Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jenny Graves, Distinguished Professor of Genetics and Vice Chancellor’s Fellow, La Trobe University

Men tend to lose the Y chromosome from their cells as they age. But because the Y bears few genes other than for male determination, it was thought this loss would not affect health.

But evidence has mounted over the past few years that when people who have a Y chromosome lose it, the loss is associated with serious diseases throughout the body, contributing to a shorter lifespan.

Loss of the Y in older men

New techniques to detect Y chromosome genes show frequent loss of the Y in tissues of older men. The increase with age is clear: 40% of 60-year-old men show loss of Y, but 57% of 90-year-olds. Environmental factors such as smoking and exposure to carcinogens also play a role.

Loss of Y occurs only in some cells, and their descendants never get it back. This creates a mosaic of cells with and without a Y in the body. Y-less cells grow faster than normal cells in culture, suggesting they may have an advantage in the body – and in tumours.

The Y chromosome is particularly prone to mistakes during cell division – it can be left behind in a little bag of membrane that gets lost. So we would expect that tissues with rapidly dividing cells would suffer more from loss of Y.

Why should loss of the gene-poor Y matter?

The human Y is an odd little chromosome, bearing only 51 protein-coding genes (not counting multiple copies), compared with the thousands on other chromosomes. It plays crucial roles in sex determination and sperm function, but was not thought to do much else.

The Y chromosome is frequently lost when cells are cultured in the lab. It is the only chromosome that can be lost without killing the cell. This suggests no specific functions encoded by Y genes are necessary for cellular growth and function.

Indeed, males of some marsupial species jettison the Y chromosome early in their development, and evolution seems to be rapidly dispensing with it. In mammals, the Y has been degrading for 150 million years and has already been lost and replaced in some rodents.

So the loss of Y in body tissue late in life should surely not be a drama.

Association of loss of Y with health problems

Despite its apparent uselessness to most cells in the body, evidence is accumulating that loss of Y is associated with severe health conditions, including cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases and cancer.

Loss of Y frequency in kidney cells is associated with kidney disease.

Several studies now show a relationship between loss of Y and cardiac disease. For instance, a very large German study found men over 60 with high frequencies of loss of Y had an increased risk of heart attacks.

Loss of Y has also been linked to death from COVID, which might explain the sex difference in mortality. A tenfold higher frequency of loss of Y has been found in Alzheimer’s disease patients.

Several studies have documented associations of loss of Y with various cancers in men. It is also associated with a poorer outcome for those who do have cancer. Loss of Y is common in cancer cells themselves, among other chromosome anomalies.

Does loss of Y cause disease and mortality in older men?

Figuring out what causes the links between loss of Y and health problems is difficult. They might occur because health problems cause loss of Y, or perhaps a third factor might cause both.

Even strong associations can’t prove causation. The association with kidney or heart disease could result from rapid cell division during organ repair, for instance.

Cancer associations might reflect a genetic predisposition for genome instability. Indeed, whole genome association studies show loss of Y frequency is about one-third genetic, involving 150 identified genes largely involved in cell cycle regulation and cancer susceptibility.

However, one mouse study points to a direct effect. Researchers transplanted Y-deficient blood cells into irradiated mice, which then displayed increased frequencies of age-related pathologies including poorer cardiac function and subsequent heart failure.

Similarly, loss of Y from cancer cells seems to affect cell growth and malignancy directly, possibly driving eye melanoma, which is more frequent in men.

Role of the Y in body cells

The clinical effects of loss of Y suggest the Y chromosome has important functions in body cells. But given how few genes it hosts, how?

The male-determining SRY gene found on the Y is expressed widely in the body. But the only effect ascribed to its activity in the brain is complicity in causing Parkinson’s disease. And four genes essential for making sperm are active only in the testis.

But among the other 46 genes on the Y, several are widely expressed and have essential functions in gene activity and regulation. Several are known cancer suppressors.

These genes all have copies on the X chromosome, so both males and females have two copies. It may be that the absence of a second copy in Y-less cells causes some kind of dysregulation.

As well as these protein-coding genes, the Y contains many non-coding genes. These are transcribed into RNA molecules, but never translated into proteins. At least some of these non-coding genes seem to control the function of other genes.

This might explain why the Y chromosome can affect the activity of genes on many other chromosomes. Loss of Y affects expression of some genes in the cells that make blood cells, as well as others that regulate immune function. It may also indirectly affect differentiation of blood cell types and heart function.

The DNA of the human Y was only fully sequenced a couple of years ago – so in time we may track down how particular genes cause these negative health effects.

Jenny Graves receives funding from The Australian Research Council.

– ref. Men lose their Y chromosome as they age. Scientists thought it didn’t matter – but now we’re learning more – https://theconversation.com/men-lose-their-y-chromosome-as-they-age-scientists-thought-it-didnt-matter-but-now-were-learning-more-275823

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julian Koplin, Lecturer in Bioethics, Monash University & Honorary fellow, Melbourne Law School, Monash University

It rarely takes long before new media technologies are turned to the task of creating pornography. This was true of the printing press, photography, and the earliest days of the internet. It’s also true of generative artificial intelligence (AI).

Face-swapping tech has been around for more than a decade. It almost immediately gave rise to “deepfakes” – fake, yet convincing images and videos of people.

Generative AI has supercharged the spread of deepfake pornography, making it easier than ever to fabricate explicit pictures and videos of others.

And it’s not just celebrities who are victimised. Deepfake nudes of classmates and teachers are rife in schools around the world, sometimes targeting children as young as 11. Image-based abuse is widespread, and victims say the law doesn’t offer enough protection.

So what does the law say about this? And even when not illegal, is it ever ethical to use this technology for one’s private fantasies?

Deepfake pornography and the law

In 2024, Australia amended its criminal code to explicitly include AI-generated porn in the law against distributing sexual material of others without their consent. As a result, digitally manipulated sexual imagery of others now falls within the same legal category as genuine photographs or video footage.

There are gaps in this legislation. Most notably, the relevant offence prohibits transmitting such material via a carriage service (such as the internet). But there is no standalone offence for creating such material. Only sharing is explicitly prohibited.

There is some ambiguity here. Many AI tools used to create sexual imagery are online services. To use them, you send data to the service, which then sends sexual imagery back. It’s unclear whether this counts as “transmitting” sexual material in the relevant legal sense.

Also, the offence requires that the person distributing the sexual material is either aware the target did not consent to its distribution, or is reckless as to whether they consented. But what, exactly, does “reckless” mean?

If Neera created deepfake pornography of Julian without even considering whether he would consent, this would be reckless. But what if Neera claimed that she (wrongly) assumed Julian wouldn’t mind because the footage isn’t a true depiction of him? Would this count as “reckless” in the relevant legal sense? This, too, remains unclear.

Legal doesn’t make it ethical

As the law doesn’t clearly prohibit private creation and use of deepfake pornography, individuals must make their own moral choices.

Moreover, the law has only a limited impact on how people behave online. Internet piracy is known to be illegal but remains widespread, presumably because people are aware they probably won’t be punished for it and don’t think piracy is a serious moral wrong.

By contrast, many people have the strong intuition that even private use of deepfake pornography is wrong. But it’s surprisingly difficult to articulate why. After all, far fewer people morally condemn others for having private sexual fantasies of celebrities, acquaintances or strangers.

If private fantasies are not seriously wrong, is computer-assisted fantasising any different?

The case for privacy

Most commonly, deepfake pornography has been described as a privacy violation. It’s easy to see the appeal of this view. AI outputs appear to depict, in concrete form, what somebody looks like unclothed, or engaged in sex.

Some victims report a sense that others have “seen them naked”, or that the outputs feel like “real images”. This seems more invasive of privacy than an image held only in someone’s imagination.

However, there is a problem with the privacy argument.

AI tools can swap a person’s face onto existing porn footage or generate entirely new imagery from patterns learned during training. What they can’t do is depict what the person is actually like. The deepfakes look convincing because most human bodies are roughly similar in ways that matter for sexualised imagery.

This matters because sexual privacy concerns information that is particular to us – such as identifying details about our bodies, or how we express ourselves sexually.

Assumptions we make based on generic facts about humans are different. You can violate someone’s privacy by sharing specific details from their sexual history. You can’t violate their privacy by announcing they probably have nipples, and probably sometimes have sex.

This distinction is not trivial. AI “nudify” apps offer the fantasy that the AI tool allows access to another person’s body without their consent. And if we think deepfake porn is offering genuinely personal information about its targets, that makes the deepfakes more harmful. It’s a misconception that shouldn’t be encouraged.

It’s still morally wrong

We are not suggesting that private creation of deepfake pornography is morally benign.

It might not violate a person’s privacy, and it might not break the law. But people also have a broader interest in how they’re depicted and seen by others. Deepfake porn is vivid and can be visually convincing. If someone sees such imagery of you, their view of you can be distorted more than if they were just fantasising in their head.

It is also well established that many people find others viewing deepfaked sexual depictions of them psychologically and emotionally ruinous. That alone is sufficient reason to condemn the use of these tools.

While powerful in some respects, AI tools can’t reveal the genuinely private aspects of our sexual lives. But their use for deepfake porn remains a small-minded and morally unjustifiable act of disrespect.

Neera Bhatia has previously received funding from the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council for an unrelated project.

Julian Koplin 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. Non-consensual AI porn doesn’t violate privacy – but it’s still wrong – https://theconversation.com/non-consensual-ai-porn-doesnt-violate-privacy-but-its-still-wrong-275095

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

After she was trounced in Friday’s Liberal ballot, Sussan Ley addressed the media with a speech that was gracious in defeat, but came with an announcement new Liberal leader Angus Taylor would not have wanted.

Ley’s decision to quit parliament means a byelection in her New South Wales regional seat of Farrer, set to see a contest between Liberals, Nationals, One Nation and at least one high profile community independent.

The result is unpredictable. Last election, independent candidate Michelle Milthorpe, who received some backing from Climate 200, polled strongly. Ley beat her on a two-candidate vote of 56-44%.

Milthorpe, a teacher, told The Conversation on Friday she will definitely stand in the byelection. “The electorate is looking for a voice outside the major parties that can speak to the real issues happening to us,” she said.

Pauline Hanson, with her party enjoying surging numbers in the opinion polls, was quick on Friday to announce One Nation would contest Farrer.

This is the former seat of one-time deputy prime minister, the late Tim Fischer. It includes the major centre of Albury and stretches to the South Australian border. Ley won it in 2001 from the Nationals, when Fischer retired. Nationals Leader David Littleproud will want to show his mettle to his party by fighting hard to get it back. That opens an interesting Liberal-Nationals dynamic.

Whichever partner holds it, the seat is conservative heartland. Certainly in present circumstances, the Coalition can’t afford to lose it.

While the numbers in the Ley-Taylor contest last May were close (29-25), on Friday some of Ley’s earlier supporters obviously deserted her, when she lost 17-34. This was no time for loyalty at all costs. The Liberals are in such a deep funk they have seized the opportunity to give the new leader the big margin he needed.

Taylor might have preferred to wait longer to challenge Ley, but in the event the timing, given the party’s mood, has probably suited him. Whether he can turn opportunity into results is quite another question. But at least he starts with no ambiguity in the result.

The vote has worked out well for Taylor in other ways. Victorian Senator Jane Hume’s election as deputy means there is both gender and factional balance in the new team.

The first is important after the pulling down of the party’s first female leader, as well as for the obvious reason of pitching to women voters. Without making inroads on the female vote, the Liberal Party can make little electoral progress. (The departure of Ley, incidentally, will leave the Liberals with only five women in the House of Representatives.)

The factional balance – Hume is a moderate, Taylor a conservative – helps calm internal party tensions and, electorally, gives some breadth to the leadership’s
new public face.

Taylor and Hume had a good personal relationship last term when he was shadow treasurer and she held the shadow finance job – though both were sub-optimal in their performances.

Hume made it clear when canvassing her colleagues for support for the deputy job that she would not seek to be shadow treasurer which, in practical terms, would be near impossible from the Senate. Who gets that position will be a very important choice for Taylor when he puts together his shadow ministry. Tim Wilson, who won back the Victorian teal seat of Goldstein, is an aggressive performer with endless energy, and should be a strong contender.

The Liberals are banking on Taylor being able to give them a so-called “reset”. But what he can do to make the Coalition’s pitch more appealing is far from clear, given the multiple constituencies it has to claw back.

Taylor arrives in the leadership with strong economic credentials and when the government is facing tough economic issues. Inflation, now 3.8%, is set to stay high. Interest rates have just gone up and are likely to do so again. This economic backdrop should play to Taylor’s advantages. But he will have to greatly sharpen his presentation to cut through to voters.

He is at home with a conventional dry economic line, for instance telling parliament this week: “We need less government, less spending, less taxes, less regulation and less regulators”.

But that sort of generalisation is too simplistic, too crude to be saleable to today’s voters.

At his news conference on Friday, Taylor gave an apology for a key mistake by the Liberals at the last election. “I’m particularly conscious that we got some big calls wrong – especially on personal income tax. And it won’t happen again,” he said, saying the Liberals would always be the party of lower taxes.

Taylor declared, “If an election was held today, our party may not exist by the end of it. We’re in this position because we didn’t stay true to our core values – because we stopped listening to Australians, because we were attracted to the politics of convenience rather than focusing on the politics of conviction.”

Taylor can be expected to soon release an immigration policy, an issue that plays to the opposition’s conservative base, and its present deep fears about One Nation.

“In this country, our borders have been open to people who hate our way of life, people who don’t want to embrace Australia, and who want Australia to change for them,” Taylor told his news conference.

Malcolm Turnbull is a constant critic of the Liberals but he had a point when he said on Friday, “If you think you are going to win back people who have gone to Hanson by showing yourself to be even more tough, more anti-immigration than her, that’s a game you can’t win.”

To make substantial electoral progress, of course, the Liberals must make enormous strides in urban areas, where they are dealing with both Labor and the teals. Taylor needs a strategy for these areas. Hume might be helpful here, but it won’t be easy. At his news conference Taylor had no road map.

The leadership switch is an admission of how bad things have become for the Liberals. But it does not, in itself, provide them with obvious answers to their deep malaise and multiple problems.

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. View from The Hill: Sussan Ley leaves Angus Taylor his first hurdle, and it’s a high one – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-sussan-ley-leaves-angus-taylor-his-first-hurdle-and-its-a-high-one-275912

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hoani Smith, Lecturer in Sport Management and Sport Science, Lincoln University, New Zealand

This weekend’s National Rugby League clash between the Indigenous All Stars and the New Zealand Māori men’s and women’s sides marks a decade-and-a-half of recognising a unique aspect of the trans-Tasman game.

First staged in 2010, the season-opening fixture was not conceived as a marketing stunt, but as a deliberate exercise in showcasing Indigenous excellence and its contribution to the competition.

The match centres Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander players, and their culture and leadership at the highest level of the game. The rationale was clear from the outset: Indigenous Australians were – and remain – significantly over-represented relative to their share of the national population.

In 2010, the NRL reported that more than 12% of its playing group identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, despite Indigenous Australians making up less than 3% of the population.

More recent estimates suggest that proportion has increased, now sitting closer to 15% across the men’s and women’s NRL games, while accounting for less than 4% of the general population.

But what began as recognition of that over-representation has since evolved into something more relational, collective and trans-Tasman. It now reflects broader Indigenous leadership traditions in elite sport that prioritise whakapapa (genealogy), collective responsibility and cultural authority.

Women players on the rise

A major turning point came in 2019 when the Indigenous All Stars first played the New Zealand Māori team instead of an NRL or world side. This reframed the fixture as an Indigenous-to-Indigenous contest across the Tasman, rather than simply an Australian brand.

While the men’s Indigenous All Stars match began as the centrepiece, the women’s fixture has become one of the event’s most structurally important expressions, reflecting the rapid growth of the National Women’s Rugby League (NRLW).

Demographic patterns in the women’s game are particularly pronounced, with NRL inclusion data showing roughly 48% of NRLW players identify as Māori or Pasifika, with a further 14% identifying as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

These figures show the women’s Indigenous All Stars team is not an add-on. It functions as a legitimate pathway, leadership platform and cultural anchor for a competition whose future growth depends heavily on Indigenous and Pasifika participation and whānau (family) engagement.

Within the NRL, Māori players are typically counted within broader Polynesian or Pasifika demographic categories. Recent analyses suggest Polynesian players now account for close to, and potentially more than, 50% of the top tier of NRL contracts.

Māori comprise about 17% of the overall New Zealand population, and Pasifika peoples make up a further 8%. On NRL rosters, those proportions are largely inverted.

Combined with those identifying as having Indigenous Australian and/or Torres Strait Islander heritage, a clear majority – around 62% – of NRL players now come from Indigenous Australian/Torres Strait Islander, Māori and Pasifika backgrounds.

An Indigenous State of Origin?

As Indigenous sport researchers and practitioners, we work to highlight the importance of culture to professional rugby league.

That 62% of players also represents a huge, vibrant fan base. Collectively, this Indigenous influence is the opposite of the cultural tokenism that can be found in many Eurocentric sports systems.

The unprecedented success of last year’s NRL Pacific Championships, particularly the extraordinary match between Samoa and Tonga, further illustrated this shift.

With the disproportionate number of Pacific athletes who make the NRL the spectacle it is, perhaps it’s time for the sport’s gatekeepers to consider a three-game series, modelled on State of Origin.

This would bring together Māori, Pacific and Indigenous all-star sides. With players clearly expressing their pride in the All Stars game, it would be a fitting showcase.

The success of the Pacific Championships suggests there is also potential for including Māori and Indigenous Australian teams in an extended format that would better reflect the cultural and playing realities of the modern game.

Both would offer a competitively legitimate platform for this key group of rugby league superstars, and would meaningfully recognise their long-term cultural and commercial value to the game.

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. League of their own: the NRL Indigenous All Stars vs Māori match is much more than a novelty – https://theconversation.com/league-of-their-own-the-nrl-indigenous-all-stars-vs-maori-match-is-much-more-than-a-novelty-275663

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

Angus Taylor has defeated Sussan Ley for Liberal leader by a hefty margin of 34-17, giving him strong authority to try to improve the fortunes of the debilitated federal opposition.

The meeting. starting at 9am and lasting under an hour,  first carried a motion to spill the leadership by 33-17, a much higher gap than had been expected. There was one informal vote.

The new deputy leader is Jane Hume, defeating Ted O’Brien – who has been shadow treasurer under Ley – by 30-20 in the final ballot. Eliminated in earlier ballots were Dan Tehan and Melissa Price.

Hume is a moderate and Taylor a conservative, so the new leadership team has gender balance as well as factional balance. Taylor and Hume, who was finance spokeswoman under Dutton, worked closely together during the last term and developed a good relationship.

Hume was left off the frontbench by Ley and became a big critic of her.

Hume reportedly told colleagues she would not seek the post of shadow treasurer, a pitch that improved her support, especially as having the deputy in the Senate had not happened since Fred Chaney in 1989-90.

There is speculation the shadow treasurer post could go to Victorian frontbencher Tim Wilson, who is currently industrial relations spokesman.

Momentum moved strongly to Taylor – who on Wednesday resigned from the frontbench to bring on the challenge – in the 24 hours before the vote. The size of the margin reflects the party’s desire to have a decisive outcome.

Ley, the federal Liberals’ first female leader, has had only nine months in the leadership but has suffered a devastating decline in the opinion polls. She is the second shortest serving Liberal leader, after Alexander Downer in 1994-95.

Ley fought to the end, running against Taylor even though she came under some pressure not to contest if the spill was carried.

Ley walked into the meeting with a group of supporters including Andrew Bragg, Andrew McLachlan, Melissa Price, Tim Wilson, Andrew Wallace, Anne Ruston, Paul Scarr, Richard Colbeck, Melissa McIntosh and Maria Kovacic.

Taylor entered parliament in 2013. He was energy minister in the Morrison government and shadow treasurer in opposition under Peter Dutton. He was shadow defence minister under Ley. He would have preferred to have delayed for a few months his challenge to Ley, but the timetable was effectively brought forward by pressure from Andrew Hastie, who wanted to challenge but found he did not have the numbers.

Labor immediately put out an attack ad against Taylor, saying he had worked from “day one” to undermine the first female Liberal leader.

Ley later announced she would quit parliament, which will mean a byelection in her regional New South Wales seat of Farrer – and early challenge for Taylor.

This story has been updated.

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. Angus Taylor defeats Sussan Ley by hefty margin of 34-17 as Liberal leader – https://theconversation.com/angus-taylor-defeats-sussan-ley-by-hefty-margin-of-34-17-as-liberal-leader-275909

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Townsend, Lecturer in War Studies, UNSW Sydney

Nearly two years after the Australian government was first notified that war graves in Gaza and surrounding areas had been damaged as a result of conflict, new evidence has confirmed the extent of destruction.

In a recent update, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission – the intergovernmental body responsible for commemorating all Commonwealth war dead from the two world wars – has confirmed damage to both the Gaza War Cemetery and Deir El Balah War Cemetery is “extensive”.

And a recent Guardian report outlined new evidence indicating the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) “bulldozed” graves in the Gaza War Cemetery’s southern corner.

This includes the graves of Australian and British personnel who died in the two world wars. It has been reported that the graves of up to two dozen New Zealanders are also affected, along with Canadians killed during peacekeeping operations in the 1950s and ‘60s. Reports indicate that Indian plots have also been heavily damaged.

The Guardian reported that:

After being shown satellite images of the cemetery, the Israel Defence Forces said that it had been forced to take defensive measures during military operations.

“At the relevant time, the area in question was an active combat zone,” an army spokesperson said.

More broadly, the fate of these sites highlights the continued risk to war graves in modern conflict zones.

Anzacs in Gaza

The Gaza War Cemetery contains more than 3,400 Commonwealth burials.

The news that more than 250 Australians are interred in Gaza may surprise some Australians.

Yet, Australians have a long history of military service in the region, from the world wars to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As part of British efforts to push Ottoman Turkish forces out of Palestine, for instance, Australian mounted troops (cavalry) fought in three major battles in Gaza between March and November 1917.

The second battle was particularly costly. In three days, the British suffered more than 6,000 casualties, 500 of whom were killed, including more than 100 Australians. These Australians were buried across the two cemeteries in what is now the Gaza Strip.

Australian forces later returned to the Middle East in the second world war.

While Gaza was not the site of fighting this time around, it was the location of the Australian theatre headquarters, which oversaw Australian operations in the region. It was also home to several hospital units.

This means many of the Australians buried in the area’s two war cemeteries died because of accident, injury or illness, not in battle.

Among the burials at Gaza War Cemetery are 23 New Zealanders. A further 13 New Zealanders are interred at Deir El Belah War Cemetery.

A broader challenge

The destruction of war graves in Gaza has rightly received global attention. But this isn’t the first time Australian and Commonwealth war dead have been dragged into contemporary conflicts.

If we look first at Gaza, the two war cemeteries were damaged in both 2006 and 2009 amid fighting in the area.

The damage caused by the 2006 operations saw the Israeli government financially compensate the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

But this issue is not unique to Gaza, nor to the Middle East. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission cares for more than 1.1 million separate graves across more than 23,000 locations, in 150 countries and territories.

Some of these are in active conflict zones, or otherwise volatile areas. This includes sites in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, Yemen, Sudan and Somalia. Each of these is classed as a “challenging location”. Access is often restricted or prohibited, and many sites are at risk of damage through fighting or vandalism.

For instance, Iraq’s Habbaniya War Cemetery, where three Australian airmen are interred, was “severely damaged” during the two Gulf wars. Only in 2020 could the Commonwealth War Graves Commission finish reconstruction of the cemetery.

In 2012, war cemeteries at Benghazi in eastern Libya were desecrated twice. This included hundreds of plots, with 50 Australian headstones damaged in one incident.

Further east, Yemen’s Maala Cemetery was damaged during fighting between 2014 and 2015. Located in a particularly dangerous area, the cemetery – where 11 Australians are buried – remains off-limits and mostly destroyed.

In other instances, the danger is so great that locations are used to commemorate casualties interred elsewhere. An example is the Mogadishu African War Cemetery in Somalia, where political instability forced the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to erect memorial headstones at Kenya’s Nairobi War Cemetery.

War cemeteries will remain in danger

Given ongoing conflict and instability in Yemen, Somalia and Gaza, it is unlikely any restorative works will be possible any time soon.

And the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s chief of staff, Peter Francis, acknowledged in October 2024 that cemetery rebuilding would not be prioritised as part of reconstruction in Gaza, given the scale of destruction across the broader Gaza Strip.

There is also the financial factor, with reconstruction of the Gaza War Cemetery alone estimated to cost around £5 million (about A$9.6 million). The figure is likely much higher now, given the scale of destruction since this 2024 estimate.

All this reflects the difficulties the Commonwealth War Graves Commission encounters in trying to mark, record and maintain graves and commemorative sites.

As troubling as this situation is, particularly for affected families, it is a difficult reality: war cemeteries will remain in danger amid active unrest and conflict.

Nicole Townsend is a director of the Second World War Research Group, which is a non-paid, voluntary academic role.

– ref. The damaged Gaza War Cemetery highlights ongoing risk to soldier graves in conflict zones – https://theconversation.com/the-damaged-gaza-war-cemetery-highlights-ongoing-risk-to-soldier-graves-in-conflict-zones-275536

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Narelle Bedford, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Bond University

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains names, images and voices of deceased people.

Today marks 18 years since then prime minister Kevin Rudd’s apology to more than 27,000 Stolen Generation survivors for policies that “inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss”.

The ripple effects of taking thousands of children from their families continue today.

Many Indigenous Australians – like me – grew up in families where at least one relative was removed as a child. Some never saw their families again.

I’ve spent six months researching different states and territories’ redress schemes, and what’s worked best.

That research shows the compensation available varies hugely, depending on which state or territory survivors were taken from. This is especially true in Queensland, the only state without any redress scheme.

I presented the results of at the National Indigenous Legal Conference late last year. I’m sharing those findings now, ahead of formal publication, because too many survivors are growing old waiting for action.

What redress has there been so far?

Apart from Queensland, every other state and territory has offered some financial and non-financial forms of compensation for Stolen Generations survivors. Some schemes – New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania – are closed to new applications.

Many survivors and their families have said practical forms of redress had often made the biggest difference to their lives. These included:

• finally learning some of their own language, such as in Victoria’s scheme
• undertaking cultural healing activities, such as in the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory
• and authorities personally acknowledging harm to individuals, such as in Western Australia, the ACT and NT.

Money alone cannot repair the harms done to survivors. Those harms include the devastating impacts of losing contact with family, suffering racial discrimination, physical, sexual and emotional abuse, and being stripped of cultural, economic and potential native title rights.

But financial compensation still matters. The amounts survivors can apply for vary across different state and territory schemes, ranging from $30,000 in South Australia to $100,000 in Victoria.

One state is yet to act

Queensland remains the only state without any redress scheme. Yet the 2021 census showed the state is home to more than one in four Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia.

In 2024, Queensland’s Liberal National government repealed the Path to Treaty Act and abandoned the state’s truth and healing inquiry. The government has stressed it’s “committed to practical reconciliation”.

For Queensland survivors, there’s no more time to wait for practical action on a redress scheme.

What’s worked and what’s missing

Balancing the schemes’ financial and non-financial aspects, my analysis concluded Victoria and Tasmania have delivered the most positive redress schemes.

For example, Tasmania’s scheme allows children of Stolen Generations survivors who have died to apply for payments. This reflects the hard reality that taking a child from their family has multigenerational effects.

A longer version of my research will be published in an academic journal later this year. My make 14 recommendations for best practice redress schemes, including:

• removing arbitrary closing dates
• allowing survivors’ descendants to apply
• funding for practical cultural restoration, such as to learn languages or reconnect to Country
• and offering financial compensation on par with Victoria’s $100,000 for those taken as a child by compulsion, duress or undue influence.

That amount of money is far less than a court has previously ruled was a fair reflection of the damages done.

One survivor’s story

On Christmas Day 1957, 13-month-old Bruce Trevorrow was sick with stomach pain and diarrhoea.

His family didn’t have a car and lived hours from Adelaide children’s hospital. His father was caring for three older siblings, so asked neighbours to take his baby on the long drive.

In the weeks and months that followed, his parents pleaded for news of their boy. As his mother wrote to the Aboriginal Protection Board:

I am writing to ask if you will let me know how baby Bruce is and how long before I can have him home

The board wrote back, saying her son was “making good progress”. But he had been fostered to a white family, just a fortnight after being admitted to hospital.

By the time Trevorrow saw his family again, years later, his father was dead.

In 2007, South Australia’s Supreme Court awarded the 50-year-old Trevorrow $775,000 in damages and interest.

Trevorrow died less than a year later.

‘Are you waiting for us to die?’

A 2025 report, “Are You Waiting For Us to Die?”, found just 6% of the 1997 Bringing Them Home inquiry’s recommendations to support Stolen Generations survivors and families had been implemented.

As Healing Foundation chair and Kungarakan man Steve Larkin said last year:

Nearly 30 years since its tabling, survivors are passing away at a rapid rate.

Survivors’ medical, psychological and care needs are becoming more acute with age.

Additionally, some can resist needed aged care services, due to fears of institutionalisation. Places at Aboriginal-controlled aged care centres, run with cultural care and sensitivity, are very limited.

We need more meaningful reform for the remaining Stolen Generation survivors, before it’s too late.

Narelle Bedford 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. As Stolen Generations survivors ‘pass away at a rapid rate’, some still await official redress – https://theconversation.com/as-stolen-generations-survivors-pass-away-at-a-rapid-rate-some-still-await-official-redress-272180

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Madeleine Fraser, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, Australian Catholic University

Scroll through social media and you’ll quickly encounter phrases like “I am worthy” or “I choose happiness”.

The tantalising promise is: repeat these positive affirmations often enough and you’ll be happier, calmer and even healthier.

Given we are biologically hardwired to avoid suffering and want to feel safe and happy, no wonder it is tempting. But is it backed by science? And are there downsides?

What are positive affirmations?

Self-affirmation theory was proposed by psychologist Claude Steele in the late 1980s and remains popular today. The theory suggests we have a deep desire to craft a personal narrative that we are “adequate” and “worthy”.

But painful experiences that trigger shame or embarrassment – such as getting bad grades, making a mistake at work or going through a break-up – can threaten this self-narrative.

You may become more self-critical, and this may make you more likely to experience anxiety, depression and even self-harm.

In contrast, self-affirmation theory suggests repeating positive ideas about yourself can protect you from these negative mental health symptoms, boosting your mood and sense of self-worth.

Is there evidence positive affirmations work?

Yes – in some contexts.

A review from 2025 combined and analysed results from 67 studies. These looked at the effects on participants’ wellbeing of writing positive affirmations or repeating them out loud.

The review found positive affirmations did have a meaningful impact on how participants viewed themselves and connected with others. But the effect was small.

Some studies have found repeating positive affirmations can protect social media users’ self-esteem and boost the overall mental health of university students.

One 2025 study looked at women undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. It found those who listened to music alongside recordings of positive affirmations felt less depressed and drowsy, compared to those who listened only to music.

Another study from 2025 examined adults with depression symptoms, but no diagnosis. It found those who wrote personal positive affirmations twice daily reported better self-esteem after 15 days, compared to those who didn’t.

One frequently cited study from 2009 found repeating positive affirmations (for example, “I am a lovable person”) boosted mood. However this was only for people who already had high self-esteem. Those with low self-esteem – in other words, those with a low level of confidence and value in themselves – reported poorer mood.

While these studies show some promise, recent studies have failed to replicate these findings. More research is needed to see exactly who might benefit, and in what context.

The downsides of positivity

But is there any harm in using positive affirmations? Here are some risks to keep in mind.

Toxic positivity

Humans are imperfect and the world is often unfair. Pretending otherwise can lead to toxic positivity, which means suppressing or even denying difficult feelings. When you feel distressed, you may feel pressure to cope and simply “reframe” your thinking. You may feel ashamed when you can’t and be less likely to seek help.

Chasing dopamine

Repeating positive affirmations might give you a quick dopamine hit. Dopamine is the hormone linked to pleasure and reward, and can help us feel in control and competent. But the desire to always feel good is not realistic. And taken to the extreme, it can trap you in a cycle where you’re constantly seeking the next dopamine hit.

Downplaying real issues

Positive self-talk is only helpful in safe environments. In unsafe or harmful situations (for example, an abusive relationship) staying positive may blind you to potential dangers. Over-reliance on positive affirmations can detach you from what’s going on, and override gut instincts it may be better to listen to.

So, what does work?

Recent research suggests how we talk to ourselves may matter more than how positive the message is. Here are two approaches worth trying.

Show yourself compassion

Research shows cultivating a compassionate relationship with yourself, especially during stress or failure, can strengthen your resilience and improve your mental health. For example, telling yourself “this is hard” or “anyone would feel this way” can be more helpful than simply repeating upbeat affirmations. Sometimes being brave enough to acknowledge you’re suffering, and speaking to yourself like a good friend, is what you need.

Create some distance

Talking to yourself in the third person – for example, “Maddie is furious, but has handled far worse” rather than “I am furious” – can help. This creates distance between you and your thoughts, and is sometimes called “non-attachment”. This approach can help regulate emotions, encouraging us to approach feelings with curiosity, observing rather than just reacting to them.

The bottom line

Very few thinking styles are always beneficial or always harmful. The key is to be flexible, not rigid. This means regularly asking yourself “is that thought helpful?” and choosing the approach most suited to your situation.

And if that’s positive self-talk, try to use compassion and understanding – not just upbeat slogans.

Madeleine Fraser 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. Do positive affirmations work? A psychologist unpacks the evidence – https://theconversation.com/do-positive-affirmations-work-a-psychologist-unpacks-the-evidence-266464

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Breadon, Program Director, Health and Aged Care, Grattan Institute

A multi-billion dollar boost to GP funding has lifted bulk-billing rates across the country, especially in many areas that need fee-free care the most.

But the changes prop up a dysfunctional funding model for general practice, and have removed the main way the government pays more to GPs with poorer patients.

So deeper reform is needed.

What’s changed?

GPs get an extra Medicare payment (or incentive) to bulk bill a patient. This is on top of the existing rebate they’d usually receive.

In 2023, the government tripled the incentive, which applied to concession-card holders and children. Then, in a flagship 2025 election pledge, the government said it would push the bulk-billing rate up to 90% by 2030.

To help get there, the government said it would expand the bulk-billing incentive to all patients, not just children and concession-card holders.

As a sweetener, clinics that bulk bill all their patients would get an extra 12.5% on top of their Medicare payments.

Those changes kicked in from November 2025 and will cost taxpayers roughly A$2 billion a year.

How much did bulk billing rise?

Data released this week show there was an immediate impact.

From November 2025 to January 2026, 81.4% of GP services were bulk-billed, up from 77.1% for the same period a year earlier.

It’s the biggest quarterly increase since the early days of the pandemic. But the bulk-billing rate hasn’t returned to the peak we saw then – when it reached over 90% – or the mid-80% range for several years before that.

The number of clinics that bulk bill all their services has also increased. That’s from roughly 2,300 before the November changes, and more than 3,400 at the end of January.

Who’s benefiting most?

Bulk-billing rates have gone up in every state and territory, with the biggest increases for people aged 16–64, and those in regional centres and towns, and less-wealthy areas. That makes sense, given how the bulk-billing incentives have been designed, and changed.

The bulk-billing rate of people aged 16–64 shot up 4.2 percentage points, a far bigger change than any other age group. That’s because they are newly eligible for the incentive even if they don’t have a concession, and they’re less likely to have a concession than older people.

The incentive for GPs to bulk bill goes up as you move out of major cities. In cities, the incentive for a face-to-face consultation longer than five minutes is $21.85. In very remote areas it rises to $42.05.

In poorer areas, clinics tend to have lower fees and more bulk billing. That means they are more likely to profit if they switch to take advantage of the new incentives.

The average GP fee in the December quarter was $51, up from $48 a year before, after adjusting for inflation.

What’s missing?

This huge investment is having its intended impact. Each week more clinics are choosing to bulk bill all their patients.

But boosting bulk-billing incentives has a side-effect: entrenching a dysfunctional funding model.

Australia relies mostly on fee-for-service payments for general practice. That means more funding for many short visits, regardless of a patient’s needs.

This also means money can’t flow through to a multidisciplinary team that works with a GP, and might include nurses, physiotherapists, psychologists and pharmacists.

The result is GPs rushing through visits with too little support. It’s a poor fit for complex chronic disease, and the fact that more Australians are living with multiple conditions, such as diabetes, hypertension and heart disease. This funding model also doesn’t channel money to where it’s needed most.

In one important way, changes to bulk-billing incentives make the problem worse. Previously, the incentive only applied to concession-card holders. But now GPs get the same incentive to bulk bill whether a patient is wealthy or poor.

This makes Australia unusual. Other high-income countries adjust GP funding for disadvantage, which is strongly linked to the need for care.

How do other countries do it?

Starting from this year, New Zealand will pay GPs more for seeing disadvantaged patients. Scotland did it in 2018. They followed many other systems from Sweden to Canada.

England’s approach has long been criticised for not doing enough to take disadvantage into account in GP funding. But the government is reviewing funding to change that.

Back in Australia, two independent reviews commissioned by the federal government, along with Grattan Institute research, have recommended Australia catches up with other countries and make general practice funding fairer.

They have called for “blended funding”: combining a flexible payment based on each patient’s needs with a fee for each visit.

What’s next?

The government is celebrating this spike in bulk billing, and patients will welcome more fee-free GP visits. While there are signs the gains will be sustained, it’s too early to tell for sure.

Either way, Australia can’t just keep tipping money into the wrong way of funding care. Even if we reach the 90% bulk-billing target, other changes will be needed for funding to reflect patients’ health and wealth. That’s essential for making our health-care system effective and fair.

Grattan Institute has been supported in its work by government, corporates, and philanthropic gifts. A full list of supporting organisations is published at www.grattan.edu.au.

Molly Chapman 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. Bulk-billing rates are up. But there’s more to delivering the best possible care – https://theconversation.com/bulk-billing-rates-are-up-but-theres-more-to-delivering-the-best-possible-care-275669

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Lawrence, Professor of Public Health Nutrition, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University

If you’ve ever read a food label and come away feeling more confused, you’re not alone.

Since 2014, Australian shoppers have relied on the Health Star Rating scheme to help them choose which foods to eat. This system ranks food products on a scale from half a star to five stars, to help consumers compare the nutritional value of similar types of food.

This system is far from perfect. Nevertheless, Australia’s food ministers are meeting today to consider making it mandatory, with the aim of helping Australians eat more healthily.

Should we mandate a flawed system? And is there an alternative?

How does the current system work?

The Health Star Rating system was designed to help consumers make healthier eating choices, by providing accessible and relevant nutrition information.

The current system uses an algorithm that claims to assess how healthy or unhealthy a certain food product is. To do this, it looks at the nutritional value of some of the product’s ingredients, then rates it on a scale of half a star to five stars.

The system is currently voluntary. This means food companies are not obliged to include Health Star Ratings on their products. However those that do are encouraged to do so across their full product range.

A flawed system

The existing system is controversial for two main reasons.

1. What’s healthy?

First, it’s not an objective way of measuring how healthy a food is.

Over the past decade, some food companies have appeared to use the Health Star Ratings as a marketing tool. This is especially the case among companies that produce ultra-processed and discretionary foods such as breakfast cereals, muesli bars and protein drinks.

Under the current system, it is possible for companies to manipulate the Health Star Ratings algorithm. This involves replacing so-called “risk nutrients” with synthetic ingredients.

For example, a company may replace sugar with certain sweeteners, or fats with emulsifiers and gums. They might also add new ingredients such as fibre powders that improve their scores without making the product any healthier.

A study from 2020 found about three quarters of ultra-processed foods that display stars do so with at least 2.5 or more stars, giving them a “healthy” pass mark.

As a result, consumers often try to make healthier choices by swapping one lower-rated ultra-processed food for another higher-rated one. Unfortunately, they do not realise they are still consuming an unhealthy food.

There is no such thing as a healthy ultra-processed food.

2. It’s confusing

Second, it is a confusing system. Consumers find the current system difficult to navigate.

A 2024 report found only just over half (52.3%) of participants agreed the Health Star Rating system was accurate and honest. Less than half (41.3%) thought it had a good reputation.

Could this flawed system become mandatory?

Possibly. In 2020, food ministers from around Australia agreed to consider making the system mandatory if fewer than 70% of products were using it by 2025.

The latest data shows just 37% of products have a Health Star Rating. This has dropped by 4% since 2019.

The government’s push to mandate the Health Star Rating system appears to have divided the public health community.

Various organisations and practitioners have sent letters to food ministers, both supporting and opposing the proposal.

Those in favour of mandating the current system acknowledge the system is not perfect, but believe it is better than having no system.

Those who oppose this move would prefer to scrap the existing scheme and start from scratch. They point out that after 12 years of continual tweaks to the system and reassurances that it will improve, the health star ratings system is still fundamentally flawed. Food companies may still manipulate the algorithm, and consumers will remain in the dark. Another concern is instituting a flawed system would make it even harder to introduce a better one in the future.

So, is there an alternative?

Yes – warning labels.

Using simple statements or symbols, warning labels are designed to inform consumers if a food product is high in fat, sugar or salt. In future, they may also indicate whether a product is an ultra-processed food.

Several countries are already using warning labels. In Mexico, for example, consumers have embraced this system and have changed their food purchasing behaviours to be more in line with healthy eating recommendations.

In the past few months, countries including Canada and the United States have moved towards adopting the warning label approach.

And just this week, the Indian Supreme Court asked the country’s food standards agency to consider developing warning labels. Before this, India was on track to adopt a version of the Health Star Rating system.

A global study published in late 2025 suggests warning labels are the most effective way to reduce the consumption of ultra-processed foods. This is compared to other ranking-style labelling schemes such as Health Star Ratings.

Given its design and governance flaws, mandating the current health star rating system would be a mistake. Fortunately, there is a better option. Other countries have adopted a warning label system, with promising results. Now it is time for Australia to do the same.

Mark Lawrence receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council. Previously he has received funding from the World Health Organization and the Australian Research Council.

Christina Mary Pollard received funding from Healthway for ‘Food Law, Policy and Communications to Improve Public Health’ Research Into Practice Grant; and Building Capacity for Public Health Advocacy. Christina Mary Pollard is on the board of Foodbank WA.

– ref. Australia’s food labelling system isn’t working – here’s how we can fix it – https://theconversation.com/australias-food-labelling-system-isnt-working-heres-how-we-can-fix-it-275673

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

A profound shift is underway in global trade. Governments are moving beyond traditional free trade agreements open to all countries and embracing what are increasingly called “economic security agreements”.

This means the international trading system is moving from a club open to all prospective members who can meet the rules, to invitation-only clubs where security competition between nation states determines who can join or is excluded.

An example of this new type of economic security agreement is the US-led initiative to create a critical minerals trade bloc aimed at diversifying global supply of critical minerals currently concentrated in one country: China.

Critical minerals are hard-to-make niche metals essential to the production of smart phones, semiconductor chips, electric vehicle batteries and a wide range of high-tech military products.

The United States has invited more than 50 countries – including Australia – to discuss a club for critical minerals economic security. Only invited countries may participate, and China is not on the list.

Why are the US and partner countries building an exclusive minerals club? And what benefits and risks could it pose for the world?

The battle for influence

The US and China view each other as geopolitical rivals competing for influence over regional and global affairs. In my research, I analyse how this competition plays out as reduced economic dependence and more strategic trade policies.

For example, the US has been limiting exports of advanced technology such as semiconductors and waging a trade war against China to reduce economic ties and maintain technological leadership.

China in turn has used its dominance over global critical mineral supplies to influence US policy. Last year, China reduced exports to world markets in response to trade tensions with the US, causing major global disruptions in advanced manufacturing.

China also banned critical mineral exports destined for the US defence sector, impacting defence production supply chains.

The impact on US industry was enough to persuade the Trump administration to reverse some of its restrictions on advanced semiconductor exports to China. This was in return for Beijing promising a one-year export control freeze on rare earths.

Realising the extent of its vulnerability on critical minerals, the US is now leading a new form of economic security trade agreement for these metals.

Look who’s back

Last week, the US hosted a Critical Minerals Ministerial meeting in Washington with representatives from 54 countries and the European Union.

Australia’s Minister for Resources, Madeleine King, was in attendance. The irony here is that after 14 months of ignoring trade agreements and levelling tariffs on most of the world, the US is now seeking the help of other nations to help diversify supply.

Despite this, many other countries share an interest in loosening China’s grip on critical minerals production, and are willing to cooperate.

The US-led club plans to use a variety of market intervention tools to boost new supply. These include measures such as subsidies and multi-year guaranteed purchases to encourage new investment.

Only businesses from member countries will be able to access these benefits. Meanwhile, businesses from outside the club will face tariffs on their exports.

These interventions are typical of the new economic security era of government control over markets. If successful, this strategy could ensure global manufacturing is not vulnerable to a single country’s decision to reduce supply for political reasons.

Yet it also risks sparking a new trade war in the short term, as China warns countries against cutting it out of the agreement.

A big opportunity for Australia

My research highlights the fact Australia has the resources, mining capacity and government policies to play a major role in diversifying global mineral supplies.

The benefits of doing so include new investment, high-skilled jobs and geopolitical influence – all useful in an era of growing tensions.

Australian policies incorporate a production tax credit and funding support for major new rare earth refining operations.

Australia was also the first country to strike a critical minerals deal with the US, last October. This promises major investment, putting Australia in pole position for developing a significant new industry.

Read more:
Australia is betting on a new ‘strategic reserve’ to loosen China’s grip on critical minerals

A hard choice

However, risks remain. The US is proposing the US-led trade bloc should apply tariffs to mineral imports from outside the bloc. This would apply to China. Australia has publicly stated it supports diversification, but is against using tariffs to do so.

If Australia sticks to this position, it could end up outside the trade bloc. This would be disastrous for its critical mineral strategy.

But if Australia agrees with the tariff plans, it will create tension with China, the biggest buyer of Australian exports.

This puts the government between a rock and a hard place. Nonetheless, it would most likely opt in to the agreement if it comes to an ultimatum.

In an economic security era, there are few easy choices. Australia will need to take risks to secure its critical mineral strategy.

Naoise McDonagh 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. As world trade shifts to invitation-only clubs, Australia is facing tough choices – https://theconversation.com/as-world-trade-shifts-to-invitation-only-clubs-australia-is-facing-tough-choices-275438