Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane McAdam, Scientia Professor and ARC Laureate Fellow, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, UNSW Sydney

As thousands of Australian citizens and permanent residents stuck in Iran and Israel continue to register for repatriation flights, the government is scrambling to find safe ways to evacuate them.

With the airspace over both countries closed, the government is considering other ways to bring them home.

The current plan is to charter buses from private companies to take people from Israel into neighbouring Jordan. As Prime Minister Anthony Albanese stressed: “We want to make sure people are looked after, but they need to be looked after safely as well”.

This is not the first time Australia has faced challenges in evacuating nationals stranded abroad. When conflict, disasters or other emergencies occur overseas, the government regularly works to bring Australians home.

In the early days of the COVID pandemic, for instance, the government arranged repatriation flights and established quarantine facilities to assist Australians who were stuck outside the country. Australia has repeatedly assisted its citizens caught in conflict zones to get back home, including from Afghanistan in 2021 and Lebanon in 2024.

And when an earthquake devasted Vanuatu last December, Australia moved swiftly to get Australians out.

Is Australia legally required to repatriate people?

While there is a longstanding and widespread practice of governments repatriating their nationals in emergencies, countries generally do not have a legal responsibility to do so.

Instead, governments’ decisions are discretionary and made on a case-by-case basis. They are often influenced by diplomatic, logistical and security considerations.

Governments have a right – but not a duty – to provide consular assistance to their nationals abroad. This includes issuing travel documents, liaising with local authorities and, in exceptional cases, facilitating evacuations.

The Consular Services Charter outlines what Australians abroad can expect from their government. It makes clear that while the government will do what it can, there are limits. Assistance is not guaranteed, especially in areas where Australia has no diplomatic presence or where security conditions make intervention too dangerous.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) is the lead agency responsible for coordinating Australians’ evacuation with embassies, airlines and international partners. Decisions to evacuate are ultimately made by the minister for foreign affairs following a recommendation, where possible, by the Inter-Departmental Emergency Task Force (IDETF).

Repatriation efforts are guided by the Australian Government Plan for the Reception of Australian Citizens and Approved Foreign Nationals Evacuated from Overseas (AUSRECEPLAN). This arrangement that sets out a process for “the safe repatriation of Australians, their immediate dependants, permanent residents and approved foreign nationals (evacuees) following an Australian government-led evacuation in response to an overseas disaster or adverse security situation”. It outlines how federal, state and territory agencies coordinate to receive and support evacuees once they arrive in Australia, ensuring that returns are not only swift, but also safe and orderly.

Challenges and constraints

Repatriation during a crisis is a complex undertaking. Quite aside from the emergency conditions, which may close off usual travel options or routes, the Australian government cannot force another country to allow an evacuation. It also cannot guarantee safe passage, especially in conflicts.

Identifying and communicating with citizens overseas can also be tricky, often requiring people to have self-registered with consular authorities to receive updates. In addition, consular services may be strained when embassies and consular offices have closed, as is the case in Israel and Iran.

For these reasons, countries sometimes band together to assist each other. For instance, Australia and Canada have agreed that where one has a consular presence but the other does not, they will help to repatriate the other’s citizens.

Similarly, the United States helped evacuate Australians and other allies’ nationals from Afghanistan after the Taliban takeover in 2021. Countries in the European Union can activate a special regional mechanism to facilitate the repatriation of their citizens caught up in emergencies abroad.

In exceptional circumstances, countries have sometimes extracted their stranded nationals through military operations, known as “non-combatant evacuation operations” (NEOs). This involves the military temporarily occupying a location on foreign soil to evacuate people. Some recent examples include the large-scale evacuations of foreign nationals from Afghanistan in 2021, Sudan during the civil war that began in 2023 and Lebanon during the 2024 Israeli–Hezbollah conflict.

NEOs generally require the consent of the country from where the evacuation takes place, but their precise legal basis remains ambiguous under international law.

In all cases, the evacuation of nationals is operationally complex – as exemplified by the current situation in Iran and Israel. Countries with limited resources may struggle to repatriate their nationals at all. This can mean some foreign nationals are “rescued”, while others are left behind.

And, of course, local populations generally aren’t eligible for evacuation at all. This can leave people in extremely dangerous circumstances.

That is why we have proposed the creation of an Australian framework for humanitarian emergencies that, among other things, would facilitate the safe and swift departure of certain non-citizens at particular risk. This would underscore that Australia’s approach to evacuations is, at its heart, about protecting people during crises.

Jane McAdam receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) and is the Director of the ARC Evacuations Research Hub at the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, UNSW Sydney.

Regina Jefferies and Thomas Mulder 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. Australian citizens in Iran and Israel are desperate to leave. Is the government required to help? – https://theconversation.com/australian-citizens-in-iran-and-israel-are-desperate-to-leave-is-the-government-required-to-help-259272

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Friedlander, PhD Candidate in Sociology, University of Waikato

Period-tracking apps are popular digital tools for a range of menstrual, reproductive and general health purposes. But the way these apps collect and use data involves risk.

Many apps encourage users to log information well beyond their menstrual cycle, including sexual activity, medications, sleep quality, exercise, social activity and perimenopause symptoms. As well as this logged data, apps often collect location and other personally identifiable information.

Period tracking apps may pose a particularly high risk in places where abortion is illegal because user data may be accessed by law enforcement on request.

Our new research examines how aware app users in Aotearoa New Zealand are of these risks. We found a range of levels of understanding and perspectives on risk, from untroubled to concerned and deeply worried about the implications of digital tracking for reproductive rights.

Privacy, data and risk

The first period-tracking app was released in 2013. Since then, hundreds of such apps have been created, with collectively hundreds of millions of downloads worldwide.

A recent analysis found app downloads are particularly prevalent in North America, Europe, Australia and Aotearoa. The same study found three apps – Flo, Clue and Period Tracker – make up the majority of downloads.

Some period apps can link to and import information from other apps and wearables. For example, Clue can link to and import information from the Oura smart ring and Apple Health, both of which gather personal health metrics. Flo can similarly import information from other health apps.

A recent analysis of period app privacy policies found they often collect a range of personally identifiable information.

Personal health data flows to third parties

Some participants in our research have used an app for a decade or longer. This means the app holds a comprehensive database of years of intimate health data and other personal information, including some which they may not have chosen to provide.

This data can be used by a range of third parties in commercial, research or other applications, sometimes without app users’ explicit knowledge or consent. One study found many period apps exported more data than was declared in privacy policies, including to third parties.

Another study reported that apps changed privacy policies without obtaining user consent. Apps can also infer sensitive information not explicitly logged by users by combining data.

In 2021, Flo reached a settlement with the US Federal Trade Commission on charges over its sharing of user data with marketing and analytics companies without user consent.

App privacy policies often state that user data may be accessed by law enforcement on request, which is a major concern in places where abortion is illegal. Users may explicitly log the start and end of pregnancies, but pregnancy can also be inferred or predicted using other data. In some cases, period app data may therefore reveal a user’s miscarriage or abortion.

Making sense of the risk in New Zealand

Our exploration of user attitudes about the risk of period-tracking apps has revealed that about half of participants were unconcerned about their data. Some imagined positive uses for their data, such as improving the app or contributing to reproductive healthcare research. These potential uses are often highlighted by period-tracking apps in marketing materials.

Other participants were concerned about their data. Some had risk minimisation strategies, including limiting what information they logged. Concerned participants were often resigned to uncontrolled uses of their data.

One said:

[there’s] no such thing as private data these days.

Another thought that:

everyone that does anything online […] is kind of accepting the fact that your data is being potentially accessed and used by third parties. It’s just kind of where it is now.

About a third of participants in our study contextualised their concerns with respect to reproductive rights and abortion access, especially since the 2022 overturn of Roe v Wade in the US.

Others wondered if what happened in the US could happen in New Zealand. One participant referenced concepts such as rangatiratanga and mana motuhake (self determination) when thinking about period app data. She said:

I worry about the politics that happen overseas coming here to Aotearoa […] knowing that I don’t have full control or rangatiratanga over the data I provide .  I worry for all users about what this information can be used for in future, as much as we like to say ‘this is New Zealand, that would never happen here’, we have no idea.

With gender and reproductive rights at risk around the world, such concerns are reasonable and justified.

Study participants used period-tracking apps for diverse reasons, including to plan for periods, to track pain and communicate it to doctors, to help get pregnant, and to learn about their bodies. Some participants told us that using period apps was empowering. Some perceived period apps as risky, with limits to how they can mitigate the risk.

Menstruators shouldn’t have to trade data privacy and security in order to access the benefits of period-tracking apps. Legislators and policy makers should understand the benefits and risks and ensure strong data protections are in place.

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. Popular period-tracking apps can hold years of personal data – new NZ research finds mixed awareness of risk – https://theconversation.com/popular-period-tracking-apps-can-hold-years-of-personal-data-new-nz-research-finds-mixed-awareness-of-risk-258920

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eric Warrant, Professor of Zoology at the University of Lund, Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University, and Adjunct Professor, University of South Australia

It’s a warm January summer afternoon, and as I traverse the flower-strewn western slopes of Australia’s highest mountain, Mount Kosciuszko, I am on the lookout for a tell-tale river of boulders that winds its way down into the alpine valleys below.

Here, hidden in cave-like hollows and crevices formed deep within the river of boulders, is one of the most spectacular natural phenomena in the insect world – the summer mass gathering of an iconic Australian insect, the bogong moth (Agrotis infusa).

Tightly huddled together in their dim cool cavernous world, with each moth’s head pushed slightly under the wings of the moth just ahead, millions of bogong moths sleep out the summer, slumbering in a state of dormancy known as “aestivation”.

Their little bodies coat the stone surfaces in an endless soft brown carpet, with 17,000 of them tiling each square metre of cave wall. It’s a sight that never fails to take my breath away.

Marathon migrations

To get here, these moths have flown from all over southeast Australia through the spring, arriving from as far away as south-eastern Queensland and far-western Victoria. Converted to human body length, these journeys of roughly 1,000 kilometres would be equivalent to a person circumnavigating Earth twice.

The moths’ marathon voyages to the Alps are likely undertaken to escape the lethal heat of the coming summer in their breeding areas. When the cool of autumn arrives, the moths leave the mountains to produce their own offspring and die.

But how on Earth do they know how to find these caves? How do they know the direction to travel and how do they know when they’ve arrived?

These questions have fascinated me and the other members of my research group for many years. It turns out bogong moths possess a most extraordinary ability to navigate, harnessing Earth’s magnetic field and the stars as compasses to follow their inherited migratory direction.

Moths, magnets and stars

We made these remarkable discoveries in a specialised lab we built a few years ago near Adaminaby in the Snowy Mountains of New South Wales.

First we light-trapped bogong moths that were either migrating towards the Alps in spring or away again in autumn. We next placed them in a special flight arena inside the lab, and finely controlled Earth’s magnetic field (with magnetic coils around the arena) and the starry night sky (by projecting a highly realistic starry night sky on the roof of the arena).

Because we already knew bogong moths have a magnetic sense, we used the coils to completely remove, or null, the magnetic field in the arena. This ensured any orientation using the stars was not confounded by the ability to detect Earth’s magnetic field.

What we found next astounded us. Using only the local Australian starry night sky projected above them, bogong moths flying in our arena were able to discern and follow their inherited migratory direction – both in spring and in autumn.

If we turned this projected sky by 180°, the moths turned and flew in exactly the opposite direction. If we then took all of the stars in this projected natural sky and randomly distributed them across the roof of the arena, the moths became completely confused and lost their ability to migrate in their inherited migratory direction.

Navigators with tiny brains

In the absence of all other possible cues, bogong moths clearly used the stars as a true compass to discern a geographic direction relative to north.

This is the first invertebrate we so far know of that can do this. Only human beings and some species of night-migratory birds are known to have this ability.

But in moths this ability is even more remarkable considering their brain is approximately one-tenth the volume of a grain of rice and their eyes only a couple of millimetres wide.

A magnetic backup system

We made a final discovery when we moved our flight arena up onto the hill behind the lab under the magnificent dome of the natural starry sky. As expected, the moths were beautifully oriented in their inherited migratory direction.

But on one of these nights the sky was heavily overcast with cloud. To our great surprise, the moths remained oriented in their migratory direction, even though the stars were obscured.

The only remaining cue that could have been used was Earth’s magnetic field, which showed very clearly that moths rely on two compasses – a magnetic compass and a stellar compass.

But of course, two compasses will always be better than one – if one becomes corrupted or drops out, the other can take over. Nature’s perfect solution for robust navigation!

Bogong moths under threat

Despite its fantastic abilities, this tiny navigator is under threat. A result of anthropogenic climate change, the recent drought in Australia saw bogong moth numbers fall by a jaw-dropping 99.5%.

Endangered alpine marsupials that depend on the moth’s arrival in spring for food – such as the mountain pygmy possum – suffered heavily as a result.

Droughts in southeast Australia are only predicted to worsen in both frequency and intensity. The future of the bogong moth, as well as the fragile alpine ecosystem that depends on it, does not look very bright.

Eric Warrant receives funding from the Swedish Research Council, the European Research Council, the Wenner-Gren Foundation and the Carl Tryggers Foundation. He is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, The German National Academy of Science Leopoldina, the Royal Danish Society of Sciences and Letters, the Royal Institute of Navigation and the Royal Physiographic Society.

– ref. Migrating bogong moths use the stars and Earth’s magnetic field to find ancestral summer caves each year – https://theconversation.com/migrating-bogong-moths-use-the-stars-and-earths-magnetic-field-to-find-ancestral-summer-caves-each-year-259361

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Long, Strategic Professor in Palaeontology, Flinders University

It’s been 50 years since Steven Spielberg’s movie Jaws first cast a terrifying shadow across our screens.

At a low point during production, Spielberg worried he’d only ever be known for “a big fish story”. The film, however, did not tank.

Jaws broke box office records and became the highest-grossing movie at the time, only surpassed by the first Star Wars released two years later in 1977.

A combination of mass advertising, familiar “hero” tropes and old-school showmanship launched Jaws as the first modern blockbuster.

Hollywood, and our relationship to oceans and the sharks within them, would never be the same.

An unrealistic monster

In Peter Benchley’s 1974 novel that Jaws is based on, the shark is 6 metres long. For added screen excitement, in the movie it grew to a whopping 7.6 metres.

However, that’s unrealistically large.

The average size of a mature great white (Carcharodon carcharias, also known as the white shark) is between 4.6 and 4.9 metres for female sharks and up to 4 metres for male sharks.

The largest recorded living specimens peak at about 6 metres, with one monster specimen caught in Cuba in 1945 reaching 6.4 metres.

Earth’s oceans have seen bigger predatory sharks in the past. The biggest one of all time was the megalodon (Otodus megalodon) which lived from 23 to 3 million years ago, and may have been up to 24 metres in length. However, it looked nothing like the modern white shark.

They’re not even directly related – another thing scientists learned quite recently.

Who was the megalodon, then?

White sharks first evolved between 6 and 4 million years ago in the shadows of the megalodon. A recent study showed the megalodon’s large serrated teeth show signs of it being a supreme opportunistic super-predator.

That means it ate just about anything, but especially liked whales and marine mammals.

---

Read more:
Friday essay: Giant shark megalodon was the most powerful superpredator ever. Why did it go extinct?

---

But white sharks are not directly related to the megalodon, whose lineage began with a shark called Cretalamna during the age of dinosaurs about 100 million years ago.

By contrast, the white shark lineage began with an ancient mako shark, Carcharodon hastalis. It was 7 to 8 metres long and had large, similarly shaped teeth to the modern white shark but lacking serrated edges.

A fossil intermediate species, Carcharodon hubbelli shows the transition over time from weakly serrated to strongly serrated teeth.

How did Jaws affect white shark populations?

Last year, the International Shark Attack File reported 47 unprovoked shark bites to humans worldwide, resulting in seven fatalities. This was well below the previous ten-year average of 70 bites per year; your chances of getting bitten by a shark are extremely rare.

Following the movies that made up the Jaws franchise, there was an increase in hunting and killing sharks – with a particular focus on great white sharks that were already going into a decline due to overfishing, trophy hunting and lethal control programs.

Between 80% and 90% of white sharks have disappeared globally since the middle of the 20th century. Recent estimates calculate there are probably less than 500 individual white sharks in Australian waters right now.

When Jaws first aired, scientists didn’t know how long sharks took to reproduce, or how many offspring a white shark could have each year. We now know it takes about 26 years for a male and 33 years for a female to sexually mature before they can start having pups.

Data about white shark births is sparse, but recently a 5.6-metre-long female caught on a drum line off the coast of Queensland had just four large pups inside her. This is a very small number. Some large sharks, such as the whale shark, can give birth to up to 300 young.

Now that we know just how slow they are to breed, it’s clear it will take many decades to reestablish the “pre-Jaws” population of white sharks – important apex predators in the marine ecosystem.

Will white sharks survive?

White sharks are currently listed as vulnerable.

This classification means if we don’t change the current living conditions for white sharks, including impacts caused by human activities such as commercial fishing, and the impacts of climate change and ocean pollution, they will continue to decline and eventually could go extinct.

Currently, white sharks are protected in several countries and form the basis for an important tourist industry in Australia, South Africa, western United States and most recently Nova Scotia, Canada.

These sharks are iconic apex predators that fascinate people. One of us (John) went cage diving with them recently off the Neptune Islands of South Australia and can attest to how breathtaking it is to watch them in their natural environment.

In terms of economic impact, they are worth far more alive than dead.

There’s still much we don’t know about white sharks

The complete white shark genome was first published only in 2019. It has 4.63 billion base pairs, making it much larger than the human genome (3.2 billion base pairs).

The genome revealed some surprising things, like how white sharks show strong molecular adaptations for wound-healing processes, and a suite of “genome stability” genes – those used in DNA repair or DNA damage response.

The transcriptome (or sum total of the messenger RNA) of the white shark showed greater similarity to the human transcriptome than to that of other fishes. This hints that “unexpressed genes” in the shark could one day play a role in uncovering genetic pathways for potential cures in human diseases.

Jaws and its sequels certainly brought white sharks to the attention (and nightmares) of humans, with devastating impacts on how we treated them as a species.

Our relationship with white sharks reflects our relationship with nature more broadly – a feared antagonist within the current capitalist paradigm; an enemy to be tamed, contained or consumed.

As we learn more of the peril and potential of these remarkable creatures, we can learn how to live with them, to see beyond our fears and value their role within our delicate ocean ecosystems.

John Long receives funding from The Australian Research Council.

Heather L. Robinson 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. Jaws at 50: how a single movie changed our perception of white sharks forever – https://theconversation.com/jaws-at-50-how-a-single-movie-changed-our-perception-of-white-sharks-forever-258306

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam D Hines, Research Fellow, Centre for Robotics, Queensland University of Technology

Robots are increasingly becoming a part of our lives – from warehouse automation to robotic vacuum cleaners. And just like humans, robots need to know where they are to reliably navigate from A to B.

How far, and for how long, a robot can navigate depends on how much power it consumes over time. Robot navigation systems are especially energy hungry.

But what if power consumption was no longer a concern?

Our research on “brain-inspired” computing, published today in Science Robotics, could make navigational robots of the future more energy efficient than previously imagined.

This could potentially extend and expand what’s possible for battery-powered systems working in challenging environments such as disaster zones, underwater, and even in space.

How do robots ‘see’ the world?

The battery going flat on your smartphone is usually just a minor inconvenience. For a robot, running out of power can mean the difference between life and death – including for the people it might be helping.

Robots such as search and rescue drones, underwater robots monitoring the Great Barrier Reef, and space rovers all need to navigate while running on limited power supplies.

Many of these robots can’t rely on GPS for navigation. They keep track of where they are using a process called visual place recognition. Visual place recognition lets a robot estimate where it’s located in the world using just what it “sees” through its camera.

But this method uses a lot of energy. Robotic vision systems alone can use up to a third of the energy from a typical lithium ion battery found onboard a robot.

This is because modern robotic vision, including visual place recognition, typically relies on power-hungry machine learning models, similar to the ones used in AI like ChatGPT.

By comparison, our brains require just enough power to turn on a light bulb, while allowing us to see things and navigate the world with remarkable precision.

Robotics engineers often look to biology for inspiration. In our new study, we turned to the human brain to help us create a new, energy-efficient visual place recognition system.

Mimicking the brain

Our system uses a brain-inspired technology called neuromorphic computing. As the name suggests, neuromorphic computers take principles from neuroscience to design computer chips and software that can learn and process information like human brains do.

An important feature of neuromorphic computers is that they are highly energy-efficient. A regular computer can use up to 100 times more power than a neuromorphic chip.

Neuromorphic computing is not limited to just computer chips, however. It can be paired with bio-inspired cameras that capture the world more like the human eye does. These are called dynamic vision sensors, and they work like motion detectors for each pixel. They only “wake up” and send information when something changes in the scene, rather than constantly streaming data like a regular camera.

These bio-inspired cameras are also highly energy efficient, using less than 1% of the power of normal cameras.

So if brain-inspired computers and bio-inspired cameras are so wonderful, why aren’t robots using them everywhere? Well, there are a range of challenges to overcome, which was the focus of our recent research.

A new kind of LENS

The unique properties of a dynamic vision sensor are, ironically, a limiting factor in many visual place recognition systems.

Standard visual place recognition models are built on the foundation of static images, like the ones taken by your smartphone. Since a neuromorphic sensor doesn’t produce static images but senses the world in a constantly changing way, we need a brain-inspired computer to process what it “sees”.

Our research overcomes this challenge by combining neuromorphic chips and sensors for robots that use visual place recognition. We call this system Locational Encoding with Neuromorphic Systems, or LENS for short.

LENS uses the continuous information stream from a dynamic vision sensor directly on a neuromorphic chip. The system uses a machine learning method known as spiking neural networks. These process information like human brains do.

By combining all these neuromorphic components, we reduced the power needed for visual place recognition by over 90%. Since nearly a third of the energy needed for a robot is vision related, this is a significant reduction.

To achieve this, we used an off-the-shelf product called SynSense Speck, which combines a neuromorphic chip and a dynamic vision sensor all in one compact package.

The entire system only required 180 kilobytes of memory to map an area of Brisbane eight kilometres in length. That’s a tiny fraction of what would be needed in a standard visual place recognition system.

A robot in the wild

For testing, we placed our LENS system on a hexapod robot. Hexapods are multi-terrain robots that can navigate both indoors and outdoors.

In our tests, the LENS performed as well as a typical visual place recognition system, but used much less energy.

Our work comes at a time when AI development is trending towards creating bigger, more power-hungry solutions for improved performance. The energy needed to train and use systems like OpenAI’s ChatGPT is notoriously demanding, with concerns that modern AI represents unsustainable growth in energy demands.

For robots that need to navigate, developing more compact, energy-efficient AI using neuromorphic computing could be key for being able to go farther and for longer periods of time. There are still challenges to solve, but we are closer to making it a reality.

Michael Milford receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Economic Accelerator, the Queensland Government, Amazon, Ford Motor Company, iMOVE CRC, the DAAD Australia-Germany Co-operation Scheme and DSTG. He is affiliated with the Motor Trades Association of Queensland as a non-executive board member.

Tobias Fischer receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the DAAD Australia-Germany Co-operation Scheme, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation via the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program, and the Queensland Department of Environment, Science and Innovation.

Adam D Hines 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. Robot eyes are power hungry. What if we gave them tools inspired by the human brain? – https://theconversation.com/robot-eyes-are-power-hungry-what-if-we-gave-them-tools-inspired-by-the-human-brain-257978

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tu Nguyen, PhD Candidate, Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute

Winter is here, along with cold days and the inevitable seasonal surge in respiratory viruses.

But it’s not only the sniffles we need to worry about. Heart attacks and strokes also tend to rise during the winter months.

In new research out this week we show one reason why.

Our study shows catching common respiratory viruses raises your short-term risk of a heart attack or stroke. In other words, common viruses, such as those that cause flu and COVID, can trigger them.

Wait, viruses can trigger heart attacks?

Traditional risk factors such as smoking, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity and lack of exercise are the main reasons for heart attacks and strokes.

And rates of heart attacks and strokes can rise in winter for a number of reasons. Factors such as low temperature, less physical activity, more time spent indoors – perhaps with indoor air pollutants – can affect blood clotting and worsen the effects of traditional risk factors.

But our new findings build on those from other researchers to show how respiratory viruses can also be a trigger.

The theory is respiratory virus infections set off a heart attack or stroke, rather than directly cause them. If traditional risk factors are like dousing a house in petrol, the viral infection is like the matchstick that ignites the flame.

For healthy, young people, a newer, well-kept house is unlikely to spontaneously combust. But an older or even abandoned house with faulty electric wiring needs just a spark to lead to a blaze.

People who are particularly vulnerable to a heart attack or stroke triggered by a respiratory virus are those with more than one of those traditional risk factors, especially older people.

What we did and what we found

Our team conducted a meta-analysis (a study of existing studies) to see which respiratory viruses play a role in triggering heart attacks and strokes, and the strength of the link. This meant studying more than 11,000 scientific papers, spanning 40 years of research.

Overall, the influenza virus and SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID) were the main triggers.

If you catch the flu, we found the risk of a heart attack goes up almost 5.4 times and a stroke by 4.7 times compared with not being infected. The danger zone is short – within the first few days or weeks – and tapers off with time after being infected.

Catching COVID can also trigger heart attacks and strokes, but there haven’t been enough studies to say exactly what the increased risk is.

We also found an increased risk of heart attacks or strokes with other viruses, including respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), enterovirus and cytomegalovirus. But the links are not as strong, probably because these viruses are less commonly detected or tested for.

What’s going on?

Over a person’s lifetime, our bodies wear and tear and the inside wall of our blood vessels becomes rough. Fatty build-ups (plaques) stick easily to these rough areas, inevitably accumulating and causing tight spaces.

Generally, blood can still pass through, and these build-ups don’t cause issues. Think of this as dousing the house in petrol, but it’s not yet alight.

So how does a viral infection act like a matchstick to ignite the flame? Through a cascading process of inflammation.

High levels of inflammation that follow a viral infection can crack open a plaque. The body activates blood clotting to fix the crack but this clot could inadvertently block a blood vessel completely, causing a heart attack or stroke.

Some studies have found fragments of the COVID virus inside the blood clots that cause heart attacks – further evidence to back our findings.

We don’t know whether younger, healthier people are also at increased risk of a heart attack or stroke after infection with a respiratory virus.

That’s because people in the studies we analysed were almost always older adults with at least one of those traditional risk factors, so were already vulnerable.

The bad news is we will all be vulnerable eventually, just by getting older.

What can we do about it?

The triggers we identified are mostly preventable by vaccination.

There is good evidence from clinical trials the flu vaccine can reduce the risk of a heart attack or stroke, especially if someone already has heart problems.

We aren’t clear exactly how this works. But the theory is that avoiding common infections, or having less severe symptoms, reduces the chances of setting off the inflammatory chain reaction.

COVID vaccination could also indirectly protect against heart attacks and strokes. But the evidence is still emerging.

Heart attacks and strokes are among Australia’s biggest killers. If vaccinations could help reduce even a small fraction of people having a heart attack or stroke, this could bring substantial benefit to their lives, the community, our stressed health system and the economy.

What should I do?

At-risk groups should get vaccinated against flu and COVID. Pregnant women, and people over 60 with medical problems, should receive RSV vaccination to reduce their risk of severe disease.

So if you are older or have predisposing medical conditions, check Australia’s National Immunisation Program to see if you are eligible for a free vaccine.

For younger people, a healthy lifestyle with regular exercise and balanced diet will set you up for life. Consider checking your heart age (a measure of your risk of heart disease), getting an annual flu vaccine and discuss COVID boosters with your GP.

Tu Nguyen is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program PhD Scholarship and a Murdoch Children’s Research Institute Top-Up Scholarship.

Christopher Reid receives funding from National Health and Medical Research Council and the Medical Research Future Fund.

Jim Buttery receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund, the US Centres for Disease Control, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovation, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Victorian State Government.

Diana Vlasenko and Hazel Clothier 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. Winter viruses can trigger a heart attack or stroke, our study shows. It’s another good reason to get a flu or COVID shot – https://theconversation.com/winter-viruses-can-trigger-a-heart-attack-or-stroke-our-study-shows-its-another-good-reason-to-get-a-flu-or-covid-shot-256090

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendon Hyndman, Associate Dean (Academic), Faculty of Arts and Education, Charles Sturt University

Children spend thousands of hours in playgrounds at school. A lot of this time does not have the same levels of teacher preparation and supervision as classrooms do.

Research shows school playgrounds are one of the main locations where bullying occurs.

The federal government is doing a rapid review into what works and what else needs to be done to stop bullying in schools. School playgrounds can sometimes be overlooked when considering anti-bullying approaches.

What is the relationship between playgrounds and bullying? And how can we better set up playgrounds to help prevent this damaging behaviour?

Why do play spaces matter?

The reasons for bullying are complex and stem from a range of factors.

But research suggests bullying is more common in confined or contested spaces – for example, when students are mixing with other year levels.

This research also suggests some students are more likely to bully other students, lash out and break rules when they are bored and frustrated in school play spaces.

A new report from not-for-profit group Play Australia estimates just 2% of all Australian schools are using innovative, research-informed strategies that best encourage and support healthy play behaviours.

What happens in Australia?

School play spaces are not regulated in the way playgrounds are for younger children. For example, there are no minimum space requirements per student in high schools. There are some emerging primary school space guidelines, but these are not always followed.

The lack of regulation for playground space has also seen classroom buildings taking over play areas and rules stopping students from moving in some areas (for example, no running or ball games).

Many primary schools still rely on fixed play equipment installed in the 1980s. But primary school students report they get bored of playing on the same equipment over and over again.

In public high schools, playgrounds tend to be large open spaces with ovals, hard-surfaced courts and picnic tables or benches.

Not only is this not particularly stimulating or inviting, the design can lead to some (typically male) students dominating the open spaces with games.

This can exclude other students from the playground. Research suggests if students lack a sense of community and belonging to their school, they are more likely to bully others.

What should primary schools do?

A growing body of research based on interviews with teachers and student observations suggests positive behaviours can be encouraged if primary students have more options and fewer restrictions on how they engage in play.

Resources that can be moved, adapted and selected by students (with varying colours, shapes, sizes, quantities and types) can help develop problem-solving and teamwork skills and reduce bullying because children are busy and engaged.

Examples of resources include both natural (rocks and twigs), loose sports equipment (small hurdles, bats and frisbees, balls) and other manufactured items (blocks, boxes, pipes, planks and crates).

Research also suggests teachers’ engagement with students in the playground can help reduce bullying and antisocial behaviour.

The “active supervision” method is recognised as one of the most effective ways to to do this, as it can improve students’ sense of belonging and safety.

The method includes adults using positive language, showing an interest in supporting play and modelling positive play behaviours, which increase students’ participation and cooperation.

What about high schools?

Research with school architects suggests high school spaces with well maintained, diverse features can help promote a more positive social culture.

It also suggests multiple spaces for students – as opposed to a single dominant space in a playground – can support students to feel as though there is space for them, and they belong at school.

It is important for high school students to be consulted about what they want – they are the main users and have evolving needs as they progress through school.

A 2025 Australian study found high school students want opportunities to retreat and be themselves.

Examples include maintained gardens and courtyards to help relax after the stresses of classroom rules and routines. Students suggested trees, rocks and gardens could break up open spaces. Providing sufficient shade can also ensure students have more accessible space to engage with each other throughout a school year.

What next?

Improving playgrounds to better address student needs will require more resources from governments.

But addressing bullying is complex and we know physical settings can impact social dynamics. So we need to look more closely at school playgrounds as a key place where bullying occurs and the role they play in this behaviour.

Brendon Hyndman’s work on school play is mentioned in the Play Australia report referenced in this article.

– ref. School playgrounds are one of the main locations for bullying. How can they be set up to stop it? – https://theconversation.com/school-playgrounds-are-one-of-the-main-locations-for-bullying-how-can-they-be-set-up-to-stop-it-258566

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert B Whait, Senior Lecturer in Taxation Law, University of South Australia

Soon, more than 15 million Australians should be lodging a tax return with the Australian Taxation Office in the hope of receiving at least a small refund.

About 60% of taxpayers use an accountant to prepare their tax return while the other 40% lodge their returns via their MyGov account. This links them to the tax office, Medicare and other government services.

The tax office receives about 1000 tip-offs a week from people who know or suspect evasion. Of these, the office deems about 90% warrant further investigation.

What to remember when preparing your tax return

These days, the tax office prefills much of your income information. The ATO will let you know through your MyGov account when your income statements from your employer are “tax ready”.

But other income including bank interest, dividends and managed investment funds distributions may take longer to appear, so don’t rush to complete and lodge your tax return on July 1 if these aren’t there. When these items prefill, check them for accuracy and correct any errors.

The tax office does not know about all your income so remember to provide details of other sources including capital gains on investments and income from other jobs for which you have an Australian Business Number.

Some items, such as private health insurance information, are only partially pre-filled so be sure to check that all questions have been answered and all necessary information provided.

How to claim deductions

To claim a deduction you must have spent the money yourself and were not reimbursed from another source.

The expense must be directly related to earning your income from either employment or services provided, from investments such as shares or a rental property, or from a business you operate.

And you must have a record to prove your expense. This usually needs to be in the form of a receipt or a diary.

If you don’t know how to record your deductions, an easy option is to use the tax office myDeductions app. You can scan receipts and allocate them to the correct section of your return.

What the tax office will be looking for in 2025

Each year the tax office targets particular areas. For 2025, these are:

Working from home expenses: you can choose between two methods: the fixed rate method or the actual cost method.

The fixed rate method allows you to claim 70 cents for each hour worked from home during the year. You do not need to keep receipts, but you must keep a record of the hours worked at home.

The actual cost method allows you to claim the costs of working from home, but taxpayers must have a dedicated room set aside for the office and remove all private use.

You cannot claim personal items like interest on a home loan or rent expenses unless you are operating a business from home.

Personal items, such as coffee machines, are not claimable even if you use them while working from home. Mobile phone and internet costs are included in the 70 cents per hour fixed rate. The ATO will be looking for taxpayers who claim these twice – for example, on their return and from their employer.

The 70 cents per hour rate does not include depreciation of work-related technology and office furniture, cleaning of the home office and repairs to these items. So these amounts can be claimed separately.

Motor vehicle expenses: there are also two methods to work out this claim. The log book method requires you to have kept a record for 12 weeks. You then need to work out the percentage you used your car for work or business which is applied to your expenses.

The cents per kilometre method allows you to claim 88 cents for each kilometre up to 5,000 km of work or business travel. No receipts need to be kept for this method, but you must be able to justify the total kilometres that you have claimed.

If you use the cents per kilometre method, do not double dip by claiming additional motor vehicle expenses.

Rental properties: make sure the expenses you claim do not include your personal costs. For example, the interest expenses must only be for the rental property and not interest from your personal home.

Also, if you own 50% of the rental you can only claim 50% of the expenses, even if your taxable income is higher than the other owner. If you have a holiday home you can only claim expenses for when that home was rented out, not the whole year.

Cryptocurrency: many taxpayers are buying and selling cryptocurrency. These transactions need to be reported in your tax return when they are sold as a capital gain or capital loss.

Other forms of income: if you earn money through the sharing or gig economies, you must include all income from these activities in your return. If you sell goods online, the tax office may consider it to be a business, and it will expect the income to be declared.

Don’t be tempted to cheat

The ATO already knows a lot about your tax situation, which makes it harder than ever to cheat.

The tax office uses data matching to check information you include in your return against data provided by other parties including share registries and your health insurer. It also gathers information from the internet.

If the data doesn’t match your return, or your claim is considered excessive, the ATO may contact you. You may be asked to explain why and, if your explanation is unsatisfactory, you might be audited.

Penalties of 25% to 75% of the tax owed may apply for falsely claiming deductions. The more dishonest the claim, the higher the penalty).

The link between what you claim and what you earn has to be real. So do not claim the cost of your Armani suit as a work uniform or your pet as a mascot for your business. Even the cost of a massage chair to relieve work stress cannot be claimed.

Dubious claims received by the tax office in recent years are many and varied. They have included Lego, school uniforms and sporting equipment purchased for kids, $9000 worth of wine bought by a wine expert while on a European holiday, for personal consumption, and a claim using receipts lodged by a doctor for an overseas conference he didn’t attend.

What if I make a mistake or the ATO finds an error?

If you make a mistake in your tax return, you can always amend it via MyTax.

The tax office will not fine you unless you did not take reasonable care, but you will have to pay back the shortfall in tax.

The due date to lodge your own return is October 31. If you are having trouble meeting this date, contact the tax office and ask for an extension.

---

Disclaimer: this is general information only and not to be taken as financial or tax advice.

Robert B Whait receives funding from the Federal Government as part of the National Tax Clinic Program, Financial Literacy Australia (now Ecstra Foundation), ANZ Bank, and the Consumer Policy Research Centre (CPRC). He is affiliated with the Tax Institute of Australia and Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand.

Connie Vitale receives funding from the Federal Government as part of the National Tax Clinic Program. She is affiliated with the Institute of Public Accountants and Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand.

– ref. Would you cheat on your tax? It’s a risky move, the tax office knows a lot about you – https://theconversation.com/would-you-cheat-on-your-tax-its-a-risky-move-the-tax-office-knows-a-lot-about-you-258587

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Llewellyn Spink, AI Corporate Governance Lead, Human Technology Institute, University of Technology Sydney

Australia’s productivity is flatlining, posting the worst vitals we’ve seen in 60 years.

Politicians and chief executives are prescribing artificial intelligence (AI) like it’s the new penicillin – a wonder drug with almost magical healing powers. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Treasurer Jim Chalmers and the Productivity Commission all see AI as a key part of the plan to cure Australia’s productivity ills, with estimates that automation and AI could add A$600 billion to Australia’s annual economy.

Unfortunately, AI is no panacea. It’s more like physiotherapy after major surgery: it only delivers if you put in the effort, follow the program and work with experts who know which muscles to strengthen and when.

AI projects have high fail rates

AI is a broad suite of tools and techniques, of which generative AI such as ChatGPT is just the latest iteration. When implemented well, AI can undoubtedly lift productivity across a wide variety of applications. Unilever’s legal team reports generative AI tools save its lawyers 30 minutes daily on document review and contract analysis.

Other AI applications can deliver life-saving results at even greater efficiency. In a German study, AI-supported mammography screening reduced radiologists’ reading time by 43% for examinations tagged as normal, while improving cancer detection rates.

---

The federal government is focused on improving productivity. In this five-part series, we’ve asked leading experts what that means for the economy, what’s holding us back and their best ideas for reform.

---

But the hard truth is that AI-driven productivity gains like these depend on both smart implementation and trusted adoption. Organisations that skip the tough part – such as staff engagement, training and good governance – often find the promised benefits never materialise.

The numbers back this up: some 80% of AI projects end up failing, twice the rate of traditional IT projects. Only one in four executives in a global survey report meaningful returns on their AI investments.

We shouldn’t really be surprised. Other general-purpose technologies, such as electricity and earlier digital technologies followed a similar path. US economist Robert Solow famously said: “You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.”

Workers don’t trust the technology

Like the early days of the internet in the 1990s, the success of AI relies on adoption and trust. Without trust, uptake stalls and the benefits evaporate.

That’s a big challenge in Australia, where public trust and optimism in AI remains comparatively low. Why? Australians also report lower levels of AI use, training and confidence. And people are less likely to trust what they don’t understand.

Closing that trust gap means involving workers from the start. By listening to worker concerns and identifying existing pain points in processes, companies can deploy AI systems that help, rather than sideline employees.

Conversely, when workers aren’t meaningfully involved, things don’t go well.

Take Klarna. The Swedish fintech volunteered to be the generative AI platform OpenAI’s “favourite guinea pig”. It slashed jobs and claimed to have automated the equivalent of 700 employees. But
CEO Sebastian Siemiatkowski now admits the shift to AI hurt customer service, forcing the company to rehire humans.

Similarly, Duolingo recently faced a user backlash when it replaced 10% of contractors with AI.

Regrets? Bosses have a few

These aren’t isolated cases. Some 55% of UK executives who replaced workers with AI later regretted it. In the rush to automate, workers are often seen as expendable.

This attitude to AI leads to what US economists Daron Acemoglu and Pascual Restrepro call “so-so automation”, where technology displaces workers without delivering meaningful productivity gains.

Rather than trying to replace staff with AI, organisations should be deeply engaging with them. Engaging workers can dramatically boost the AI’s return on investment.

Like other general-purpose technologies, getting the most out of AI means transforming the way we work. And the data show companies that engage workers in organisational transformations are nine times more likely to succeed.

The companies that are unlocking the benefit of AI understand it works best when it amplifies human capability, rather than replacing it. Workers still know things that algorithms don’t. They deeply understand the practical realities of their jobs, which is crucial for designing AI systems that actually get things done.

Designing better solutions

Our own research confirms this. Australian workers feel AI is being imposed on them without adequate consultation or training. This not only creates resistance to adoption but also means organisations are missing the experience of the people who actually do the work.

Our most recent report shows worker engagement strengthens competitive advantage and profitability, and leads to better AI solutions rooted in workers’ problems and needs. When workers are involved in deciding how AI is used, the solutions are better designed, more effective and more widely adopted.

Australia’s new Industry and Innovation Minister, Tim Ayres, recognises this. In a recent speech he emphasised the need to work “cooperatively with workers and their unions” on tech adoption.

It’s a promising place to start. If AI is going to be an effective treatment for Australia’s productivity challenge, then workers must be an essential part of the recovery team.

Llewellyn Spink receives funding from the Minderoo Foundation as part of the Human Technology Institute’s AI Corporate Governance Program. HTI is funded by a wide variety of academic, corporate and philanthropic partners.

Nicholas Davis receives funding from the Minderoo Foundation as part of the Human Technology Institute’s AI Corporate Governance Program. HTI is funded by a wide variety of academic, corporate and philanthropic partners.

– ref. Companies are betting on AI to help lift productivity. Workers need to be part of the process – https://theconversation.com/companies-are-betting-on-ai-to-help-lift-productivity-workers-need-to-be-part-of-the-process-258396

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katrina Muller-Townsend, Lecturer in Psychology, Edith Cowan University

Sabrina Carpenter’s Man’s Best Friend album cover has fans divided.

Carpenter poses on all fours, her glossy blond hair grasped by a male figure cropped from the frame. Her wide-eyed expression intensifies an ambiguous performance of subservience, tapping into a visual language tied to female objectification, from classic pin-up imagery to contemporary pop culture.

The emotionally loaded image plays on her hyper-feminine, tongue-in-cheek pop star persona, forcing us to question where irony ends and objectification begins.

Is it satire, or self-degradation?

Up for debate

At first glance, the cover seems like just another stylised, provocative pop image. It delivers what we’ve come to expect: a bold, ironic twist on the exaggerated Juno-style pose she reinvents on stage.

To some fans, it’s clever satire: a pop star reclaiming and amplifying her image to mock industry norms. Satire uses exaggeration, irony, or humour to critique power structures – and Carpenter’s pose walks that tightrope.

To others it crosses a line, reinforcing regressive attitudes about women’s sexuality and drawing criticism from domestic violence advocates.

The debate reflects our unresolved discomfort about gender, power and control. There is a tension between Carpenter’s ironic persona and the submissive pose, creating uncertainty for the viewer.

We can use psychology to better understand this dichotomy.

The schema violation

This mismatch between expectation and perception is a schema violation.

A schema is a mental shortcut: a template built from experience and unspoken rules that helps us make sense of the world and predict what to expect. When something breaks that pattern, it’s called a schema violation.

Carpenter’s brand is cheeky, self-aware irony – so when she adopts a pose steeped in submission and hyper-femininity as in this album image, it feels off.

That can trigger cognitive dissonance: the mental tension we feel when two ideas (here, empowerment and obedience) don’t align.

To resolve the conflict, some fans reinterpret the image as feminist sarcasm. Others reject it, fearing it panders to outdated, dangerous norms.

Both reactions reflect our emotional and ideological investments in who Carpenter is or should be.

Exploring confirmation bias

Part of this conflicted reaction is driven by confirmation bias: our tendency to filter information to support what we already believe.

Fans who see Carpenter as witty and empowered interpret the image as intentionally ironic. Others – more sceptical of the industry’s history of exploiting female sexuality – view it as a throwback to damaging norms.

Either way, our interpretations often reflect more about ourselves than about Carpenter’s intent.

When her image contradicts both her public persona and our social values, it creates a gap between what we think is right and what we want to be right. So, we try to explain it away, by either defending the image or criticising it.

Satire and scandal

Carpenter’s cover follows a long tradition of female artists whose work straddles satire and scandal, complicating public reception.

Madonna’s Like a Prayer drew outrage for mixing religion with sexual imagery. Yet it positioned her as a provocateur – a woman resisting the lack of agency that so often defines sexualised media.

Miley Cyrus’ Bangerz era shocked fans with a bold shift from Hannah Montana innocence to hypersexualised rebellion, challenging the narrow roles women in pop culture are confined to.

Doja Cat’s shift from glam pop princess to glitch villainess unsettled audiences. Was it satire, rebellion, or just chaos?

These women, like Carpenter, force us to confront our own discomfort with women who won’t stay in one lane.

Performer and provocateur

Audience reaction is also shaped by emotional investment in Carpenter’s persona. Through carefully curated social media, interviews and lyrics, fans build intimate narratives forming parasocial relationships – one-sided emotional bonds with celebrities.

When an image contradicts that imagined persona, it can feel jarring, even like betrayal.

Audiences often expect idols to be empowering but not polarising, sexy but safe, to challenge norms – but only in ways that affirm our own values.

Carpenter’s image breaks that implicit contract, which creates discomfort for some viewers.

Carpenter’s cover raises uncomfortable but necessary questions about how much freedom female artists have to be both critical and complicit. Can they play with society and play along, to be both performer and provocateur?

This highlights the double bind many women face in media and popular culture. Female artists are expected to both subvert and satisfy; to entertain without offending; empower without alienating. The burden to be palatable and provocative is one male artists rarely face.

It’s what we make of it

Is Carpenter undermining herself or subverting the system? Perhaps both. Or perhaps the image isn’t the message: our reaction is.

The image forces us to confront not only our perception of Sabrina Carpenter but also our cultural discomfort with women who defy neat categorisation. Satire demands interpretation, especially when it comes from women addressing sex or power.

More than provocation, Carpenter’s cover mirrors our cultural struggle to accept women who defy simple labels of satire or submission. The image can reflect broader social ideals and tensions projected onto public figures.

What we see says more about our assumptions than her intent. Understanding those reactions doesn’t kill the fun – it deepens it.

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

– ref. Is Sabrina Carpenter’s Man’s Best Friend album cover satire or self-degradation? A psychology expert explores our reactions – https://theconversation.com/is-sabrina-carpenters-mans-best-friend-album-cover-satire-or-self-degradation-a-psychology-expert-explores-our-reactions-259043

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

While the world’s media is largely focused on conflict in the Middle East, the focus for many Australians remains at home, with the government preparing the long task ahead of trying to lift Australia’s productivity.

Last week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced a productivity roundtable, which will be held in mid-August. Now Treasurer Jim Chalmers has flagged the roundtable will be part of a much more ambitious debate, indicating he’s open to a broad discussion of major tax reform.

In this podcast, Chalmers is frank about his own belief in the importance of seizing the moment – even if “there’s an element of political risk” whenever governments talk about tax reform.

The way I see this is that I become very wary of people who say, because of the magnitude of our majority, that we will get another term. There are, as you know, few such assurances in politics, particularly in modern politics.

I can kind of hear that [office] clock ticking behind us, and I want to get on with it. You know, we’ve got a big job to do to deliver the big, substantial, ambitious agenda that we’ve already determined and taken to an election. But I am, by nature, impatient. I think the country has an opportunity to be ambitious here. And so if you’re detecting that in my language, that’s probably not accidental.

[…] There’s no absence of courage. There is an absence of consensus, and it’s consensus that we need to move forward. And that’s what I’m seeking, not just in the roundtable, but in the second term of our government.

Chalmers says one of his takeouts from reading Abundance, a new book currently fashionable with progressives, was the need to “get out of our own away” to build more homes and renewable energy, while maintaining high standards.

A lot of regulation is necessary. So we talk about better regulation. But where we can reduce compliance costs and where we can wind back some of this red tape in ways that doesn’t compromise standards, of course we should seek to do that.

One of the things I’m really pleased I got the cabinet to agree to earlier this week is we’re going to approach all of the regulators and we’re going to say, ‘please tell us where you think we can cut back on regulation and compliance costs in a way that doesn’t jeopardise your work’ […] We’re not talking about eliminating regulation. We’re talking about making sure that it’s better.

[…] I think renewable energy projects is part of the story here. I speak to a lot of international investors, there’s a big global contest and scramble for capital in the world […] One of the things that international investors say to us about Australia is ‘we don’t want to spend too long burning cash while we wait for approvals from multiple levels of government and other sorts of approvals’.

So if we can speed some of that up, if we can make sure it makes sense, if our regulation is better, then I think we give ourselves more of a chance of achieving our economic goals, but also our social and environmental goals.

On the productivity roundtable, Chalmers wants bold ideas.

We have an open door and an open mind. This is a genuine attempt to see where we can find some common ground. In some areas that won’t be possible, in other areas, I think it will. And I think we owe it to ourselves to try.

This is a very different discussion to the [2022] Jobs and Skills Summit. Much smaller, much more targeted, a bigger onus on people in the room to build consensus outside of the room.

We’re specifically asking people to consider the trade-offs, including the fiscal trade-off when it comes to what they’re proposing. We’re asking them to take a nationwide, economy-wide view, not a sectoral view about their own interests.

On whether any new major changes – including greater tax reform – would require a fresh mandate, Chalmers wants to wait and see.

I think it depends on the nature of the change. I’m sort of reluctant to think about sequencing and timing and mandates before we’ve got everybody’s ideas on the table and worked out where the consensus and common ground exists […] I think that remains to be seen.

E&OE Transcript

MICHELLE GRATTAN, HOST: Treasurer Jim Chalmers has declared improving Australia’s dismal progress on productivity is at the top of his priorities for Labor’s second term, but addressing the National Press Club on Wednesday, it was clear that his ambitions for economic reform are wide, much wider than we’ve heard from him or from the Prime Minister in the previous term or in the election campaign.

From August 19 to 21, the Government will hold a roundtable to seek ideas for reform from business, unions, civil society and experts. This will be a small gathering held in Parliament House’s Cabinet room.

Notably, Chalmers has invited participants to put forward ideas on tax reform.

The Treasurer is our guest today. Jim Chalmers, before we get to the roundtable, let’s start with the escalating Middle East war. What are the economic implications of this so far, and on one specific issue, what are the implications going to be for oil prices?

JIM CHALMERS, TREASURER: Thanks, Michelle. This is obviously a very perilous part of the world right now, it’s a perilous moment, perilous for the global economy as well.

We’re primarily focused on the human consequences of what’s going on, including around 2,000 people who’ve registered with DFAT to try and get out of the particularly dangerous areas right now, so that’s our focus, but there will be big economic consequences as well, and we’ve already seen in the volatility in the oil price – the barrel price for oil went up between 10 and 11 per cent last Friday when a lot of this flared up, and I think that is an indication of the volatility that this escalating situation in the Middle East is creating in the economy.

I get briefed every day on movements in relevant commodity prices and the like, and there’s a lot of concern, again primarily about the human cost, but there’s a lot of concern around the world about what this means for petrol price inflation and what it means for global growth as well.

GRATTAN: Also on the international scene, are we making any progress on getting concessions on the US tariffs, or will that have to wait for a rescheduled meeting between Donald Trump and Anthony Albanese? There’s now talk, incidentally, of a meeting possibly at NATO next week, although we don’t know whether that will happen or not.

CHALMERS: The Prime Minister’s made it clear that he is considering going to the NATO meeting. By the time people listen to this podcast, it may be that that’s been determined, but whether or not he goes to Europe, we’ve got a lot of different ways and a lot of different opportunities to engage with the Americans on these key questions, and the Prime Minister met with some of the most senior people in the economic institutions of the US overseas – and he met with leaders from Japan and the UK and Germany and Canada and others, so a very worthwhile trip.

We’ll continue to engage wherever we can and whenever we can, because our national economic interest is at stake here. We’ll continue to speak up and stand up for our workers and our businesses to try and make progress on this really key question.

GRATTAN: But no progress yet.

CHALMERS: We’re continuing to engage. We have had discussions at every level, including at my level, and the Prime Minister’s had discussions. Like the whole world right now, people are trying to get a better deal in the aftermath of the announcement of these tariffs; we’re no exception.

We’re better placed and better prepared than most countries to deal with the fallout of what’s happening with these escalating trade tensions, but we are seeking a better deal for our workers and businesses and industries. The Prime Minister’s engagement reflects that, and so does the rest of ours.

GRATTAN: Now, to turn to your productivity roundtable, give us some more details about it, including whether the sessions will be public and will the Premiers be there?

CHALMERS: There are some of those details that we’re still working out. I can’t imagine it will be public in the sense that we’ll have permanent cameras in the Cabinet room, but we don’t intend to be heavy‑handed about it, we’re not seeking people to sign non‑disclosure agreements ‑ I can’t anticipate that we’ll make it kind of Chatham House rules or confidential discussions, but we’re working through all of those issues. When it comes to the states, obviously we want the states involved in one way or another, and we’re working out the best way to do that.

I already engage with the state and territory treasurers at the moment on some of these key questions. I’ll continue to do that, I’ll step that up, and we’ll work out the best way to make sure that the states’ views are represented in the room.

You know how big the Cabinet room is, Michelle, it’s about 25 seats around an oblong table, so we can’t have everybody there, but we will do everything we can to make sure that the relevant views are represented, including the views of the States and Territories.

GRATTAN: When you say you wouldn’t see you having cameras in the Cabinet room, wouldn’t you want some of it to be public, because if it wasn’t, then whoever was telling the story would be putting their slant on it?

CHALMERS: Well, we’ll try and strike the best balance. I think what will happen is, inevitably, people who are participating in the roundtable, indeed people who are providing views but not necessarily in the room, there will be a big flourishing of national policy discussion and debate; that’s a good thing. We’ll try not to restrict that excessively. I just think practically having a kind of live feed out of the Cabinet room is probably not the best way to go about things.

But I’m broadly confident ‑ comfortable, broadly comfortable with people expressing a view outside the room and characterising the discussions inside the room. There may be a convincing reason not to go about it that way, but I’m pretty relaxed about people talking about the discussions.

GRATTAN: In your Press Club speech, you spoke about seeking submissions. Now, would those be submissions before the roundtable?

CHALMERS: Absolutely, but also, we’re trying to work out, in addition to structuring this roundtable – which will be a really important way for us to seek consensus – in addition to that, we’re trying to work out how do we become really good at collecting and taking seriously the views that are put to us by people who are experts in their fields.

Not everybody can be around the Cabinet table. People have well-informed views, and we want to tap them. So we’re working out the best way to open a dedicated Treasury channel, primarily and initially, about feeding views in for the consideration of the roundtable. But if there are ways that we can do that better on an ongoing basis, we’re going to look at that too.

GRATTAN: What do you say to those in business who came out of the 2022 Jobs and Skills Summit rather cynical thinking, really, they’d been had, frankly, that this was basically a meeting to legitimise the Government giving what it wanted to to the unions?

CHALMERS: I’ve heard that view, but I don’t share it. I’ve taken the opportunity in recent days to look again at the sorts of things we progressed out of the Jobs and Skills Summit, it was much, much broader than a narrow focus on industrial relations. So I take that view seriously, but I don’t share it.

And my commitment, I gave this at the Press Club, and I will give this commitment every day between now and the roundtable if that’s necessary, we have an open door and an open mind, this is a genuine attempt to see where we can find some common ground. In some areas, that won’t be possible, in other areas I think it will, and I think we owe it to ourselves to try.

This is a very different discussion to the Jobs and Skills Summit, much smaller, much more targeted, a bigger onus on people in the room to build consensus outside of the room. We’re specifically asking people to consider the trade-offs, including the fiscal trade-offs. When it comes to what they’re proposing, we’re asking them to take a nationwide, economy-wide view, not a sectoral view about their own interests.

Let’s see how we go. We are approaching it in that fashion, a different discussion to Jobs and Skills, and we want to give ourselves every chance to progress out of that discussion with something meaningful.

GRATTAN: You say you accept the need for tax reform. This is really a big statement from you, and it is a change of emphasis from last term. Up to now, you’ve resisted any suggestion of undertaking comprehensive reform of the taxation system. So, where do you actually stand now? Are you looking for ideas for incremental change, or are you looking for something that’s really bold?

CHALMERS: First of all, I do accept that the economic reform, and particularly the tax reform we’ve engaged in so far, it has been sequenced, it has been methodical – but it’s also been, I think, more substantial than a lot of the commentary allows, about half a dozen ways we’re reforming the tax system, and I’m proud of the progress that we’ve made.

When it comes to the roundtable, the point I’ve made about tax, the thing I welcome about the roundtable is it’s not possible to think about and talk about productivity, budget sustainability and resilience amidst global volatility without allowing or encouraging, welcoming a conversation about tax. So that’s the approach I’m taking to it.

What I’m trying to do, and we’ll see how successful we can be at doing this over the course of the next couple of months, but what I’m trying to do is to not pre‑empt that discussion, I’m trying not to artificially limit that discussion about tax, and that’s because I know that people have well‑intentioned, well‑informed views about tax reform; let’s hear them.

GRATTAN: But you do seem open, from what you said, to a possible switch in the tax mix between direct and indirect.

CHALMERS: I think that will be one of the considerations that people raise at the roundtable, and I think it would be unusual to discourage that two months out. Let’s see what people want to propose. You know, I think that’s an indication of my willingness, the Prime Minister’s willingness, the Government’s, to hear people out.

And we broadly, whether it’s in tax and budget, whether it’s in productivity, resilience – I don’t want to spend too much at this roundtable with problem ID, I want to go from problem ID to ideas. That’s because we’ve had really for a long time now – probably as long as you and I have known each other, Michelle – we’ve had a lot of reports about tax, and important ones. I think the time now is to work out where are their common interests, where does the common ground exist, if it exists, on tax, and to see what we can progress together, and that requires on my part an open mind, and that’s what I’ve tried to bring to it.

GRATTAN: Of course, your former Treasury Secretary, who’s now the Prime Minister’s right-hand man as head of the Prime Minister’s department, I think has made speeches pointing out that you really do need such a switch.

CHALMERS: Yeah, and Steven Kennedy’s a very influential person in the Government. I’m delighted – we’ve been joking behind closed doors about Steven being demoted to PM&C from Treasury, but the reality is it’s amazing, it’s the best of all worlds from our point of view to have Kennedy at PM&C and Wilkinson at Treasury. That’s an amazing outcome for anyone who cares about economic reform and responsible economic management, a wonderful outcome.

Steven has made a number of comments in the past about the tax system, probably Jenny has as well. They are very informed, very considered, big thinkers when it comes to economic reform, and we’re going to tap their experience, their interest and their intellect.

GRATTAN: Well, he can now get into the Prime Minister’s ear on this matter. The other thing on tax, you did seem to wobble a bit on changing the GST; you’ve been pretty against that. I guess you left the impression at the Press Club that basically you were still probably against, but you did seem a bit more open-minded than usual.

CHALMERS: What I’m trying to do there, Michelle, and I’m pleased you asked me, because I think that was a bit of a test, a bit of an example of what I talk about in the speech, which is that obviously there are some things that governments, sensible, middle of the road, centrist governments like ours don’t consider – we don’t consider inheritance taxes, we don’t consider changing the arrangements for the family home, those sorts of things.

But what I’ve tried to do and what I tried to say in the speech is if we spend all of our time ruling things in or ruling things out, I think that has a corrosive impact on the nature of our national policy debate, and I don’t want to artificially limit the things that people bring to the roundtable discussion.

I was asked about the GST – you know that I’ve, for a decade or more, had a view about the GST. I repeated that view at the Press Club because I thought that was the honest thing to do, but what I’m going to genuinely try and do, whether it’s in this policy area or in other policy areas, is to not limit what people might bring to the table.

And so that’s what you described as a wobble, I think that really just reflects what I’m trying to do here is to not deny what I have said about these things in the past, but to try and give people the ability to raise whatever they would like at the roundtable. I suspect there will be other occasions like that, other opportunities like that between now and the roundtable where I’ll do the same thing. I’ll repeat what I’ve said, I won’t walk away from it, I haven’t changed my view on the GST. I suspect people will bring views to the roundtable about the GST. Let’s hear them.

GRATTAN: Well, of course, the GST can be a bit like a wild dog when it’s let off the leash. You’ll remember when Malcolm Turnbull let Scott Morrison as Treasurer float the idea of changing the GST, and that didn’t end well.

CHALMERS: No, I think I can recall a fascinating part of Malcolm’s book about that, if memory serves, or perhaps something else that he said or wrote subsequently. I’m obviously aware of that history, you know, and there’s ‑ let’s be upfront with each other, Michelle, when you do what I did at the Press Club today and say bring us your ideas and let’s see where there’s some common ground, there’s an element of political risk to that.

There’s a lot of history tied up in a lot of these questions, as you rightly point out in this instance, and I guess I’m demonstrating, or I’m trying to demonstrate, a willingness to hear people out, and there will be people who write about that in a way that tries to diminish this conversation that we’re setting up. That will happen. I’m open to that, relaxed about that, but let’s see what people think about our economy, about productivity, sustainability, tax, resilience, and let’s see if we can’t get around some good ideas that come out of that discussion.

GRATTAN: Which tempts me to ask, will Ken Henry be on your guest list of the famous Henry review?

CHALMERS: I think some people were surprised to see Ken there today at the National Press Club. Ken was there at the Press Club, and I think I said in the question and answer, if memory serves, and I hope it’s okay with Ken that I said this, but we’ve been engaging on drafts of the speech – we talk about some of the big issues in the Press Club speech I gave today.

I’m not sure about the final invite list. Once you start putting together a list of about 25 people, you’ve got some ministerial colleagues, you’ve got peak organisations, including the ACTU, Sally McManus will be there, maybe a community organisation, someone representing the community, some experts. Before long, it’s very easy to hit 25 people.

You’ve planned a few dinner parties in your time, Michelle, and an invite list of 25 people fills up pretty quick. We haven’t finalised that yet, but whether we invite Ken or Ken’s outside the room, he’s one of a number of people that I speak to about these big policy challenges, and regardless, I hope that he’s okay with us continuing to tap his brain.

GRATTAN: Maybe you need to adopt a sort of restaurant approach of rotational sittings.

CHALMERS: Yeah, well! –

GRATTAN: Now, I know you said today that you don’t like gotcha questions and gave us a bit of a lecture ‑‑

CHALMERS: This doesn’t sound like a good introduction, Michelle.

GRATTAN: ‑‑ about that, but your controversial tax on capital gains on superannuation balances that are very big, critics worry that this could in fact be the thin end of the wedge extending to other areas of the tax system. Would you care to rule that out?

CHALMERS: I think I said today, and I’m happy to repeat with you, Michelle, that we haven’t changed our approach here. We’ve got a policy that we announced almost two and a half years ago now, and we intend to proceed with it.

What we’re looking for here is not an opportunity at the roundtable to cancel policies that we’ve got a mandate for; we’re looking for the next round of ideas.

Now again, a bit like some of the other things we’ve been talking about, I suspect people will come either to the roundtable itself or to the big discussion that surrounds it with very strong views, and not unanimous views about superannuation. We read in a couple of our newspapers on an almost daily basis that people have got strong views about the superannuation changes, and not the identical same views, and so I suspect that will continue.

But our priority is to pass the changes that we announced, really some time ago, that we’ve taken to an election now, and that’s how we intend to proceed.

GRATTAN: So, you’re open to considering other views?

CHALMERS: On that particular issue, I think we have a pretty good sense of people’s views. I mean there’s ‑ I don’t pretend for a second that there’s unanimous support for it.

GRATTAN: I mean, extending it to other areas.

CHALMERS: No, I mean that’s not something we’ve been contemplating even for a second, and we haven’t done any work on that, we haven’t had a discussion about that, that’s not our intention.

But more broadly, when it comes to the system, I suspect people will have views about that at the roundtable – but thanks for the opportunity to clarify, we’re not planning for or strategising for extending that in additional ways.

GRATTAN: Now, artificial intelligence is obviously being seen as the next big productivity enhancer when you’re talking about the big things, but it’s also going to cost jobs, and that will exercise the unions.

Your Industry Minister Tim Ayres, has emphasised the unions have a role in this transition, must be consulted, brought into it, but you’ve said that while regulation will matter, and I quote, “We are overwhelmingly focused on capabilities and opportunities, not just guardrails. The emphasis here is different”. Do you see this as being a bit like the tariff reforms in the Hawke/Keating time, when there were big gains to be made but there were also very significant losers, and how do you deal with that situation?

CHALMERS: First of all, I think unions do have a place and a role to play in this. I can’t imagine meaningful progress on AI or technology more broadly where we wouldn’t include unions and workers in that conversation. That wouldn’t be consistent with our approach, and it wouldn’t make a lot of sense, so I share Tim’s view on that. I work closely with Tim Ayres and also Andrew Charlton, who will have a key role in some of these policy questions.

The point that I was making was it’s not a choice between regulation or capability, it’s not an either/or. Obviously we need guardrails, obviously we need regulation, but from my point of view, I see this as a game‑changer in our economy, I see it as one of the big ways that will make our economy more productive and lift living standards.

It’s not all downside for workers either – we’re talking about augmenting jobs, we’re talking about some of the routine tasks that are not the most satisfying parts of people’s work, so of course we want to include the union movement, of course we want to make sure that we’ve got appropriate guardrails.

The point that I was making in that interview with the Financial Review which you’re quoting from is that we need to get our capabilities right, we need the right skills base, I think we’ve got a huge opportunity with data centres and the infrastructure that supports artificial intelligence, and so that is a big part of the focus of our work. When it comes to productivity, when it comes to growth more broadly, industry policy, our work with the Productivity Commission, data and digital, AI, data centres, all of that I think are going to be key parts of the future economy in Australia.

GRATTAN: The last time we spoke on this podcast, you said you’d been reading the book Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, and you described it as a ripper. Now I think you’re making all your Cabinet colleagues read it too, and I’m not sure whether they thank you for that, but there it goes.

What are some of the ideas in the book that attracted you, and in particular, do you agree with the thesis that red tape is holding us back, particularly when it comes to housing and renewable energy and the transition to renewables?

CHALMERS: First of all ‑ we should be on a commission for this book, I think, from Andrew Leigh through a whole bunch of colleagues ‑ a lot of us have either read it or are in the process of reading it.

The reason that we are attracted to it is because it really is about working out as progressive people who care deeply about building more homes, rolling out more renewable energy, to make sure that the way we regulate that and approach that doesn’t get in our own way, that we don’t make it harder for us to achieve our big economic goals in the energy transformation; in housing and technology and all of these sorts of things.

What the Abundance book reminds us to do, and I think in a really timely and really punchy way, is it says, “As progressive people, let’s get out of our own way”. A lot of regulation is necessary, so we talk about better regulation, but where we can reduce compliance costs and where we can wind back some of this red tape in ways that doesn’t compromise standards, of course, we should seek to do that.

One of the things I’m really pleased I got the Cabinet to agree to earlier this week is we’re going to approach all of the regulators, and we’re going to say, “Please tell us where you think we can cut back on regulation and compliance costs in a way that doesn’t jeopardise your work”. I suspect from that, maybe not from every regulator, but from some of the regulators, I think if we are genuine about it, I think we can make some progress there to get compliance costs down, to speed up approvals so that we can deliver the things that we truly value as an economy but also as a society, and that’s what the Abundance book’s about.

GRATTAN: Of course, one of the problems is, while this sounds very good, a lot of stakeholders say we need more regulation of this or that, we need to protect flora, fauna, climate, whatever.

CHALMERS: Yeah, of course we do.

GRATTAN: And that all gets in the way of clearing away red tape, doesn’t it?

CHALMERS: We’re not talking about eliminating regulation, we are talking about making sure that it’s better, that we can use regulation in the service of our social and environmental and economic goals, but to make sure that we’re not overdoing it, that it’s not unnecessary, that it doesn’t prevent us achieving our aspirations and our objectives, including in the environment.

I think renewable energy projects are part of the story here, and I speak to a lot of international investors, there’s a big global contest and scramble for capital in the world. People are rethinking their investments, and there’s a lot of interest in Australia, and one of the things that international investors say to us about Australia is we don’t want to spend too long burning cash while we wait for approvals from multiple levels of government and other sorts of approvals.

If we can speed some of that up, if we can make sure it makes sense, if our regulation is better, then I think we give ourselves more of a chance of achieving our economic goals, but also our social and environmental goals as well.

GRATTAN: Another of your priorities is budget sustainability, and you say the Government’s made progress, but there’s a way to go. So, where are you going now? Do you need to make big savings in what areas, or are you really having to look at the revenue side more?

CHALMERS: I think there’s this kind of strange binary analysis of the budget situation. Some people say it doesn’t matter, some people say it’s beyond repair, and obviously, like a lot of things in politics and policy, the truth lies somewhere in between.

We’ve made a heap of progress on the budget; two surpluses, biggest ever nominal turnaround in the budget, we got the debt down, got the interest costs down. But what I acknowledge and what I will continue to acknowledge is there’s always more work to do to make it more sustainable.

For us, we made a heap of progress on aged care, the NDIS and interest costs, but we need to make sure that even when we think about the policy ideas that people bring to us at the roundtable, budget sustainability really matters. Where we do find something that we want to invest more in, we’ve got to consider the trade-offs, we’ve got to work out how to pay for things.

There’s probably not a day, certainly not a week that goes by where Katy Gallagher and I aren’t in one way or another engaging with colleagues on some of these structural pressures on the budget, because they do matter.

GRATTAN: Well, one, of course, is defence spending, and I was interested that you did in your remarks to the Press Club seem, while cautious, while saying, “We’re spending a lot on defence”, you seemed open to the idea that over the next decade governments will have to increase defence spending.

CHALMERS: I think the point I was trying to make there, Michelle, was it would be strange over a period of 10 years if there were no changes to any policy or levels of spending. But the thing that’s not, I think, sufficiently acknowledged is we’ve already quite dramatically increased defence spending, and you know, it’s not easy to find the extra $11 billion we found over the forward estimates, or the almost $58 billion I think we found over the decade.

We are dramatically increasing our defence spending. I acknowledge and accept and respect that some people, including some of our partners, want us to spend more on defence, but we are already spending a heap more on defence, and we’ve had to find room for that in the budget, and that’s what we’ve done.

GRATTAN: So we should be up for that conversation, as Richard Marles would say?

CHALMERS: I think what Richard’s saying, to be fair to him, is that we are more or less continuously engaging with our partners about things like defence spending, and when it comes to the Americans, they’ve made it clear around the world that they want people to spend more on defence. That’s not an unreasonable position for the Americans to put to us. We decide our level of defence spending, and we have decided collectively as a government to dramatically increase it.

GRATTAN: As Treasurer, you’re the gatekeeper for foreign investment decisions, big decisions, and there’s a takeover bid at the moment from Abu Dhabi’s national oil company for Santos. Can you give us some idea of the process, the timetable, when you would make a decision if the matter comes to you?

CHALMERS: This is a really big transaction potentially, and it raises – there are a lot of considerations around the national interest, it’s in a sensitive part of our economy for all of the obvious reasons.

What usually happens with a transaction of this magnitude, tens of billions of dollars, is it goes through a number of stages. One of those stages is a Foreign Investment Review Board process where I’ve got a heap of terrific colleagues in the Treasury who advise me on these things. What I try to do is to make sure that I refrain from commenting on these sorts of deals before I’ve got that Foreign Investment Review Board advice. I take that advice very seriously, and that means not pre‑empting it.

I know that there will be a heap of views, a heap of interest, I do acknowledge it’s a very big transaction which involves a really key sensitive part of our economy, and I’ll do what I always do with these big FIRB approval processes, which is to engage in it in a really methodical and considered way.

That will roll out over the course of the next few months. The last time I asked, which I think was yesterday, we hadn’t ‑ the FIRB hadn’t had a chance to go through or hadn’t received yet the Foreign Investment Review Board proposal. That may have changed since then, but regardless, these things take a little bit of time.

GRATTAN: Before we finish, let’s come back to productivity. You’ve said the work will take more than a term. So just give us a snapshot of where you would want to be at the end of say three years, six years.

CHALMERS: Yeah. The point I’m making there, when it comes to productivity is, unlike some of the other really important measures in our economy, there’s no instant gratification. It’s very hard to flick a switch and get an immediate, substantial, meaningful shift in the data.

The point that I’ve made is that we’re enthusiastic and very committed, very dedicated to doing meaningful things on productivity, but even those things can sometimes take a while to play out in the data, so I’m just really trying to say to people, this is important, it will pay off, some of it will pay off in the medium term and the longer term, but that shouldn’t deter us, the fact that some of these challenges take a little bit longer to fix.

Now, if there was a switch that you could flick to make our economy instantly more productive, somebody would have flicked it already. Unfortunately, there’s not, and so we’re left in a world where we have to do a lot of things at once, and some of those things will take a little while to pay off.

GRATTAN: Can you set any sort of target in terms of growth, annual growth? –

CHALMERS: I’m reluctant to do that.

GRATTAN: – productivity growth.

CHALMERS: I’m reluctant to do that. The budget assumes a level of productivity growth, which is higher than what we are currently seeing, so it wouldn’t be a bad start to try and get closer to the forecast. But I’m reluctant to put a target on it.

GRATTAN: And that forecast is?

CHALMERS: The Treasury changed it to 1.2 per cent, and we’re currently tracking a bit lower than that on the current 20-year average, and so we need to do better. I tried to be quite blunt about that at the Press Club. Our economy is growing, but it’s not productive enough, our budget is stronger, but it’s not sustainable enough, our economy is resilient, but not resilient enough. And this is my way of saying to people, we’ve made a lot of progress together, but we’ve got a further ‑ we’ve got more to do, and productivity is our primary focus in that regard, but not our only focus.

GRATTAN: For really big changes, say for tax changes, do you think you need another mandate or not?

CHALMERS: I think it depends on the nature of the change. I’m reluctant to think about sequencing and timing and mandates before we’ve got everybody’s ideas on the table and worked out where the consensus and common ground exists, and so I don’t like to be evasive with a good question like that, Michelle, but I think that remains to be seen. It will be to be determined once we get a firmer sense of the way forward.

GRATTAN: Just finally, you sounded in your speech rather like a man who’s been liberated since the election. Has your attitude changed? Do you think it’s just time to go for it?

CHALMERS: The way I see this, Michelle, is that I become very wary of people who say, because of the magnitude of our majority, that we will get another term. There are, as you know, few such assurances in politics, particularly in modern politics, and so I can kind of hear that clock ticking behind us, and I want to get on with it.

We’ve got a big job to do to deliver the big, substantial, ambitious agenda that we’ve already determined and taken to an election. But I am by nature impatient, I think the country has an opportunity to be ambitious here, and so if you’re detecting that in my language, that’s probably not accidental. I think we know what the challenges are, we know what people’s views are broadly, there’s no absence of courage, there is an absence of consensus, and it’s consensus that we need to move forward, and that’s what I’m seeking not just in the roundtable, but in this second term of our Government.

GRATTAN: Jim Chalmers, it’s going to be an interesting few months, and thank you for talking with us today. That’s all for today’s podcast. Thank you to my producer, Ben Roper. We’ll be back with another interview soon, but good‑bye for now.

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: an ‘impatient’ Jim Chalmers on taking political risks in Labor’s second term – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-an-impatient-jim-chalmers-on-taking-political-risks-in-labors-second-term-259269

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

Jim Chalmers cast his Wednesday National Press Club speech as a second instalment in a two-part presentation that was kicked off by the prime minister in an address there last week.

But it didn’t sound like that at all. In fact, the two performances were chalk and cheese. Albanese’s contribution was cautious, showing no inclination to splash too much of the political capital amassed from a huge election win. The prime minister looks to a legacy of Labor’s longevity in government, and extols a measured and steady style.

In contrast, Chalmers on Wednesday came across as a man on a mission, anxious to seize this term to do bigger things, because no matter how large the majority, you never know what the future holds. And that’s apart from his ambition to ascend to the top rung of the political ladder.

Albanese announced a roundtable in August to discuss productivity; in elaborating on it, Chalmers put the hot button issue of tax reform prominently on the table.

The treasurer believes the community is up for significant economic reforms, if the changes are crafted and sold the right way and if sufficient of that elusive political grape, “consensus”, can be harvested and bottled. He’s also willing to stretch or exceed the electoral mandate Labor won on May 3. Remember, it was Chalmers who wanted to break the Stage 3 tax cut promise long before Albanese did so.

He said on Wednesday: “This is all about testing the country’s reform appetite. […] I am personally willing to grasp the nettle, to use an old saying. I am prepared to do my bit. The government is prepared to do its bit. And what we’ll find out in the course of the next few months is whether everyone is prepared to do their bit as well.” He was heartened, post election, by a “welcome and encouraging discussion about the level of ambition that Australia has”.

Albanese was involved in Chalmers’ Press Club speech, even interacting on its points from Canada, where he was attending the G7. Either the prime minister is deliberately letting his treasurer “front run” a more ambitious agenda for the government, or he doesn’t choose to get in his way.

Albanese announced the roundtable, but Chalmers is in charge of it. Held in the cabinet room on August 19-21, it will be small and, Chalmers hopes, non-performative. Details are still being finalised, but Chalmers doesn’t anticipate “permanent cameras” in the cabinet room, which has just 25 seats around the table.

“We want participants to make contributions that meet three important preconditions,” he said.

“First, ideas should be put forward in the national interest, not through the prism of sectoral, state or vested interests.

“Second, ideas or packages of ideas should be budget neutral at a minimum but preferably budget positive overall, taking into account the necessary trade-offs.

“And third, ideas should be specific and practical not abstract or unrealistic.

“In return I give everyone this commitment: we won’t come at this from an ideological point of view but from the practical, pragmatic and problem-solving middle ground we’re most comfortable on.”

Chalmers argues that last term, the government did a range of things on tax. But most would describe them as modest, and he would not then contemplate a major overhaul, such as a shift from direct to indirect tax.

He was seared, on his own admission, from his days as then treasurer Wayne Swan’s staffer, by the memory of the Henry tax review, the last major look at Australia’s tax system. That triggered Labor’s mining tax debacle which helped end the prime ministership of Kevin Rudd. Most of that valuable review was totally wasted.

Now Ken Henry, former head of treasury, has had input into Chalmers’ Press Club speech; he was in the audience to hear it.

“Australia has to recognise that this is genuinely a defining decade. The decisions we make in the 2020s will determine the sort of living standards and intergenerational justice that will have in the decades to come,” Chalmers said. Intergenerational justice is a major preoccupation of Henry’s.

If Henry is in Chalmers’ ear, another proponent of tax reform, Steven Kennedy, who has just left the post of secretary of the treasury, is well-placed to be in the prime minister’s ear. Kennedy has just become head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

While the roundtable is focused on “productivity” Chalmers emphasised he is also focused on budget sustainability.

“Tax reform is important to budget sustainability , but also to productivity.

“I think it would be unusual if I said to the country, we’re going to have this big national reform conversation about productivity, sustainability and resilience, but nobody’s allowed to talk about tax

“And so I anticipate, I welcome the fact that people will come to the roundtable, outside the roundtable, people will pitch up ideas about tax.

“We don’t see that as an opportunity to walk back on some of the things that we’re already committed to, in this case, some years ago. We see it as an opportunity to work out what the next steps might be.”

Chalmers is the latest treasurer to walk down the tax reform road. The stakes are high. It will be easy to slip, or be forced to lose ambition. On the other hand, if he can navigate the rocks it will make his reputation.

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: Jim Chalmers wants to get on with economic reform and tax is in his sights – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-jim-chalmers-wants-to-get-on-with-economic-reform-and-tax-is-in-his-sights-258973

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University; and Vice Chancellor’s Strategic Fellow, Victoria University

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gone beyond his initial aim of destroying Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons. He has called on the Iranian people to rise up against their dictatorial Islamic regime and ostensibly transform Iran along the lines of Israeli interests.

United States President Donald Trump is now weighing possible military action in support of Netanyahu’s goal and asked for Iran’s total surrender.

If the US does get involved, it wouldn’t be the first time it’s tried to instigate regime change by military means in the Middle East. The US invaded Iraq in 2003 and backed a NATO operation in Libya in 2011, toppling the regimes of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, respectively.

In both cases, the interventions backfired, causing long-term instability in both countries and in the broader region.

Could the same thing happen in Iran if the regime is overthrown?

As I describe in my book, Iran Rising: The Survival and Future of the Islamic Republic, Iran is a pluralist society with a complex history of rival groups trying to assert their authority. A democratic transition would be difficult to achieve.

The overthrow of the shah

The Iranian Islamic regime assumed power in the wake of the pro-democracy popular uprising of 1978–79, which toppled Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi’s pro-Western monarchy.

Until this moment, Iran had a long history of monarchical rule dating back 2,500 years. Mohammad Reza, the last shah, was the head of the Pahlavi dynasty, which came to power in 1925.

In 1953, the shah was forced into exile under the radical nationalist and reformist impulse of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. He was shortly returned to his throne through a CIA-orchestrated coup.

Despite all his nationalist, pro-Western, modernising efforts, the shah could not shake off the indignity of having been re-throned with the help of a foreign power.

The revolution against him 25 years later was spearheaded by pro-democracy elements. But it was made up of many groups, including liberalists, communists and Islamists, with no uniting leader.

The Shia clerical group (ruhaniyat), led by the Shah’s religious and political opponent, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, proved to be best organised and capable of providing leadership to the revolution. Khomeini had been in exile from the early 1960s (at first in Iraq and later in France), yet he and his followers held considerable sway over the population, especially in traditional rural areas.

When US President Jimmy Carter’s administration found it could no longer support the shah, he left the country and went into exile in January 1979. This enabled Khomeini to return to Iran to a tumultuous welcome.

Birth of the Islamic Republic

In the wake of the uprising, Khomeini and his supporters, including the current supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, abolished the monarchy and transformed Iran to a cleric-dominated Islamic Republic, with anti-US and anti-Israel postures. He ruled the country according to his unique vision of Islam.

Khomeini denounced the US as a “Great Satan” and Israel as an illegal usurper of the Palestinian lands – Jerusalem, in particular. He also declared a foreign policy of “neither east, nor west” but pro-Islamic, and called for the spread of the Iranian revolution in the region.

Khomeini not only changed Iran, but also challenged the US as the dominant force in shaping the regional order. And the US lost one of the most important pillars of its influence in the oil-rich and strategically important Persian Gulf region.

Fear of hostile American or Israeli (or combined) actions against the Islamic Republic became the focus of Iran’s domestic and foreign policy behaviour.

A new supreme leader takes power

Khomeini died in 1989. His successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ruled Iran largely in the same jihadi (combative) and ijtihadi (pragmatic) ways, steering the country through many domestic and foreign policy challenges.

Khamenei fortified the regime with an emphasis on self-sufficiency, a stronger defence capability and a tilt towards the east – Russia and China – to counter the US and its allies. He has stood firm in opposition to the US and its allies – Israel, in particular. And he has shown flexibility when necessary to ensure the survival and continuity of the regime.

Khamenei wields enormous constitutional power and spiritual authority.

He has presided over the building of many rule-enforcing instruments of state power, including the expansion of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its paramilitary wing, the Basij, revolutionary committees, and Shia religious networks.

The Shia concept of martyrdom and loyalty to Iran as a continuous sovereign country for centuries goes to the heart of his actions, as well as his followers.

Khamenei and his rule enforcers, along with an elected president and National Assembly, are fully cognisant that if the regime goes down, they will face the same fate. As such, they cannot be expected to hoist the white flag and surrender to Israel and the US easily.

However, in the event of the regime falling under the weight of a combined internal uprising and external pressure, it raises the question: what is the alternative?

The return of the shah?

Many Iranians are discontented with the regime, but there is no organised opposition under a nationally unifying leader.

The son of the former shah, the crown prince Reza Pahlavi, has been gaining some popularity. He has been speaking out on X in the last few days, telling his fellow Iranians:

The end of the Islamic Republic is the end of its 46-year war against the Iranian nation. The regime’s apparatus of repression is falling apart. All it takes now is a nationwide uprising to put an end to this nightmare once and for all.

Since the deposition of his father, he has lived in exile in the US. As such, he has been tainted by his close association with Washington and Jerusalem, especially Netanyahu.

If he were to return to power – likely through the assistance of the US – he would face the same problem of political legitimacy as his father did.

What does the future hold?

Iran has never had a long tradition of democracy. It experienced brief instances of liberalism in the first half of the 20th century, but every attempt at making it durable resulted in disarray and a return to authoritarian rule.

Also, the country has rarely been free of outside interventionism, given its vast hydrocarbon riches and strategic location. It’s also been prone to internal fragmentation, given its ethnic and religious mix.

The Shia Persians make up more than half of the population, but the country has a number of Sunni ethnic minorities, such as Kurds, Azaris, Balochis and Arabs. They have all had separatist tendencies.

Iran has historically been held together by centralisation rather than diffusion of power.

Should the Islamic regime disintegrate in one form or another, it would be an mistake to expect a smooth transfer of power or transition to democratisation within a unified national framework.

At the same time, the Iranian people are highly cultured and creative, with a very rich and proud history of achievements and civilisation.

They are perfectly capable of charting their own destiny as long as there aren’t self-seeking foreign hands in the process – something they have rarely experienced.

Amin Saikal 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. Iran’s long history of revolution, defiance and outside interference – and why its future is so uncertain – https://theconversation.com/irans-long-history-of-revolution-defiance-and-outside-interference-and-why-its-future-is-so-uncertain-259270

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yasmin Mowat, Clinical Project Manager, Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney

Many gay and bisexual men have been excluded from donating blood and plasma (the liquid portion of blood) for decades because of rules developed during the HIV crisis in the 1980s.

The Australian Red Cross’ blood donation arm, Lifeblood, has announced these restrictions will be lifted. This opens donation pathways for many gay and bisexual men, and other men who have sex with men.

What’s changing for plasma donation?

From July 14, Lifeblood will remove sexual activity-based restrictions for plasma donation for medicines made with plasma, except for those who’ve recently had sex with a partner known to have HIV or another blood-borne virus.

This world-first “plasma pathway” policy will allow most people, including gay and bisexual men, to donate plasma immediately regardless of sexual activity, provided they meet other criteria.

What’s changing for other blood donation?

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has approved a gender-neutral risk assessment for blood and platelet donations.

Under this system, all donors, regardless of gender, will be asked if, in the past six months, they have had sex (excluding oral sex) with a new partner or more than one partner.

If they answer “yes” to either question, they will be asked if they’ve had anal sex in the past three months. Those who say “yes” will be deferred from donating whole blood for six months, due to the higher risk of HIV transmission during anal sex and the time it takes for HIV to be detected in a test. But they will still be eligible to donate plasma.

So gay and bisexual men in long-term, monogamous relationships will no longer need to abstain from sex for three months to donate whole blood.

Why were past restrictions in place?

In the 1980s, HIV transmission through blood transfusions prompted urgent public health responses. Australia, like many countries, introduced an indefinite deferral for men who have sex with men, the population most affected by HIV.

This policy significantly reduced transmission of HIV via blood transfusions before HIV testing became available.

Routine blood donation testing for HIV began in 1985, but initial tests could not detect HIV for up to three months after infection.

As testing improved, the deferral was reduced – first to 12 months in 2000, then to three months since last sexual activity in 2021.

Why the changes?

Rates of new HIV infection have fallen substantially since the 1980s. In 2023, 722 new HIV cases were reported nationwide (2.7 per 100,000 population).

Modern tests can now detect HIV within one week of exposure, dramatically reducing the risk of transfusion transmission.

However, the blanket deferral still applied regardless of individual risk – such as if the men had only one partner. As a result, many low-risk men remained excluded.

Why the different rules for blood and plasma?

Whole blood is separated into red cells, plasma and platelets. This is the regular process of giving blood, where blood is drawn, then it goes through the testing process to check it’s safe.

These components are mainly used for transfusion directly to patients without further processing.

Plasma, the yellow liquid part, contains proteins used in treatments for immune disorders, severe burns and other conditions.

During plasma donation, a machine separates the plasma (the yellow liquid part) from the red blood cells and other parts of blood. The machine keeps the plasma, and returns the red blood cells to the donor through the same needle.

Plasma for plasma medicines, the blood product in most demand in Australia, is processed using extra techniques that kill viruses and bacteria, allowing for less-strict donation rules compared to whole blood.

How many more people will become eligible under the new rules?

A national survey we jointly conducted with Lifeblood found an estimated 57% of Australians, and 63% of Australian men, were eligible to donate blood. Among men who reported sex with men, eligibility was only 40%.

Under the new plasma pathway, overall eligibility is projected to rise to 61%, and to 74% for gay and bisexual men – an increase of around 626,500 newly eligible plasma donors. This will include people taking HIV-PrEP (HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis), which protects against HIV infection.

The impact of gender-neutral risk assessments on blood donation eligibility is less certain.

How will people feel being asked about their sexual history?

The same survey found most Australians supported being asked how many partners they have had and whether they’d had anal sex to see if they were eligible to donate. However, support varied across age, religion and country of birth.

Understanding and responding to these differences will be important for community engagement and maintaining trust in the blood supply.

Will this affect the safety of the blood supply?

The gender-neutral questions aim to identify high-risk sexual activity, regardless of someone’s gender or sexual orientation. The questions still restrict anyone from donating who has recently had anal sex with multiple or new sexual partners.

Similar policies have been adopted in countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and the Netherlands, with no evidence of increased risk to the blood supply.

What happens next?

From July 14, the rules for plasma donation will change, allowing plasma donation regardless of sexual activity.

The TGA’s approval of gender-neutral blood assessments has only just been granted. Lifeblood will now need to update systems, seek government approvals, train staff and inform the public before this change can be rolled out.

Ongoing evaluation will be essential to monitor the impact on donor numbers, safety and public perception, and to ensure blood donation policies are evidence-based and equitable.

Yasmin Mowat recieves funding from a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Partnership Grant, implemented with Lifeblood.

Bridget Haire has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).

Skye McGregor receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).

– ref. Gay and bisexual men will soon be able to donate blood and plasma – https://theconversation.com/gay-and-bisexual-men-will-soon-be-able-to-donate-blood-and-plasma-259136

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University; and Vice Chancellor’s Strategic Fellow, Victoria University

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gone beyond his initial aim of destroying Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons. He has called on the Iranian people to rise up against their dictatorial Islamic regime and ostensibly transform Iran along the lines of Israeli interests.

United States President Donald Trump is now weighing possible military action in support of Netanyahu’s goal and asked for Iran’s total surrender.

If the US does get involved, it wouldn’t be the first time it’s tried to instigate regime change by military means in the Middle East. The US invaded Iraq in 2003 and backed a NATO operation in Libya in 2011, toppling the regimes of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, respectively.

In both cases, the interventions backfired, causing long-term instability in both countries and in the broader region.

Could the same thing happen in Iran if the regime is overthrown?

As I describe in my book, Iran Rising: The Survival and Future of the Islamic Republic, Iran is a pluralist society with a complex history of rival groups trying to assert their authority. A democratic transition would be difficult to achieve.

The overthrow of the shah

The Iranian Islamic regime assumed power in the wake of the pro-democracy popular uprising of 1978–79, which toppled Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi’s pro-Western monarchy.

Until this moment, Iran had a long history of monarchical rule dating back 2,500 years. Mohammad Reza, the last shah, was the head of the Pahlavi dynasty, which came to power in 1925.

In 1953, the shah was forced into exile under the radical nationalist and reformist impulse of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. He was shortly returned to his throne through a CIA-orchestrated coup.

Despite all his nationalist, pro-Western, modernising efforts, the shah could not shake off the indignity of having been re-throned with the help of a foreign power.

The revolution against him 25 years later was spearheaded by pro-democracy elements. But it was made up of many groups, including liberalists, communists and Islamists, with no uniting leader.

The Shia clerical group (ruhaniyat), led by the Shah’s religious and political opponent, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, proved to be best organised and capable of providing leadership to the revolution. Khomeini had been in exile from the early 1960s (at first in Iraq and later in France), yet he and his followers held considerable sway over the population, especially in traditional rural areas.

When US President Jimmy Carter’s administration found it could no longer support the shah, he left the country and went into exile in January 1979. This enabled Khomeini to return to Iran to a tumultuous welcome.

Birth of the Islamic Republic

In the wake of the uprising, Khomeini and his supporters, including the current supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, abolished the monarchy and transformed Iran to a cleric-dominated Islamic Republic, with anti-US and anti-Israel postures. He ruled the country according to his unique vision of Islam.

Khomeini denounced the US as a “Great Satan” and Israel as an illegal usurper of the Palestinian lands – Jerusalem, in particular. He also declared a foreign policy of “neither east, nor west” but pro-Islamic, and called for the spread of the Iranian revolution in the region.

Khomeini not only changed Iran, but also challenged the US as the dominant force in shaping the regional order. And the US lost one of the most important pillars of its influence in the oil-rich and strategically important Persian Gulf region.

Fear of hostile American or Israeli (or combined) actions against the Islamic Republic became the focus of Iran’s domestic and foreign policy behaviour.

A new supreme leader takes power

Khomeini died in 1989. His successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ruled Iran largely in the same jihadi (combative) and ijtihadi (pragmatic) ways, steering the country through many domestic and foreign policy challenges.

Khamenei fortified the regime with an emphasis on self-sufficiency, a stronger defence capability and a tilt towards the east – Russia and China – to counter the US and its allies. He has stood firm in opposition to the US and its allies – Israel, in particular. And he has shown flexibility when necessary to ensure the survival and continuity of the regime.

Khamenei wields enormous constitutional power and spiritual authority.

He has presided over the building of many rule-enforcing instruments of state power, including the expansion of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its paramilitary wing, the Basij, revolutionary committees, and Shia religious networks.

The Shia concept of martyrdom and loyalty to Iran as a continuous sovereign country for centuries goes to the heart of his actions, as well as his followers.

Khamenei and his rule enforcers, along with an elected president and National Assembly, are fully cognisant that if the regime goes down, they will face the same fate. As such, they cannot be expected to hoist the white flag and surrender to Israel and the US easily.

However, in the event of the regime falling under the weight of a combined internal uprising and external pressure, it raises the question: what is the alternative?

The return of the shah?

Many Iranians are discontented with the regime, but there is no organised opposition under a nationally unifying leader.

The son of the former shah, the crown prince Reza Pahlavi, has been gaining some popularity. He has been speaking out on X in the last few days, telling his fellow Iranians:

The end of the Islamic Republic is the end of its 46-year war against the Iranian nation. The regime’s apparatus of repression is falling apart. All it takes now is a nationwide uprising to put an end to this nightmare once and for all.

Since the deposition of his father, he has lived in exile in the US. As such, he has been tainted by his close association with Washington and Jerusalem, especially Netanyahu.

If he were to return to power – likely through the assistance of the US – he would face the same problem of political legitimacy as his father did.

What does the future hold?

Iran has never had a long tradition of democracy. It experienced brief instances of liberalism in the first half of the 20th century, but every attempt at making it durable resulted in disarray and a return to authoritarian rule.

Also, the country has rarely been free of outside interventionism, given its vast hydrocarbon riches and strategic location. It’s also been prone to internal fragmentation, given its ethnic and religious mix.

The Shia Persians make up more than half of the population, but the country has a number of Sunni ethnic minorities, such as Kurds, Azaris, Balochis and Arabs. They have all had separatist tendencies.

Iran has historically been held together by centralisation rather than diffusion of power.

Should the Islamic regime disintegrate in one form or another, it would be an mistake to expect a smooth transfer of power or transition to democratisation within a unified national framework.

At the same time, the Iranian people are highly cultured and creative, with a very rich and proud history of achievements and civilisation.

They are perfectly capable of charting their own destiny as long as there aren’t self-seeking foreign hands in the process – something they have rarely experienced.

Amin Saikal 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. Iran’s long history of revolution, defiance and outside interference – and why its future so uncertain – https://theconversation.com/irans-long-history-of-revolution-defiance-and-outside-interference-and-why-its-future-so-uncertain-259270

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Tuffley, Senior Lecturer in Applied Ethics & CyberSecurity, Griffith University

Earlier today, Iranian officials urged the country’s citizens to remove the messaging platform WhatsApp from their smartphones. Without providing any supporting evidence, they alleged the app gathers user information to send to Israel.

WhatsApp has rejected the allegations. In a statement to Associated Press, the Meta-owned messaging platform said it was concerned “these false reports will be an excuse for our services to be blocked at a time when people need them most”. It added that it does not track users’ location nor the personal messages people are sending one another.

It is impossible to independently assess the allegations, given Iran provided no publicly accessible supporting evidence.

But we do know that even though WhatsApp has strong privacy and security features, it isn’t impenetrable. And there is at least one country that has previously been able to penetrate it: Israel.

3 billion users

WhatsApp is a free messaging app owned by Meta. With around 3 billion users worldwide and growing fast, it can send text messages, calls and media over the internet.

It uses strong end-to-end encryption meaning only the sender and recipient can read messages; not even WhatsApp can access their content. This ensures strong privacy and security.

Advanced cyber capability

The United States is the world leader in cyber capability. This term describes the skills, technologies and resources that enable nations to defend, attack, or exploit digital systems and networks as a powerful instrument of national power.

But Israel also has advanced cyber capability, ranking alongside the United Kingdom, China, Russia, France and Canada.

Israel has a documented history of conducting sophisticated cyber operations. This includes the widely cited Stuxnet attack that targeted Iran’s nuclear program more than 15 years ago. Israeli cyber units, such as Unit 8200, are renowned for their technical expertise and innovation in both offensive and defensive operations.

Seven of the top 10 global cybersecurity firms maintain R&D centers in Israel, and Israeli startups frequently lead in developing novel offensive and defensive cyber tools.

A historical precedent

Israeli firms have repeatedly been linked to hacking WhatsApp accounts, most notably through the Pegasus spyware developed by Israeli-based cyber intelligence company NSO Group. In 2019, it exploited WhatsApp vulnerabilities to compromise 1,400 users, including journalists, activists and politicians.

Last month, a US federal court ordered the NSO Group to pay WhatsApp and Meta nearly US$170 million in damages for the hack.

Another Israeli company, Paragon Solutions, also recently targeted nearly 100 WhatsApp accounts. The company used advanced spyware to access private communications after they had been de-encrypted.

These kinds of attacks often use “spearphishing”. This is distinct from regular phishing attacks, which generally involve an attacker sending malicious links to thousands of people.

Instead, spearphishing involves sending targeted, deceptive messages or files to trick specific individuals into installing spyware. This grants attackers full access to their devices – including de-encrypted WhatsApp messages.

A spearphishing email might appear to come from a trusted colleague or organisation. It might ask the recipient to urgently review a document or reset a password, leading them to a fake login page or triggering a malware download.

Protecting yourself from ‘spearphishing’

To avoid spearphishing, people should scrutinise unexpected emails or messages, especially those conveying a sense of urgency, and never click suspicious links or download unknown attachments.

Hovering the mouse cursor over a link will reveal the name of the destination. Suspicious links are those with strange domain names and garbled text that has nothing to do with the purported sender. Simply hovering without clicking is not dangerous.

Enable two-factor authentication, keep your software updated, and verify requests coming through trusted channels. Regular cybersecurity training also helps users spot and resist these targeted attacks.

David Tuffley 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. Can a foreign government hack WhatsApp? A cybersecurity expert explains how that might work – https://theconversation.com/can-a-foreign-government-hack-whatsapp-a-cybersecurity-expert-explains-how-that-might-work-259261

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Patrick Finnerty, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in conservation and wildlife management, University of Sydney

Ever since modern environmentalism took off in the 1960s, people have tried to undo the damage humans have caused to nature. Efforts have ranged from reducing threats, to restoring habitats, to reintroducing vanished species – and the results have been mixed.

However, these efforts have helped shape modern conservation science. This branch of knowledge uses ecological, genetic and behavioural insights to guide smarter, more ethical conservation actions.

Governments often use this science to decide whether restoration projects should be approved. However, approval processes may be slow, under-resourced and complex, leaving passionate people feeling shut out.

In response, some have turned to “guerilla rewilding” without approval, and often without due consideration of the potential for unintended impacts. As a recent ABC investigation showed, these passionate souls may release species into the wild or build self-managed sanctuaries, often dismissing scientists as “purists”.

What is rewilding?

Rewilding aims to restore wildlife and natural processes to ecosystems where they’ve been lost, often due to land clearing, agriculture or other human activities.

It may involve reintroducing a species that has disappeared from a landscape, or using a similar surrogate species to revive lost ecological functions. The goal is to rebuild functioning, self-sustaining systems. It’s not just about individual species, but the roles they play in sustaining nature.

In Australia, rewilding typically takes place in fenced reserves or on islands where invasive predators such as foxes and cats have been removed. These barriers offer protection, but require intensive planning, long-term management and ongoing funding.

The term “rewilding” itself has been criticised for harking back to a pre-colonial “wilderness”, overlooking First Nations’ connections to Country. But the goal of these projects is to restore ecological function and self-sustaining wildlife populations in shared, lived-in landscapes – including urban environments.

When done well, rewilding can support species recovery, repair ecosystems, and help reconnect people with nature. But success depends on evidence-based design, clear goals, ongoing monitoring, and (often) additional management over time (such as adding or removing animals).

Guerilla rewilding is risky

Guerrilla rewilding can go wildly wrong. Ecology, evolution, behaviour and welfare are deeply complex — and every species is a unique part of a much larger puzzle.

Scientists and conservationists are still learning how different animals survive and thrive in changing environments. Restoring these delicate systems without unintended consequences is also a challenge.

Without rigorous planning, there is a risk of inbreeding or a mismatch between animals and their environment. Animals raised inside fences may become overabundant, or too naive to survive in the wild. Disease, overgrazing and long-term habitat degradation are other risks.

Learning from science, not bypassing it

Successful rewilding draws on decades of ecological insight — genetics, behaviour, predator-prey dynamics, health, and ecosystem function.

Guerilla rewilders may see these as unnecessary academic add-ons. But when reintroductions fail, it’s often because one of these elements was overlooked. Frequently reported problems include animal behaviour, monitoring difficulties, quality of release habitat, and lack of baseline knowledge.

However, accessing the science – and navigating the approvals that rely on it – isn’t always easy. Conservation processes are often slow, under-resourced and opaque. It’s no surprise some view them as “green tape”.

Indeed, in Australia, it’s harder to get a restoration project approved than it is to get approval for land clearing.

Yet bypassing this system risks repeating old mistakes. So if we want rewilding to work, we need to make it easier to engage with evidence, expertise and ethical safeguards.

Engagement may be as simple as working with the right partners from the outset. This may include Traditional Owners, universities, non-government organisations, and local conservation and environmental community groups.

Collaboration, not conflict

A lot of people and groups have the same goal: to restore thriving wild animal populations as part of more complete, diverse and resilient ecosystems. That outcome is best achieved through collaboration, sharing of expertise, and trust.

Traditional Owners, scientists, carers, zoos, non-government organisations and government agencies all bring crucial knowledge. By turning shared passion into practical, evidence-based action, we can ensure rewilding efforts contribute to real, lasting outcomes for Australian and global biodiversity.

So what does this look like in practice? First of all, it’s about getting connected.

People with land or passion to contribute can contact organisations such as the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, WWF-Australia, Arid Recovery, several universities, or state parks and wildlife services. These groups have likely already done the groundwork, from habitat assessment to long-term planning. Joining existing efforts may get more done than starting solo.

Policymakers can contribute not only funding, but also transparency. More open and understandable approval processes may lower the barriers for community-led rewilding efforts.

As for scientists like us, we need to step beyond peer-reviewed papers. That means clearer communication, real-world partnerships, and embracing outreach – particularly in urban or accessible rewilding projects.

---

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Peter Banks, Donna Houston, Phil McManus, Catherine Grueber and Mareshell Wauchope to this article.

Patrick Finnerty is the current director for early career ecology at the Ecological Society of Australia, the Early Career Coordinator at the Australasian Wildlife Management Society, and a council member for the Royal Zoological Society of NSW. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Alex Carthey is the founding Director of ReHabitat Pty Ltd. She receives funding from the Australia Research Council and the Hermon Slade Foundation. She is the immediate past-Treasurer and recently ex-Council member of the NSW Royal Zoological Society.

Benjamin Pitcher is a Co-funded Research Fellow in Behavioural Biology at Macquarie University and Taronga Conservation Society Australia. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council and NSW Environmental Trust.

John Martin receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Thomas Newsome receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is immediate past-president of the Australasian Wildlife Management Society and President of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales.

– ref. ‘Guerrilla rewilding’ aims for DIY conservation – but it may do more harm than good – https://theconversation.com/guerrilla-rewilding-aims-for-diy-conservation-but-it-may-do-more-harm-than-good-258818

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Umbers, Associate Professor in Zoology, Western Sydney University

When we think about animals, we tend to think of furry four-legged mammals. But 95% of all animal species are invertebrates – bees, butterflies, beetles, snails, worms, octopuses, starfish, corals, spiders and many many more. These creatures make us happy, pollinate flowers, keep soils healthy, clean water, build reefs, maintain oceans and bring colour and wonder to our homes, cities, farms and wild places.

Sadly, almost 1,000 Australian invertebrates are threatened with extinction and need protecting. These species are on one or more official lists, including the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Red List of Species IUCN Red List, Australia’s national list of threatened fauna, and state and territory lists. Many more unnamed and unassessed species are likely in trouble.

When a mammal or bird goes extinct in Australia, it’s big news. But invertebrates have gone extinct much more frequently – and with much less attention. Since colonisation, an estimated 9,000 invertebrates have gone extinct – and one or two more go extinct every week.

Invertebrates face five big challenges: climate change, habitat destruction, natural resource extraction, pollution and invasive species. For the most part, efforts to conserve them are in their infancy in Australia, likely due to the historic undervaluing of smaller animals and little critters. There are shining exceptions such as the incredible conservation success of the Lord Howe Island stick insect, but such examples are vanishingly rare.

The good news? Because invertebrates live everywhere, the opportunity to help is often literally on our doorsteps. Simple actions can help, such as planting native species, leaving logs in the garden and avoiding insecticides.

Meet some of the threatened one thousand

Threatened invertebrates live in every Australian state and territory and in our major cities. Of the almost 1,000 threatened species, 27% are snails and slugs, 25% are insects, 19% are corals, 17% are crayfish and 5% are spiders. Here are some you may come across.

Bogong moth (Agrotis infusa). These moths once filled the night skies in their billions. Now they’re listed as endangered because the cool alpine caves they rely on to escape summer heat are warming with climate change. These migratory moths fly across southern Australia, navigating to their mountain refuges each summer using the stars and earth’s magnetic field. Help map their migration to protect them.

Atlas moth (Attacus wardi). This giant tropical moth with a 22 cm wingspan is now considered vulnerable due to habitat destruction and introduced weeds. If you live near Darwin, planting the native Atlas Croton tree will help feed its very hungry caterpillars.

Mangrove ant-blue butterfly (Acrodipsas illidgei). These endangered butterflies lay eggs on grey mangrove trees home to acrobat ants (Crematogaster species), which carry the eggs into its nests. When the caterpillars hatch, they eat ant larvae while in turn nourishing the ant colony with sugary secretions. Mangrove destruction, pesticide runoff and threats to their ant partners pose real threats. Protecting mangroves in southeast Queensland and reporting sightings of butterflies and ants on iNaturalist will help.

Sydney Hawk dragonfly (Austrocordulia leonardi). This strikingly coloured endangered dragonfly is largely found in Sydney. Changes to local waterways and the deep pools its aquatic larvae need threaten the species. Restoring local waterways will help.

Dural land snails (Pommerhelix duralensis). These endangered snails are found only in north-western Sydney and the lower Blue Mountains. They cruise through leaves and rocks munching on fungi and helping add compost to forest soils. You might catch a glimpse during light rain. Help them by leaving large patches of undisturbed native undergrowth – habitat loss poses the biggest threat.

Hairy bee (Leioproctus douglasiellus). This critically endangered burrowing bee lives only in and around Perth. Its numbers have fallen due to habitat loss and pesticides. Leaving patches of open soil in your garden and planting shallow flowers can help these short-tongued bees get nectar.

Giant Gippsland earthworm (Megascolides australis). This iconic earthworm can grow up to 1.5 metres long. It only lives in a patch of southern Gippsland in Victoria and is endangered in part due to farming practices such as ploughing. These gentle giants famously gurgle as they move through their tunnels keeping soil healthy. Local landholders can help by leaving patches of land along stream banks as worm conservation habitat.

Tasmanian live-bearing sea stars (Parvulastra vivipara). Most sea stars lay eggs. Not this species, which gives birth to live young. They’re endangered because they live in intertidal waters of south-eastern Tasmania affected by shoreline development and invasive species. Look carefully and you might see one as it grazes on algae-covered rocks. Join local events to tackle invasive species and log any sightings on iNaturalist.

A brighter future for bugs

Invertebrates bring us delight and wonder. Here’s how we can help those in trouble.

Plant flowers. Providing food for pollinators and other wonderful flower-visiting insects can help year-round.

Keep part of your garden a bit wild. If you leave logs, leaves and open soil in your garden, you make space for shiny beetles, singing crickets, native bees and other ground-dwellers.

The creek is beautiful. Help restore waterways, make a pond, learn about local water bugs and support local wetlands.

Be clever with pest control. Avoid snail baits and cancel regular broad-spectrum sprays, as these can harm many non-target species. Use critter-friendly alternatives to protect the whole food chain.

Let the stars shine. Switch off lights at night if safe or close your curtains to help nocturnal creatures such as moths and orb-weaving spiders.

Log your sightings. Conservation scientists need as much data as possible on invertebrates to understand how they are doing out there. Upload your bug photos to iNaturalist.

Kate Umbers receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Commonwealth DCCEEW, Hermon Slade Foundation, and Holsworth Foundation. She is affiliated with Invertebrates Australia, Biodiversity Council, co-chair of the IUCN Grasshopper Specialist Group, and is on the Conservation Committee for the Australian Entomological Society.

Kenny Wolfe is affiliated with Invertebrates Australia.

Megan Head is affiliated with Invertebrates Australia.

Shawan Chowdhury is affiliated with Monash University and Invertebrates Australia.

Tanya Latty co-founded and volunteers for conservation organisation Invertebrates Australia. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council, NSW Saving our Species, and Agrifutures Australia

– ref. Saving species starts at home: how you can help Australia’s 1,000 threatened invertebrates – https://theconversation.com/saving-species-starts-at-home-how-you-can-help-australias-1-000-threatened-invertebrates-258285

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shea Esterling, Senior Lecturer Above the Bar, University of Canterbury

This week, Aotearoa New Zealand officially celebrates Matariki for the fourth time, marked by the reappearance in the night sky of the star cluster also known as the Pleiades.

Yet, ironically, the accompanying celebrations and the legislation that declares Matariki a public holiday miss the mark. They fail to promote and protect the country’s dark skies, which are crucial to seeing the stars in this small constellation.

While the law recognises Matariki’s significance to Māori culture and heritage as the beginning of the Māori New Year, it does not acknowledge that it is predicated on the visual presence of the star cluster.

Even where Matariki is not visible owing to weather conditions, the ability to see other celestial markers is important (for example Puanga/Puaka, also known as Rigel). Light pollution is a visual barrier to experiencing these important stars.

Since the passage of the legislation, local councils across the country have marked the public holiday with various light displays. This year will be no different, with illuminated artworks, projections and lightboxes at Matariki festivals in several cities.

Tirama Mai (bringing the light) will return to Ōtautahi Christchurch with brightly lit displays. Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland will see some of its most popular sites, including Queen Street, lit up as part of Tūrama, a series of large-scale, illuminated art installations.

In Rotorua, Whakatū Nelson and Ōtepoti Dunedin, Matariki festivities include spectacular drone light shows which will light up the night sky.

After initially ignoring Māori advice that fireworks are not appropriate to celebrate Matariki, many local councils have now abandoned them. But festivities will no doubt continue to contribute to light pollution and ignore the need to protect dark skies at night.

These ill-conceived festivities are not surprising given the legislation fails to even mention dark skies. This is exacerbated by New Zealand emerging as a major player in the increasingly commercialised space sector which has developed rapidly since the first rocket lifted off from Mahia peninsula in 2017.

Fewer people can now see the Milky Way

Much of Aotearoa’s landmass has some of the darkest skies on the planet. Based on land area, 74% of the North Island and 93% of the South Island rest beneath night skies that are either pristine or degraded only near the horizon. Indeed, the area affected by direct illumination is very low.

Yet, intense urbanisation means only 3% of the population regularly experience such skies. About half of all New Zealanders can no longer see the Milky Way in winter.

Globally, the visibility of stars (an indicator of the level of light pollution) decreased by 7-10% per year from 2011 to 2022. The visibility of the night sky in New Zealand appears to be following a similar trend. Between 2012 and 2021, the area affected by light pollution grew at a rate of 4.2% above the global average.

Advertising and tourism campaigns reinforce the perception that Aotearoa has dark skies, but visible satellites could soon outnumber the stars people can see, from New Zealand and worldwide.

No legal protection of dark skies

At present, there is no explicit domestic law protecting dark skies, nor any international laws. The law declaring Matariki a public holiday missed an important opportunity to provide such protection.

To address this issue, a petition was presented to parliament in January 2023 calling for national legislation to promote and protect dark skies. In March this year, parliament responded it would not take further actions “due to other priorities on the government’s resource management reform work programme”.

This is not surprising. Nevertheless, we call on the government to develop legislation for the governance of dark skies in Aotearoa New Zealand that incorporates mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge).

While there are a variety of ways this could be achieved, controlling light pollution is the crux of the issue. Light pollution emanates both from unmitigated urban lighting as well as the expansion of satellite constellations, which is steadily forming a global net of moving points of light in space.

An incremental approach could be a government-backed education programme to raise awareness of light pollution, followed by the development of a national policy for its control. An amendment to the Matariki public holiday law could then follow in recognition of the national interest.

We are aware the challenges ahead are many. Yet, protecting dark skies is vital from a Māori perspective. Practically, such protections are crucial to the enjoyment and honouring of Matariki as we continue to risk disconnection from one of our most important natural features.

Shea Esterling receives funding from the Borrin Foundation.

William Grant 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. Matariki and our diminishing night sky: light pollution from cities and satellites is making stars harder to see – https://theconversation.com/matariki-and-our-diminishing-night-sky-light-pollution-from-cities-and-satellites-is-making-stars-harder-to-see-258169

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vincent Ho, Associate Professor and Clinical Academic Gastroenterologist, Western Sydney University

If you’ve got a dodgy tummy, diarrhoea and have been vomiting, it’s easy to blame a “tummy bug” or “off food”.

But which is it? Gastro or food poisoning?

What’s the difference anyway?

What’s gastroenteritis?

Gastroenteritis, or gastro for short, is a gut infection caused by a virus, bacterium or other microbe.

The gut is teeming with cells including healthy microbes and the cells lining the gut. But when viruses, bacteria and other microbes start to invade your gut, they colonise, build up in large numbers and eventually cause the cells lining the gut to inflame. The “-itis” at the end of gastroenteritis means inflammation.

Gastroenteritis is extremely common. In Australia there are an estimated 17.2 million cases a year.

So where do these gastro-causing microbes come from? Eating contaminated food is often the source.

However you can acquire these microbes in other ways. For example, if you touch a surface where someone sick from viral gastroenteritis had vomited on, that virus could transfer to your hands. And if your hands touched your mouth, you in turn could contract viral gastroenteritis.

What’s food poisoning?

Food poisoning refers to getting sick from eating food contaminated with chemicals, microbes or toxins.

For example if you ate food contaminated with insecticides or methyl alcohol (methanol) that would count as food poisoning. If you ate puffer fish or poisonous mushrooms that would count too. But food poisoning doesn’t include the effects of eating a food you’re allergic to.

The vast majority of food poisonings are as a result of food contaminated by microbes and their toxins. When you eat or drink them it’s like a missile strike. The toxins in particular can rapidly cause inflammation and damage the lining of the gut.

To add to the confusion, food poisoning is often referred to as foodborne gastroenteritis.

Food poisoning (or foodborne gastroenteritis) is also common in Australia. It accounts for about one-third of all cases of gastroenteritis or an estimated 5.4 million cases every year.

How can we tell the two apart?

Both gastroenteritis and food poisoning have symptoms such as diarrhoea, vomiting, nausea, abdominal cramps, fever and headaches. But these symptoms can come on in different ways.

Viral gastroenteritis, such as with norovirus, usually causes symptoms 24–48 hours after exposure, which can last for one to two days.

But food poisoning after eating microbial toxins can come on very quickly. For example, toxins from the bacterium Staphylococcus aureus can cause symptoms within 30 minutes of eating contaminated food, such as undercooked meat. Fortunately, symptoms usually get better within 24 hours.

Symptoms don’t always come on so quickly in all cases of bacterial food poisoning. For example, it can take as long as 70 days between exposure to Listeria and symptoms occurring, although, on average it’s about three weeks. This long incubation period can make it difficult to work out if a particular food is responsible for someone getting sick.

As a general guide food poisoning occurs quite quickly (within hours of eating contaminated food) while gastroenteritis can take a day or more after eating to get sick. But there is no hard and fast rule.

How do I prevent them?

The same precautions when handling food apply to preventing both gastroenteritis and food poisoning. These steps not only lower your risk of being affected in the first place, they lower your risk of you infecting others.

Wash your hands thoroughly with soap and water before preparing food. Use separate cutting boards and utensils for raw and cooked foods to help avoid cross-contamination. Cook food thoroughly and store it at safe temperatures.

Gastroenteritis can involve transmission of microbes through means other than food, for instance, via poo on your hands if you don’t wash your hands after using the toilet or after changing a child’s nappy. So wash your hands afterwards.

To prevent others from becoming sick, make sure you quickly disinfect contaminated surfaces thoroughly after someone vomits or has diarrhoea. First, put on gloves and wash surfaces with hot water and a detergent. Then disinfect using household bleach containing 0.1% hypochlorite.

How can I get better?

Treating both gastroenteritis and food poisoning focuses on preventing dehydration and relieving symptoms.

To avoid dehydration, drink plenty of fluids. For moderate or severe cases, you can buy commercial oral rehydration solution from a pharmacy.

You can also make your own oral rehydration solution by adding 6 teaspoons of sugar, ½ teaspoon of salt and ½ teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate to a litre of water. You can splash in some cordial for taste.

If symptoms are severe or persist you should see your GP or go to the emergency department.

---

Read more:
Got gastro? Here’s why eating bananas helps but drinking flat lemonade might not

---

Vincent Ho 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. What’s the difference between food poisoning and gastro? A gut expert explains – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-food-poisoning-and-gastro-a-gut-expert-explains-252730

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jodie L. Rummer, Professor of Marine Biology, James Cook University

From hand-sized lantern sharks that glow in the deep sea to bus-sized whale sharks gliding through tropical waters, sharks come in all shapes and sizes.

Despite these differences, they all face the same fundamental challenge: how to get oxygen, heat and nutrients to every part of their bodies efficiently.

Our new study, published today in Royal Society Open Science, shows that sharks follow a centuries-old mathematical rule – the two-thirds scaling law – that predicts how body shape changes with size. This tells us something profound about how evolution works – and why size really does matter.

What is the two-thirds scaling law?

The basic idea is mathematical: surface area increases with the square of body length, while volume increases with the cube. That means surface area increases more slowly than volume, and the ratio between the two – crucial for many biological functions – decreases with size.

This matters because many essential life processes happen at the surface: gas exchange in the lungs or gills, such as to take in oxygen or release carbon dioxide, but also heat loss through skin and nutrient uptake in the gut.

These processes depend on surface area, while the demands they must meet – such as the crucial task of keeping the body supplied with oxygen – depend on volume. So, the surface area-to-volume ratio shapes how animals function.

Despite its central role in biology, this rule has only ever been rigorously tested in cells, tissues and small organisms such as insects.

Until now.

Why sharks?

Sharks might seem like an unlikely group for testing an old mathematical theory, but they’re actually ideal.

For starters, they span a huge range of sizes, from the tiny dwarf lantern shark (about 20 centimetres long) to the whale shark (which can exceed 20 metres). They also have diverse shapes and lifestyles – hammerheads, reef-dwellers, deep-sea hunters – each posing different challenges for physiology and movement.

Plus, sharks are charismatic, ecologically important and increasingly under threat. Understanding their biology is both scientifically valuable and important for conservation.

How did we test the rule?

We used high-resolution 3D models to digitally measure surface area and volume in 54 species of sharks. These models were created using open-source CT scans and photogrammetry, which involves using photographs to approximate a 3D structure. Until recently, these techniques were the domain of video game designers and special effects artists, not biologists.

We refined the models in Blender, a powerful 3D software tool, and extracted surface and volume data for each species.

Then we applied phylogenetic regression – a statistical method that accounts for shared evolutionary history – to see how closely shark shapes follow the predictions of the two-thirds rule.

What did we find?

The results were striking: sharks follow the two-thirds scaling rule almost perfectly, with surface area scaling to body volume raised to the power of 0.64 – just a 3% difference from the theoretical 0.67.

This suggests something deeper is going on. Despite their wide range of forms and habitats, sharks seem to converge on the same basic body plan when it comes to surface area and volume. Why?

One explanation is that what are known as “developmental constraints” – limits imposed by how animals grow and form in early life – make it difficult, or too costly, for sharks to deviate from this fundamental pattern.

Changing surface area-to-volume ratios might require rewiring how tissues are allocated during embryonic development, something that evolution appears to avoid unless absolutely necessary.

But why does it matter?

This isn’t just academic. Many equations in biology, physiology and climate science rely on assumptions about surface area-to-volume ratios.

These equations are used to model how animals regulate temperature, use oxygen, and respond to environmental stress. Until now, we haven’t had accurate data from large animals to test those assumptions. Our findings give researchers more confidence in using these models – not just for sharks, but potentially for other groups too.

As we face accelerating climate change and biodiversity loss, understanding how animals of all sizes interact with their environments has never been more urgent.

This study, powered by modern imaging tech and some old-school curiosity, brings us one step closer to that goal.

Jodie L. Rummer receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is affiliated with the Australian Coral Reef Society, as President.

Joel Gayford receives funding from the Northcote Trust.

– ref. Sharks come in many different shapes and sizes. But they all follow a centuries-old mathematical rule – https://theconversation.com/sharks-come-in-many-different-shapes-and-sizes-but-they-all-follow-a-centuries-old-mathematical-rule-259050