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

I remember seeing footage, several years ago, of a jubilant Malcolm Turnbull, then prime minister and Liberal leader, speaking in Tamworth to loyal members of the National Party. These were the rank and file who had spent weeks stumping for their man in New England, Nationals leader and deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce, who had resubmitted himself to voters after discovering he was a dual citizen of Australia and New Zealand.

A lot was riding on the outcome. Turnbull’s government had the slimmest possible majority in the lower house, and the loss of the Nationals leader would have been bad for the government as well as morale. Consequently, Turnbull was overjoyed when he thanked voters in New England “for getting the band back together”. Joyce’s handsome victory was, he explained, a “great demonstration” of the “strength of our Coalition”.

While it may seem unfair to bands everywhere to lean too heavily on that metaphor, there is something to it. Like The Beatles, the Liberal and National parties have allowed their creative tension to become little more than just tension. Like Simon and Garfunkel, deep-seated resentments have been allowed to fester without resolution for too long. And now, like Fleetwood Mac, the two parties have chosen to go their own way, at least for a time.

An agreement and an idea

The Coalition is first and foremost an agreement – or rather, a series of agreements. It is predicated on the pragmatic reality that neither the Liberal Party (and beforehand, its predecessor parties) nor the agrarian National (formerly Country) Party was able to govern alone, or at least not for very long.

The first of these agreements was struck in February 1923, following an election the previous year that left the Nationalist Party, led by wartime prime minister Billy Hughes, well short of a lower house majority. The new Country Party won 14 seats in the lower house (roughly 18%) on its own, making it a force to be reckoned with.

Country MPs were willing to form a power-sharing agreement with the Nationalists, but not without cost. The larger party had to jettison its leader in favour of a new prime minister, Stanley Melbourne Bruce. The rural party won a hefty share of the ministries (five out of 11) and Earle Page, Country Party leader, became treasurer and de facto deputy prime minister.

Though they were not aware of it, Bruce and Page were creating something that has since become a tradition, an idea that can all too easily seem like an immutable part of Australia’s political life.

For more than 100 years now, some form of that “Coalition” has stood against Labor, and in doing so has helped to constitute a two-party system whose predominance is well and truly waning.

Discordant notes

The termination of the Coalition in 2025 is neither shocking nor unprecedented. Indeed, if the band analogy has any meaning here, it is because there have been so many discordant notes over those 102 years.

When the United Australia Party (UAP) came on to the federal scene in response to the Great Depression, the party of farmers chose to go it alone. The UAP won a majority and governed in its own right from 1931 to 1934, only joining the Country Party in coalition when the 1934 elections robbed it of outright majority.

The death of UAP founder and prime minister Joe Lyons in April 1939 tore that marriage apart. His successor, Robert Menzies, declared his desire to choose all ministers (even those from the Country Party) himself, thereby alienating that party. Apart from a few dissidents, the Country Party quit the coalition, until the outbreak of war and declining electoral fortunes made a remarriage necessary.

The Liberals and Country Party/Nationals managed their affairs well enough during their long stints in office from 1949 to 1972, and again under Malcolm Fraser (1975–83) and John Howard (1996–2007). But even in good times, these were not always the happiest of bandmates.

Country Party leader John McEwen dominated the government in the late 1960s, to the point of brazenly vetoing the leadership candidacy of Harold Holt’s deputy (the unpopular Billy McMahon) when the former went swimming and failed to return.

Fraser was often criticised by Liberal colleagues for his instinctive closeness to the National Party. Paul Davey explains that in Howard’s day, the Nationals felt “overshadowed” and “undersold”. In fact, the very word “Coalition” bordered on synonymous with “Liberal”.

Different states of mind

To be fair, Howard had learned a lot about managing the Coalition relationship by the time he arrived at The Lodge. The agreement had been brutally severed during his first stint as leader, thanks to Queensland premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s quest to become prime minister.

A figure head of New Right populism, Bjelke-Petersen felt that neither the federal Liberal Party (then led by Howard) nor his National Party colleagues were made of tough enough stuff to beat modern Labor.

The Nationals’ federal leader, Ian Sinclair, later said the vision of Howard, Sinclair and Bjelke-Petersen presenting separate election programs was an “absolute farce”.

It mattered that the death of the Coalition was spearheaded by a state premier. Such agreements had always been less popular and more controversial within the state branches of both parties.

South of the Murray, it was quite unspectacular for Country Party MPs in the mid-20th century to change their allegiances and even stand alone in office with the tentative support of the Labor Party.

In Queensland, the Liberal and National Parties governed together, often with the latter as the senior partner. But Bjelke-Petersen scrapped the Coalition in that state in 1983 and consolidated its parliamentary majority at an election in 1986. By the time of his departure in 1987, both parties had badly fractured.

In time, the two parties merged in that state to prevent such outbreaks in future. Federal members of the Queensland LNP face some awkward conversations now.

Principled stances and survival

In announcing the latest split, Nationals leader David Littleproud said his party was taking a “principled stance”, though what exact principles were involved we have not learned. His deputy, Kevin Hogan, said he hoped the parties would “get back together” later on.

We know the sticking points were these: a guaranteed $20 billion Regional Australia Fund, divestiture powers to break up businesses with unhealthy market power, obligations for better regional mobile coverage, and an ongoing commitment to the nuclear energy project.

The latter commitment flies in the face of electoral reason, but the other three policies are clearly informed by the history of telecommunications deregulation and privatisation (which caused many sleepless nights in the National Party during the Howard years) and the ever-present threat of other, more populist parties chasing Nationals MPs’ heels in regional Australia.

The National Party made a big effort to resist that pressure in the 1990s, when One Nation looked like it might decimate its grip on the regions. A few days ago, Pauline Hanson said the Nationals and One Nation could in fact form their own coalition, so close were their policy offerings. That this was even uttered is a testament to how much the Nationals have changed over the past 30 years in their quest for survival.

Time apart could provide the parties with the political space they need for self-reflection and strategic reorientation. But they will not have one another to blame for their performance in coming months and years. Breaking up the band is easy to do. Touring alone is hard.

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

– ref. The band is breaking up: has the Coalition stopped making sense? – https://theconversation.com/the-band-is-breaking-up-has-the-coalition-stopped-making-sense-257118

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Hayward, Emeritus Professor of Public Policy, RMIT University

There was not a lot of cheer in the media reporting ahead of the 2025/6 Victorian budget released on Wednesday. Debt and deficits dominated the coverage.

All eyes turned to new treasurer, Jaclyn Symes, to see if in her first budget the Labor government was finally delivering some financial discipline.

That theme flowed into the press conference during the budget lockup, when journalists got to grill the treasurer about the budget papers. Symes copped a pasting. Journalists were clearly unhappy with what they had read and more unhappy about what they heard.

Yes, the operating side of the budget is projected to be back to a wafer thin A$600 million surplus. But that is almost $1 billion less than was promised when Symes delivered a budget update last December.

And all that infrastructure is to paid for by more borrowings, taking net debt to $167 billion, $10 billion more than it was last year.

And that was despite the government benefiting from a whopping $3.5 billion in GST grants from the Commonwealth, over $1 billion more than the previous year.

And it was despite a new fire and emergency services levy that is set to deliver an extra $600 million.

And it was also despite a 22% increase in fees and fines, and a $1.3 billion rise in unspecified government charges. And it is also based on banking $500 million of savings from an efficiency review led by former head of Premier and Cabinet Helen Silver, which won’t be finished until July at the earliest.

So where did that extra money go? Well, it paid for more than $6 billion of new services ($3 billion net of savings), and an extra $1.6 billion for new infrastructure, across all portfolios. This includes free public transport for seniors on weekends and free public transport for kids.

The big ticket item was health, which got an extra $2.5 billion. That came as a surprise given health copped a $1.5 billion cut in last year’s budget, after the government claimed the hospitals were still spending at pandemic levels and needed to rediscover efficiency.

That cut did not last long. Health services workers staged a short but effective campaign that forced the then new premier, Jacinta Allan, to buckle. The money was returned in December’s budget update.

The budget papers show the Victorian economy has been performing strongly post pandemic, with Victoria leading the nation in employment growth. The budget papers tip that strong performance will continue, despite the continued warnings that all that government debt will eventually force the economy to buckle.

The government argues rather than be criticised it should be applauded for a job well done.

It spent up big on infrastructure during the pandemic, which has delivered to the state remarkably strong economic performance. It also spent up big to protect Victorians from COVID.

It has a budget recovery plan and everything is on schedule. First employment had to grow, then we needed a cash surplus and now we have an operating surplus to add to it. Net debt in real terms will start to fall next year as the last step in a long-term plan.

It also points to the state’s balance sheet to highlight it has something to show for all that debt in the form of $437 billion in assets.

Victoria is not alone in running budget operating deficits during the pandemic. NSW and Queensland make happy bedfellows, but they are not as eye-catching because their levels of debt are much lower.

Victoria is also not alone as a state or provincial government that has a lot of debt. The Canadian provinces are also in that situation, with Quebec and Ontario leading the pack.

Then there are the German state governments. Their problem is not too much debt, but far too little, leaving them to grapple with not enough as well as crumbling infrastructure caused by a constitutional debt brake that is responsible for the mess, and which has recently been lifted.

Treasurer Symes delivered a budget that has disappointed those who wanted to see debt fall and for the government to at long last show some fiscal discipline. With the economy still doing quite nicely, and so many new announcements to glow in, Treasurer Symes will be quite happy to disappoint.

The political calculation here is simple: Victorians want services and aren’t worried if it is paid for by debt.

Whether that remains the case at next year’s state election due in November is another question. For this will have been Syme’s last real chance to have been more prudent, and just at that moment when the economy could have afforded it.

David Hayward chairs the Strategic Advisory Committee for Fire Rescue Victoria.

– ref. Victorian budget has cash to splash on health, transport but new levies, job cuts, rising debt signal pain ahead – https://theconversation.com/victorian-budget-has-cash-to-splash-on-health-transport-but-new-levies-job-cuts-rising-debt-signal-pain-ahead-257013

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

The Reserve Bank of Australia cut the official interest rate for the second time this year, as it lowered forecasts for Australian economic growth and pointed to increasing uncertainty in the world economy.

The bank lowered the cash rate target by 0.25%, from 4.1% to 3.85%, saying inflation is expected to remain in the target band.

All the big four banks swiftly passed the cut on to households with mortgages. This will save a household with a $500,000 loan about $80 a month.

Announcing the cut, the Reserve Bank stressed in its accompanying statement it stands ready to reduce rates again if the economic outlook deteriorates sharply.

The Board considered a severe downside scenario and noted that monetary policy is well placed to respond decisively to international developments if they were to have material implications for activity and inflation in Australia.

Inflation is back under control

The latest Consumer Price Index showed that inflation remained around the middle of the Reserve Bank’s medium-term target band of 2-3% in the March quarter.

The Reserve Bank was also comforted by the underlying inflation measure called the “trimmed mean”. This measure excludes items with the largest price movements up or down.

The bank noted that it has returned to the 2–3% target band for the first time since 2021. This suggests inflation is not just temporarily low due to temporary factors such as the electricity price rebates.

Read more:
Inflation is easing, boosting the case for another interest rate cut in May

In February, Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock conceded the bank had arguably been “late raising interest rates on the way up”. It did not want to be late on the way down.

Perhaps Bullock is being unduly modest. The central bank looks to have judged well the extent of monetary tightening. It did not raise interest rates as much as its peers, but still got inflation back to the target.

Unemployment remains low

Last week, we got an update on the strength of the labour market. Unemployment stayed at 4.1%. It has now been around 4% since late 2023, a remarkable achievement.

This is below the 4.5% the Reserve Bank had regarded as the level consistent with steady inflation (in economic jargon, the NAIRU). But neither prices nor wages have accelerated.

Households and businesses may turn cautious

In its updated forecasts, the bank sees headline inflation dropping to 2.1% by mid-year but going back to 3.0% by the end of the year, as the electricity subsidies are removed. By mid-2027, it will be back near the middle of the 2-3% target.

Underlying inflation is forecast to stay around the middle of the target band throughout.

The Reserve Bank cut its forecast for gross domestic product (GDP) to 2.1% by December, down from its previous forecast of 2.4% made in February. It said:

Economic policy uncertainty has increased sharply alongside recent global developments, and this is expected to prompt some households to increase their precautionary savings and some businesses to postpone some investment decisions.

The unemployment rate is expected to increase to 4.3% by the end of the year and remain there through 2026.

Cost of living pressures look set to ease, as real household disposable income grows faster than population.

As the Reserve Bank governor told a media conference on Tuesday:

There’s now a new set of challenges facing the economy, but with inflation declining and the unemployment rate relatively low, we’re well positioned to deal with them. The board remains prepared to take further action if that is required.

Economic and policy ‘unpredictability’

The main uncertainty in the global economy is how the trade war instigated by US President Donald Trump will play out. According to one count, he has announced new or revised tariff policies about 50 times.

“The outlook for the global economy has deteriorated since the February statement. This is due to the adverse impact on global growth from higher tariffs and widespread economic and policy unpredictability,” the bank noted.

The US tariff pauses on the highest rates on China and most other nations are due to be in place for 90 days. But more measures may be announced before then.

This uncertainty is likely to be stifling trade, and even more so investment decisions by companies in the face of rapidly changing policies. And it will weaken the global economy.

In her press conference, Bullock said the board’s judgement was that “global trade developments will overall be disinflationary for Australia”. Not only is the global outlook weaker, but some goods no longer being sold to the US could be diverted to Australia.

Where will interest rates go from here?

The Reserve Bank’s updated forecasts assume interest rates will fall further, to 3.4% by the end of the year.

But this is just a reflection of what financial markets are implying. It is not necessarily what the bank itself expects to do. It is certainty not a promise of what they will do.

But the Reserve Bank still regards its stance as “restrictive”, or weighing on growth. So if it continues to believe inflation will stay within the target band, or the global outlook deteriorates, it will cut rates further.

John Hawkins was formerly a senior economist with the Reserve Bank.

– ref. RBA cuts interest rates, ready to respond again if the economy weakens further – https://theconversation.com/rba-cuts-interest-rates-ready-to-respond-again-if-the-economy-weakens-further-256798

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Helen Dickinson, Professor, Public Service Research, UNSW Sydney

Ensuring the provision of high quality disability services will pose a significant challenge for the Albanese government’s second term.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) cost A$43.9 billion in 2023–24 and is one of the fastest growing pressures on the federal budget.

As the government seeks to moderate growth of the scheme budget, some NDIS participants are finding they are no longer eligible for the scheme.

The problem is, the supports they’re supposed to be able to access instead aren’t yet in place – or don’t exist.

Containing growth

Concerns have been mounting for some years about the NDIS’s growing budget. In 2024, National Cabinet set a target of moderating annual growth to 8%. If met, the scheme will still grow to $58 billion by 2028.

The previous government attempted to limit its annual growth through legislative changes and a focus on weeding out fraud.

Read more:
The NDIS reform bill has been passed – will it get things ‘back on track’ for people with disability?

But there have been a number of reports in recent months of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) reassessing eligibility of NDIS participants to determine whether their supports are most appropriately paid for by the scheme.

If individuals are unable to provide evidence within 28 days they may lose their funding. This can be a challenge to get if participants need to see a clinical professional to gather evidence.

One group particularly impacted by eligibility reassessments are children. Some participants report being told they are no longer eligible for NDIS funding and should instead seek supports from other mainstream services such as health or education.

But all too often, parents find these services don’t fund the necessary supports, leaving them to either fund this themselves or have their child go without.

If opportunities for early intervention are missed, they may require more intensive and expensive supports in future.

What are foundational supports?

The NDIS was never intended to provide services to all people with disability. About 86% of disabled Australians do not have NDIS plans.

But this doesn’t mean that people with disability who are not on the NDIS don’t also have support needs.

New research found people with disability who were not NDIS participants had high levels of need for assistance for tasks of daily living including transport, cognitive and emotional tasks, mobility and household chores.

These supports aren’t usually provided in the health system, but similar supports are provided through aged care.

The NDIS review argued a lack of accessible and inclusive mainstream services for people with disability meant people were being pushed into the NDIS as their only potential source of support.

A key recommendation of the NDIS review was states and territories should provide “foundational supports”.

Foundational supports are split into two categories. General foundational supports includes things such as peer support, improving self-advocacy skills, and information and advice.

Targeted supports include shopping and cleaning for those not eligible for the NDIS. Supports are aimed at particular groups such as those with psychosocial disability (from a mental disorder), families of children with developmental delay, and transition supports for young people preparing for employment and independent living.

Foundational supports are supposed to be available from July of this year so people with disability who aren’t eligible for the NDIS can access support without having to join the scheme.

But people who are reassessed as ineligible for the scheme are having their funding cut before these foundational supports have been established, leaving a worrying gap.

Read more:
States agreed to share foundational support costs. So why the backlash against NDIS reforms now?

There is currently significant confusion in the disability community about what foundational supports will look like and who will be able to access these.

What is clear is there is significant unmet need for people with disability outside of the scheme and this might lead to a deterioration of functioning among those in this group and potentially burnout of informal carers.

Getting foundational supports right will be a key point of negotiation between federal and state and territory governments if people with disability are to be supported appropriately and the NDIS is to be sustainable.

New ministers and ministries

The new government has moved responsibility for the NDIS from the Department of Social Services into the new Department of Health, Disability and Ageing led by Mark Butler.

While Butler will sit in Cabinet, Jenny McAllister has been appointed to the outer ministry as Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

The shift of the NDIS to this portfolio has raised concerns among the disability community that it might not be a priority in an government department that also deals with health and aged care.

There are further concerns this move might medicalise how disability is seen. This would go against the human rights basis of the NDIS, where issues of choice and control are crucial.

The ministerial and departmental restructures do present new opportunities to harmonise services for people with disability.

Currently health, disability and aged care are competing to attract similar workforces across allied health, aged care and disability support. A cross-sector approach to workforce planning could be streamlined if it is the responsibility of one department.

Without this, we risk putting more pressure on the NDIS and leaving people with disability not on the NDIS without the supports they need.

The government’s ministerial and departmental restructure will likely further delay the implementation of foundational supports. Given the breadth of responsibilities of the health, disability and aged care portfolio, other policies – and election promises – might take precedence over work on foundational supports.

Helen Dickinson receives funding from ARC, NHMRC and Department of Social Services

Anne Kavanagh receives funding from the ARC, NHMRC, MRFF, MS Australia and the Australian government.

– ref. The government wants to contain NDIS growth. But ineligible people with disability also need support – https://theconversation.com/the-government-wants-to-contain-ndis-growth-but-ineligible-people-with-disability-also-need-support-256236

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Riboldi, Lecturer in Social Impact and Social Change, UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney

Social media advertising is an increasingly important frontier in election campaigns.

Political parties, candidates and third-party groups – such as trade unions, industry bodies and interest groups – all spend big to push their message high into the algorithms of potential voters.

Read more:
What did the parties say on TikTok in the election, and how? Here’s the campaign broken down in 5 charts

In the 2025 Australian federal election, this spend has been estimated at around A$40 million across the Meta- and Google-owned digital media platforms.

Based on our analysis of data from the Meta Ad Library – part of a broader research project on third sector groups (not political parties or candidates) during the election – third party groups spent more than $7.5 million advertising on Meta platforms Facebook and Instagram from March 28 to May 3 – the date the election was called to polling day.

Understanding which of these groups spent what, and on what, offers insights into the election results and modern political campaigning generally.

Some surprises in the stats

During the election campaign, much media commentary focused on right wing organisation Advance Australia’s digital campaigning.

However, our analysis shows pro-Liberal/National Party groups were outspent on Meta (which owns Facebook) almost 3:1 by anti-Liberal groups.

Much of this was focused on workers’ rights, or in opposition to the Coalition’s nuclear energy policy.

The top 25 spending groups on Meta spent just more than $6 million between them, at a rate of around $6,500 a day. The rate of spending increased steadily during the campaign, with the bulk of the spend (more than $4 million) occurring in the final two weeks.

On May 2, the day before the election, these 25 big spenders paid on average $16,622 to push their message on Meta social media platforms.

Conservative campaign group Advance Australia spent just less than $50,000 on Meta on the final day of the campaign (social media advertising is exempt from the two-day ad-blackout laws affecting traditional media operators).

Advance was the biggest third-party campaigning group on Meta during the election, spending more than $1 million during the campaign’s 37 days.

Advance’s left-wing competitor during the campaign was the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), which spent around $475,000 on Meta advertising across the campaign, including more than $52,000 on May 2.

While the ACTU spent less than half of Advance’s spend across Meta during the campaign, it spent three times as much on YouTube/Google advertising. Data from the Google Ad Transparency Center reveals the ACTU spent $928,000 on the platform between March 28 and May 3, whereas Advance spent $296,000 during the same period.

Key battlegrounds: climate and energy

The other two big Meta spenders the day before polling day highlight the key policy contest among third party organisations – the Coalition’s proposal to introduce nuclear powered energy to Australia.

Nuclear for Australia was the biggest spender on Meta on May 2, spending more than $65,000 in one day. Its direct counterpoint, Liberals Against Nuclear, spent a touch more than $32,000 on the same day.

However, during the whole campaign, Liberals Against Nuclear spent more ($246,000 compared to Nuclear for Australia’s $236,000).

An anti-nuclear message was particularly prominent across the top 25 spending groups on Meta. Of the 15 organisations we identified as being explicitly anti-Liberal, nine were climate organisations with an anti-nuclear message.

These nine organisations spent a total of $2.5 million across Meta during the course of the campaign.

The most significant of these was Climate 200, which spent almost $900,000 on Meta during the election campaign.

Another key anti-nuclear nuclear campaigner on Meta was Climate Action Network Australia (CANA), which spent almost $400,000 between March 28 and May 3 across two different Facebook pages, and Hothouse Magazine, which spent almost $300,000 on pro-renewables advertising.

Together, the 15 explicitly anti-Liberal groups spent more than $3.6 million during the election, far eclipsing the two clear pro-Liberal groups, Advance Australia and Nuclear for Australia, which spent around $1.3 million between them.

So, what insights might these findings offer into the election results?

What may the future hold?

There certainly appears to be a correlation between the historic low Coalition vote and the outspending of pro-Liberal entities on Meta.

Read more:
Political parties can recover after a devastating election loss. But the Liberals will need to think differently

Outside of Advance and Nuclear for Australia’s Meta campaigning, big-spending right-wing groups such as Australians for Prosperity, Better Australia and Australian Taxpayer’s Alliance seemed more singularly focused on tearing down the Greens and Climate 200-backed independents than on helping the Coalition win government.

In contrast, the anti-Dutton and anti-nuclear focus of the anti-Liberal third party spending has a degree of collective discipline about it, which is probably indicative of the strength of the workers’ rights and climate movements in Australia.

Additionally, the climate movement’s strong anti-nuclear campaign may have presented a message which glossed over Labor’s climate failures during the previous term.

This may have sent some pro-climate voters to Labor rather than to the Greens or Climate 200 independents. For their part, these organisations appeared to campaign more around the opportunities of a possible minority government than on environmental issues.

Civil society actors such as trade unions and industry groups have a long history of involvement in Australian politics.

The increasing non-major party vote, now around a third of all voters, means there are now more voices in our democratic processes.

This in turn creates more opportunities for third party organisations to influence policy debate and election outcomes.

Mark Riboldi 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. Follow the money: the organisations that spent the most on social media during the election – https://theconversation.com/follow-the-money-the-organisations-that-spent-the-most-on-social-media-during-the-election-256784

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Lindsey, Malcolm Smith Professor of Asian Law and Director of the Centre for Indonesian Law, Islam and Society, The University of Melbourne

Making Jakarta their first overseas visit has become a set piece for newly elected Australian prime ministers dating back to John Howard in 1996.

So, we should not be surprised that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese flew to Jakarta soon after his landslide re-election, just as he did in 2022. In fact, it would be very surprising if he did not.

These visits are now an obligation for a newly elected PM. Failing to jump on the plane would be seen in Indonesia as an intentional snub.

The visits follow a familiar pattern. The prime minister offers some sort of paraphrase of Paul Keating’s famous tag, “There is no country more important to Australia than Indonesia”. (Albanese actually quoted Keating word for word.)

There is a carefully planned photo op, such as riding bamboo bikes, visiting a crowded marketplace or, this time around, a golf cart ride at the presidential palace.

The brief visit ends with a joint press conference, where both leaders pledge to “strengthen the relationship”. With occasional exceptions, their announcements are vague and aspirational. Sometimes they just restate what they’ve said before.

In other words, these performative post-election prime ministerial visits have become an essential, symbolic part of Australia’s bilateral relationship with Indonesia, but they too often lack substance.

This is a pity, because Australia needs to work much harder to achieve its key aims with Indonesia, which Albanese defined in Jakarta as closer economic and defence engagement.

To put it bluntly, Australia struggles to get Indonesia’s attention. It is an uncomfortable truth that, from an Indonesian perspective, Australia’s leverage and importance is limited. Jakarta sees Canberra as the junior partner in the relationship.

An Indonesian president is hardly likely to say, “There is no country more important to Indonesia than Australia”, let alone make a post-election visit to Canberra a fixture.

Prabowo’s gesture to Australia

This is not to say Indonesia’s current president, Prabowo Subianto, is hostile to Australia. He is not.

In fact, he made a significant friendly gesture to Australia soon after he was sworn in last year by releasing the remaining five members of the Bali Nine from prison in Indonesia and sending them home for Christmas.

This move was beneficial to Prabowo on multiple fronts.

First, generous acts of clemency of this kind distinguish him from his predecessor, Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, and his hardline “war on drugs” policy. Jokowi endorsed Prabowo in last year’s election, but Prabowo is keen to emerge from his long shadow.

Second, Prabowo is far more cosmopolitan and interested in international affairs than his predecessor. He has ambitions to be a player on the global stage, as witnessed by his (failed) efforts to broker a peace between Russia and Ukraine last year. Freeing foreign prisoners makes him more welcome overseas.

Third, granting clemency helps counter Prabowo’s dark past, and the long-standing and credible allegations of human rights abuses that date back to his time as Soeharto’s son-in-law and a special forces commander.

These allegations are more of a problem internationally than at home, but they are still a nuisance for Prabowo. He likely expected his Bali Five gesture would win him a warm and image-enhancing response from Albanese – and indeed, that proved to be the case.

But while all this suited Prabowo nicely, it did not result in any major developments in the two areas most important to Australia: trade and security.

Lingering mistrust on security matters

There are understandable reasons for this.

Take security, for example. Indonesia is critically important to Australia as its northern defensive shield. It is vital to our interests that we have a strong security partnership with Indonesia. But Australia is less important to Indonesia’s own defences.

We are also not fully trusted. In addition to lingering concerns about the AUKUS deal with the US and UK, Australia’s role in the independence of Timor–Leste in 1999 resulted in Indonesia famously tearing up the sweeping security treaty Keating negotiated with Soeharto in 1995.

Indeed, the loss of Timor–Leste still rankles with some senior Indonesian military figures. Australia and Indonesia have signed new security arrangements since then – the Lombok Treaty, in particular, and the agreement signed last year enabling more complex training exercises between the two militaries. However, none match the scale of the 1995 agreement.

Moreover, our engagement on security is complicated by Indonesia’s long-standing commitment to a non-aligned diplomatic policy – what it calls “free and active”.

Jakarta did stop short of allowing Russia to base long-range aircraft in Papua province, but under its non-aligned stance, it has purchased weapons and fuel from Russia and become the first Southeast Asian country join the BRICS grouping of countries (founded by Brazil, Russia, India and China).

Undercooked on trade and investment

As for the economic relationship, our low profile in Indonesian markets – despite our proximity – severely limits our leverage and influence in Indonesia.

Indonesia has a population approaching 300 million and a huge retail market. But as a trading partner, Australia ranks far behind many other countries, including China, the US, Japan, India, Singapore, and even Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam.

This is despite signing a free trade agreement with Indonesia in 2019. Although it was many years in the making, the deal did not deliver dramatic changes at the time, and has had limited impact ever since.

Indonesia is open about its hunger for more foreign investment. But, again, we are not a major investor in our near neighbour. In fact, Australia invests more in far-flung tax havens such as Luxembourg and Ireland, as well as in Papua New Guinea, Taiwan and India, than we do in Indonesia. It’s not even in our top 20 investment destinations.

As Albanese said in Jakarta, strengthening investment ties requires government, business and civil society demonstrating greater engagement and ambition when it comes to Indonesia.

This is not easy. Australian businesses remain wary of Indonesia because of bureaucratic red tape and the complexity created by decentralised and sometimes chaotic local governments, as well as serious, widespread corruption.

However, this is true of many other business destinations in Asia and the developing world. It is hard to avoid the impression that Australian businesses have a blind spot regarding Indonesia.

A move that would get Jakarta’s attention

The ambition that Albanese called for is well overdue.

Both China and India have large diasporas in Australia that can offer rich human resources for investors in those countries and help them navigate complex markets. By comparison, the local Indonesian population is tiny, and our education system has failed to fill the gap.

In fact, Indonesian studies is barely hanging on by its fingernails in our schools and universities. The numbers of students studying Indonesian in Year 12 has plunged to minuscule numbers in recent years. And universities drop courses every year, with enrolments falling 63% between 1992 and 2019.

A second-term leader with a gigantic majority, Albanese is ideally positioned to do something about this.

He should take a page from the playbooks of ALP heroes Keating and Kevin Rudd, who funded programs to boost Asian languages in schools. Albanese should allocate serious funding – A$100 million would be good start – over the next decade to revive Indonesian language instruction in Australian schools.

That would help rebuild what was once a level of Indonesia literacy unmatched anywhere else in the world. It would be a big step towards helping Australian businesses summon up the courage to enter complex Indonesian markets where only around 5% of the population have functional English.

And it would be an ambitious announcement that would be guaranteed to get serious attention in Jakarta.

Tim Lindsey receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. There’s no country more important to Australia than Indonesia. Trouble is, the feeling isn’t mutual – https://theconversation.com/theres-no-country-more-important-to-australia-than-indonesia-trouble-is-the-feeling-isnt-mutual-256900

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julia Henning, PhD Candidate in Feline Behaviour, School of Animal and Veterinary Science, University of Adelaide

Cats have a long history with humans, going back more than 9,000 years. Attracted to human settlements by the rodents that plagued (sometimes literally) our ancestors, cats ingratiated themselves as useful mousers and slowly domesticated themselves.

Farmers began to employ them as pest controllers. It was through this arrangement that cats and milk first became acquainted.

Before the commercialisation of pet food, cats were mostly fed scraps from the family table. Not much was known about their nutritional needs. In his 1877 book on cats, Scottish doctor Gordon Stables insisted cats need two bowls – “one for water and the other for milk” – and suggested porridge and milk as an excellent feline breakfast.

From these origins, cats and milk became further embedded in the collective zeitgeist through depictions of milk-loving cats in art, books, movies and cartoons. There’s even the classic trope of the scruffy street cat being rescued from the rain to enjoy a saucer of milk from a kindly stranger.

While it’s not surprising that cats and milk have persisted as an unquestioned combination, research now tells us cats shouldn’t be drinking milk at all.

The vast majority of cats are lactose intolerant

Like all mammals, cats begin life drinking milk from their mother. But past kittenhood, milk is a completely unnecessary part of a cat’s diet.

After weaning (around 6–12 weeks of age), kittens stop producing the enzyme lactase, required to digest lactose in milk. For the vast majority of cats, this means they are lactose intolerant.

However, just like in humans, the level of intolerance varies for each individual based on how much of the enzyme their body naturally produces.

Don’t rush to give your kitten milk, though. Just because kittens can digest lactose doesn’t mean they should be drinking cow’s milk. Cats are much smaller animals than cows and, fittingly, the amount of lactose in the milk of mother cats is much lower than in cow’s milk. It’s best to let them drink from their mother or to get them a kitten-appropriate cat formula.

Lactose intolerance isn’t the only reason not to give your cats milk. Though rare, cats can also develop an allergy to milk or dairy.

What happens to cats who drink milk?

Lactose is a type of sugar. When it can’t be broken down to be absorbed into the bloodstream, lactose travels through the intestines to the colon where the bacteria inside the body ferment it.

This fermentation breaks lactose down into acids and gases which cause unpleasant symptoms, including the passing of excessive gas, bloating, constipation, abdominal pain and occasionally nausea and vomiting. In cats, the most common symptom observed is diarrhoea.

Chronic or persistent diarrhoea can cause further complications such as dehydration, electrolyte imbalance and malnutrition. In some cases, it can even be life threatening.

Cats who consume milk or dairy regularly as part of their diet are at increased risk of these health complications.

If milk is so bad for cats, why do they love it?

We often like things that are bad for us. But to answer this question, we first have to remember cow’s milk is intended for feeding and growing a baby cow.

To achieve this feat, it contains an assortment of proteins and fats that are highly palatable, especially to cats. Cats need high levels of protein and fat for optimal health and daily functioning.

Cow’s milk, in particular, is also high in casein, a protein that is broken down by the body into alpha-casozepine. In some studies, it’s been associated with a calming effect in cats. While this wouldn’t initially make a cat want to drink milk, it may create a comforting association with milk over time.

Can I give milk sometimes as a treat? What about milk alternatives?

The short answer is: no.

Dairy is not a natural part of cats’ diet. While they may like the taste, milk is likely to cause your furry friend discomfort and health issues, so it’s best to avoid entirely.

And if you’re thinking your cat is one of the lucky few that isn’t lactose intolerant, think again. Cats are very good at hiding discomfort because, in the wild, showing weakness would make them a target for predators.

If you absolutely must, opt for lactose-free milk or milk formulated specifically for cats, and keep it as a very occasional treat.

While it won’t upset their stomachs in the same way as regular cow’s milk, it still won’t offer your cat any nutritional benefit.

As for milk alternatives like oat, soy or almond milk? Any unusual additions to your cat’s diet are likely to cause digestive upset, so it’s best to avoid these as well.

The bottom line? Don’t give your cat milk. They don’t need it, they probably can’t digest it and it’s likely to cause more pain than it’s worth.

Julia Henning 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 cats drink milk? Despite the stereotypes, it’s actually a bad idea – https://theconversation.com/can-cats-drink-milk-despite-the-stereotypes-its-actually-a-bad-idea-255227

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Kennedy, Youth Mental Health Researcher, University of the Sunshine Coast

We have all experienced boredom – that feeling of waning interest or decreased mental stimulation. Eventually we lose focus, we disengage. Time seems to pass slowly, and we may even start to feel restless. Whether it be watching a movie that disappoints, a child complaining that “there’s nothing to do”, or an adult zoning out during a meeting – boredom is a universal experience.

Generally defined as difficulty maintaining attention or interest in a current activity, boredom is commonly viewed as a negative state that we should try to avoid or prevent ourselves from experiencing.

But what if there’s another way to view boredom, as a positive state? Could learning to embrace boredom be of benefit?

The brain on boredom

The brain network is a system of interconnected regions that work together to support different functions. We can liken it to a city where suburbs (brain regions) are connected by roads (neural pathways), all working together to allow information to travel efficiently.

When we experience boredom – say, while watching a movie – our brain engages specific networks. The attention network prioritises relevant stimuli while filtering out distractions and is active when we commence the movie.

However, as our attention wanes, activity in the attention network decreases, reflecting our diminished ability to maintain focus on the unengaging content. Likewise, decreased activity occurs in the frontoparietal or executive control network due to the struggle to maintain engagement with the unengaging movie.

Simultaneously, the default mode network activates, shifting our attention toward internal thoughts and self-reflection. This is a core function of the default mode network, referred to as introspection, and suggestive of a strategy for coping with boredom.

This complex interplay of networks involves several key brain regions “working together” during the state of boredom. The insula is a key hub for sensory and emotional processing. This region shows increased activity when detecting internal body signals – such as thoughts of boredom – indicating the movie is no longer engaging. This is often referred to as “interoception”.

The amygdala can be likened to an internal alarm system. It processes emotional information and plays a role in forming emotional memories. During boredom, this region processes associated negative emotions, and the ventral medial prefrontal cortex motivates us to seek alternative stimulating activities.

Boredom versus overstimulation

We live in a society that subjects us to information overload and high stress. Relatedly, many of us have adopted a fast-paced lifestyle, constantly scheduling ourselves to keep busy. As adults we juggle work and family. If we have kids, the habit of filling the day with schooling and after-school activities allows us to work longer hours.

In between these activities, if we have time to pause, we may be on our screens constantly organising, updating, or scrolling to simply stay occupied. As a result, adults inadvertently model the need to be constantly “on” to younger generations.

This constant stimulation can be costly – particularly for our nervous system. Our overscheduling can feed into overstimulation of the nervous system. The sympathetic nervous system which manages our fight-or-flight response is designed to deal with times of stress.

However, when we are constantly stressed by taking in new information and juggling different activities, the sympathetic nervous system can stay activated for too long, due to the cumulative effects of repeated exposure to different stressors. This is sometimes referred to as “allostatic overload”. It is when our nervous system becomes overwhelmed, keeping us in a heightened state of arousal, which can increase our risk of anxiety.

Eliminating the state of boredom deprives us of a simple and natural way to reset our sympathetic nervous system.

Could boredom be good for us?

In small doses, boredom is the necessary counterbalance to the overstimulated world in which we live. It can offer unique benefits for our nervous system and our mental health. This is opposed to long periods of boredom where increased default mode network activity may be associated with depression.

There are several benefits of giving ourselves permission to be occasionally bored:

• improvements in creativity, allowing us to build “flow” in our thoughts
• develops independence in thinking and encourages finding other interests rather than relying on constant external input
• supports self-esteem and emotional regulation, because unstructured times can help us sit with our feelings which are important for managing anxiety
• encourages periods without device use and breaks the loop of instant gratification that contributes to compulsive device use
• rebalances the nervous system and reduces sensory input to help calm anxiety.

Embrace the pause

Anxiety levels are on the rise worldwide, especially among our youth. Many factors contribute to this trend. We are constantly “on”, striving to ensure we are scheduling for every moment. But in doing so, we are potentially depriving our brains and bodies of the downtime they need to reset and recharge.

We need to embrace the pause. It is a space where creativity can prosper, emotions can be regulated, and the nervous system can reset.

Daniel Hermens receives funding from the Commonwealth government’s Prioritising Mental Health Initiative and the Queensland Mental Health Commission.

Michelle Kennedy 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. Boredom gets a bad rap. But science says it can actually be good for us – https://theconversation.com/boredom-gets-a-bad-rap-but-science-says-it-can-actually-be-good-for-us-255767

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pat McGorry, Professor of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne

The death of former AFL footballer Adam Selwood, less than four months after the death by suicide of his twin Troy, is an unfathomable tragedy for the Selwood family.

The devastating news has sent shockwaves through the AFL and wider Australian communities.

The shock and grief have prompted many people, from current and former AFL players to fans and media commentators, to seek actions and solutions.

The immediate priority is to ensure the Selwood family and anyone who is currently struggling with mental ill-health and may be adversely impacted by this latest tragedy, is supported and offered hope for the future.

In addition, the AFL community and mental health advocates have implored the AFL to introduce a mental health round, similar to its other themed rounds such as its ANZAC commemorations or the current Sir Doug Nicholls round, which celebrates Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander players, cultures and communities.

Better late than never?

I first raised the idea of a mental health round for the AFL in 2010 with then-CEO Andrew Demetriou after I was fortunate enough to be named Australian of the Year.

This allowed me gain access to prominent leaders to champion the fight against the alarming rise of mental ill-health in Australia – especially young people.

The idea never materialised, but I strongly believe a mental health round can play a significant role in reimagining the national conversation on mental health.

However, there are pros and cons to this, and it is critical it is approached in a strategic fashion that goes beyond just awareness and anti-stigma campaigns.

It must instead deliver real and meaningful reform to reduce the impact of mental ill-health and preventable deaths from suicide.

The problem we face

Mental ill-health affects all Australians directly or indirectly – suicide is the number one cause of death for people under 40.

More than 3,000 families every year lose a loved one to suicide and these are largely preventable deaths.

This growing public health crisis creates a huge burden that is social, emotional and economic.

In 2021, the Productivity Commission estimated the cost to Australia of our neglect of mental ill-health and suicide: around A$200 billion per year.

Up to 75% of all mental disorders begin before the age of 25.

Suicide is the biggest killer of young people, and two in five young people now experience mental ill-health every year, a 50% increase since 2007.

Athletes sit within the peak age of risk for mental ill-health, and elite sport can come with unique pressures that heightens risk.

While the AFL and most clubs have engaged strongly around this issue and have sought to provide support for current and former players, the wider mental health crisis extends far beyond the boundaries of the sporting arena.

Now the AFL has a unique opportunity to drive significant change.

Benefits and risks of a mental health round

A mental health round would build on key recommendations from The Lancet Psychiatry’s 2024 commission on youth mental health.

Produced by a global consortium of world-leading psychiatrists, psychologists, academics and young people, it identified the need for “high-profile societal champions” to help sustain “high-quality media attention, which is crucial to any political campaign”.

It highlights societal champions (such as sporting bodies and figures), alongside the unified voice of health and research experts “play a key role in ensuring a message is received by a wider audience and appeals to the public in order to gain support from policy makers”.

This approach must be underpinned by powerful storytelling, which emphasises:

Positive stories of effective care and innovation, combined with credible first-person accounts from service users and their families and carers.

The AFL is uniquely positioned to deliver this by uniting athletes, fans, media platforms and grassroots programs.

It has taken on this role before with positive results, improving awareness and raising money for our ANZACs, as well as the fight against motor neurone disease (MND) – a relatively rare condition compared to mental illness and suicide.

However, it is imperative any such approach moves beyond the well-meaning but tired awareness campaigns that merely encourage people to “check on your mates”, “speak up if you’re struggling” or suggest the solution is simply a matter of improving “resilience”.

That can be code for “just pull yourself together” or “toughen up” – language that is all too familiar in footy circles.

Some elements of the sporting media may need to look in the mirror here.

Anti-stigma campaigns are similarly ineffective in isolation.

A key objective of a mental health round should also be to engage and empower grassroots Australian communities to demand investment the mental health crisis urgently requires.

There is not much use urging people to seek help if expert mental health care is inaccessible or of poor quality. We can rely on world-class cancer care when we need it, but not so mental health care.

In addition to rapid and free access to high quality care, we also need a major boost to scientific research to create new treatments and fuel prevention.

The AFL is already a case study in how to galvanise medical research in another neglected area via its partnership with the FightMND campaign, an incredible initiative that has raised both public engagement and precious funds for scientific discovery.

A step forward?

To honour the tragic deaths of Adam and Troy Selwood and the tens of thousands of families who have been are devastated by suicide in recent years, Australia needs to do something about it.

The AFL is uniquely positioned to take a decisive leadership role on this issue.

But a mental health round must ensure public mental health experts are central to its design and delivery, so it drives not just conversation but real, lasting change.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Patrick McGorry receives funding from the NHRMC, NIH, Wellcome Trust and other research funders fro scientific research in mental health and suicide prevention. I am a member of the AFL’s mental health advisory committee.

– ref. 15 years ago, I urged the AFL to launch a mental health round. Now it’s time for action – https://theconversation.com/15-years-ago-i-urged-the-afl-to-launch-a-mental-health-round-now-its-time-for-action-256995

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anne Macaskill, Senior Lecturer in Experimental Psychology, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Conventional wisdom suggests memories of past experiences can help us navigate problems in the present.

For example, if a friend told you they were having a disagreement with their partner, you might ask what they did last time they argued. If your child was anxious about a presentation, you might boost their confidence by saying “remember that great speech you did last year”.

Indeed, memory researchers have found people report a key reason they remember the past is to solve problems in the present. But does this prove that drawing on experience is a good problem-solving strategy?

How much insight do we have about whether these memories support us to solve current problems? And, objectively, does this strategy help people identify more and better solutions?

To get more conclusive evidence, we ran two experimental studies (one with 170 students, one with 340 students). In each, we instructed some people to recall previous times they were successful (we call this the “memory group”). We instructed others to recall neutral personal memories such as what they had for breakfast that morning (we call this the “control group”).

We then asked both groups to come up with as many solutions as they could to everyday problems, such as resolving a disagreement, or working in a team to complete a project.

We expected the memory group to generate more solutions to these problems than the control group. But surprisingly, they did not. Both groups generated the same number of solutions.

Does this mean drawing on the past is an ineffective problem-solving strategy, or perhaps only effective for some people?

Unpacking the link between memory and problem solving

To dig further, we asked all participants what was going on in their heads while they were coming up with solutions. Across both groups, some participants said they drew on past experiences we did not specifically instruct them to recall.

This result hinted that recalling memories might be something some people are in the habit of doing anyway, and a possible reason why our memory instructions didn’t seem to make a difference.

We therefore wondered if our instructions were only helpful for participants who do not typically use their memory to solve problems. Indeed, in a followup study with 237 student participants, we found our instruction to recall past successful experiences was useful, but only for a subset of people.

Specifically, this applied to participants who reported they don’t typically use their memory of personal experiences for problem solving. These participants came up with more solutions than anyone else.

We reasoned this was because they already had other good problem-solving strategies (for example, thinking about facts relevant to the problem or thinking laterally and creatively) and we had merely given them an additional strategy (recalling their past).

However, we found no relationship between how often participants typically used their memory to solve problems, and how many solutions they came up with.

Memories can help with difficult tasks

What do our findings tell us? Recalling a memory may be helpful for generating solutions to problems, but it is not the only or best way to solve problems.

However, recalling a memory might help more or be more important in other problem-solving steps, such as defining a problem or implementing a solution once you’ve thought of it.

For instance, some experimental evidence suggests intentionally remembering past experiences could be helpful for doing hard things, such as public speaking, exercising or overcoming a fear of heights.

One study found people who remembered a positive public speaking experience before giving a speech were less anxious, and actually did a better job. Another study found people who recalled a positive experience with exercise increased their exercise over a week, even when the researchers took into account their prior attitudes, motivation and exercise activity.

A specific positive and related memory may therefore be helpful to following through on your intention to perform a specific behaviour. Conversely, as we have found, recalling a memory might not be the best or only approach for coming up with multiple solutions to a problem.

People also report that they recall their experiences to shape their identity and to develop and maintain relationships through reminiscing. Memory of personal experiences therefore has the potential to influence many facets of our life.

Overall, our research highlights the importance of context – when, how and who is drawing on memories of past experiences to solve problems – when we consider conventional wisdom about memory.

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. Does drawing on memory help us solve problems? Our experiment gave some surprising answers – https://theconversation.com/does-drawing-on-memory-help-us-solve-problems-our-experiment-gave-some-surprising-answers-255105

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deanna D’Alessandro, Professor & Director, Net Zero Institute, University of Sydney

In the wake of Labor’s resounding victory in Australia’s federal election earlier this month, there has been much talk about flailing productivity in Australia.

In fact, last week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers made clear that the priority for the government’s second term will be to boost productivity. This crucial measure of how much we produce for every hour we work rises a little every year. But growth has slowed over the past decade.

As part of this, the federal government has tasked the Productivity Commission with a new strategy to enhance productivity. A draft report is expected in July or August, with implementable ideas across five key pillars.

So far, however, one part of the solution to the productivity slump has received little public attention: boosting support for scientific research.

Productivity relies on science

Science can help boost national economic productivity in many ways.

For one, scientific innovation and creativity can create high value goods and services for both Australian and international markets. And translating this research into real-world economic benefits builds a workforce that combines science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) skills with business skills.

This is important because it fosters technological innovation and supports evidence-based decision making. It also empowers individuals to solve complex problems in the face of technological change. This ultimately drives productivity growth.

Australian scientific solutions will also need to be at the fore if the Future Made in Australia agenda is to realise its goal of stronger public-private sector relationships and a more resilient economy.

The so-called fourth industrial revolution, or Industry 4.0, refers to the rapid digitisation and automation of manufacturing industry technologies and processes. It not only relies on science to realise the enormous opportunities of digital technologies, but also to ensure they are harnessed sustainably.

For example, science can help address the serious concerns relating to the huge energy and resource cost of artificial intelligence.

Recognising the role of science

The government seems to recognise the role scientific research and innovation can play in boosting productivity.

For example, in 2024 it fully launched the Australian Economic Accelerator, which was announced by the former Coalition government two years earlier. This scheme is designed to foster and build productivity by supporting university research in Australia that has the potential for commercialisation.

Australia’s new national science and research priorities also highlight the crucial role of science in addressing Australia’s complex energy and environmental challenges.

But there are still some fundamental problems in the world of science that are limiting productivity growth in Australia.

A widening gap

One of these problems relates to research and development – or R&D – funding.

Australia’s investment in R&D as a percentage of gross domestic product has been declining for many years. It has dropped from 2.25% in 2008–9 to 1.68% in 2021–22. At the same time, other advanced economies have increased their R&D spending, leading to a widening gap. The OECD average is 2.7%.

Multiple leading bodies have called out this decline as a threat to Australia’s long-term productivity. That’s because R&D spending in science fosters innovation and creativity – two major factors in productivity growth.

Another problem is the declining support for fundamental science which isn’t done with any application in mind, but can be equally important in the long term to enhancing productivity.

Consider the discovery of penicillin. Or of the double helix structure of DNA. These are just some scientific breakthroughs that were not initially focused on practical applications, but ultimately proved transformative.

This kind of scientific research requires sustained support, allowing knowledge to grow. We have seen the results of this in action and its impact even more recently. Scientists had worked on mRNA vaccines for decades before the vaccine breakthrough achieved during the COVID pandemic.

A nation at a crossroads

Australia is at a crossroads. Simply increasing funding in the short term through measures such as Australia’s Economic Accelerator is, at best, a band-aid solution. What’s needed to properly tackle the problem is thoughtful reform and long-term, strategic planning to secure the nation’s prosperity for decades to come.

There is some hope for this, thanks to the government’s comprehensive review of the R&D sector. This review aims to align R&D with national priorities, maximise the value of existing investments, harness public-private partnerships, and strengthen collaboration between research and industry.

The review is engaging a wide range of stakeholders and is designed to deliver long-term transformation.

Addressing productivity in these areas could yield substantial benefits. It could build Australia’s industrial and economic self-sufficiency. And it could broaden our field of view around productivity and how it can be boosted through long-term investment in science and R&D reforms.

By implementing robust R&D reforms and driving productivity across all sectors, Australia can set itself up for sustained growth and international influence.

Deanna D’Alessandro receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Kate Harrison Brennan was an Advisor to former Prime Minister Julia Gillard and is a member of the Australian Labor Party.

– ref. The federal government wants to boost productivity. Science can help – https://theconversation.com/the-federal-government-wants-to-boost-productivity-science-can-help-256567

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scarlett Howard, Research Fellow, School of Biological Sciences, Monash University

Did you know goldfish can learn to drive cars? Have you heard bumblebees can learn to pull on a string? Would you believe some primates can perform calculations with Arabic numerals?

These tasks seem completely irrelevant to these animals in their natural environment, so why are researchers interested in them?

As someone who studies the intelligence of insects, much of my own research has been labelled as “ecologically irrelevant”.

However, as I have argued in Trends in Cognitive Sciences, there are plenty of reasons to study this kind of animal intelligence.

Finding relevance in irrelevance

The study of animal intelligence often seeks to form a better understanding of the animal’s ecology. However, there are also many studies that aim to push the limits of animal cognition beyond what we would expect in their everyday life.

Ecologically irrelevant research can help us understand the limits of animal intelligence and develop bio-inspired technology. It can also help us explore behavioural responses to environmental change, and advance our understanding of the evolution of intelligence.

Understanding how animals respond to ecologically irrelevant tasks sheds light on how our own intelligence has evolved. We frequently use comparisons between humans and non-human primates to understand whether a cognitive capacity has evolved in modern humans, or if we observe similar abilities in other primates and animals.

For example, children as young as 24 months old can find a hidden object in a room when its location is pointed out to them in a photograph. This ability is known as representational insight.

Some chimpanzees can also pass this test. Do these results mean a chimpanzee has the same level of intelligence as a two-year-old child?

Furthermore, this test may allow us to estimate when representational insight evolved. It may have been before humans and chimpanzees split into different lineages.

Imitating nature, comparing species

Biologically inspired (bio-inspired) solutions to modern computing problems use technology based on biology. Some bio-inspired technologies can cope well with uncertainty by using brain-like computations to process and solve real-world problems. Many animals are considered models for bio-inspired technologies based on their vision, behaviour and movement.

For example, the flight mechanics of dragonflies have been studied to build micro aerial vehicles. Since bio-inspired technology will undoubtedly be used in unnatural situations, it is useful to know how animals would respond in these same scenarios to build more accurate technology.

Comparing the behaviour and intelligence of different species can pose a huge challenge to scientists. To enable accurate comparisons we need to have a task of equal difficulty for both species.

If we use a task that animals perform regularly in their natural environments, we run the risk that one species may have an advantage from performing the task more frequently. However, if we use a task that neither animal is likely to ever need to perform, we can “level the playing field” for an accurate comparison.

Animals must often adapt to new and unfamiliar situations. Environmental changes such as urbanisation, climate change, habitat loss and invasive species introductions cause animals to encounter new challenges that may have previously been ecologically irrelevant.

A puzzle box may be seem irrelevant to many animals. However, cockatoos in Australia have learned how to open rubbish bins to forage. The cockatoos have then adapted to solve new puzzles as humans attempt to make bins harder to open.

This “innovation arms race” between humans and cockatoos shows how an initially ecologically irrelevant task may become relevant to an animal.

Does a true test of ecologically irrelevant intelligence exist?

One major question is whether we have been able to create a truly ecologically irrelevant task for animals to complete.

For example, bees have been trained to recognise images of human faces. This task may appear ecologically irrelevant to a bee.

However, to the bee, an image of a human face may actually represent an unfamiliar but rewarding flower, particularly when the correct option is paired with a reward of sugar water, which imitates a flower’s nectar. Is this task relevant or irrelevant to a bee? The answer is: it depends.

Many experiments provide food rewards. Therefore, animals may interpret these experiments as a foraging task, thus making even the most complex and arbitrary tasks during tests of intelligence still somewhat ecologically relevant to the animal. Other rewards for animals participating in experiments include shelter, social interactions, and play.

While the task itself may appear ecologically irrelevant, the reward may be highly relevant to animals looking for food, mating opportunities, safety, or fun. This leads us to question if any task we give animals is completely bereft of ecological relevance.

Scarlett Howard currently has funding from the Australian Research Council and the Hermon Slade Foundation.

– ref. Fish driving cars and chimps doing maths: what teaching animals ‘irrelevant’ skills reveals about our own minds – https://theconversation.com/fish-driving-cars-and-chimps-doing-maths-what-teaching-animals-irrelevant-skills-reveals-about-our-own-minds-253938

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher Auricht, Visiting Research Fellow in Natural Resources Management, University of Adelaide

South Australia is famously the driest state on the driest inhabited continent.

But even for South Australia, the current drought is extreme. Rainfall has been the lowest on record across large areas.

When drought strikes and water sources dry up, life becomes hard for wildlife. In these conditions, perennial water sources become enormously valuable.

Dotted across the drought-stricken Fleurieu Peninsula south of Adelaide are more than 850 swampy wetlands. When the landscape dries out, these swamps act as refuges. Animals, birds, insects and reptiles come from far and wide, drawn by permanent spring-fed water, good habitat, diverse plant species and cooler, more humid micro-climates. These swamps are vital habitat for the critically endangered Mount Lofty Ranges southern emu-wren.

Drainage channels were cut through many of these swamps in the early days of settlement, in an effort to turn them into pasture. The Fleurieu swamps are now considered an endangered ecological community. More than 90% of the remaining swamps are located on private property.

Keeping these swamps intact and restoring dried out wetlands comes with real benefits for farmers. Birds and insects seek refuge in the swamps, but feed on pest species on nearby farmland.

As drought tightens its grip on South Australia, these swamps will only become more important to wildlife. Restoring these swamps by bringing back the water and restoring plants and pollinators could go some way to help.

Important for nature – and humans

The swamps of the Fleurieu are some of the most diverse and productive habitats on Earth. Many species of plants, birds, frogs, fish, insects, mammals and reptiles rely on them to survive.

Before colonisation, swamps and wetlands covered large areas of the Fleurieu Peninsula. Three First Nations language groups lived in these areas on the central and eastern peninsula. The importance of these wetlands is recorded in the shared story of Tjilbruki, a Kaurna ancestor whose tears at the death of his nephew gave rise to six freshwater springs.

Over the last 200 years, most of this region has been cleared for pasture, crops and vineyards. Only 4% of the swamps are conserved. They are now listed as a critically endangered ecological community. These swamps are still declining due to threats such as more human settlement, land clearance, water extraction and invasive species such as blackberries.

Many were drained to make way for agriculture. We don’t fully know how many remain, as many are not well captured in current maps.

But we know these wetlands are vital, not just for nature but for farmers too. Farmers would miss them if they were gone.

We can see this most clearly during droughts. As the land gets drier and ephemeral water sources evaporate, ibises, eastern great egrets, white-faced herons and masked lapwings move into these swamps, seeking water. During the days, though, they spread out and feed on pasture pests such as grasshoppers and cockchafer beetle grubs.

Similarly, these wetlands act as a haven for important insect pollinators and predators. Hoverflies and native bees help farmers by pollinating pasture legumes such as clover, while predators keep down the numbers of pest species.

As adults, parasitic wasps rely on the nectar from swamp plants such as woolly teatree. But they lay their eggs on common pasture pests such as caterpillars and grubs. When their larvae hatch, they eat these pests. Carnivorous insects such as ladybirds and assassin bugs eat other insects which can trouble farmers.

Restoration is possible

Swamps don’t have a great reputation. Throughout human history, they have been seen as sources of foul air and a haven for insects and disease. A common response was to dig channels to drain them.

We now know much more about how important swamps and other wetlands for the natural world – and for humans. Wetlands naturally store water and carbon, tame floods and offer refuges during drought. Correcting these historic mistakes will take time.

Peatlands like these store huge volumes of carbon in their waterlogged soils. Our research estimated the carbon storage of a peat swamp at Yundi at more than 2,500 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per hectare. The depth of carbon-rich organic peat was up to three metres in places. By contrast, a healthy woodland stores around 650 tonnes per hectare.

This natural carbon sink will remain as long as the peat remains moist and annual increments from plant growth and decay add to the stock.

When an agricultural drain is cut through a swamp, water gradually leaches out of the peat profile. Over time, enough water leaves to dry out the peat, beginning with the surface layer. This means long-stored carbon and methane can be released back to the atmosphere.

Conserving remaining peatlands and restoring those already drained is essential if the climate goals of the Paris Agreement are to be achieved, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization.

On the Fleurieu Peninsula, there’s huge potential to return water to the soils and expand these once-thriving wetlands.

The good news? Community groups and farmers have already embarked on several restoration projects. Around 50 farmers in the region have formed the Fleurieu Swamp Restoration Network. To date, in cooperation with Yundi Nature Conservancy, 25 swamp restoration plans have been developed and 15 are under way. If successful, these will restore more than 100 hectares of swamp.

Christopher Auricht is a director of environmental consultancy Auricht Projects Pty Ltd. He receives funding from both state and federal governments for wetland related consulting and research.

– ref. Surviving swamps on South Australia’s parched Fleurieu Peninsula are a lifeline to wildlife – and farmers – https://theconversation.com/surviving-swamps-on-south-australias-parched-fleurieu-peninsula-are-a-lifeline-to-wildlife-and-farmers-256238

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christina Ho, Associate professor in Social and Political Sciences, University of Technology Sydney

Every year, thousands of New South Wales students sit a test to determine places for highly sought-after selective high schools. These are academically selective public schools often associated with high Year 12 scores.

While there has long been a level of expectation around selective school entrance, the most recent round of testing has shone a fresh light on the pressures some young people are experiencing.

Media reports have described some students studying for 18 months to prepare for the selective school test, with multiple sessions of tutoring each week.

Earlier this month, police were called to control crowds at two testing centres as parents and students from one session overlapped with another. This is also the first year the tests have been done online and there were technical difficulties as students tried to complete exams.

One exam invigilator told The Sydney Morning Herald about the stress they witnessed among students.

We were dealing with kids who were freaking out and totally traumatised by what was going on. You could not make up a worse nightmare than what we went through that day.

It’s not surprising children were upset. The pressure to perform well on test day is enormous. As my previous research has found, some families believe entry into a selective school will secure their child’s future.

As my new research with colleagues suggests, this sees some families place huge pressure on students to study and prepare for academic tests in primary school.

Not just a NSW thing

Most (albeit not all) of Australia’s selective schools are in NSW.

But there is pressure around other tests in the primary years. There are similar levels of competition for lucrative private school scholarships around Australia, which children sit as early as Year 3. Many of these are determined by centralised tests.

Tutoring companies also offer programs for primary students preparing for NAPLAN tests in Year 3 and Year 5, as well as the “opportunity class” test in NSW (for an academically selective stream for Year 5 and 6).

Our research

In ongoing, as yet unpublished research on education cultures among migrant communities in Sydney, colleagues and I are focusing on 38 families with children in upper primary school.

In 2022 and 2023, we interviewed students, parents and teachers at six schools in high and low income areas of Sydney. All schools included large numbers of Asian migrants, allowing us to compare different groups’ approaches to education.

While not necessarily representative of all Asian migrant families, or all families with school-aged children in general, we found intensive preparation for the selective test was common in this group, especially among those students already enrolled in an opportunity class.

The tutoring routine

Many students preparing for the selective test told us they attended private tutoring three or more days per week, in addition to completing home based study. Some had begun this routine up to 12 months before to the test.

One mother, whose son attended tutoring every day, at three different centres, on top of two hours of daily homework, told us,

That’s how we prepare for selective […] You need to be methodical […] no pain, no gain.

Other parents explained they resorted to private tutoring because schools did not teach what was needed to succeed in the selective tests.

Not only do children spend afternoons, evenings and weekends in tutoring centres, they are also often giving up most if not all recreational, sporting and other extracurricular activities, narrowing their focus to acing the test.

Families also postpone holidays, outings and other potential distractions. Many of our student participants aiming for a selective school told us they never socialised with their friends outside of school time.

Sometimes they even neglected their school work so as to focus on the selective test. One teacher told us many of her students were absent from school in the week prior to the test, to ramp up their preparation.

How does this impact students?

This culture of extreme study and competitive schooling raises profound questions about the implications for student wellbeing. Some students spoke about their fatigue. As one student said:

I work up to late at night. So sometimes I feel drowsy and I yawn a bit and have water in my eyes.

Their teachers also expressed concern about insufficient sleep and heightened stress caused by the pressure to get into a selective school. They described students’ tears if they were not successful when the results came out.

One teacher said he had a “blanket rule” of not talking about the tests in the classroom, because his students were so preoccupied with ensuring they were doing enough preparation.

Other teachers reflected on students’ fear of taking risks because of the culture of perfectionism associated with scoring and ranking through tests.

What does the research say?

International research shows an association between high-stakes testing in primary years and issues with children’s mental health and academic confidence. There is also a negative association with students’ achievement in maths and literacy. That is, students who experience pressured exams were more likely to experience anxiety and depression, and not do as well in core subjects as those who did not experience this pressure.

Some parents in our study expressed concern for their child’s wellbeing. But others saw stress a positive sign of engagement and commitment, and necessary for securing the all important place in a selective school.

Given many are recent migrants, without established networks in Australia, and fearful of racial discrimination against their children, they believe education to be the most crucial foundation for future success.

However, we need more research on the impacts of these parental aspirations and anxieties on the next generation. And a broader discussion about the benefits of selecting some students – who may have benefited from extensive and expensive private tutoring – to go to separate, high-performing government schools.

Megan Watkins, Greg Noble and Alexandra Wong all contributed to the research on migrant families mentioned in this article, as part of a larger Australian Research Council-funded project.

Christina Ho received funding from the Australian Research Council to conduct this research.

– ref. ‘No pain, no gain’: why some primary students are following intense study routines – https://theconversation.com/no-pain-no-gain-why-some-primary-students-are-following-intense-study-routines-256815

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Tenbensel, Professor of Health Policy, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Minister of Health Simeon Brown claimed earlier this year that health funding in New Zealand has never been higher and that suggestions of underfunding are “fake news”.

On the bare statistics, Brown isn’t wrong. The allocation to Vote Health has indeed increased from NZ$18.2 billion in 2018-19 to $29.6 billion in the 2024-25 budget.

Yet for many working in the publicly-funded health system things have never seemed so bad, with daily stories of under-staffing and increasing levels of stress.

So, how much should the government be spending on health? Any answer needs to factor in the broader context of the health system, and where we sit historically and comparatively.

The health system is subject to significant cost pressures, few of which are unique to New Zealand. People are generally living longer, but more of that longer life span is spent in ill health.

At the same time, New Zealand’s population profile has changed significantly over the past 40 years. There is a lower proportion of working-age people paying income tax to support those who are older.

Technological advances, on balance, drive up health expenditure – more is possible, so more is expected. And compared with other parts of the economy, health services are labour-intensive.

Around two thirds of health expenditure is on staff, and health workforce shortages are a global problem (again, driven by demographic change). All these factors mean health costs rise faster than inflation.

Taking all of this into account, a recent health economics analysis calculated that to continue to deliver the same level of service in the United Kingdom (which has very similar health system characteristics to New Zealand), public spending on health would need to increase by 2.8% in real terms (above inflation) each year.

Then we need to factor in population growth, which has recently been between 1.5% and 2% per year in New Zealand. In this context, a 4-5% increase in Vote Health amounts to merely standing still.

Long-term deterioration

We also need to put our current situation in historical and international context.

The most appropriate indicator for international comparison is “publicly mandated health expenditure” (PMHE) as a percentage of GDP, as this excludes private expenditure (private health insurance and “out of pocket” payments).

Total health spending typically constitutes 10-12% of GDP in high-income countries, and PMHE is typically around 8%. In the 2010s, however, New Zealand’s PMHE dropped from 7.8% (2012) to 7% of GDP (2017). Meanwhile, Australia, Canada and the UK all remained at or above 8% during that time.

This represents a significant long-term deterioration which heightened the stress on our health system before and after the COVID pandemic.

Even when our PMHE as a percentage of GDP is comparable to Australia and other countries, our per-capita health expenditure is significantly less because our GDP per-capita is lower.

The most significant budget boost in recent years was in 2022. But this was largely soaked up by pay rises for health professionals that resulted from underfunding during the 2010s.

The current government finds itself in a very tight spot. This is partly because of international economic conditions and demographic trends, but also due to self-imposed constraints.

Even in such a large budget, there’ll be little room for major initiatives in health unless savings are found from existing areas. That is rarely feasible in health. As is true in most years, there could be up to three big-ticket items. If so, what should they be?

What Budget 2025 should include

First, the government needs to boost capital expenditure in health. A recent analysis by the UK Institute for Government shows that public service productivity, including in the health sector, fell sharply during and after the COVID pandemic. The New Zealand treasury reported similar productivity declines.

The UK report concluded these declines were primarily due to physical capacity constraints – clinical staff can’t be more productive when there is not enough physical space and diagnostic equipment.

Earlier this month, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced a $400 million increase in the annual capital allowance across all of government. Let’s see how much of the total $4 billion capital allowance is channelled into health.

A second priority should be primary healthcare. Here, the health minister has already announced a range of initiatives, headlined by $285 million of additional performance-based funding over three years. This is a welcome commitment, and the most significant boost in primary care funding since the mid-2000s.

However, it’s unlikely this will redress erosion over the past 20 years of primary care “capitation” funding (the amount a GP practice receives per enrolled patient).

This funding formula also needs to be modernised to better reflect where needs are highest and account for rising acuity and complexity of conditions in primary healthcare. This would relieve some pressures on hospital emergency departments and medical wards.

Third, investment to retain and attract health workers across the whole sector is vital. Given the demographic and epidemiological changes, proactively preparing for a mid-21st-century health workforce will require funding to support emerging models of health services, particularly in primary and community settings, including programmes such as Access and Choice and comprehensive primary and community care teams.

These priorities, and any government commitment to them in Budget 2025, must be understood against the backdrop of sustained historical underfunding.

The government is likely to claim health is a big winner in Budget 2025. Unless increases are significantly greater than 5%, such a claim will bring little respite to the health sector.

In any case, the race that counts is a marathon, not a sprint. New Zealand is well back in the field, struggling not to lose further ground.

Tim Tenbensel receives funding from the New Zealand Health Research Council.

– ref. NZ Budget 2025: anything less than a 5% increase in health funding amounts to merely standing still – https://theconversation.com/nz-budget-2025-anything-less-than-a-5-increase-in-health-funding-amounts-to-merely-standing-still-255593

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samuel Cornell, PhD Candidate in Public Health & Community Medicine, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney

A new Netflix documentary about a shirtless supplement salesman who claimed to be “natural” and was exposed as a fraud might seem like a punchline.

But Untold: The Liver King is more than just a character study of a well-known fitness influencer; it’s a case study of performative masculinity in the world of social media.

Brian Johnson, better known as the Liver King, built a brand on extreme workouts, eating raw organ meat, and evangelising about masculinity. He preached “ancestral living” and radical self-control, all while secretly using steroids.

And his rapid rise to popularity reveals how social media rewards the spectacle of hypermasculinity – especially when it leans into extreme behaviours.

Extreme self-discipline, extreme exercise, extreme eating and extreme “wellness” have all become forms of public performance on social media.

From influencers pushing steroids or “wellness” lifestyles, to the growing popularity of ultramarathons, a new model of masculinity is going viral: control your body, grit through pain, workout hard, and make sure everyone hears about it.

The rise of ‘discipline content’

Social media apps and websites such as TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram, are flooded with content that frames pain and extreme physical effort as markers of masculine worth.

One analysis of male fitness YouTubers found they established authority and discipline through a mix of visible physical strength and affiliations with commercial fitness brands. In some cases, the influencers explicitly listed their personal records or showcased their physique post-training as proof of their “masculinity” and discipline.

Read more:
Why banning gym selfies could do us all a lot of good

Influencers also often frame extreme leanness and muscularity as indicators of moral virtue and discipline, even when achieving it has taken a negative physical or mental toll on them. The look of discipline has become more valuable than the outcome of it.

Posts are often wrapped in the language of “resilience”, “discipline” and militaristic rhetoric. Men are told to “go to war” in the gym, to “stay hard”, and to generally treat life like a battlefield.

What’s being sold isn’t stoicism: it’s pseudo-stoicism – a term researchers have coined to describe emotional suppression masquerading as strength and discipline.

Pain is the point

Strava’s 2023 Year in Sport report found Gen Z athletes are 31% less likely to exercise for health reasons compared to older generations. Instead, they are more likely to train with a focus on athletic performance – that is, to push their physical limits, improve metrics such as speed or distance, and outperform others.

The same report shows a surge in extreme endurance activity. Compared to 2023 data, uploads (activities shared with others) of gravel bike rides grew 55%, trail runs grew 16%, and ultramarathon-style workouts grew by 9%.

Take Nedd Brockmann, who ran across Australia in 2022, and last year ran 1,600 kilometres in ten days to raise money for charity – all while sharing his self-imposed physical torture.

Or take the countless fitness content creators pushing themselves through punishing routines for the camera.

These cases reflect a deeper shift of fitness being turned into spectacle, wherein suffering becomes a sign of legitimacy, and pain is “proof” that you’re serious.

Such extreme content, which is often visually striking, can also be pushed by social media algorithms. Research shows how social media platforms systematically boost content that is intense, emotionally charged, and morally loaded.

Read more:
Get big or die trying: social media is driving men’s use of steroids. Here’s how to mitigate the risks

In other words, posts that provoke a reaction are more likely to get promoted. And
content relating to “wellness” extremism is designed to provoke, as it is visceral, performative, and packed with motivational and self-help anecdotes.

Why this matters

This is a potential public health issue.

Social media platforms amplify and monetise these performances, often pushing the most extreme content to the top. And influencers make money, above the money made from directly these platforms, from selling supplements, gear and coaching plans. At the same time, they act in more and more extreme ways to get further amplified by algorithms.

The risks of this dynamic, for both the viewers and creators, are very real. They range from hormone damage, to mental and physical decline, to injury, and even death.

But there is also a deeper ideological harm, as young men are fed a narrow and punishing idea of what it means to be a man. They are taught pain equals purpose, and that if you’re not suffering, you’re not trying.

Where to from here?

Public health agencies need to reckon with this form of digital hypermasculinity.

Extreme fitness influencers aren’t just poor role models; they’re the product of a system that profits from insecurity and spectacle. The goal shouldn’t be to ban or censor this content. But we do need to challenge its dominance, and offer alternatives.

That means engaging young men in offline spaces, such as the Tomorrow Man project, where they have an outlet for community and relationship building.

It means creating counter-narratives that don’t mock, but model, healthier versions of ambition and masculinity. For instance, the Movember campaign’s podcast Dad in Progress explores the various challenges and experiences faced by new dads.

It also means holding platforms accountable for the way they amplify extreme content.

In the absence of healthier narratives, self-flagellation is the only thing young men will have to aspire to.

Samuel Cornell has received funding from Meta Platforms, Inc. His research is supported by a University of New South Wales Sydney, University Postgraduate Award.

– ref. From the Liver King to ultramarathons, fitness influencers are glorifying extreme masculinity where ‘pain is the point’ – https://theconversation.com/from-the-liver-king-to-ultramarathons-fitness-influencers-are-glorifying-extreme-masculinity-where-pain-is-the-point-256817

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Omid Ghasemi, Research Associate in Behavioural Science at the Institute for Climate Risk & Response, UNSW Sydney

Societies increasingly rely on scientists to guide decisions in times of uncertainty, from pandemic outbreaks to the rise of artificial intelligence.

Addressing climate change is no different. For governments wanting to introduce ambitious climate policies, public trust in climate scientists is pivotal, because it can determine whether voters support or resist those efforts.

So do people trust climate scientists, and what affects levels of trust? Our new study shows climate scientists are less trusted than other types of scientists globally. But there are profound variations in this trust gap between countries, and within them.

Finding ways to increase trust in climate scientists is crucial if the world is to implement effective policies to avert dangerous global warming.

Examining trust in science

We collaborated with an international team of researchers to analyse data from one of the largest cross-national surveys of public attitudes toward science. The dataset includes responses from nearly 70,000 people across 68 countries. It offers a rare global snapshot of how people perceive scientists in general, and climate scientists in particular.

Each of these people rated their trust in climate scientists on a five-point scale, with a five indicating very high trust and a one being not trusted at all.

Trust in scientists more generally was assessed using a 12-item questionnaire that measured perceptions of expertise, integrity, benevolence and openness. The responses were averaged to create a composite trust score. Higher scores reflected higher levels of trust.

We found trust in scientists was moderately strong worldwide, as it was above the midpoint of the scale (averaging 3.6 out of 5). But trust in climate scientists was slightly lower (averaging 3.5). The difference between the two scores is what we call the “trust gap”.

In 43 of the 68 countries, the trust gap was statistically significant, with people reporting lower trust in climate scientists than in scientists in general.

The size of the trust gap varied between countries. In Europe, Oceania (including Australia and New Zealand) and North America the gap tended to be smaller. Larger gaps emerged in parts of Latin America and Africa.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo had the widest gap, with climate scientists trusted less than in any other country. This may reflect local concerns that global climate agendas — often supported by international scientists — prioritise resource extraction for foreign renewable energy demands over local interests. Such feelings may be particularly acute in regions where mining has brought limited community benefit.

Six countries bucked the trend. Climate scientists were more trusted than scientists overall in China, Taiwan, South Korea, Egypt, Israel and Germany.

In China and Germany, this may reflect strong investment in green energy, high levels of public support for climate action, and the visible role climate scientists play in shaping policy.

What’s going on here?

Not surprisingly, people with more positive views of science tended to express higher trust in scientists and even more so, climate scientists. But people with dim views of scientists were less trusting of climate scientists.

Age also played a role. Older people tended to trust scientists more than younger people. But younger people were more likely to trust climate scientists.

Climate scientists were generally less trusted than scientists regardless of gender. While men reported slightly lower trust in scientists than women did, the difference was not statistically significant.

Among all the variables we examined, political orientation emerged as one of the strongest factors associated with trust in climate scientists. People with right-leaning or conservative views reported lower trust in climate scientists compared with those with more left-leaning or liberal views.

However, the meaning of terms such as “liberal” and “conservative” can vary considerably between countries. For example, in Australia, the Liberal Party is politically right-leaning. But in the United States, “liberal” typically refers to left-leaning or progressive views. This variation makes cross-national comparisons complex and requires careful interpretation of results.

As a particular person’s political orientation shifted further to the right, the trust gap between climate scientists and scientists widened.

In 28 countries across the Americas, Europe and Oceania, right-leaning orientation was associated not only with lower trust in climate scientists than people who leaned to the left, but also with a larger gap between trust for scientists generally and trust for climate scientists.

In a smaller subset of countries, particularly in parts of Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe, the pattern reversed – right-leaning individuals expressed greater trust in climate scientists than their left-leaning counterparts.

These findings suggest it is not political orientation alone that drives public trust, but how climate issues are framed in political discourse. In many Western countries, public messaging around climate change — particularly from conservative parties and media — has cast doubt on the credibility of climate science. This politicisation, often amplified by vested interests such as fossil fuel lobbies, may help explain the erosion of trust among some conservative groups.

Closing the trust gap

Trust alone will not solve the climate crisis, but it plays a crucial role in shaping how societies respond to scientific guidance.

Ambitious, evidence-based policies require public support to succeed. A persistent trust gap — no matter how small — can undermine that support and help explain why many governments continue to fall short of their climate targets.

Closing the trust gap through transparent communication, inclusive public engagement, and consistent political leadership is essential for turning awareness into action.

Omid Ghasemi receives funding from the Australian Academy of Science.

Ben Newell receives funding from The Australian Research Council.

– ref. Climate scientists are trusted globally, just not as much as other scientists – here’s why – https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-are-trusted-globally-just-not-as-much-as-other-scientists-heres-why-256441

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shannon Bosch, Associate Professor (Law), Edith Cowan University

Oscar Jenkins, a 33-year-old former teacher from Melbourne, was one of many foreigners who responded to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s call in 2022 for volunteers to join Ukraine’s armed forces to help repel Russia’s invasion.

In early 2024, Jenkins joined Ukraine’s International Legion of Territorial Defence, which has attracted some 20,000 fighters from 50 countries since the war began. He had no previous military experience, but this wasn’t a requirement to join.

In December, Jenkins was captured by Russian forces in Russian-occupied eastern Ukraine and accused of serving as a “mercenary” in Ukraine’s 66th Mechanised Brigade’s 402nd Rifle Battalion. He was tried in a Russian court and sentenced on May 16 to 13 years imprisonment in a maximum-security penal colony.

When a foreigner volunteers to fight in a war, their legal status under international law can be complicated.

Are they a soldier with the full authorisation of one of the warring parties to engage in hostilities? Or are they an illegal mercenary?

And what happens if they are captured?

Why legal status matters

The answers to these questions have very real importance to the thousands of foreigners who have joined Ukraine’s International Legion since 2022.

Russian authorities have classified all of Ukraine’s foreigner fighters as “mercenaries”. They’ve used this label to deny foreign fighters the status of “prisoner of war” (POW), with the requisite protections that come along with that under international humanitarian law.

While foreigners are permitted under international law to enlist in the armed forces of a state for political or moral reasons, mercenaries have historically been outlawed due to their sole motivation being financial gain.

International humanitarian law (the rules that govern war) define mercenaries as individuals who are not nationals or residents of a state engaged in war and are recruited to fight outside that state’s official armed forces.

They are motivated solely by private gain (like money or promises of reward), often well in excess of what the traditional armed forces are paid. Mercenaries are essentially professional soldiers who sell their services to a state without any real ties to that country.

Once a fighter is classified as a “mercenary”, they lose all the legal protections that are traditionally afforded lawful combatants.

This includes prisoner of war status if they are captured and immunity from prosecution for fighting in a conflict. Prisoners of war are also entitled to humane treatment and access to food and medical care. And they cannot be subjected to sham trials or torture.

According to my research, many of the foreign nationals who joined the International Legion were motivated by a desire to defend Ukraine against Russia’s aggression. They were sworn into Ukraine’s armed forces and paid the same as a Ukrainian soldier of equal rank.

Once enlisted in the armed forces, they were immediately exempt from “mercenary” status, irrespective of their motivation for joining.

As such, these foreign fighters should be entitled to the full range of protections guaranteed to members of Ukraine’s armed forces under the Geneva Conventions.

Labelling lawful foreign members of the Ukrainian armed forces as “mercenaries”, and denying them their protections, is an abuse of international law.

How can Australia protect its nationals?

If an Australian enlists in Ukraine’s armed forces and is captured by Russian forces, there is a limited toolkit the Australian government can use to help him or her. However, it is not powerless.

Through its embassy in Moscow, Australia can request access to detainees to assess their welfare while in prison. Russia can, however, decline this access. Details of a detainee’s capture may also be withheld.

Australia can also apply diplomatic pressure to ensure humane treatment of prisoners and their full POW rights.

This can be done by working with international bodies, such as the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention or organisations like the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC), which can request access to detainees.

It appears the government is already doing some of these things. According to Foreign Minister Penny Wong, the government has been working with Ukraine and the ICRC to advocate for Jenkins’ welfare and release, and providing consular support to Jenkins’ family.

Australia also has an obligation to warn its citizens they will likely face severe consequences if they travel to Ukraine to fight and are captured by Russian forces, given Russia’s misuse of the “mercenary” label.

Through back-channel negotiations, Australia could also push Ukraine or its allies to include Australians being held by Russia in future prisoner swaps.

In January of this year, Ukraine and Russia carried out such an exchange of 470 prisoners from both nations. And in talks last week in Turkey, both sides agreed to release another 1,000 prisoners on each side.

Such exchanges have involved foreign fighters in the past. In 2022, 10 foreign citizens were included in a prisoner swap, including five Britons, two Americans, a Croatian, a Swede and a Moroccan. Several of them had been convicted of being mercenaries and sentenced to death after a Russian sham trial.

There is no guarantee Jenkins would qualify for such an exchange, however, if Russia continues to classify him as a mercenary.

Shannon Bosch 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. Russia is labelling Oscar Jenkins a ‘mercenary’, not a prisoner of war. What’s the difference – and why does this matter? – https://theconversation.com/russia-is-labelling-oscar-jenkins-a-mercenary-not-a-prisoner-of-war-whats-the-difference-and-why-does-this-matter-256996

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Toole, Associate Principal Research Fellow, Burnet Institute

Last week the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared a polio outbreak in Papua New Guinea (PNG).

The highly infectious virus was found in two healthy, polio-vaccinated children who were screened following detection of the virus during routine wastewater sampling in Lae, PNG’s second largest city. Wastewater samples are also positive in the capital Port Moresby, indicating the potential of spread around the country.

The strain has been identified as circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2, similar genetically to a strain circulating in Indonesia.

So what does this mean? And what will happen now in PNG?

First, what is polio?

Polio, or poliomyelitis, is a highly contagious disease caused by the poliovirus. It primarily affects children.

Most infections don’t cause significant symptoms and go largely unnoticed. But less than 1% of infections result in paralysis.

Poliovirus is spread by person-to-person contact or the ingestion of contaminated virus from faeces. The virus multiplies in the gut of people who are infected, and they shed the virus in their stool for several weeks. In this way it can spread through a community, especially in areas with poor sanitation.

A recent review also suggested a greater role for transmission via respiratory particles than we previously thought.

Wild poliovirus (as distinct from vaccine-derived poliovirus, which we’ll discuss shortly) was a major public health issue prior to the rollout of vaccination in 1950s. This campaign led to the virtual elimination of the disease in rich countries such as Australia.

Since the Global Polio Eradication Initiative was launched in 1988, cases have decreased by 99% globally. Wild poliovirus remains endemic only in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Polio vaccines

There are two types of vaccines – the oral polio vaccine and the inactivated polio vaccine.

Delivered as two drops in the mouth at least four times in early childhood, the oral vaccine contains a live-attenuated (weakened) form of the poliovirus. It triggers a strong immune reaction in the gut that slows the replication of wild poliovirus, and reduces shedding in the stool, limiting transmission.

The oral vaccine does carry a small risk of the weakened vaccine strain causing paralysis. This occurs in
roughly one in 2.7 million doses of the oral vaccine administered, usually at the first dose.

The inactivated polio vaccine (part of the routine immunisation program in Australia) contains an inactivated or dead form of the poliovirus, which is unable to cause polio in the recipient.

Given as an injection, this vaccine stimulates the immune system to produce protective antibodies in the blood against poliovirus. Three doses of the inactivated vaccine are highly protective against developing symptoms and paralysis from polio.

However, this vaccine is thought not to be as effective as the oral vaccine at preventing infection and shedding in the gut. Therefore, it doesn’t prevent transmission.

What is vaccine-derived poliovirus?

As the weakened poliovirus in the oral vaccine is still shed in the stool, it can spread in communities with poor sanitation. The vaccine strain can mutate to a form that can cause paralysis, like wild poliovirus. The result, circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus, is a problem particularly when polio immunisation rates are low.

The risk of international spread of vaccine-derived poliovirus has been assessed as high by the WHO and United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There were outbreaks in 39 countries in 2023–24.

A novel oral polio vaccine, nOPV2, which is less likely to mutate, has been used in outbreaks of vaccine-derived poliovirus since 2021.

Routine vaccination with the inactivated polio vaccine is key to preventing vaccine-derived poliovirus, and is recommended by WHO. The polio endgame will involve this transition from the oral vaccine to the inactivated vaccine.

In 2019, all countries had introduced the inactivated vaccine. However uptake remains low because of a lack of resources and inadequate access to health services in poor countries.

What happens now in PNG?

The PNG government has responded swiftly to activate its polio emergency response plan, supported by partners including WHO, UNICEF and the Australian government.

Notably, PNG’s vaccination rate is among the lowest in the world, with only about 50% of children born each year receiving the recommended childhood vaccines, including the oral polio vaccine. To induce herd immunity and prevent outbreaks of disease, coverage should be at least 95%.

PNG was declared polio free in 2000. But there was an outbreak in 2018 of vaccine-derived polio type 1 with 26 cases across nine provinces. The outbreak was brought under control through supplementary rounds of vaccination, enhanced surveillance, and expanded communication and community engagement.

There are many lessons to be learned from the successful response to the 2018 polio outbreak. These three pillars of the response remain relevant:

• mass vaccination (using nOPV2)
• enhanced surveillance for cases and wastewater sampling
• communication (through traditional and social media) and localised community engagement.

Further research will be crucial to understand where transmission is occurring and target the response accordingly. This includes the question of potential for spread between Indonesia and PNG – a neglected health security issue.

How about the risk in Australia?

While the risk of spread of polio in Australia is low, the virus does not respect borders, and we cannot become complacent.

Australia’s overall coverage with the inactivated vaccine is close to 95% but there has been a concerning decline in childhood immunisation since the COVID pandemic. Australia must address this and maintain its polio wastewater monitoring system.

Supporting PNG and working with other countries towards global polio eradication is the best way Australia can protect itself.

This outbreak is a timely reminder that the last mile in the global eradication of polio remains elusive. As we emerge from a pandemic, the need for international cooperation, strengthening health systems and responding swiftly to health emergencies such as polio couldn’t be stronger.

Michael Toole has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Suman Majumdar, through the Burnet Institute receives grant funding from the Victorian Government and the Australian Government via the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia, the Medical Research Future Fund and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

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

– ref. The re-emergence of polio in Papua New Guinea shows global eradication remains elusive – https://theconversation.com/the-re-emergence-of-polio-in-papua-new-guinea-shows-global-eradication-remains-elusive-256899

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Strong, Associate Professor, Music Industry, RMIT University

As always, Eurovision 2025 was full of glitter, costume reveals, divas, spectacle and, of course, controversy. From ongoing calls to ban Israel from participating, to one song that had to be edited since it was too inappropriate, here’s what you may have missed from this year’s contest.

A milkshake meltdown

For Australian viewers, the final may have been a bit of a letdown because, for the second year in a row, our contestant failed to get past the semis.

Go-Jo’s Milkshake Man seemed like a strong offering, with its daft and suggestive lyrics, huge energy and oversized blender prop – but some weak vocals on the night left us in the cold.

Other wacky entries of the uniquely Eurovision variety fared better, though. Sweden’s ode to saunas, Bara Bada Bastu, started the night as the favourite to win and ended high with a fourth placing, just behind Estonia’s rubbery-legged Tommy Cash, whose love song to coffee may have just been more relatable to voters.

Serving what?

More controversial was Miriana Conte’s song for Malta, originally titled Serving Kant, with kant being the Maltese word for singing. But this thinly disguised attempt to celebrate “serving cunt” was deemed inappropriate by the European Broadcasting Union, and reworked as simply Serving.

This performance is part of a long Eurovision tradition of celebrating queer culture. Each year, multiple entries use LGBTQIA+ imagery, tropes and lyrics to celebrate the theme of being who you are.

Last year’s event marked the first time two non-binary performers were featured in the contest. One of them, Switzerlans’s Nemo, won. As a side note, Nemo’s return performance this year may be one of the best things to ever grace the Eurovision stage.

But it seems Malta’s cheeky play on the theme didn’t pay off, as it landed them in 17th place by the end of the voting.

Other stand-out performances included Finland’s Erika Vikman, who outperformed a whole crop of big-voiced divas in sparkly body suits by riding a giant flaming microphone to the roof of the stadium during the, ahem, climax to Ich Komme (which translates to “I’m coming”).

Less in your face, yet strangely compelling, were the women of Latvia’s folk band Tautumeitas. In their forest-nymph-axolotl (?) costumes, they delivered a flawless and gentle performance.

A heated, close race to the top

The winner was, as is often the case at Eurovision, a more serious song that showcased a high level of musicianship and vocal ability. Austria’s JJ performance of Wasted Love was stripped-back compared to most of the rivals.

JJ took to the stage alone, using a completely black and white palette that stood out against the reds that dominated the rest of the night. The way he used his body onstage, and the dynamism of his soprano voice – moving from a conventional pop vocal style to a more operatic delivery – was compellingly dramatic, and was rewarded by the juries and public voters.

It was a close race for the top spot however. I imagine the broadcasting union breathed a sigh of relief when Austria knocked Israel into second place at the last moment.

Israel’s presence in the contest has been a source of division and conflict since the events of October 7. For two years there have been highly publicised calls to expel Israel from the competition, in light of the extreme atrocities and human rights abuses taking place on the ground in Gaza.

Read more:
1 in 5 Gazans face starvation. Can the law force Israel to act?

Multiple pro-Palestinian rallies took to the streets in the host city, Basel, and protesters trying to disrupt the Israeli performance found their way into the arena during the rehearsals and final. While they did not make it into the broadcast, there were reports of audience members being removed, staff being hit with paint, and violent clashes with security and police.

Beyond this, 70 ex-competitors and, separately, more than 4,000 Nordic music workers put their names on open letters protesting Israel’s inclusion in the contest. But these attempts failed, partly because the countries involved did not threaten to withdraw themselves if Israel participated (which was how Russia was expelled from the 2022 contest, in the wake of its invasion of Ukraine).

What can we expect moving forward

It’s worth considering what Israel’s inclusion in the contest does allow. In recently published work, my coauthors and I consider what it means to face up to some of the uglier aspects of music and music-making – and to sit with the discomfort, rather than ignore it.

If Israel had been excluded, those calling for its exclusion may have achieved a sense that a certain wrong had been righted, and the Eurovision party could go on, free from worry.

Yet the realities of events in Gaza would not have disappeared. Viewers at home would simply not have to think about them.

Israel’s inclusion – and the opposition to it – forces us to ask what role, if any, cultural institutions can play in helping put a stop to what the International Court of Justice has said can plausibly be called a genocide.

While the broadcasting union could perhaps put pressure on Israel with a ban, the fissures of Israel’s continued inclusion have shone a spotlight on other types of pressure and resistance – and the power music has in bringing people together for the explicit purpose of being political.

Catherine Strong 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, protest and some seriously inappropriate songs: who gets censored at Eurovision, and who doesn’t? – https://theconversation.com/politics-protest-and-some-seriously-inappropriate-songs-who-gets-censored-at-eurovision-and-who-doesnt-256447