’s.

Labor’s drip-fed tax policies

The Labor government announced its main tax proposal in the recent budget. It is a permanent cut in the lowest marginal tax rate.

Currently, the tax rate on income between A$18,201 and $45,000 is 16%. This will drop to 15% from July 2026 and then to 14% from July 2027.

This will reduce the tax paid by taxpayers in all income brackets, with most receiving $536 a year in relief. But it is proportionately larger for those on lower incomes.

Read more:
Tax cuts are coming, but not soon, in a cautious budget

At the weekend, the government announced an additional measure: allowing everyone to claim a standard tax deduction of $1,000 instead of claiming individual work-related expenses.

Those with expenses over $1,000 can continue to claim their deduction in the current way. The government estimates this measure will assist 39% of taxpayers. The average relief for those benefiting will be $205 per year.

Coalition’s revived tax offset

Also at the weekend, the Coalition released its tax policies. It is essentially proposing the reintroduction of the Low and Middle Income Tax Offset (“LMITO”, which led to the nickname the “lamington”), for one financial year only.

Read more:
The Low and Middle Income Tax Offset has been extended yet again. It delivers help neither when nor where it’s needed

The Morrison government introduced a low- and middle-income tax offset in the 2018-19 tax year. It was subsequently extended, but then abolished by the Labor government.

It is now called the Cost of Living Tax Offset. Those with taxable incomes between $48,000 and $104,000 will get a one-off rebate of $1,200. Other taxpayers with incomes below $144,000 will get smaller rebates.

Read more:
Dutton to offer targeted income tax offset of up to $1,200

Although Dutton was critical of Labor’s income tax cuts for not starting until 2026, the one-off rebate would also not be paid until mid-2026.

Dutton has not explained why he said three weeks ago that the budget position would not allow for income tax cuts but now he thinks it does.

Who benefits most from the competing proposals?

We have estimated the distribution of the benefits from Labor’s proposed tax cut (but not the instant tax deduction) and the Coalition’s one-year tax offset.

Given a federal election is held every three years, the estimates are provided up to mid-2028. This resulted in a slightly higher cumulative figure of around $10 billion for the Labor proposal (over two years) and $11 billion for the Coalition proposal (over one year). This is slightly higher than the Coalition’s own estimate.

The following charts show disposable household income deciles from the poorest 10% to the 10% with the highest incomes. This is household income that has been adjusted to allow comparison of income levels between households of differing size and composition.

The chart indicates slightly higher benefits from the Coalition for households in the lowest and second-lowest income groups. This may be an overestimate as it assumes those earning less than $37,000 get a $265 benefit. The policy is rather vague on this, saying only that they would get “up to” $265.

The Coalition proposal provides a somewhat higher benefit for middle income earners, but withdraws it for those on higher incomes.

All individual taxpayers earning above $45,000 will receive the same benefit from the Labor proposal. But differences in household composition mean that the benefit calculated by household continues to rise somewhat.

The Coalition proposal gives no benefits to individuals earning over $144,000. But even the households in the highest income groups have some members earning less than this, such as adult children living at home. So the average household with a high income will still get some benefit.

In terms of family type, the Coalition proposal will give less benefit than the Labor plan to couples with children but more to other groups, especially single parents.

From these distributions of both income level and family type, it seems that neither party has a clear plan to target their own traditional constituencies with these policies. The Coalition proposal may be targeting households in outer suburban marginal seats which tend to have more low and middle income households.

How much will they cost?

According to the budget papers, Labor’s cut to the lowest marginal rate will cost $3 billion in 2026-27, $6.7 billion in 2027-28 and $7.4 billion in 2028-29.

The cost of the instant tax deduction will be $2.4 billion over four years.

The Coalition has claimed its rebate would cost $10 billion in 2026-27.

This would of course increase if a Dutton government feels under pressure to extend the new rebate, as happened with the LMITO.

Disappointing for democratic decision-making

It is very disappointing that both major parties are releasing key policies on taxation and housing literally only days before people start voting.

Previous leaders like Robert Menzies (when opposition leader from 1943 to 1949) and Gough Whitlam (1967 to 1972) would spend years developing, then explaining and advocating for policies. This gave time for them to be scrutinised, and if necessary revised, before voters were asked to pass judgement.

The proposals are also disappointing for those arguing for substantial tax reform.

John Hawkins was formerly a senior economist in the Australian Treasury.

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

– ref. We compared the Labor and Coalition’s income tax proposals to see who benefits most – https://theconversation.com/we-compared-the-labor-and-coalitions-income-tax-proposals-to-see-who-benefits-most-254576

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ranjodh B. Singh, Senior Economics and Finance Lecturer, Curtin University

Australia’s renters have to battle rising rents and a lack of available properties. They also face ongoing instability. Our new research suggests half of all landlords sell their investment properties after only two years, adding to renters’ insecurity.

Our study released by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, models the behaviour of landlords using longitudinal data from 2001 to 2021. It looks at what motivates small-scale investors to buy, sell or keep their rental properties.

This work can inform future planning for the private rental sector, which has been projected to continue expanding. Both Labor and the Coalition were strongly criticised for making little mention of renters or supply in their housing policies released on Sunday.

The short-term owners

Those landlords who got rid of their investment after two years, sometimes sooner, often did so because they hadn’t counted on the additional costs of property ownership or their circumstances changed because they divorced or lost their job.

While younger people aged 25–34 years were more likely to buy a rental
property compared to other age groups, this group was also more likely to sell their property sooner.

Landlords who sold after two years or less, were more likely to be women, unemployed, unmarried and with low-to-moderate incomes.

How this makes renting less secure

Landlords who sell after a relatively short investment period disrupt the supply of private rental housing, which can potentially have a negative impact on both tenant security and affordability.

This includes unplanned moves for renters after a notice period, as well as possible increases in the amount of rent they have to pay. This type of exposure to precarious housing conditions adversely affects the wellbeing of tenants.

This is especially important given that the share of private renters in Australia has risen over the last 20 years and there is ongoing concern about affordability among private renters. Private renters now represent about 30% of the market.

What motivates landlords?

Understanding the factors that increase the likelihood of landlords holding onto a property will contribute to tenure security in the rental sector.

These landlords tend to have higher educational qualifications, higher incomes and smaller mortgages on their own homes. As such, these landlords are financially stable and are able to withstand the higher economic costs of holding a rental property.

Our findings show there is value in establishing programs that offer education on property investment. This could support landlords’ efforts to hold their rental properties. It could also increase the supply of long-term rental housing for tenants.

As well, there should be more rigorous financial risk assessments by lenders and appropriate regulations so those who buy rental investment properties can afford to hold them.

Potential impact of policy changes

Policy changes that affect the costs of supplying rental housing for landlords could also have affordability consequences for renters.

Landlords will only continue to invest in the rental market if market conditions offer them income relative to their property values.

For instance, policy changes that apply long-term freezes to rent increases will reduce rental yields for landlords. This might in turn hurt the supply of rental properties available to renters.

Changes to policies affecting landlords’ tax positions could also have major impacts on whether they keep their rental investment over time.

For instance, if changes are made to capital gains tax and interest rates that directly increase the landlord’s cost of holding an investment property, they will likely pass these costs on to tenants.

As a consequence, rents would become less affordable. Any changes to tax settings that affect landlords need to be rolled out incrementally. This will avoid destabilising rental markets and reducing the supply of housing available for tenants.

Why we need a secure rental market

Increasing the supply of private rental dwellings would help make renting more affordable.

Individuals who can afford investment properties add to the supply of private rental stock. And if they can hold their rentals for long periods, the rental market becomes even more secure.

Those who can’t hold their rental investments for long can disrupt the supply of private rental housing, with potentially negative impacts on affordability and security.

Our study has focused on individual landlords, which make up the majority of suppliers of rental housing in Australia. However, improving tenure security for renters will require more than just encouraging a stable flow of rental housing from individual landlords.

For instance, increasing institutional investment in rental stock might result in more diverse and affordable housing options for renters.

Social housing is also a crucial source of secure housing for those who cannot compete in the private rental market. There is now an urgent need to redress decades of under-investment in social housing in Australia.

Ranjodh B. Singh has received funding from AHURI.

Chris Leishman receives funding from AHURI, SMCA, ARC, ESRC, the Office of the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Scottish Government, UK Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Government, South Australia Government. He is a non-executive director of Housing Choices Australia, a Trustee for the UK’s Housing Studies Charitable Trust, Chair of the Australasian Housing Studies Association, editor of the Urban Studies journal, guest editor of the Regional Studies, Regional Studies journal. He is not a member of any political party in any country.

Rachel Ong ViforJ is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (project FT200100422). She also receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

Jack Hewton 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. Half of Australian landlords sell their investments after 2 years, adding to renters’ insecurity – https://theconversation.com/half-of-australian-landlords-sell-their-investments-after-2-years-adding-to-renters-insecurity-254578

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

As well as the election for the full House of Representatives, there will be an election on May 3 for 40 of the 76 senators. The 72 state senators have six-year terms, with half of them up for election every three years. The four territory senators are all up for election with each House election.

In a double dissolution election, all senators are up for election, but this election won’t be a double dissolution. State senators elected at this election will begin their six-year term on July 1.

The six states are entitled to equal representation in the Senate, so each state has 12 senators. This system greatly overrepresents Tasmania relative to its population. The ACT and Northern Territory have two senators each.

Senators are elected by proportional representation in their jurisdictions with preferences. At a half-Senate election, with six senators in each state up for election, a quota is one-seventh of the vote, or 14.3%. For the territories, a quota is one-third or 33.3%. Half a quota on primary votes (7.1% in a state) is usually enough to give a party a reasonable chance of election.

Voters will be instructed to number at least six boxes above the line or 12 below the line, but only one box above the line or six below is needed for a formal vote. Preferences are voter-directed, with the group ticket voting system scrapped before the 2016 election. Owing to exhausted votes, the final seats in states are likely to be filled on less than a full quota.

To become law, legislation must pass both the House and Senate in the same form. With the Senate’s proportional representation, it’s very unlikely to be under government control, so governments need to negotiate with other parties to pass their legislation through the Senate.

Party standings and seats up for election

The Coalition holds 30 of the 76 total senators, Labor 25, the Greens 11, One Nation two, the Jacqui Lambie Network (JLN) one, the United Australia Party (UAP) one and all others six.

During this term, Lidia Thorpe defected from the Greens, Fatima Payman from Labor and Tammy Tyrrell from JLN. As all three are state senators who were last elected in 2022, none will be up for election until 2028. The Coalition also lost two senators to defections (Gerard Rennick and David Van) – both were last elected in 2019 and will be up for election this year.

Other than the ACT and NT seats, the seats up for election were last up in 2019. At that election, the Coalition won 17 of the 36 state senators, Labor 11, the Greens six, One Nation one and Jacqui Lambie one.

The Coalition and One Nation combined won four of the six Queensland senators. In Tasmania, Labor and the Greens won three seats, the Liberals two and Lambie one. All other states were tied between the left and right blocs.

In the 2022 election, Labor and the Greens combined won four of the six Western Australian senators, Tasmania once again went three Labor and Greens, two Liberals and Tyrrell from JLN, and the other states were tied between the left and right. The state senators elected in 2022 are not up for election.

The four territory senators elected in 2022 will be up for election. In 2022, the ACT split one Labor and one for independent David Pocock, the first time its senators had not split one Labor, one Liberal. The NT is expected to once again be one Labor, one Country Liberal Party.

Here is a table of Senate seats up for election in 2025. I have ignored the defections of Rennick and Van from the Coalition in Queensland and Victoria. The good news for the left is that only Pocock’s ACT seat looks winnable for the right.

Left-wing parties likely to gain Senate seats

For either the left or the right to win four of the six senators for a state, they need to win nearly four quotas of votes or 57%.

The Poll Bludger’s BludgerTrack by state for the House currently gives Labor a 51.9–48.1 lead in New South Wales, a 52.1–47.9 lead in Victoria, a 56.4–43.6 lead in WA and a 54.7–45.3 lead in South Australia. The Coalition leads in Queensland by 52.7–47.3.

On these vote shares, NSW, Victoria, Queensland and SA would be tied 3–3 between the left and right, while the left would probably repeat their 4–2 win in WA from 2022.

A 3–3 split in Queensland would be a gain for the left from the right, as the right are defending a 4–2 split from 2019. A 4–2 win for the left in WA would also be a gain, as WA was 3–3 in 2019.

Tasmania doesn’t have enough polling to be included in BludgerTrack. But analyst Kevin Bonham, who is a Tasmanian, believes the likely outcome is two Labor, two Liberals, one Green and one to Lambie, the same as in 2019.

There haven’t been any ACT Senate polls, but cities are becoming more left-wing, and the ACT is just a city. In 2022, Labor won the ACT by 67.0–33.0 in the House, a 5.3% two-party swing to Labor. It’s plausible that any Trump-inspired backlash against the Coalition will be strongest in the ACT, so it may be difficult for the Liberals to regain their ACT Senate seat.

If Labor and the Greens gain Senate seats in Queensland and WA, Pocock retains in the ACT, and there are no other changes to the left-right balance, the new Senate would have 38 seats for Labor and the Greens, 33 for the Coalition, One Nation and UAP, and one each of Pocock, Lambie, Thorpe, Payman and Tyrrell.

It’s increasingly likely that Labor will win the House election. Labor and the Greens are likely to increase their Senate numbers. If Labor and the Greens hold 38 of the 76 Senate seats after the election, Labor would only need one more vote to pass legislation supported by the Greens but opposed by right-wing parties. The five others are mostly left-wing, so this shouldn’t be difficult.

Candidate nominations down from 2022

Candidate nominations were declared last Friday. The Poll Bludger said Saturday that there will be 330 total candidates for the Senate, down from 421 in 2022. The total number of groups (above the line boxes) dropped from 151 to 118.

Victoria has the most groups with 20, Queensland has 19, NSW and WA 18, SA 16 and Tasmania 12. With only two vacancies each, the ACT has seven groups and the NT eight.

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. Labor and the Greens likely to gain Senate seats at the election – https://theconversation.com/labor-and-the-greens-likely-to-gain-senate-seats-at-the-election-253937

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Bodeker, Teaching Assistant in Behavioural Psychology, University of Canterbury

Methamphetamine is New Zealand’s most harmful illicit drug and wastewater testing shows its use and availability are on the rise.

Much of the harm results from reckless and impulsive behaviour – including ram raids and gang violence – some people show when under methamphetamine’s influence.

Methamphetamine impairs decision making because it increases the likelihood of users acting impulsively, without regard to risk or long-term consequences.

Impulsivity is a maladaptive pattern of choice behaviour linked to crime, violence and drug use. Research shows higher levels of impulsivity are associated with a higher risk of initiating drug use, increase the amounts used, drop out of rehabilitation programmes and relapse.

Our new research investigates how methamphetamine affects impulsivity in rats. We argue that our findings are applicable to people and could improve treatments to reduce the high relapse rate of about 77% of methamphetamine users.

Stimulant drugs and impulsive behaviour

There has been substantial research and several tests have been developed to measure and define impulsivity. However, the effect of stimulant drugs such as methamphetamine on impulsivity remains unclear.

Some studies report amphetamines reduce impulsivity whereas others have found methamphetamine increases it. A probable cause of these conflicting results is the multi-dimensional nature of impulsivity.

Although often reported as a singular concept, impulsivity comprises several distinct but related components that must be assessed individually.

Laboratory research can help us better understand impulsivity. Specially designed behavioural experiments present animals with choices that provide an equivalent of those humans might experience.

The results can help us unravel the complex nature of impulsivity which we can then translate to human experience and inform treatment programmes. In our research we used rats to study two situations related to impulsivity.

The first is a choice between a smaller reward given sooner or a larger reward received later, known as “delay discounting”. The other choice is between a smaller but certain reward and a larger uncertain reward, known as “probability discounting”. We also examined how the overall magnitude of the rewards affected choice.

How we consider choices

In human studies, people are often asked to make hypothetical choices about money.

In delay discounting, opting for the smaller/sooner reward is an impulsive choice. For example, imagine you are given a choice between $400 now and $500 in one year, and choose the $400 now.

However, if you were asked instead to choose between $40,000 now and $50,000 in one year, you may select the delayed option. When the rewards are larger, we are less likely to choose impulsively.

In probability discounting, choice of the larger/uncertain reward is impulsive. Imagine you are given a choice between $50 for sure or a 50% chance at $100. You might be willing to gamble on the larger amount.

But what if your choice was between $5,000,000 for sure and a 50% chance at $10,000,000? You would be more likely to choose the certain reward because we tend to be less impulsive when the possible loss is greater.

Complex nature of impulsivity

In our research, rats could choose between two alternatives that resulted in food rewards by pressing levers in an experimental chamber.

Some rats completed delay discounting sessions in which they chose between smaller/sooner and larger/later food outcomes. Other rats completed probability discounting sessions and chose between smaller/certain and larger/uncertain outcomes.

We also varied the overall amounts of food to confirm rats were less likely to choose impulsively with larger amounts. We measured the rats’ sensitivity to differences between delay, probability and magnitude.

Results were similar to studies with humans in that the rats’ choices reflected trade-offs between delay, probability and the amount of food. Impulsive choices were reduced with larger amounts.

We then gave the rats gradually increasing doses of methamphetamine and observed how their choices changed. Our results reflected the complex nature of impulsivity. Increasing methamphetamine doses resulted in decreasing sensitivity to the most salient difference between the two choices the rats experienced.

On methamphetamine, more rats chose the larger delayed reward. This means a decrease in impulsive choice because sensitivity to delay was reduced and the smaller/sooner option was less attractive.

However, we found the opposite in probability discounting. Here, methamphetamine increased preference for the larger/uncertain reward, indicating an increase in impulsivity because sensitivity to risk decreased.

Sensitivity to magnitude also decreased, meaning rats were more likely to choose impulsively even when the reward was large.

What this means for people

People are obviously cognitively more complex, but methamphetamine users also demonstrate decreased sensitivity to risk in response to tasks similar to those we used with rats.

Therefore our findings are applicable to human methamphetamine users and highlight that long-term changes to impulsivity should be taken into account in treatment programmes. This is especially important because effects on decision making can persist long after drug use during periods of abstinence.

Psycho-education on impulsivity could be incorporated into existing treatment programmes. This would mean educating methamphetamine users about their increased risks related to decision making and how that may affect treatment outcomes.

The Salvation Army’s Bridge Programme, a well-known drug rehabilitation programme with 20 centres throughout the country, is a good example. It uses a community reinforcement approach as part of their treatment, which involves participants building skills to cultivate rewarding experiences outside of drugs or alcohol use.

Rehabilitation processes could implement a psycho-education component focused on the increased vulnerability to risky choices, regardless of amount, of current and former methamphetamine users. This could raise the personal agency of participants by making them more aware of the increased risk factors for relapse and other negative decision making.

Psycho-education could help release people from the grip of this pervasive and increasingly prolific drug.

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. 3 in 4 meth users relapse – outcomes could improve if treatments considered the drug’s effect on impulsive behaviour – https://theconversation.com/3-in-4-meth-users-relapse-outcomes-could-improve-if-treatments-considered-the-drugs-effect-on-impulsive-behaviour-253439

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fan Yang, Research fellow at Melbourne Law School, the University of Melbourne and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society., The University of Melbourne

Since 2024, the RECapture research team has been monitoring political disinformation and advertising in Australia.

Our focus is on WeChat, the primary news and information platform for Chinese speakers in Australia, and RedNote (Xiaohongshu), an emerging Chinese information sharing platform similar to Instagram.

Hundreds of thousands of people in Australia use these platforms. They’re often a main source of news.

Our research reveals while Australian news media often focus on foreign interference, in this election cycle, disinformation is being driven by commercial and domestic political interests.

These pose substantial threats to Chinese Australian communities and our democracy.

What is disinformation?

Defining disinformation often hinges on three criteria:

• the truthfulness of the content

• the intent behind its creation and dissemination

• the harm it causes.

However, findings from our 2023 study on the Voice referendum challenge those assumptions. Disinformation isn’t as simple as true or false. It can involve ambiguous intent and produce harm that’s difficult to measure.

Further, Australia’s lack of clear definition for online misinformation and disinformation presents significant challenges for researchers and regulators.

With these limitations, we focus on deliberate misrepresentations of policy positions and the manipulation of political speech intended to influence voter behaviour.

What have we discovered?

We found examples that misrepresented political statements and policies and capitalised on preexisting concerns within migrant communities.

Concerns include potential changes to investor visas, undocumented migration, humanitarian programs and Australia’s diplomatic relations with India, the US and China.

We also found several strategies, such as:

• exaggerating the likelihood of events (like the revival of the Significant Investment Visa – an invitation-only visa for those investing at least A$5 million in certain sectors)

• manipulating timelines and contexts (like re-hyping past news stories to create the impression the events are happening in the present)

• and misaligning visuals and text to suggest misleading interpretations.

While we’re working to better understand who’s behind these cases, we know they’re not political parties. Here are two examples.

This post on RedNote, published in April, referred to several statements, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s speech at the Future of Western Sydney Summit. Albanese stated the government had a “balanced” immigration ratio.

However, the Chinese-language text accompanying the post omitted Labor’s past immigration policies and misrepresented the speech:

Labor grants amnesty to all? Albo embraces immigrants! Good news for Chinese people!

Discussions in the comments largely favoured a class-based immigration system. Users argued the Labor government disproportionately favoured humanitarian immigrants and greater preference should be given to upper and middle-class migrants.

We also found examples on WeChat.

On March 4, the Chinese-language media outlet AFN Daily published an article with the provocative headline:

I am furious! How shameless! Australia is really going to be in chaos!

The headline was sensational and intentionally ambiguous. It attracted reader attention to click through past four advertisements, including one political ad by the Liberal candidate for Bennelong, Scott Yung.

The article claimed the Coalition’s support had surpassed Labor’s, while presenting a segment of a poll in which Labor had actually received greater voter support for its welfare, healthcare and education policies.

The article further claimed the Labor Party had naturalised 12,500 new citizens – predominantly of Indian origin – in an attempt to sway the Chinese audience.

This claim had been explicitly refuted by Tony Burke back in February.

The article challenged this assertion by Burke and reinforced anti-Labor sentiment through racially charged narratives. It emphasised the strengthening diplomatic relations between Australia and India, and highlighted the growing number of South Asian and Middle Eastern migrants in comparison to Chinese migrants.

We also observed ad hoc disinformation narratives triggered by natural disasters or public emergencies.

For example, there was a claim on WeChat suggesting “the election is cancelled because of Cyclone Alfred.” Such disinformation requires timely intervention to prevent its rapid spread and impact.

Why is this so harmful?

The harms of disinformation are often more severe on digital media used by marginalised communities. Our research shows a few reasons why.

The limited regulatory oversight of these platforms makes the harms hard to fully identify and prevent.

Australian regulatory bodies keep intervention to address disinformation on these platforms to a minimum. This reflects broader national concerns around cybersecurity and foreign interference.

Unfortunately, this has resulted in a largely unregulated environment where political disinformation thrives during election cycles.

Finally, we see persistent disinformation narratives – from 2019, 2022, 2023 (around the Voice referendum), through to 2025 – where racial stereotypes intersect with partisan biases.

What can be done?

For Chinese-language platforms, our findings suggest disinformation might be less a product of foreign political actors, propaganda or linguistic barriers. What’s more important are the insular structure of WeChat and RedNote’s media ecosystems.

Tailored civic education and media literacy initiatives can help users to spot disinformation. Currently, grassroots debunking efforts are largely done by community members who comment beneath posts.

But more broadly, we need to support the public to think critically when reading digital news. This would help mitigate the exploitation of racial and gender biases for clicks and political point-scoring.

While automation is sometimes used to detect and debunk disinformation, its application is limited here. WeChat and RedNote prohibit external automated tools. Their own systems for flagging content generated by artificial intelligence don’t always work either.

Individual and coordinated human effort remains the best way to accurately inform Australian communities of their choices this election. This applies whether these communities tune in to mainstream broadcasts, major US-based social media platforms or Chinese language apps.

The authors would like to thank researchers Dan Dai, Stevie Zhang, and Mengjie Cai for their contributions to this project.

The research project is funded by the Susan McKinnon Foundation for the period 2024-2025.

Robbie Fordyce is a member of the grants panel for the Australian Communication Consumer Action Network (ACCAN). He has previously worked on studies of online political content that has been funded by the Australian Research Council and by ACCAN.

Luke Heemsbergen 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. This election, disinformation is swirling on Chinese social media. Here’s how it spreads – https://theconversation.com/this-election-disinformation-is-swirling-on-chinese-social-media-heres-how-it-spreads-253849

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

Global markets have remained on edge after Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs caused panic worldwide. Now, more than ever, markets and economists are looking for trying to read the implications.

Joining us from Washington DC is Warwick McKibbin,
an internationally renowned economic modeller from the Australian National University whose services are now in high demand. McKibbin is also a former member of the Reserve Bank board.

With much earlier talk about whether Australia can do a deal with Trump on tariffs, McKibbon argues,

The best way to deal with the president is to ignore him. And I think that’s to take him off the front page of Australia’s newspapers for example. I think what we should be doing is accelerating a process that was already underway. And that was to open up our trade with other partners around the world, Korea, Southeast Asia, Europe, in particular.

There’s a lot of trading opportunities. Our products – fortunately for us – the ones we sell to the US, we can sell somewhere else. We know that that’s a flexibility we have.

McKibbin says it’s “unlikely” Trump’s trade wars will cause a recession in Australia, but,

the problem we do have is that we haven’t dealt with the key problems that Australia faces, which is low productivity. We have a productivity problem which means [you’re] more likely to have a recession if you’re not growing. The second thing is we haven’t been given enough fiscal space. That is, running budget surpluses when we have full employment. But we’ve been running budget deficits, so our debt-to-GDP ratio has gone up, which means we have got less capacity to respond. But we also have a flexible exchange rate, which is good news. That helped us during the Asian financial crisis and the global financial crisis. We have the central bank, the Reserve Bank of Australia, [which] has plenty of capacity to cut interest rates if required.

Our modelling suggests that under the scenario of no change in the severe tariffs that the US put on in the beginning of April, you would probably cut interest rates in Australia by 50 basis points over the year as a result of the tariffs alone.

McKibbin says Australia’s interest rates are “probably a little bit too low”,

I think at the moment where we stand is without this shock Australia’s rates are probably a little bit too low, but probably close to being neutral. This shock will give you an extra 25 to 50 basis points capacity, if you need it. We’re still at full employment, and the bank worries about inflation relative to the target and still above the target if you adjust for the cyclical elements and about employment or output relative to potential which we’re very close to potential, so really there wasn’t a big case for a big interest rate cut.

On the Australian election, McKibbin outlines the need for reforms, which are not being much talked about in this campaign,

We know what the fundamental problems are in Australia. We need serious reform. We need to deal with the tax system not functioning properly. We have a cost of living crisis – our reaction is to pump more money into the housing market, to drive up demand relative to supply. We’re also hitting our own exports of higher education.

And so we’re actually responding completely the opposite way. And both parties are arguing for cutting foreign student numbers. That is a key export of the Australian economy.

The problem with the housing market is lack of supply. You don’t fix the lack of supply by attacking foreign students who are a very, very small part of the demand coming from immigration. And actually those students, they come and they go mostly.

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Warwick McKibbin on trying to model economic certainty in uncertain times – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-warwick-mckibbin-on-trying-to-model-economic-certainty-in-uncertain-times-254591

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andy Ward, Senior Lecturer in Music, School of Business and Creative Industries, University of the Sunshine Coast

Hip-hop is a cultural powerhouse that has infiltrated every facet of popular culture, across a global market. That said, one place you usually don’t see it is on the election campaign trail.

That’s right, I’m talking about the track “Leaving Labour” – the Liberal-National Coalition’s latest attempt to create beef with the Australian Labor Party, via a hip-hop track from an unnamed artist.

You only need to go as far as the (very entertaining) comments section on the Coalition’s SoundCloud to see what people think of the campaign’s new track, the lyrics of which include such zingers as “I just wanna buy some eggs and cheese, a hundred bucks you kidding me?” and “real prices are at the pinnacle”.

For many, it hasn’t struck the right chord. But that will be no surprise to anyone who knows what hip-hop is really about.

A voice for the oppressed and disenfranchised

Hip-hop has historically been a voice for Black America, and more recently for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and other First Nations peoples.

And while it was traditionally critiqued for being proto-masculine and homophobic, the movement has evolved greatly over the past decade.

With artists such as Lil Baby telling us there are “too many mothers that’s grieving, they kill us for no reason”, and Lil Nas X’s dance with the devil, helping the LGBTQIA+ community rise to prominence while challenging cultural norms, modern hip-hop provides a voice to the disaffected and the oppressed.

Diss tracks: hip-hop through and through

The culture of hip-hop – birthed in the Bronx, New York City, in 1973 – is built on five pillars central to the movement. These are MCing (rapping), DJing (turntablism), breakdancing, graffiti and, last but not least, knowledge.

The first four pillars represent paradigm shifts in the culture of resistance towards non-violent means – initially in African American culture, but today more broadly across the world. The final pillar, knowledge, speaks to the power of education, both formal and street.

The diss (short for disrespect) track is deeply embedded in hip-hop, as it can be considered synonymous with MCing itself. Built on the tradition of Jamaican competitive “toasting”, it was initially a way for MCs to non-violently instigate, battle through, and resolve disputes and conflict.

Over the past 40 year, the diss track has emerged as a form in and of itself, with far-reaching influence. During the East Coast–West Coast hip-hop feuds of the 90s, Biggie Smalls and 2Pac famously traded diss tracks up until both artists were murdered (with the murders often cited as fuelled by the tracks themselves).

In the late 90s and 2000s, artists such as JayZ dissed Mobb Deep and Nas, and vice versa. Nas’ track Ether was so influential it entered the word “ethered” into the hip-hop lexicon as a synonym for being defeated.

Eminem has also established himself as a kind of lyrical assassin, releasing more than 40 diss tracks over some 20 years. His targets have included Limp Bizkit, Mariah Carey, Machine Gun Kelly and Will Smith, to name a few.

More recently, Kendrick Lamar and Drake gained global attention for what can only be described as a beef for the annuls of hip-hop history.

What were they thinking?

So, if diss tracks have a rich history of anti-establishment action, protest, and are largely deployed by minority voices, why would a party campaigning on conservative “mainstream” values commission a hip-hop track to take on its political rival?

It’s less likely the track signals some kind of cultural shift in the Coalition, and more likely it shows a high level of cultural tone-deafness. This is similar to conservative pundit Ben Shapiro, who was heavily criticised for dropping a racist rap track last year after spending most of his career claiming “rap isn’t music”.

As a leader, Dutton has a history of inflaming racial tensions, including by stoking fears of so-called “African gang violence” and calling to boycott the Stolen Generation apology.

It’s difficult for him and his party to justify using the cultural capital of hip-hop in their campaign. Diss tracks are inherently embedded in Black American spaces and history, and can’t be separated from this. When a largely white, Australian political party adopts this medium – with no ties to the culture it came from – it will feel inauthentic.

Michael Idato, culture editor-at-large at The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, described the track as “a hip-hop miss with the rhyming genius of a Little Golden Book”. Another headline from Sky News called it a “bizarre election move amid poor polls”.

Also, for a year where arts policies have been all but completely absent from the election trail, it seems disingenuous for the Coalition to now use art for their own means.

Andy Ward 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. Why the Coalition’s tone-deaf diss track was bound to hit all the wrong notes – https://theconversation.com/why-the-coalitions-tone-deaf-diss-track-was-bound-to-hit-all-the-wrong-notes-254595

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cameron Parsell, Professor, School of Social Science, The University of Queensland

Measures to tackle homelessness in Australia have been conspicuously absent from the election campaign.

The major parties have rightly identified deep voter anxiety over high house prices. They have responded with a raft of policies, with big dollars attached, to try to make housing more affordable.

But in doing so, homelessness has been rendered a silent crisis. We all see the destitute and displaced on our city streets or sleeping in their cars. But we are hearing very little from Labor and the Coalition about how to help the 122,000 Australians who are without permanent shelter.

This is despite evidence that homeless services are witnessing significantly increased demand, with the rate of homelessness soaring above pre–pandemic levels.

Election efforts to promote home ownership should be welcomed. But they will not help Australia’s homeless, who will remain excluded from shelter, a basic human right.

Impossible dream

Although people experiencing homelessness are not a homogeneous group, they have one thing in common – poverty. People who are homeless are overwhelmingly likely to be living in financial hardship.

Even if they aspire to home ownership, their poverty means buying a home is an improbable solution to their homelessness, regardless of the various incentives on offer during an election campaign.

Further, the experience of homelessness creates health problems and barriers to accessing mainstream services. People’s lives become transient, unpredictable and often dangerous.

When homelessness is lost in major policy announcements about addressing only part of the housing crisis, we fail to confront and deal with the related harms homelessness inflicts.

Strategic plan

The first thing needed to confront the problem is a national housing and homelessness strategic plan. Governments should set measurable targets to end and prevent homelessness and avoid vague terms such as “address” or “respond”.

Overseas experience shows it can be done. A strategic plan in the United States contributed to massive reductions in homelessness among military veterans.

If a standalone homelessness plan sounds familiar, it might be because it was a Labor commitment leading up to the 2022 election. Despite an issues paper and consultation with the sector, the plan has never seen the light of day.

Housing supply

It is self-evident that ending and preventing homelessness, as the recent Australian Homelessness Monitor demonstrates, requires an increase in housing supply.

Trying to fix homelessness without providing shelter would be like trying to prevent polio without vaccines, or ending illiteracy without books.

Extra supply needs to include more social housing for people on low incomes. And permanent supportive housing, which combines affordable housing with health and social services for our most marginalised citizens.

Some progress has been made by the Albanese government, which has increased the availability of social housing and boosted subsidies to renters in the private market.

The Liberal Party’s policy platform for the election does not mention homelessness. Rather, it assumes increasing home ownership though measures like the tax deductibility of mortgage repayments for first homebuyers will be a remedy.

More than houses

Housing is critical to ending the scourge of homelessness. But it doesn’t tell the whole story.

A much broader approach is needed that recognises we don’t live siloed lives. Poor connections with a range of health, social and charitable services can drive people into homelessness, and make ending it even harder.

A more integrated approach would reduce the risk of homelessness. For example, ensuring people are not discharged from institutions such as prisons, hospitals, and foster care onto the street. The connections between homelessness and other critical areas of human need must be prioritised.

An exclusive focus on building more dwellings will never fix homelessness. This is because the problem and its solutions cut across society, ending and preventing homelessness will require a society wide approach.

Achieving that will be anything but simple.

What do we value?

Societies have worked out ways to overcome many harms to human life. Homelessness can also be remedied, but only if there is the social and political will to do so.

In Australia we achieved significant success for a short time during the COVID pandemic when many people sleeping rough were accommodated. It can be done again.

But any policies to end and prevent homelessness must confront the importance of values. Facts and data are needed to inform policy, but facts and data must always be framed by what we value in society.

The way we respond to people who are homeless would demonstrate how we value each other, and how we can achieve equity and social cohesion well beyond the election campaign.

Cameron Parsell receives funding from the Australian Research Council, as well as from numerous nonprofit organisations.

Karyn Walsh is the CEO of Micah Projects which receives funding from the Commonwealth, state and local governments, and philanthropic and private entities to provide a range of homelessness, health, and community services. Neither Karyn nor Micah Projects will receive any financial benefit from this article

– ref. Homelessness – the other housing crisis politicians aren’t talking about – https://theconversation.com/homelessness-the-other-housing-crisis-politicians-arent-talking-about-254453

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Diane Colombelli-Négrel, Senior Lecturer, Animal Behaviour, Flinders University

When we think of bird songs, we often imagine a cheerful soundtrack during our morning walks. However, for birds, songs are much more than background music – they are crucial to attract a mate and defend a territory.

But what if a song could reveal something deeper about the singer’s personality? A new study, published today in Royal Society Open Science by my colleagues and me, shows it might.

Addressing a research gap

For many bird species, songs vary in complexity, with some individuals producing more intricate melodies than others. Such differences often indicate individual variation in genetic quality, age, or health. Yet most research to date has focused on males, and very few studies have investigated how song complexity relates to personality in birds.

The new study addresses this research gap.

My colleagues and I studied wild superb fairy-wrens (Malurus cyaneus), a small Australian songbird known for its bright plumage and complex vocal skills. Interestingly, in this species, both males and females learn to sing complex songs. This makes them a good example to study the relationship between song complexity and personality in both males and females.

We captured wild superb fairy-wrens and brought them into short-term captivity to assess their personality. Specifically, we measured their exploration by placing them in a novel environment, where we observed where they went and how much they explored the environment.

We also tested their aggressiveness by using a mirror, as birds often see their reflection as a rival and respond accordingly.

We then released the birds and recorded their songs for several months to assess song complexity (that is, element types per song and syllables per song). Elements are the basic building blocks in bird songs (a little like letters in a word) and element types are categories of elements.

Aggressive versus exploratory

We found that, regardless of sex or life stage, birds that were more exploratory had more element types per song than those that were less exploratory. Also, more aggressive birds produced songs with fewer syllables than those that were less aggressive. You can hear this in the recordings below.

We also found that more aggressive fledglings, but not adults, had more element types per song.

Our study demonstrates that both males and females can advertise their personality through their songs. It also raises questions as to whom birds learn their songs from.

In superb fairy-wrens, male and female juveniles learn from both parents as well as from other members of their species. It is possible that rather than learning from any available adults, birds may selectively copy song elements from specific individuals based on their own personality.

In superb fairy-wrens, more exploratory birds may approach and learn from a wider range of tutors than less exploratory ones who may limit themselves to more familiar tutors.

Additionally, our study highlights that the relationship between personality and song complexity could be shifting between different life stages. More aggressive young may experiment with a greater diversity of element types to prepare for the establishment of their own territory in their first year of life, leading to increasing song complexity.

In contrast, adults have already settled in their territories and may not need to experiment as much.

Insights into how personality traits evolve

Our study illustrates that learned aspects of sexual signalling are personality dependent, and that this may have some potential implications for survival or reproduction.

This opens up exciting new questions about how vocal communication reflects individual differences — not just in males, but in females too.

Understanding these links can give us deeper insights into how personality traits evolve and how they influence social interactions in the wild.

Diane Colombelli-Négrel receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australia & Pacific Science Foundation.

– ref. Superb fairy-wrens’ songs hold clues to their personalities, new study finds – https://theconversation.com/superb-fairy-wrens-songs-hold-clues-to-their-personalities-new-study-finds-254472

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martín Boer-Cueva, Ecologist and Environmental Consultant, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

Over the past week, the media have been inundated with news of the “de-extinction” of the dire wolf (Aenocyon dirus) – a species that went extinct about 13,000 years ago.

The breakthrough has been achieved by Colossal Biosciences, a multibillion-dollar United States company that claims their goal is to restore biodiversity through the de-extinction of species.

The project is being celebrated and marketed as a conservation win. But does this technology really have the best interests of conservation in mind?

We argue as ecologists that genetic advancements like these, while they are major scientific and technological feats, still risk minimising the severity of the current extinction crisis.

Importantly, they take away focus from proven conservation efforts that are needed to protect the biodiversity that remains.

High-tech copies of wolves

First, it is important to recognise that Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi, the three “dire wolf” pups created, are not actually dire wolves.

Colossal carried out 20 edits in 14 genes of the grey wolf genome to create their “dire wolves” using a genetic technique called CRISPR-Cas9.

The grey wolf’s genome is 2,447,000,000 individual bases long. Would we consider a chimpanzee, with which we share 98.8% of our genome, to be human after 20 edits?

The reality is that these are three slightly modified grey wolves.

This de-extinction project has had millions of dollars poured into it – amounts of money most conservation programs could only dream of. There are proven solutions to help reverse biodiversity loss: habitat protection and restoration, the control of invasive species and the phasing out of fossil fuels.

However, these solutions are not slickly marketed as shiny, techno-fix packages like de-extinction. Instead, they are heavily underfunded.

Extinction is irreversible

Promoting extinction as reversible risks downplaying its gravity and legacy.

Headlines like the one that appeared on the front cover of TIME magazine – with the word “extinct” crossed out – seed a false hope that no matter what environmental damage is done, species loss can be easily undone.

The risk is that de-extinction will be used as an ultimate offset for any environmental impact.

Humans fear death. It is possibly our most primal instinct. We mourn and feel great sadness for the death of an individual, not only because they are gone, but because it is irreversible and final. Permanent.

That finality is the same for humans or any living animal. It is what makes fighting biodiversity loss such an urgent concern, so much so that people risk their lives to prevent it, with 150 wildlife rangers dying each year around the world in their fight to protect endangered species.

In the conservation movement, raising awareness of “martyr” species – like the northern white rhino and the passenger pigeon – helps underline the argument in favour of protecting current species. Framing extinction as temporary creates false hope and undermines motivation for real conservation action.

We might already be seeing this happen in response to the “de-extinction” of the dire wolf. Interior Secretary of the Trump administration, Doug Burgum, praised the new biotechnology advancement and used it as an argument for the removal of the US Endangered Species Act.

What good is bringing back species if there are no protective laws to address the drivers of their declines?

Would we protect the dire wolf even if it did come back?

It is deeply ironic that while millions are being spent recreating a dire wolf proxy, its cousin, the grey wolf, is heavily persecuted globally. Just last month, the Spanish government voted to overturn the legal protection that prevented wolves from being hunted north of the Duero River.

Other predators are affected, too. In Australia, the dingo, which has been shown to suppress invasive cats and red foxes, helping native biodiversity, is also heavily persecuted – just like the thylacine or Tasmanian tiger was, which Colossal aims to de-extinct as well.

If we can’t safeguard or protect habitat for apex predators today, in ecosystems that are already under immense pressure, what kind of world would we be bringing extinct species back into? Up to 150 species are considered to go extinct every day. No amount of genetic tech will solve this unless we address the root causes: habitat destruction, over-exploitation and climate change.

The de-extinction of the dire wolf may sound like a conservation breakthrough, but it risks distracting us from the protection of our current living species. This approach turns biodiversity conservation into a billionaire’s Jurassic Park fantasy instead of addressing the crisis we already know how to fix.

Dieter Hochuli receives funding from the Australian Research Council, NSW Department of Planning and Environment, the City of Sydney and the Inner West Council. He is President-Elect of the Ecological Society of Australia.

Marco Salvatori receives funding from European Union BIODIVERSA+ program.

Peter Banks receives funding from the Australian Research Council, The NSW Environmental Trust and the Australian Forests and Wood Initiative.

Martín Boer-Cueva 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. ‘De-extinction’ of dire wolves promotes false hope: technology can’t undo extinction – https://theconversation.com/de-extinction-of-dire-wolves-promotes-false-hope-technology-cant-undo-extinction-254479

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate E. Williams, Professor of Education, University of the Sunshine Coast

Many teachers and parents know neuroscience, the study of how the brain functions and develops, is important for children’s education.

Brain development is recommended as part of teacher education in universities. Neuroscience is even mentioned in Australia’s “early years framework”, which guides early childhood programs.

Previous research has shown there are misunderstandings about how neuroscience works (or “neuromyths”) among teachers both in Australia and overseas.

Our new study shows there are also some widespread neuromyths among early childhood educators.

What are the myths? And what does the evidence say?

Our research

We surveyed more than 520 Australian early childhood educators in 2022 to understand their neuroscience knowledge.

We chose to study early childhood educators because there is a research gap in our understanding of those teaching and caring for younger children. The surveys were distributed online via multiple channels including email lists, social media and professional associations.

About 74% of respondents worked in a long daycare or a preschool/kindergarten (educating children in the final years before formal school). About 63% had either a bachelors degree or postgraduate qualification.

Our findings

We asked respondents whether various false statements were true, in order to assess their level of knowledge about neuroscience. The average correct score was 13.7 out of 27.

Some myths presented in our study were widely, and correctly, understood to be false. For example, more than 90% of respondents correctly identified “when we sleep our brains shut down” and “mental capacity is solely hereditary and cannot be changed by the environment or experience” as untrue.

But for other myths, most respondents were either unsure or believed the statement to be correct. For example:

• only 7% of respondents correctly identified “teaching to different learning styles will improve learning” as false.

• only 15% of respondents correctly identified “students are either left or right brained” as false.

This suggests educators need more evidence-based neuroscience content as part of their professional education and development. While some neuromyths may seem harmless, others can have real implications for teaching decisions and student learning.

What is the problem with these neuromyths?

Myth 1: ‘teaching to different learning styles will improve learning’

The idea of learning styles became popular in the 1970s. This argued students will show improved learning if they receive information in a very specific way. For example, “visual learners” need to see information to be able to learn, while “aural learners” need to hear it.

This has been recognised as a myth since the mid-2000s, but the idea of learning styles still persists among educators.

While people may have preferred ways of accessing information, there is no evidence learning suffers if information isn’t provided in this format. Research has also shown teachers’ ideas of a student’s learning style do not tend to match students’ self-reported preferences.

So teaching decisions made on assumed student “learning styles” may be flawed in any case.

Myth 2: ‘students are either left or right brained’

Another enduring idea is we have personality traits that are either right-brained (intuitive and creative) or left-brained (analytical and logical)

There is evidence some brain functions hang out a little more on one side of the brain than the other. For example, language is more on the left and attention is more on the right. However, there’s no evidence your personality or your aptitude comes particularly from the left or right brain hemisphere.

The harm in this myth comes from students thinking they are “more left-brained than right” and teachers reinforcing this view. And from here, young people might think they should just stick to humanities or just stick to maths or science.

This could rob a student of exploring multiple academic and career paths. Sure, some students will seem to really flourish as an artist, some as mathematicians and some as both. But we should not be labelling students, based on a neuromyth, potentially impacting self-confidence and their potential.

Kate E. Williams receives funding from the Australian Research Council, National Health and Medical Research Council, Queensland Government Department of Education, and Australian Government Department of Social Services. She is affiliated with Play Matters Australia as Chair of the Board of Directors.

– ref. Students are neither left nor right brained: how some early childhood educators get this ‘neuromyth’ and others wrong – https://theconversation.com/students-are-neither-left-nor-right-brained-how-some-early-childhood-educators-get-this-neuromyth-and-others-wrong-248888

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Niven Winchester, Professor of Economics, Auckland University of Technology

Forecasting the potential impact of Donald Trump’s turbulent tariff policies is a fraught business – and fraught for business. The United States president has changed, paused and exempted various categories of goods so often, the only certainty is uncertainty.

On “Liberation Day” (April 2) he famously announced far-reaching “reciprocal tariffs” on imports from most trading nations. Since then he has paused those tariffs, but kept 25% on imports of steel, aluminium and motor vehicles, and 10% “baseline” tariffs on all other imports.

The big exception is China, whose retaliation against the reciprocal US tariffs has resulted in an escalating trade war between the world’s two largest economies.

On April 9, the US raised tariffs on Chinese goods to 145%, but later scaled back duties on electronic goods such as laptops and smartphones to 20%. On April 12, China increased its tariff on US goods to 125%.

With China being New Zealand’s largest trade partner by far, and the US its third largest (just behind Australia), the impacts of this global standoff will be indirect but nevertheless significant.

GDP impacts of a trade war

To estimate the impacts of a US-China trade war, as well as other tariffs imposed by the US, I use the same global model of production, trade and consumption of goods and services employed to recently calculate the impacts of the Liberation Day tariffs.

As we can see, China and the US both lose from the tariff war. China’s GDP decreases by US$114 billion (0.58%), which equates to $236 per household per year on average. US GDP declines by $76 billion (0.25%) or $604 per household (all figures in US$).

The tariffs all but eliminate trade in goods between China and the US, except for electronic goods exported from China, which are subject to a lower tariff (for now).

Vietnam and India gain from the trade war because they produce many goods that substitute for Chinese products in the US market.

The trade war will affect New Zealand in at least three ways:

• as the two nations buy less from each other, there is room for other nations to expand their exports to these markets

• decreased incomes in China and the US will reduce global demand for all goods

• and the tariffs will increase the costs of global supply chains.

The net effect is a 0.03% decrease in New Zealand’s GDP, equivalent to $70 million or $36 per household per year (roughly NZ$120 million and NZ$60 respectively).

Reshaping of the world economy

The simulations do not capture the impact of uncertainty caused by Trump’s frequent and abrupt changes in tariffs, carve-outs and clarifications (sometimes announced via social media).

The global US Trade Policy Uncertainty Index, last updated before the Liberation Day tariffs, is at a record high – 29 times higher than before the 2024 presidential election. This unprecedented uncertainty, coupled with the risk of high tariffs, is making exporters increasingly reluctant to commit to the US market.

The US currently accounts for 26.3% of global GDP. With higher future growth in many developing economies, especially in Asia, this is forecast to fall to 16.3% by 2050.

China is predicted to supplant the US as the world’s largest economy sometime in the 2030s, and by 2050 to account for 18.4% of global GDP (up from 16.9%).

India’s global GDP share is expected to increase significantly, from its current value of 3.7% to 9.7%. Indonesia and Philippines are also expected to grow rapidly.

New Zealand signed a free trade agreement with China in 2008 (and an upgrade to the agreement in 2022), has begun negotiations for one with India, and has regional agreements with many other rapidly developing Asian economies.

It remains to be seen whether Trump’s rollout of high tariffs signals a lasting policy shift or is merely a negotiating tactic to secure more favourable terms for US exporters. But New Zealand is well placed to pivot to alternative markets if needed.

Niven Winchester has previously received funding from the Productivity Commission and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to estimate the impacts of potential trade policies. He is affiliated with Motu Economic & Public Policy Research.

– ref. US-China trade war leaves NZ worse off, but still well placed to weather the storm – new modelling – https://theconversation.com/us-china-trade-war-leaves-nz-worse-off-but-still-well-placed-to-weather-the-storm-new-modelling-254469

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Sussex, Associate Professor (Adj), Griffith Asia Institute; and Fellow, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University

A news report that Russia has sought to base long-range aircraft in Indonesia caught Australia’s political leaders by surprise during an already hectic election campaign.

The military publication Janes reported on Tuesday that Russia had requested permission for its aircraft to be based at the Manuhua Air Force Base in Indonesia’s easternmost province of Papua.

The base is just 1,300 kilometres away from Darwin.

Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles issued a statement denying the report, saying his Indonesian counterpart assured him there would be no Russian planes based in Indonesia. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he was seeking “further clarification” with Jakarta about the Janes report.

Janes is a respected outlet when it comes to defence news, so it’s likely the Russians did float the idea, even if it might have been done at lower levels.

Why would Russia be cosying up to Indonesia?

Since Prabowo Subianto came to power as Indonesia’s new president last October, Moscow and Jakarta have sought to deepen their military ties. In fact, the two countries conducted their first-ever joint naval exercises a month after Prabowo took office.

But this isn’t a totally new strategy by Moscow, which has tried on numerous occasions to pivot to Asia to give itself more economic heft and leverage in the region.

The Kremlin is also cognisant that Europe won’t be a friend for the foreseeable future. As such, it’s even more pressing for Russia to establish itself as a player in the Indo-Pacific region – and with that comes a miltary and security presence.

About ten years ago, for instance, the Russian regime secured an agreement with Vietnam to allow its air force to refuel their aircraft at a former US base in the country. Russia also had interest in reestablishing a submarine base in Vietnam and has sold submarines to the country.

In addition, Moscow has sought to sell defence technology and fighter jets to Indonesia for some time, seeing it as a potentially lucrative market for Russian arms. Beyond defence, the bilateral relationship has also focused on energy and education.

These attempts to deepen Moscow-Jakarta ties form part of a targeted Russian campaign to boost its relationships with a number of Southeast Asian nations.

What about the timing?

If the Janes report is accurate, the timing of the purported approach from Russia would be interesting. The report said it came after a meeting between Sergei Shoigu (recently demoted from Russia’s defence minister to an inferior role as secretary of the Russian Security Council) and Indonesia’s defence minister in February of this year.

At the time, the United States was distracted by the first chaotic weeks of US President Donald Trump’s second term in office.

So, if Russia did make such a request, it would be highly opportunistic, especially given Jakarta has been keen to deepen ties with Moscow.

It is also noteworthy that Indonesia recently joined the BRICS, the group of rapidly emerging economies that also includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, and Russia, among others.

Read more:
Indonesia’s BRICS agenda: 2 reasons Prabowo’s foreign policy contrasts with Jokowi’s

How concerned should Australia be?

Even though both Canberra and Jakarta dismissed the report, there was good reason for Australia to be concerned.

Russia’s long-range aviation assets, notably the venerable Tu-95, which is used for reconnaissance as well as strategic bombing, can easily travel over 10,000 kilometres.

From a base in Indonesia, this would give the Russian air force the ability to conduct ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaisance) missions during Australian military exercises, gather data on military installations in the Northern Territory (which also host US Marines), and even conduct surveillance on US military activities in Guam.

Equally, given the closeness of ties between Beijing and Moscow, any Russian intelligence that was gathered could be shared with China.

The reported Russian military interest in Indonesia will also have irritated Australian foreign policy makers, especially since Canberra has invested significant diplomatic capital in boosting Australia-Indonesia ties.

Fortunately, the closeness of the relationship, which includes recently upgraded defence ties, will also have allowed for some plain speaking from Australian interlocutors.

They will doubtless have pointed out that agreeing to any such Kremlin request would cast significant doubt on Indonesian claims about non-alignment. It would also be viewed unfavourably by other regional actors, who have no interest in seeing an enhanced Russian military presence in the region.

The assurance from Jakarta that no Russian planes would be based in Indonesia is therefore a positive development.

But ultimately the reported Russian request is another example of the messy and fragmented world we now live in.

It highlights the reality that Australia will sometimes have to do business with partners who have friends we don’t like. Under those conditions, being firm on issues that threaten our national interests – like the prospective basing of military assets by a hostile power close to our shores – becomes all the more important.

Matthew Sussex has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Atlantic Council, the Fulbright Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, the Lowy Institute and various Australian government departments and agencies.

– ref. Does Russia have military interest in Indonesia? Here’s what we know – and why Australia would be concerned – https://theconversation.com/does-russia-have-military-interest-in-indonesia-heres-what-we-know-and-why-australia-would-be-concerned-254601

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

For a few hours on Tuesday afternoon, it seemed just possible the Russians might be sending their planes to a base very near us.

A claim on the military and intelligence site Janes that said the Russians were seeking to base several long range aircraft in Papua, a province of Indonesia, caused a massive flurry on the election trail.

It gave heart to Opposition Leader Peter Dutton that national security might be brought into play as an election issue.

Dutton was quick to recall how in 2022 the Labor opposition jumped on the Morrison government for apparently being caught by surprise at what was going on in the Pacific, when a security agreement between China and the Solomon Islands turned into a campaign issue.

Had the Albanese government been caught unawares?

The Janes report said: “Jakarta has received an official request from Moscow, seeking permission for Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) aircraft to be based at a facility in Indonesia’s easternmost province.

“Separate sources from the Indonesian government have confirmed with Janes that the request was received by the office of Minister of Defence Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin following his meeting with Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Sergei Shoigu in February 2025.

“In the request, Russia seeks to base several long-range aircraft at the Manuhua Air Force Base, which shares a runway with the Frans Kaisiepo Airport, documents that have been presented to Janes reveal.

“The airbase is situated in Biak Numfor in the Indonesian province of Papua, and it is home to the Indonesian Air Force’s Aviation Squadron 27, which operates a fleet of CN235 surveillance aircraft.”

The government sought urgent clarification, while Dutton – now struggling in the polls – sought to score a quick political point without waiting for confirmation. Both government and opposition agreed on one thing, however: nobody wanted to see the Russians get such a foothold.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said, “We are seeking further information, we obviously do not want to see Russian influence in our region, very clearly.”

“We have a good relationship with our friends in Indonesia, and we’re seeking further clarification.”

Dutton said it would be “a catastrophic failure of diplomatic relations if Penny Wong and Anthony Albanese didn’t have forewarning” about such a Russian move before it was made public.

“This is a very, very troubling development. The prime minister and the foreign affairs minister should have the depth of relationship with Indonesia to have had forewarning of this,” Dutton said.

“My message to President Putin is that he’s not welcome in our neighbourhood. We don’t share any values with President Putin, and we do not want a presence, a military presence, from Russia in our region, which would be destabilising for south-east Asia.”

Late Tuesday, the air went out of the balloon.

In a statement Defence Minister Richard Marles said, “I have spoken to my counterpart, HE Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin the Minister for Defence, and he has said to me in the clearest possible terms, reports of the prospect of Russian aircraft operating from Indonesia are simply not true”.

Earlier Marles said that last year Australia signed a defence cooperation agreement with Indonesia, “which really is the deepest level defence agreement we’ve ever had with Indonesia”.

“We are seeing increasing cooperation between Australia and Indonesia at a defence level.”

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: for a few hours, it seemed possible the Russians might be coming – https://theconversation.com/election-diary-for-a-few-hours-it-seemed-possible-the-russians-might-be-coming-254604

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aaron J. Snoswell, Research Fellow in AI Accountability, Queensland University of Technology

Earlier this year, scientists discovered a peculiar term appearing in published papers: “vegetative electron microscopy”.

This phrase, which sounds technical but is actually nonsense, has become a “digital fossil” – an error preserved and reinforced in artificial intelligence (AI) systems that is nearly impossible to remove from our knowledge repositories.

Like biological fossils trapped in rock, these digital artefacts may become permanent fixtures in our information ecosystem.

The case of vegetative electron microscopy offers a troubling glimpse into how AI systems can perpetuate and amplify errors throughout our collective knowledge.

A bad scan and an error in translation

Vegetative electron microscopy appears to have originated through a remarkable coincidence of unrelated errors.

First, two papers from the 1950s, published in the journal Bacteriological Reviews, were scanned and digitised.

However, the digitising process erroneously combined “vegetative” from one column of text with “electron” from another. As a result, the phantom term was created.

Decades later, “vegetative electron microscopy” turned up in some Iranian scientific papers. In 2017 and 2019, two papers used the term in English captions and abstracts.

This appears to be due to a translation error. In Farsi, the words for “vegetative” and “scanning” differ by only a single dot.

An error on the rise

The upshot? As of today, “vegetative electron microscopy” appears in 22 papers, according to Google Scholar. One was the subject of a contested retraction from a Springer Nature journal, and Elsevier issued a correction for another.

The term also appears in news articles discussing subsequent integrity investigations.

Vegetative electron microscopy began to appear more frequently in the 2020s. To find out why, we had to peer inside modern AI models – and do some archaeological digging through the vast layers of data they were trained on.

Empirical evidence of AI contamination

The large language models behind modern AI chatbots such as ChatGPT are “trained” on huge amounts of text to predict the likely next word in a sequence. The exact contents of a model’s training data are often a closely guarded secret.

To test whether a model “knew” about vegetative electron microscopy, we input snippets of the original papers to find out if the model would complete them with the nonsense term or more sensible alternatives.

The results were revealing. OpenAI’s GPT-3 consistently completed phrases with “vegetative electron microscopy”. Earlier models such as GPT-2 and BERT did not. This pattern helped us isolate when and where the contamination occurred.

We also found the error persists in later models including GPT-4o and Anthropic’s Claude 3.5. This suggests the nonsense term may now be permanently embedded in AI knowledge bases.

By comparing what we know about the training datasets of different models, we identified the CommonCrawl dataset of scraped internet pages as the most likely vector where AI models first learned this term.

The scale problem

Finding errors of this sort is not easy. Fixing them may be almost impossible.

One reason is scale. The CommonCrawl dataset, for example, is millions of gigabytes in size. For most researchers outside large tech companies, the computing resources required to work at this scale are inaccessible.

Another reason is a lack of transparency in commercial AI models. OpenAI and many other developers refuse to provide precise details about the training data for their models. Research efforts to reverse engineer some of these datasets have also been stymied by copyright takedowns.

When errors are found, there is no easy fix. Simple keyword filtering could deal with specific terms such as vegetative electron microscopy. However, it would also eliminate legitimate references (such as this article).

More fundamentally, the case raises an unsettling question. How many other nonsensical terms exist in AI systems, waiting to be discovered?

Implications for science and publishing

This “digital fossil” also raises important questions about knowledge integrity as AI-assisted research and writing become more common.

Publishers have responded inconsistently when notified of papers including vegetative electron microscopy. Some have retracted affected papers, while others defended them. Elsevier notably attempted to justify the term’s validity before eventually issuing a correction.

We do not yet know if other such quirks plague large language models, but it is highly likely. Either way, the use of AI systems has already created problems for the peer-review process.

For instance, observers have noted the rise of “tortured phrases” used to evade automated integrity software, such as “counterfeit consciousness” instead of “artificial intelligence”. Additionally, phrases such as “I am an AI language model” have been found in other retracted papers.

Some automatic screening tools such as Problematic Paper Screener now flag vegetative electron microscopy as a warning sign of possible AI-generated content. However, such approaches can only address known errors, not undiscovered ones.

Living with digital fossils

The rise of AI creates opportunities for errors to become permanently embedded in our knowledge systems, through processes no single actor controls. This presents challenges for tech companies, researchers, and publishers alike.

Tech companies must be more transparent about training data and methods. Researchers must find new ways to evaluate information in the face of AI-generated convincing nonsense. Scientific publishers must improve their peer review processes to spot both human and AI-generated errors.

Digital fossils reveal not just the technical challenge of monitoring massive datasets, but the fundamental challenge of maintaining reliable knowledge in systems where errors can become self-perpetuating.

Aaron J. Snoswell receives funding from the Australian Research Council funded Discovery Project “Generative AI and the future of academic writing and publishing” (DP250100074) and has previously received research funding from OpenAI.

Kevin Witzenberger receives funding from the Australian Research Council funded Discovery Project “Generative AI and the future of academic writing and publishing” (DP250100074)

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

– ref. A weird phrase is plaguing scientific papers – and we traced it back to a glitch in AI training data – https://theconversation.com/a-weird-phrase-is-plaguing-scientific-papers-and-we-traced-it-back-to-a-glitch-in-ai-training-data-254463

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Moataz ElQadi, Adjunct Researcher, Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University

Our personal information is more valuable than ever. The most recent government cyber threat report warns that foreign state actors have an “enduring interest” in obtaining sensitive and personally identifiable information about Australians.

In recent weeks, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese noted “there is a cyber attack in Australia roughly every six minutes. This is a regular issue.”

In some situations, it can be difficult to protect our info even when we’re aware of the risks. Notably, in Australia many rental providers and their agents collect, store and disclose excessive personal information on potential tenants. Sometimes, they collect more info than what’s needed to get a government security clearance.

With about one-third of Australian households being renters, the handling of renters’ data is a major concern for Australia’s information security.

So what information are real estate agents collecting, and how can we mitigate the risks?

Steep competition for rentals

For several years now, Australia has faced a rental crisis. Low vacancy rates – below 1% in some capital cities – not only drive up rental prices, but can result in “bidding wars” over rentals.

With renters competing for housing, rental providers are empowered to command larger rent increases. They also require potential tenants to provide extensive personal information.

For tenants, sharing – or oversharing – of personal information in the hope of securing a home might seem acceptable.

However, the collection and handling of this information raises serious security concerns. If Australians’ sensitive personal data falls into the hands of cyber criminals, or foreign agents, this has security implications for the entire nation.

What info are renters asked for?

Potential tenants need to provide information to the satisfaction of the real estate agent and their client, the rental provider. This information is increasingly collected online via rental application websites where the form questions are controlled by real estate agents.

The websites themselves are subject to the Australian Privacy Act 1988, but the data is handed over to real estate agents and owners.

The rental application websites seem to recognise that this information is extensive: one rental application website started selling a privacy service where they vouch for the applicant instead of sharing their information with the real estate agents.

In some cases, the requested data matches or even exceeds the requirements for a government security clearance. The Australian Government Security Vetting Agency (AGSVA) has a clear public privacy statement. It explains how data is collected and handled and used only for the assessment of a security clearance. Rental providers don’t necessarily follow the same stringent rules.

Information collected by some rental application forms may include five or more years of address history. Others request five or more years of employment history. In addition, financial information such as payslips and bank statements are also required.

Other sensitive – and irrelevant – information includes vehicle registration numbers and pet names.

Potential tenants are also usually asked to attach personal identification documents including passports, driver licences and Medicare cards. They may be asked to list up to two personal and one business references.

If any of this information falls into the wrong hands, it easily exposes the person to social engineering, personalised scams or identity and account theft.

Who can access the info?

The names of family members and pet names are a common – albeit unsafe – choice of password. The rental application forms collect both. In Australia, research by Telstra and YouGov found that 20% of Australians used pets’ names as passwords, and 17% used their birth dates.

If a rental provider, or their agent, shares applicant information with others, it can be a security breach. This makes the storage, handling and sharing of this information by private rental providers a major concern.

Rental agency agreements commonly state that personal information can be disclosed to “any person who maintains any record, listing or database of defaults by tenants.” This policy, which a tenant has to accept, is already loose.

More importantly, after the information is sent to the owner of the rental property, there is no visibility as to who that is, or what they do with the information.

Too much info to rent a home

Having to share extensive personal information is more than an inconvenience for renters – it’s a serious security concern. The government should put explicit limits on personal information requested by rental providers.

One technological solution to this problem could be “access tokens” provided by banks. People in Australia are protected by the Consumer Data Right. This allows consumers to authorise a data holder, such as a bank, to share data with an accredited recipient.

Australian banks are held to strict information security requirements. They already handle highly sensitive data, such as client identity, income sources and other financial information.

If real estate agents require proof of this info to vet potential rental applicants, they could request it through an authorisation token with the applicant’s bank. This way, proof of identity and financial status could be shared without having to disclose actual sensitive personal information, limiting the cyber security risk.

In the meantime, rental providers and their agents should request the least possible amount of personal information – it’s the responsible thing to do.

The article gives the example of the Consumer Data Right, a government standard managed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). Moataz ElQadi worked previously for the ACCC, in a different team.

– ref. Renting a home in Australia means handing over too much sensitive info. It’s a national security risk – https://theconversation.com/renting-a-home-in-australia-means-handing-over-too-much-sensitive-info-its-a-national-security-risk-254293

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lester Munson, Non-Resident Fellow, United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney

After announcing Liberation Day – stiff “retaliatory” tariffs on every country and penguin-inhabited island in the world – US President Donald Trump rescinded the vast majority of tariffs eight days later when stock and bond markets crashed.

He followed that with more exemptions for phones, computers and computer chips two days later. Ten percent tariffs remain across the board, along with rates up to 145% on China.

Is Trump aligned with previous Reagan on tariffs?

As with anything related to Trump, perceptions overwhelm reality. Trump’s showmanship – call him a carnival barker if you must – obfuscates what is really happening.

Trump is seen as a protectionist and a populist. By comparison, former president Ronald Reagan was seen as a principled free trader and more ideologically conservative. Both images are misleading.

Reagan slapped tariffs on cars, steel, lumber, computers, computer chips, motorcycles, machine tools, even clothes pins. The great guru of free markets, Milton Friedman, is reported to have said that the Reagan administration has been “making Smoot-Hawley look positively benign.” (Smoot-Hawley was an infamous tariff law enacted in 1930 at the beginning of the Great Depression.)

Reagan went back and forth on tariffs, even attacking them in a radio address when Japan tried to impose them. At the end of the day, his record on the issue was as mixed as that of any American president.

Trump’s politics, if not his showmanship, look a lot more like traditional Republican approaches in the cold light of day. The showmanship – provocative statements, grand exaggerations, outright falsehoods and even stand-up-comic-like aspects – is purposeful.

Keeping Republicans united

The main goal of Trump’s tariff showmanship, largely unreported in the press, is keeping congressional Republicans unified as he pushes his domestic policy agenda of lower taxes, budget cuts, expanded energy production and tougher immigration policies.

Congressional Republicans have been working for months on legislating this agenda through the complex budget reconciliation process. This legislative process is difficult and involves passing budget resolutions through the Senate and the House on a specific schedule. This process is required because it allows for a path around the 60-vote filibuster in the Senate. With only 53 Republican senators and a Democratic Party that is committed to resisting Trump on almost every policy choice, Trump needs the reconciliation process to work this year.

In one sense, all of Trump’s activities since his inauguration – the “waste”-cutting DOGE, spending cuts, ending foreign aid programs, laying off federal workers – have given him the political space with congressional Republicans, particularly fiscal conservatives, to advance his legislative agenda. It is important to know that Congressional Republicans have been ungovernable for quite some time.

Over the past ten years, there have been five Republican Speakers of the House – John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, Patrick McHenry (acting) and now Mike Johnson. This unprecedented turnover is caused by a virtually unmanageable Republican coalition of mainstream business-oriented conservatives and the fiscal hawks who generally populate the Freedom Caucus. The Freedom Caucus is more than willing to vote against other Republicans – indeed they are proud of it. Because of this, speaker after speaker has had to reach out to Democrats for votes to pass legislation, ultimately dooming their time in the position.

Trump has managed to keep this ungovernable group of House Republicans united, and this may be his true political gift.

To achieve this, he has engaged in a comprehensive campaign of maximum pressure on just about everything: Canada, Greenland, NATO, Europe, China, Ukraine, American universities, federal workers, illegal immigrants, big law firms and even paper straws.

Congressional Republicans, in appreciation of this shock and awe campaign, have stayed united. This means Trump’s legislative agenda can move forward.

With his global tariff plan, Trump saw Republicans beginning to defect. In one Senate vote in April, four Republicans sided with Democrats against tariffs on Canada. Senator Ted Cruz warned that Republicans might lose the 2026 election because of tariffs. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the oldest senator and one of the most conservative, indicated he would support bringing tariff authority back to Congress and away from the president.

Trump can read a room as well as anyone. When he saw Republican unity was at risk because of his tariff plan, he quickly pivoted to a much more moderate version. While Trump’s grandiosity is often highly criticised, it is that quality that gives him the ability to keep his party together, and therefore to govern.

Sparking panic among Democrats

The other major effect of Trump’s tariffs strategy is to sow discord among his opponents.

Democrats, who want to criticise Trump but know their own party has often endorsed tariffs in the past, are reeling. Democratic Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer said she understood Trump’s “motivation behind the tariffs” and even agreed with Trump that we “need to make more stuff in America”. She was immediately criticised by fellow Democrats.

Hakeem Jeffries, the top Democrat in the House of Representatives, tried a slightly more aggressive anti-Trump approach. He said:

Tariffs, when properly utilized, have a role to play in trying to make sure that you have a competitive environment for our workers and our businesses. That’s not what’s going on right now. This is a reckless economic sledgehammer that Donald Trump and compliant Republicans in the Congress are taking to the economy, and the American people are being hurt enough.

This response won’t help Democrats climb out of their deep hole of unpopularity, measured last month at an historic low.

Lester Munson receives funding from the U.S. Studies Centre at the University of Sydney.

– ref. Trump’s tariffs rollercoaster is really about Republican unity – https://theconversation.com/trumps-tariffs-rollercoaster-is-really-about-republican-unity-254471