Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jasleen Chhabra, Research Fellow, Centre for Youth Mental Health, The University of Melbourne

Around 98% of Australian 15-year-olds use social media. Platforms such as TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram are where young people connect with friends and online communities, explore and express their identities, seek information, and find support for mental health struggles.

However, the federal government, seeking to address concerns about young people’s mental health, has committed to ban under-16s from these platforms from later this year.

There is no doubt social media presents risks to young people. These include cyberbullying, posts related to disordered eating or self-harm, hate speech, and the basic risk of spending long hours scrolling or “doomscrolling”.

But is banning young people really the answer? We reviewed 70 reports from experts in Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada to understand what they recommend – and found broad agreement that a ban may not address the real problems.

Humans preventing harm

The overall verdict is that we need a much more thoughtful response than just a ban: only a coordinated approach between governments, regulators, tech companies and young people themselves will address youth mental health and online safety.

We should be asking what we can do to make online spaces safer for young people, not jumping straight to removing them entirely.

Content moderation is one area in need of urgent attention. Young people regularly report being exposed to harmful and age-inappropriate content on social media, while platforms replace moderation staff with cheaper AI systems.

Automated processes have their place, but many recommendations in our review emphasised the importance of human moderators to keep up.

Data and endless advertising

A second issue exists around the collection and use of user data. Tech platforms have built their business model around user engagement and ad revenue.

To keep users scrolling (and watching ads), companies collect large amounts of user data to deliver highly personalised feeds.

Many experts advocate against the widespread collection and use of young people’s data, particularly for delivering advertising materials that promote dieting, unregulated supplements and cosmetic procedures. Posts like these often appear in an endless stream, interspersed between non-harmful and entertaining content.

Starting with safety

Alongside greater regulation of advertising material, many experts emphasised the need to consider “safety by design”.

In other words, social media should be designed from the outset to prevent harming users. It may mean the end of “addictive” features such as infinite scrolling, frequent push notifications, and auto-play videos.

Regulators also need the tools and power to hold platforms to account.

That includes financial penalties, more transparent reporting from big tech companies, and taking proactive steps to keep harmful material off these platforms – not just taking down content after the fact.

Age-checking tech troubles

Our review did find a small number of reports that recommend barring young people from social media. However, experts questioned the feasibility of age verification technology and raised privacy concerns.

The federal government has passed the buck to social media companies for actually implementing age verification of users.

Platforms must take “reasonable steps” to restrict access by under-16s. It is unclear what these steps will be, but the prospect of facial recognition or digital ID checks raises serious privacy concerns.

Others argue that banning under-16s from social media will drive them to less regulated online spaces, including online forums such as the notorious 4Chan, where some pages have an explicit “no rules” policy.

It is also important to acknowledge that many young people find important support and communities on social media. Taking away social media may present risks to mental health in these circumstances.

Listening to young people

An age ban sounds decisive but comes with its own set of questions.

In the absence of social media, where do young people questioning their sexual or gender identity go to find information and support? What would a ban mean for young people who engage with news on social media?

There is little evidence about what impact a ban will have on young people, particularly those from diverse backgrounds.

What’s more, young people have had minimal input into the policy. They have the insight to offer practical, real-world insights into what works and what does not.

A blanket ban does nothing to make social media platforms safer for users. It might just delay problems and expose young people to an avalanche of harm when they log on at the age of 16.

A ban brings its own risks

The push to ban social media for under-16s is driven by genuine concerns. But unless it is a part of a broader, more thoughtful approach to online safety, it risks doing more harm than good.

If we want a healthier digital environment, we can’t just lock out young people and hope for the best.

Vita Pilkington receives funding from the Melbourne Research Scholarship and the Margaret Cohan Research Scholarship, both awarded by the University of Melbourne.

Zac Seidler has been awarded an NHMRC Investigator Grant. He is also the Global Director of Research with the Movember Institute of Men’s Health. He advises government on men’s health, masculinities, violence prevention and social media policy.

Jasleen Chhabra 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. Banning young people from social media sounds like a silver bullet. Global evidence suggests otherwise – https://theconversation.com/banning-young-people-from-social-media-sounds-like-a-silver-bullet-global-evidence-suggests-otherwise-256587

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Intifar Chowdhury, Lecturer in Government, Flinders University

This election, a lot of focus was directed at young voters. With Millennials and Gen Z now making up a larger share of the electorate than Baby Boomers, this was deserved.

But for all the attempts to reach these cohorts, whether through TikTok, influencers or podcasts, how did they actually vote?

Preliminary analysis of electorates with high shares of young people suggests the youth vote was complex and nuanced. The voting bloc continued its unpredictability, with support fragmented across parties, candidates and age groups.

Analysing voting patterns

On May 9, I analysed the Australian Electoral Commission’s (AEC) electoral division results alongside youth enrolment statistics, to explore how the youngest electorates voted.

Rather than treating voters aged 18–44 as a single, homogeneous bloc, I separated them into Gen Z (aged 18–29) and Millennial (aged 30–44) categories. Evidence suggests that generation is more useful for analysis than age alone.

Electorates with higher shares of young people tended to favour the left, particularly Labor. Even in Liberal-held seats that didn’t change hands, there were clear swings against the Coalition.

Of course, electoral outcomes are shaped by more than age or generational factors. Seat-level voting reflects a complex mix of influences.

But while we await individual-level public opinion data, the best available insights come from examining electoral division characteristics using Australian Bureau of Statistics 2021 Census data.

What happened?

Surprisingly, the Greens lost three of the country’s most youth-concentrated electorates: Melbourne, Brisbane and Griffith.

In Melbourne – still the electorate with the highest share of Gen Z voters – the Greens retained the largest primary vote, but lost the seat on preferences.

However, in Griffith, Labor had a higher primary vote, while in Brisbane, both major parties outpolled the Greens.

These electorates also have high percentages of renters, public servants, and residents earning above $90,000 a year – demographics that did not necessarily advantage the Greens. In fact, higher-income areas showed a slight lean towards the Liberals.

Other electorates with large youth shares also showed interesting dynamics. In La Trobe and Lindsay, both held by the Liberals but with growing shares of Millennials and renters, there were swings against the party.

Labor experienced swings against them in seats such as Solomon, Wills and Pearce.

Wills maintained a strong Greens primary vote, while Solomon recorded a significant independent vote. This is consistent with high shares of renters, public servants against the Coalition and tertiary-educated women, who are more likely to support minor parties and independents.

These patterns suggest a quiet divergence between Millennial and Gen Z voters. Millennials, while more likely than older generations to support progressive parties like Labor and, to a lesser extent, the Greens, do not show the same enthusiasm for independents. This indicates Millennials remain more aligned with traditional party politics.

In contrast, Gen Z voters appear more willing to abandon major parties altogether. This is a generational difference in values and political socialisation, but also a broader shift toward issue-based, campaign-sensitive, less predictable polling.

A fragmented young electorate

Even when we take into account the demographic makeup of seats, for a deeper analysis, disentangling the effects of overlapping factors is important. For example, as researcher Nicholas Biddle points out, age and renting are often correlated, so which variable is doing the explanatory work? Is it youth itself, housing tenure, or something else entirely? I dug deeper.

This further exploration revealed housing and employment factors played a role, even when we account for generational differences.

Electorates with high shares of renters were significantly more likely to support Labor and less likely to vote Liberal. Public-sector workers leaned clearly towards Labor and away from the Coalition.

Meanwhile, higher-income electorates (earning more than $90,000 a year) showed a slight, but not statistically significant, movement toward the Liberals and independents, and away from Labor and the Greens.

Electorates with a larger share of overseas-born residents also leaned modestly toward Labor, likely reflecting swings in areas with significant Chinese populations.

It’s difficult to know much about gender yet as we don’t have access to the right data. But we can find the intersecting effect of gender with other variables, such as higher education.

This revealed one of the most striking findings: the strongest positive predictor of a Greens or independent vote, removing all other variables, was the share of university-educated women. These voters consistently turned away from both major parties.

By contrast, electorates with more tertiary-educated people overall, but not specifically women, were more likely to stick with the major parties.

With younger generations containing more university-educated women than ever before, this is sobering news for both Labor and the Liberals.

Big takeaways

One mistake we keep making is treating the youth vote as a single bloc. This election reminds us there are two generations within the youth base.

Gen Z are still in their political formative years and they’re showing signs of drifting further from the major parties.

But Millennials, while still firmly left-leaning, seem to remain anchored to the two-party system.

Perhaps it’s a sign of political “adulting” – a recognition that minor parties and independents can struggle to wield power in the lower house.

Labor can still bank on Millennials, for now. But Gen Z, especially those who are highly educated, are the cohort to watch. They’re less loyal, and far less convinced that the traditional party structure speaks to them.

There’s no way to sugarcoat it for the Liberals: there’s no good news here in their current form.

But no party can get complacent.

The modern Australian electorate may lean left overall, but it’s also increasingly disillusioned with the majors. Preferential voting may mask this shift, but it doesn’t halt it.

The Greens, meanwhile, also have some soul-searching to do. Their campaign didn’t collapse, but their primary vote stalled.

To become a serious third party in the House of Representatives, the Greens must grow their primary vote and find a way to hold onto their volatile, youthful base as it ages.

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

– ref. This election, young people held the most political power. Here’s how they voted – https://theconversation.com/this-election-young-people-held-the-most-political-power-heres-how-they-voted-255769

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

Queensland Senator Larissa Waters is the new leader of the Australian Greens, following a two-hour partyroom meeting held in the wake of the party’s lacklustre performance in the May 3 election.

Waters was elected unopposed.

New South Wales Senator Mehreen Faruqi will continue as Greens deputy, while South Australian Senator Sarah Hanson-Young will be the Greens Manager of Business.

Besides having an apt surname for an ecological party leader, what do we know about Waters?

And as Australia’s 48th parliament prepares to sit, what might we expect from her leadership of the country’s largest minor party?

Who is Larissa Waters?

Waters first entered parliament in 2011, following a career as an environmental lawyer.

She was the first Greens senator to be elected in Queensland and is now the second-longest serving Green in parliament after Hanson-Young.

Born in Canada, Waters’ tenure was briefly interrupted in 2017–2018 when she discovered she had breached section 44 of the Constitution by failing to renounce her dual citizenship.

Waters is the second woman after Christine Milne to lead the party. She has leadership experience, serving as Senate leader since 2020 and co-deputy leader prior to that.

Waters’ re-election on May 3 for another six-year term will ensure leadership stability following the unexpected departure of her predecessor, Adam Bandt.

Beyond her clear passion for environmental protection, Waters has dedicated her time in parliament to advancing gender equity, ending gender-based violence, and addressing corporate donations and influence in politics.

She made international news in 2017 when she became the first politician to breastfeed in federal parliament.

New direction?

So what does new leadership mean for the direction of the Greens and the role the party will play in the new parliament?

Will it opt for pragmatism or hold firm on principle?

Will it continue to campaign hard on a diverse set of policy issues, or choose to focus more on its core environmental offering?

Waters is viewed by many in the party as a compromise candidate between Faruqi and Hanson-Young, who according to speculation, were also considering a tilt at the leadership. Faruqi represents the more radical wing of the Greens, while Hanson-Young is a prominent moderate figure who would likely have pushed the party closer to the political centre and faced resistance from elements of the membership.

Given this, Waters is expected to play a unifying role, much like Bandt did during his tenure.

While the Greens held all their seats up for re-election in the Senate, they were close to a wipe-out in the lower house, where they lost three of their four members from the previous parliament.

The party will likely concentrate in future elections on expanding and then retaining their presence in the Senate.

In the lower house, Queensland will be a major focus for the Greens as they try to win back seats they lost at the election – Griffith and Brisbane. Waters’ leadership should help with this aim.

Senate power

Waters will conceivably command more power than Bandt, given the Greens will hold the sole balance of power in the new Senate.

She’s pledged to keep Labor accountable, while urging the government to “be brave” and “actually do what the country needs them to do”.

There’s now no excuse for the Labor Party not to take the climate crisis seriously, to take real action on the housing crisis, to genuinely tackle the cost of living. People deserve more than just tinkering. They deserve real reform that will help them in their daily lives, and nature cannot be put last like it has been for so long.

This, together with the presentation of Waters as a leader who represents continuity, suggests any changes to the party’s approach will likely focus on presentation rather than policy.

Waters is now tasked with reframing the 2025 election result as a moment of short-term pain and setting the party on a path of long-term gain.

Whether or not this will be achieved, and how important Waters’ leadership will be to achieving this, remains to be seen.

How was Waters selected?

The Greens’ leadership selection relies entirely on the federal party room. Unlike the Labor Party, where members have a say on who becomes leader, grassroots Greens are excluded from the process.

Like Waters, all previous leaders – Adam Bandt, Richard Di Natale, Christine Milne and party founder Bob Brown – were elected unopposed, reflecting the party’s consensus style of decision making.

In 2020, there was an unsuccessful push to include the membership base in the leadership process. A “one member, one vote” option received majority support in a party-wide plebiscite. But it failed to meet the two-thirds majority required to force a change.

Nathan Fioritti 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. Fresh start for the Greens, with new leader Larissa Waters – https://theconversation.com/fresh-start-for-the-greens-with-new-leader-larissa-waters-256453

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anne Twomey, Professor Emerita in Constitutional Law, University of Sydney

The 2025 federal election resulted in some unexpected outcomes, including the loss by the Greens Leader, Adam Bandt, of his seat in the House of Representatives. The new Greens leader is Senator Larissa Waters.

Does it matter that a party leader sits in the Senate, and why do the leaders of major parties almost always come from the lower House?

The answer is that by convention, rather than an express constitutional requirement, the prime minister sits in the lower house of parliament. Parties with aspirations to form government therefore choose leaders from among their members in the lower house.

Prime ministers in the House of Lords

Historically, in the United Kingdom, prime ministers could sit in either house. In the 19th century, most prime ministers sat in the House of Lords, and two started in the House of Commons and ended their prime ministership in the Lords.

But in the 20th century, the convention developed of the prime minister holding a seat in the House of Commons.

This was for three reasons. First, as a matter of practicality, the House of Commons is where the main work of government occurs, and the prime minister’s involvement is needed.

Second, according to convention, the monarch appoints as prime minister the person who commands the confidence of the lower house, which is hard to do from outside it.

Third, the House of Lords is not elected, and therefore does not have a democratic mandate. It ceased to be acceptable in the United Kingdom for an unelected person to govern as prime minister.

When the Conservative prime minister, Harold Macmillan, resigned suddenly for health reasons in 1963, Lord Home was appointed as Conservative Party leader and prime minister. He renounced his earldom and then ran successfully in a byelection for a seat in the House of Commons.

A prime minister in the Senate?

In Australia, the position is different because the Senate is elected by the people. A senator can therefore be regarded as having a democratic mandate, although he or she represents a state, rather than being elected by a particular electorate.

Section 64 of the Commonwealth Constitution requires ministers to be either a member of the House of Representatives or the Senate, with a three month leeway period to become elected. But it does not require that the prime minister sit in the House of Representatives. It is instead a matter of custom, practicality and convention.

When the prime minister, Harold Holt, went missing while swimming in the ocean in December 1967, the Liberal Party chose Senator John Gorton as its new leader.

Gorton was appointed prime minister on January 10 1968, despite being a Senator, but resigned from the Senate on February 1 1968 and was elected to fill the vacancy in Holt’s lower House seat on February 24.

Gorton was therefore prime minister while being a Senator for three weeks, and prime minister without a seat in parliament at all for just over three weeks. It was generally accepted that as prime minister, he should sit in the lower house.

Premiers in state upper houses

At the state level, premiers have sometimes sat in the upper house, at least for a short period.

One notable example is that of Hal Colebatch in Western Australia. In 1919, Colebatch, who was a member of the Western Australian Legislative Council, was acting premier, while the premier, Henry Lefroy, was at a conference in Melbourne. There was an outbreak of Spanish flu in the eastern states. In scenes reminiscent of the COVID pandemic, Colebatch gained immense popularity by slamming shut the state border. His own premier was even prevented from returning home.

Lefroy eventually resigned as premier, and Colebatch replaced him, despite sitting in the Legislative Council. But Colebatch did not last long in the job. He tried, but failed, to find a lower house seat to move to. In addition, his health was failing, as was his popularity after rioting during a wharf strike led to the death of a worker. So Colebatch resigned as premier, having spent his entire premiership as a member of the Legislative Council.

In New South Wales, when the Labor premier, Neville Wran, surprised his colleagues by resigning in May 1986, the party elected Barrie Unsworth as its leader.

Unsworth was a member of the Legislative Council. He was nonetheless appointed as premier. A Labor backbencher in the Legislative Assembly resigned to allow Unsworth to contest his safe Labor seat. Despite a large swing against him, Unsworth narrowly won the seat by 54 votes and continued as premier until 1988.

Leaders of major and minor parties

The main problem with a prime minister or premier sitting in the upper house is that the government is formed from the lower house, and the prime minister or Premier must be the person who holds its confidence. This is difficult when there is no direct accountability to the lower house, as it cannot question a prime minister or premier who sits in the other house.

For this reason, parties that could potentially win government will ordinarily choose a leader from among their members in the lower House, and politicians with leadership ambition will often seek to transfer from the upper to the lower house to enhance their chances to lead.

Due to the Senate’s proportional voting system, minor parties are more likely to have greater numbers in the Senate than the House of Representatives. It is therefore logical that their leadership should come from the Senate, especially when they are unlikely to have the numbers in the lower House to form a government. But for major parties, their leader is ordinarily chosen from among the members of the House of Representatives, in case government beckons.

Anne Twomey has received funding from the ARC and sometimes does consultancy work for Parliaments, governments and inter-governmental bodies.

– ref. The new leader of the Greens sits in the Senate. Why is that so unusual in Australian politics? – https://theconversation.com/the-new-leader-of-the-greens-sits-in-the-senate-why-is-that-so-unusual-in-australian-politics-256578

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shahram Akbarzadeh, Convenor, Middle East Studies Forum (MESF), and Deputy Director (International), Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University

US President Donald Trump’s visit to Arab states in the Middle East this week generated plenty of multibillion-dollar deals. He said more than US$1 trillion (A$1.5 trillion) worth of deals had been signed with Saudi Arabia alone, though the real total is likely much lower than that.

Qatar also placed an order for 210 Boeing aircraft, a deal worth a reported US$96 billion (A$149 billion). Trump will no doubt present these transactions as a major success for US industry.

The trip also helped counter concerns about US disengagement from the Middle East. For more than a decade, local elites have viewed Washington’s attention as shifting away from the region.

This trip was a reaffirmation of the importance of the Middle East – in particular the Gulf region – to US foreign policy. This is an important signal to send to Middle Eastern leaders who are dealing with competing interests from China and, to a lesser extent, Russia.

And from a political standpoint, Trump’s lifting of sanctions on Syria and meeting with the former rebel, now president, Ahmed al-Sharaa was very significant – both symbolically and practically.

Until recently, al-Sharaa was listed by the United States as a terrorist with a US$10 million (A$15 million) bounty on his head. However, when his forces removed dictator Bashar al-Assad from power in December, he was cautiously welcomed by many in the international community.

The US had invested considerable resources in removing Assad from power, so his fall was cause for celebration, even if it came at the hands of forces the US had deemed terrorists.

This rapid turn-around is dizzying. In practice, the removal of sanctions on Syria opens the doors to foreign investment in the reconstruction of the country following a long civil war.

It also offers an opportunity for Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as well as Turkey, to expand their influence in Syria at the expense of Iran.

For a leader who styles himself a deal-maker, these can all be considered successful outcomes from a three-day trip.

However, Trump avoided wading into the far more delicate diplomatic and political negotiations needed to end Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza and find common ground with Iran on its nuclear program.

No solution in sight for the Palestinians

Trump skirted the ongoing tragedy in Gaza and offered no plans for a diplomatic solution to the war, which drags on with no end in sight.

The president did note his desire to see a normalisation of relations between Arab states and Israel, without acknowledging the key stumbling block.

While Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates have no love for Hamas, the Gaza war and the misery inflicted on the Palestinians have made it impossible for them to overlook the issue. They cannot simply leapfrog Gaza to normalise relations with Israel.

In his first term, Trump hoped the Palestinian issue could be pushed aside to achieve normalisation of relations between Arab states and Israel. This was partially achieved with the Abraham Accords, which saw the UAE and three other Muslim-majority nations normalise relations with Israel.

Trump no doubt believed the Israel-Hamas ceasefire agreed to just before his inauguration would stick – he promised as much during the US election campaign.

But after Israel unilaterally broke the ceasefire in March, vowing to press on with its indiscriminate bombing of Gaza, he’s learned the hard way the Palestinian question cannot easily be solved or brushed under the carpet.

The Palestinian aspiration for statehood needs to be addressed as an indispensable step towards a lasting peace and regional stability.

It was telling that Trump did not stop in Israel this week. One former Israeli diplomat says it’s a sign Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has lost his leverage with Trump.

There’s nothing that Netanyahu has that Trump wants, needs or [that he] can give him, as opposed to, say, the Saudis, the Qataris, [or] the Emiratis.

More harsh rhetoric for Iran

Trump also had no new details or initiatives to announce on the Iran nuclear talks, beyond his desire to “make a deal” and his repeat of past threats.

At least four rounds of talks have been held between Iran and the United States since early April. While both sides are positive about the prospects, the US administration seems divided on the intended outcome.

The US Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have called for the complete dismantling of Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium as a sure safeguard against the potential weaponisation of the nuclear program.

Trump himself, however, has been less categorical. Though he has called for the “total dismantlement” of Iran’s nuclear program, he has also said he’s undecided if Iran should be allowed to continue a civilian enrichment program.

Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium, albeit under international monitoring, is a red line for the authorities in Tehran – they won’t give this up.

The gap between Iran and the US appears to have widened this week following Trump’s attack on Iran as the “most destructive force” in the Middle East. The Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi called Trump’s remarks “pure deception”, and pointed to US support for Israel as the source of instability in the region.

None of this has advanced the prospects of a nuclear deal. And though his visit to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE was marked by pomp and ceremony, he’ll leave no closer to solving two protracted challenges than when he arrived.

Shahram Akbarzadeh receives funding from Australian Research Council. He is affiliated with the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, a non-profit research centre in Doha, Qatar.

– ref. Trump signed plenty of contracts in the Middle East, but he’s no closer to the two ‘deals’ he really wants – https://theconversation.com/trump-signed-plenty-of-contracts-in-the-middle-east-but-hes-no-closer-to-the-two-deals-he-really-wants-256778

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gregory Patmore, Emeritus Professor of Business and Labour History, University of Sydney

Worker cooperatives may sound like something out of the 19th century, but they still exist in the age of global capitalism.

In Spain, for instance, the Mondragon Corporation is a huge worker-run cooperative based around 95 collectives – the largest cooperative in the world.

Worker cooperatives produce products or services. But they are run very differently. Workers can become members of the cooperative they work for by buying a share of the business. This gives them a vote in how the business is run and a share of net income, after costs have come out.

Co-ops do not have external shareholders – the profits stay with workers. Rather than bosses deciding and workers carrying out the tasks, worker cooperatives are based on democratic principles. Big decisions are discussed and then voted on, and each member gets one vote. They offer a direct way for workers to control their production and shape the economy.

In Australia, these models peaked in the 1980s. Most are gone, though a few older cooperatives are still running, such as Tasmanian recycling cooperative Resource Work Collective, founded in 1993.

In recent years, there’s been renewed interest in the model. The Earthworker cooperative network focused on Victoria’s Latrobe Valley. The goal: find new types of employment and products in a coal area undergoing transition.

How well does the model work?

Mondragon is the most well-known example. Founded in 1956 in the Basque region of northern Spain, Mondragon grew and became self-sustaining. It has developed supporting institutions such as research and development companies and even a university. It also established a credit union, which attracted capital and provided loans to cooperatives.

While Mondragon is a successful example, these organisations face a number of barriers to their survival.

Critics have argued worker cooperatives tend to fail as workers do not understand the market for their products, but Mondragon undercuts this criticism.

Worker cooperatives can have difficulties raising capital. Some banks can be reluctant to invest as they may lack familiarity or sympathy with the model.

Instead, workers may put some or all of their savings into the organisation to get it started. Taking these kinds of risks means some workers may be focused on getting immediate rewards, rather than investing surplus funds or building up cash reserves.

Workers can sometimes choose to transform a successful cooperative into a capitalist enterprise to achieve greater capital gains.

Surprisingly, trade unions are generally hostile and suspicious of worker cooperatives. Union organisers may fear worker-owners could see little need for trade unions in representing their interests, or that cooperatives could undercut union wages and conditions to remain competitive.

To date, worker cooperatives have had a limited impact in Australia, despite the relatively strong historical position of workers.

Compared to member cooperatives and other types, worker’s cooperatives tend to be short lived in Australia. That’s because most were formed by workers after an industrial dispute or to maintain employment during economic downturns.

In 1987, for instance, workers retrenched by a major communications company decided to form a co-op which became the Electronic Service Centre in Fairfield, New South Wales. A later example is Abrasiflex, a NSW company bought by workers facing retrenchment in 1993. Both cooperatives failed by the early 2000s.

Their popularity peaked in the 1980s, when the model was promoted by state Labor governments. Policymakers saw them as a short term means to resolve unemployment, rather than a long term means to secure economic democracy.

The model lost traction in the early 1990s due to an economic downturn, capital shortfalls and changing political circumstances.

New energy

The idea for Earthworker came from discussions between unionists and environmentalists over job creation and the environment. Earthworker founders were influenced by the Green Bans.

As the project’s website states:

Conflict can occur between environmentalists who want to shut down certain industries, and unionists who want to protect jobs […] we should work together for a “just transition” and create jobs that aren’t just better for the earth, but for workers too.

In this respect, Earthworker has much in common with the Cleveland Model in the United States, which links green business, local economic development and fair labour practices.

Earthworker only formally became a cooperative in 2011, though discussions date back to the late 1990s. In 2016, the network bought a hot water tank manufacturer in Morwell and began making their own tanks and solar hot water systems as the Earthworker Energy Manufacturing Co-operative. The cooperative is aimed at helping the Latrobe Valley’s transition away from coal power jobs.

Earthworker promotes the payment of trade union wage rates and conditions. The goal is to build a network of cooperatives supporting each other to build economies of scale.

Their other cooperatives include Earthworker Construction (residential construction, landscaping and maintenance) and Earthworker Smart Energy (improving thermal efficiency and comfort in homes). These cooperatives are generally small, with 10 members or fewer.

Another cooperative, Redgum Cleaning, closed down in 2023. It was not viable due to staff shortages, increased costs and work cancellations during the pandemic. Paying union rates in a competitive industry also assisted its demise.

By contrast, the Earthworker Energy Manufacturing Co-operative has found a way to survive in a competitive market.

Niche or mainstream?

Australian worker cooperatives ensure manufacturing and services remain locally owned and controlled. Could they expand? It’s possible.

Capital remains a major issue for Australian worker cooperatives such as Earthworker. Without capital, it’s hard to scale. Government efforts to expand domestic manufacturing often overlook this model.

The Earthworker network points to one future for Australian worker cooperatives. Despite the failures of the past, Earthworker’s focus on building a network of sustainable businesses rather than a single cooperative is a promising path.

Gregory Patmore has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the Business Council of Co-operatives and Mutuals.

– ref. As the Latrobe Valley moves away from coal jobs, could a green worker’s cooperative offer a solution? – https://theconversation.com/as-the-latrobe-valley-moves-away-from-coal-jobs-could-a-green-workers-cooperative-offer-a-solution-245850

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darren Roberts, Conjoint Associate Professor in Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, St Vincent’s Healthcare Clinical Campus, UNSW Sydney

A number of Australian states including New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia have issued warnings in recent weeks about the risks of eating wild mushrooms.

Mushrooms generally grow in cooler and wetter times. Although these conditions are present in some parts of Australia for much of the year, in many parts of the country, mushroom growth is seen around this time (autumn and early winter).

Wild mushrooms can be easily accessible in public spaces, including parks, nature strips and forests. They’re also found in people’s gardens.

Wild mushrooms attract attention for many reasons, including a new or unexpected location, their interesting colours and shapes, or sometimes because they look similar to edible varieties.

So what do you need to know about the risks of eating wild mushrooms? And what’s the best way to stay safe?

The health risks of eating wild mushrooms

Eating toxic wild mushrooms can have varied effects on people. The reaction can depend on the person, but mostly depends on the type of mushroom.

The most common consequences are gastrointestinal, for example nausea, abdominal pain, vomiting and diarrhoea. Less commonly, people can experience sleepiness, confusion or vision changes including hallucinations.

Fortunately, most people experiencing these reactions will fully recover as their body eliminates the toxins.

But some people suffer severe poisoning requiring admission to hospital. And eating certain high-risk mushrooms can result in permanent damage to vital organs such as the liver or kidneys, or even death.

These effects have occurred from eating wild mushrooms in Australia, and consuming even a single death cap mushroom (Amanita phalloides) can be fatal.

Amanita phalloides has increasingly been detected in Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory in recent years. It’s also known to exist in Tasmania and SA, and has recently been found in NSW.

It’s possible death cap mushrooms are found elsewhere in Australia, but we just haven’t seen them yet.

Incidents are increasing

Recent alerts from NSW and SA show the annual number of calls to poisons information centres about mushroom poisoning is increasing.

In NSW for example, the Poisons Information Centre responded to 363 calls in 2024 regarding exposures to wild mushrooms in NSW and the ACT, an increase of 26% compared to 2023.

What’s more, a higher proportion of cases are requiring referral to hospital.

Roughly half of calls to poisons information centres relate to exposures among young children under the age of five. While most children didn’t have any symptoms, this volume of calls pertaining to young kids is still worrying. A number of these children required assessment and monitoring in hospital.

Many calls to poisons information centres also involve adolescents and adults who forage and eat wild mushrooms. Some consume mushrooms as a food, while others seek their hallucinogenic effects. This group is usually symptomatic when the poisons information centre is contacted, and many require treatment in hospital.

Adults tend to have more severe symptoms because they consume more than children. Most adults who contact poisons information centres with symptoms have eaten wild mushrooms that were foraged outside of a guided tour with an expert.

Not all cases of mushroom poisoning are notified to a poisons information centre, so it’s very likely these case counts represent a significant underestimation of the actual number of exposures and poisonings.

All this suggests we may need more public health messaging around the dangers of wild mushrooms.

Some tips for avoiding poisoning

There’s no easy way to know if a wild mushroom is edible or poisonous, so we advise people against foraging for, and eating, wild mushrooms.

Outside perhaps of an organised tour with an expert, the only mushrooms people should eat are those purchased from a reputable supermarket, grocer or market.

Wild mushrooms can pop up in your garden overnight and toddlers learn about their environment by touching and putting things in their mouths. So it’s worth pre-emptively removing any wild mushrooms from areas where young children play. Wear gloves and discard mushrooms in rubbish bins for landfill.

Some websites, such as iNaturalist, allow people to upload pictures of wild mushrooms so experts may be able to help identify them. However, the quality of the photos can affect an expert’s ability to identify the mushroom species correctly.

If you’re going to use a platform like this, consider taking pictures from multiple angles, showing the top of the cap, under the cap, the stem, the size of the mushroom and the trees that it was found close to.

Research has suggested certain apps may not be reliable on their own for identifying mushrooms.

If you decide to eat wild mushrooms, as well as taking lots of photos, keep samples. In the event you or someone else gets sick, it may be possible for a mycologist (mushroom expert) to identify the mushroom consumed. Knowing the mushroom species can help determine which treatments are required, if any.

Finally, note it’s not possible to detoxify mushrooms. Washing, peeling, cooking or drying a mushroom does not deactivate or remove the toxins.

Who to call if you’re worried

If you or someone you know develops any symptoms from eating a wild mushroom, immediately contact the Poisons Information Centre on 13 11 26 for advice. This is a national phone number that will direct you to the nearest poisons information centre, 24 hours a day.

Even if a child or someone else has no symptoms after eating a potentially poisonous mushroom, call before symptoms develop. Symptoms can take many hours to present with Amanita phalloides, so being asymptomatic is not necessarily reassuring.

In a medical emergency, for example seizures, collapse or unconsciousness, call 000.

Darren Roberts is the Medical Director of the NSW Poisons Information Centre and a clinical toxicologist at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, NSW.

– ref. It’s wild mushroom season in Australia. Here’s how to stay safe and avoid poisoning – https://theconversation.com/its-wild-mushroom-season-in-australia-heres-how-to-stay-safe-and-avoid-poisoning-256561

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Grace Russell, Lecturer, School of Media, Film and Journalism, Monash University

Nicolas Cage has made a career from his highly entertaining scenery chewing. He follows a performance style he calls “Nouveau Shamanic” – an exaggerated form of method acting where he acts according to the character’s impulses. This allows for the wild, unpredictable outbursts his characters are known for.

Cage films are also usually about masculinity: its worst excesses, the parameters restricting it, and what ennobling versions of it might look like.

The Surfer, a new Australian feature film from Irish director Lorcan Finnegan, leans right into masculinity as a theme.

Our unnamed protagonist (Cage) is returning to his former Australian home from the United States. He is newly divorced, and trying to buy a beachside property to win back his family.

He takes his teenage son (Finn Little) for a surf near the property, but they are run off by an unfriendly pack of locals.

Returning alone to the beachside car park to make some calls, he is besieged there over the next several days by the same gang. They are led by a terrifying middle-aged Andrew Tate-esque influencer, Scally (Julian McMahon), who runs the beach like a combination of a frat bro party and wellness retreat.

The protagonist’s fast descent into dishevelled, dehydrated delirium as the group’s hazing escalates, fuels much of the first two acts.

Fish out of water

It is impossible to think of an actor other than Cage who could make a character like this so enjoyable to watch.

From the first moments, he seems pathetic: giving his uninterested teenage son metaphorical speeches about surfing, losing arguments on the phone with his broker and real estate agent, reeking of pomposity and desperation.

The sense of a man out of his depth is compounded by his Americanness contrasting with the particular brand of Australian masculinity the locals display. Both types are brash and entitled, but with entirely different ways of expressing it.

Cage’s distinctively American confidence has no resistance to the terrifying switches of Australian masculinity from friendly to teasing to violent.

“Don’t live here, don’t surf here,” they hiss at him on first meeting, forcing him to retreat, cowed, to the car park, where he remains for most of the rest of the film.

The wide-open and the claustrophobic

What a stroke of genius it is to use this single location.

Filmed in Yallingup, Western Australia, The Surfer beautifully captures the natural surroundings, stunning views and shimmering heat of Australian coastal summer.

At the same time, a confined, interstitial semi-urban feature like a beachside car park feels so bleak and uninviting. The only amenities are an overpriced coffee cart, ancient payphone and a dingy toilet block.

As a film setting, it is both a spectacular wide-open vista and stiflingly claustrophobic – a perfect mechanism for The Surfer’s psychological horror.

It must have been attractive in getting the script funded as well. With such an affordable location, more of the budget would have been freed up for a big name like Cage.

A modern Wake in Fright

With its oppressive setting, overexposed orange and yellow light and grade, and a sweaty spiral into madness, The Surfer invites comparisons to Wake in Fright, Ted Kotcheff’s 1971 brutal depiction of Australian men and their drinking culture.

Both take place at Christmas and feature an antagonist who enjoys confidently explaining their dubious moral worldview to everyone. However, Wake in Fright’s horror lingers because we know the culture remains even after the hero escapes it. The Surfer struggles a little more in landing the ending.

For the mean, violent, misogynistic villains to be defeated, it would be unsatisfying for Cage to stoop to their level. This means – without spoiling too much – Cage remains an oddly passive character throughout the film, while others perform the avenging actions.

The only way the protagonist’s masculinity can be resurrected as upright, ethical and empowering is for the character to literally turn his back on the vengeance we’ve been waiting for him to deliver.

It’s not that the film has an inarticulate grasp of its own politics, but more that the otherwise terrific script by Thomas Martin feels written into a difficult corner.

A blast along the way

I don’t want to imply that this ending means The Surfer isn’t an absolute blast along the way. A lot of the fun is in anticipating each dreadful humiliation – and it somehow turning out worse than you could have expected.

A spilled coffee leads to drinking recycled wastewater which leads to chewing on a dead rat, and we still haven’t reached the lowest rung on the ladder of indignities that Cage’s character suffers.

In less skilled hands this could feel nasty or gross, but the hallucinatory quality of Finnegan’s direction makes it feel almost sublime. And Cage’s pleading, groaning, sobbing and gibbering feel believable and relatable.

The pathos works – and it’s pretty funny too.

The Surfer is in cinemas from today and streaming on Stan from June 15.

Grace Russell 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. Dishevelled, dehydrated delirium: new Aussie film The Surfer, starring Nicolas Cage, is an absolute blast – https://theconversation.com/dishevelled-dehydrated-delirium-new-aussie-film-the-surfer-starring-nicolas-cage-is-an-absolute-blast-254580

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vaughan Cruickshank, Senior Lecturer in Health and Physical Education, University of Tasmania

Virat Kohli announced his retirement from Test cricket on Monday.

While his Instagram message just said this was the “right time”, his poor recent Test form, mental fatigue and desire to spend more time with his family, charity foundation and expanding business empire have been suggested as other influential factors.

During his 14-year Test career “King Kohli” has been the backbone of the Indian batting line-up, and his absence is a huge blow as the Indians prepare to tour England next month.

The megastar scored 9,230 runs in 123 Tests at an average of 46.85, including 30 centuries.

These numbers put him in the top five Indian test batsmen of all time, but his legacy extends far beyond his batting achievements.

Kohli, 36, quit Twenty20 Internationals last year (after India won its second world title). He may continue to play one-day internationals.

Rising to the top of Test cricket

Kohli has been the greatest Indian batsman of his generation.

He made his Test debut in 2011 against the West Indies and played his final match against Australia in January.

He scored centuries against every country he played against, with more than half of these coming overseas.

His seven Test centuries in Australia is the second most by an overseas batsman.

He was at his peak between 2014 and 2019, when he averaged more than 60 in Test cricket and became one of the “fab four” (the world’s best Test batsmen) alongside Steve Smith, Kane Williamson and Joe Root.

Read more:
Is Steve Smith set to become the best? What data says about Test cricket’s elite 10,000+ run club

This period also included six double-hundreds in 18 months, and 13 months as the number one ranked Test batsman in the world.

Kohli the leader

Kohli is India’s greatest ever Test captain.

His tenure from 2014 to 2022 was a golden age for Indian Test cricket.

India won 40 of 68 Tests (59%) in this period and did not lose a Test series at home. India was the number one ranked Test team in the world from 2016–20 and won its first Test series in Australia in 2018–19.

These statistics make Kohli one of the most successful Test captains of all time.

Beyond these numbers, he was a charismatic and aggressive captain who redefined India’s approach to Test cricket by bringing a more competitive edge to the team.

He drove higher expectations around fitness, training intensity and fast bowling that continue to shape Indian cricket.

Mandatory fitness testing and improved dieting and recovery practices, which redefined the team’s standards, are attributed to Kohli’s leadership.

Similarly, Indian success was strongly contributed to by Kohli encouraging the development of a world-class pace bowling attack, which marked a significant shift from the spin-heavy approach of Indian cricket.

Controversies

While Kohli’s energy, passion and intensity contributed to his success as batsman and captain, they also led to numerous confrontations with opposition players, which some believed to be disrespectful and arrogant.

His intense celebrations and assertive body language also drew criticism from conservative cricketing audiences.

Many of these controversies have occurred in Australia, where Kohli enjoyed a love-hate relationship with Australian players and crowds.

Examples include flipping the bird to the crowd, making sandpaper gestures (in reference to the 2018 Australian ball tampering scandal, also known as Sandpapergate) and shoulder-barging young Australian batsman Sam Konstas.

What will his Test legacy be?

For more than a decade, Kohli has been the heartbeat of the Indian Test team, and his retirement marks the end of an era.

He reshaped the mindset of Indian cricket and cultivated a faster, fitter, fiercer, more successful team.

Kohli was also one of the greatest ambassadors of Test cricket, and has played a significant role in ensuring the game remains relevant in an era increasingly dominated by T20 cricket.

He made Test cricket aspirational again because he wanted it to thrive. He knew India needed to dominate the hardest format to be respected.

His social media reach (272 million followers on Instagram and 67.8 million on X) is more than Tiger Woods, LeBron James and Tom Brady combined, and was even referred to by LA2028 Olympics organisers when they announced cricket’s entry into the games.

In recent days, Kohli has been described as “a modern-day giant”, a “provocateur in chief”, and “his generation’s most profound figure”.

Love him or hate him, he elevated the spectacle of Test cricket. His electric energy brought the best out of India and its opponents and made him impossible to ignore when batting or fielding.

As respected cricket writer Peter Lalor noted recently:

Nobody is irreplaceable, but nobody can replace Virat.

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. Ferocity, fitness and fast bowling: how Virat Kohli revolutionised Indian cricket – https://theconversation.com/ferocity-fitness-and-fast-bowling-how-virat-kohli-revolutionised-indian-cricket-256560

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Joyce, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, University of Southern Queensland

I heard that we see upside down, but our brain flips the image. How does it do that?

–Jasmine, Mount Evelyn, Victoria

Our eyes work thanks to light. Objects we can see are either sources of light themselves – like a candle or a phone screen – or light bounces off them and makes its way to our eyes.

First, light passes through the optical components of the eyes such as the cornea, pupil and lens.

Together, they help focus the light onto the retina that senses light, while also controlling the intensity of light to help us see well while avoiding damage to the eye.

The function of the lens is to correctly focus light that comes from objects at different distances. This process is known as accommodation.

While performing this important task, light passing through the lens becomes inverted. This means that light from the top of the object falls lower on the retina than light from the bottom, which falls higher on the retina.

So, light exiting the lens to land on the retina is indeed flipped upside down. But that doesn’t mean the brain is actually flipping the picture “back”. Here’s why.

The orientation doesn’t actually matter

While the light being interpreted by the brain is “upside down” compared to the real world, the question is: is that actually a problem for us?

From your own experience you can tell the answer is probably no. We seem to navigate and interact with the world just fine.

So, where in the brain is the image flipped or rotated 180 degrees to be the “right way up” again?

You may be surprised to learn that vision scientists reject the idea a flipping or rotation needs to happen at all. This is because of how our brains process visual information.

The object you perceive is “encoded” by the firing of various neurons – brain cells that process information – in various locations in the brain. This pattern of firing is what encodes the information about the object you’re focusing on. That info takes into account the object’s relation to everything else in the scene, your body in the world, and your movements.

As long as the relative encodings of these are all consistent with one another, as well as stable, there’s no need for a flip to happen at all.

We can function with ‘upside down’ goggles!

Several studies have looked at how we adapt to large changes in visual input by asking people to wear goggles that flip the image coming in.

This means the image lands on the retina the “right way up”, so to speak, but upside down from what the brain has learned it should be.

In the 1930s, two scientists in Austria performed the Innsbruck Goggle Experiments. For weeks or even months at a time, participants in these studies wore goggles that altered the way the world around them looked. This included goggles that turn the incoming image upside down.

As you can imagine, people wearing these goggles at first found it really difficult to get by in their day-to-day activities. They would stumble and bump into things.

But this was temporary.

Participants reported seeing the world upside-down for the first few days, with difficulties navigating the environment, including trying to step over ceiling lights that appeared to them as on the floor.

Around the fifth day, however, performance seemed to improve. Things that were at first seen upside down now appeared the right way up, and this tended to improve with more time.

In other words, with continued exposure to the upside-down world, the brain adapted to the changed input.

More recent studies are beginning to identify which areas of the brain are involved in being able to adapt to changes in visual input, and what the limits of our ability to adapt might be.

Adaptation may even allow “colour blind” people to see colour better than is predicted from their condition.

Daniel Joyce 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. Curious Kids: if our eyes see upside down, how does the brain flip the picture? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-if-our-eyes-see-upside-down-how-does-the-brain-flip-the-picture-254303

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nic Rawlence, Associate Professor in Ancient DNA, University of Otago

The recent announcement of the resurrection of the dire wolf generated considerable global media attention and widespread scientific criticism.

But beyond the research questions, there are other issues we must consider – in particular, the lack of Indigenous voices in discussions about de-extinction.

It is undeniable that biotechnology company Colossal Biosciences achieved a major scientific breakthrough. It has successfully changed the genome of a vertebrate species, introduced desired traits, and created apparently healthy hybrid wolf pups.

The main scientific criticisms were that genetically engineering gray wolves with dire wolf traits doesn’t constitute de-extinction. And regardless of the achievement, we still have to ask whether we should bring back extinct species in the first place.

But given the company’s goals of resurrecting species significant to Indigenous groups, including the thylacine (Tasmanian tiger) and the moa, it is vital Indigenous views contribute to decisions.

Gene technologies in conservation

Colossal Biosciences’ achievement shows the potential of new gene-editing technologies to contribute to conservation efforts. This could include introducing desirable traits into threatened species or removing harmful ones.

It could even mean creating ecological equivalents of extinct species, as the company has suggested.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, hapori Māori (tribal groups) are the kaitiaki (guardians) of many threatened taonga (treasured) species. There is growing international interest in the resurrection of some of New Zealand’s extinct birds, including the moa, Haast’s eagle and huia, despite Māori concerns.

Their voices in this debate are crucial, as are those of other Indigenous groups when biotech proposals are relevant to them.

Colossal Biosciences has an Indigenous Council (made up of North American Indian Nations) and has established an advisory committee for the thylacine de-extinction project with Indigenous representation.

But in our engagements with Māori from around the country over the past decade, we’ve found virtually no Māori support for the de-extinction of taonga species.

Lost ecosystems and opportunity costs

One reason we have heard involves a lack of suitable habitats for de-extinct species. Most of Aotearoa New Zealand is highly modified, with only 25% of native forest remaining. This requires ongoing predator control.

That means there are very few suitable sites to release de-extinct species. For some lost ecosystems, there is no suitable analogue at all. The effort required to establish and manage sites would be substantial.

There would also need to be ongoing financial resourcing to support kaitiaki responsibilities, which would be expected of Māori communities within whose rohe (traditional boundaries) de-extinct species might be released.

In our view, kaitiaki prefer gene technology funding to be spent on applications that support their guardianship role, such as environmental DNA. Or they would like it expanded for the management of remaining and often threatened taonga species.

Without new funding, there is a real opportunity-cost risk of money being pulled from other areas, potentially resulting in further extinctions of endangered taonga species.

In all likelihood, maintaining a genetically diverse population of a de-extinct species (with at least 500 individuals) would be a challenging exercise, given how slowly New Zealand’s taonga species breed.

Treaty breaches and tikanga

Without meaningful Māori support and involvement, the release of a de-extinct species would effectively constitute a breach of Article Two of te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi). The te reo Māori version states Māori have exclusive rights to taonga.

This is also the essence of the Waitangi Tribunal WAI262 claim that Māori have intellectual property rights over flora and fauna. Māori have whakapapa (genealogy) relationships with taonga species and a moral obligation to look after their welfare and the taiao (environment) they are in.

This has led to concerns that altering the whakapapa of an existing species to resemble another species is unnatural and disrespectful (compared to natural hybridisation). This could have negative consequences for hybrid species as well as other organisms and the taiao.

Hybrids may not be sufficiently adapted to existing threats (such as introduced mammalian predators) or the new environments they find themselves in. Conversely, they could be so well adapted they disrupt the ecosystem and become a pest.

There are long-held concerns that Māori have been excluded from conversations about applying gene technologies. This is despite the successful use of tikanga-based frameworks (customs) for evaluating specific uses of the technologies in individual cases.

These concerns include potential biopiracy, bioprospecting and trademarking of taonga species by overseas companies. They are echoed in submissions to the draft Gene Technology Bill, which all but eliminates Māori consultation on the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment.

Looking to the future

Without substantive Māori involvement, internationally led and resourced de-extinction of a taonga species could well become yet another negative colonisation experience.

Such conversations need to involve a wide range of Māori, and employ tikanga-based protocols, to ensure sufficiently thorough and holistic evaluation of potential de-extinction projects.

There is currently nothing to stop biotechnology companies utilising specimens of taonga species housed in museums worldwide.

We argue that addressing these issues and reaching a national consensus should be a prerequisite for any application of gene-editing technology in conservation, whether it is to suppress pest species or support struggling taonga species.

Many of the concerns raised by Māori will no doubt be shared by Indigenous people around the world. They need to be part of the conversation and critical commentary around de-extinction and potential reintroduction of organisms into the wild. Their knowledge of environmental management, which dates back hundreds to tens of thousands of years, is something we must learn from.

Phillip Wilcox receives research funding from various NZ government sources. He is co-chair of Te Ira Tātai Whakaeke Trust, a Māori-owned charitable trust aimed at promoting ethically appropriate use of genomic technologies for the benefit of Māori communities, particularly Māori health.

Nic Rawlence 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. Return of the huia? Why Māori worldviews must be part of the ‘de-extinction’ debate – https://theconversation.com/return-of-the-huia-why-maori-worldviews-must-be-part-of-the-de-extinction-debate-255605

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Intifar Chowdhury, Lecturer in Government, Flinders University

Last July, a powerful student-led uprising in Bangladesh toppled the authoritarian, corrupt government led for 15 years by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

Bangladesh now shows modest signs of democratic recovery. Months into its tenure, a transitional government has reopened political and civic space, especially at universities, and begun reforming key state bodies.

Yet, violence and political retribution persist. This week, the interim government banned Hasina’s former party, the Awami League, under the country’s Anti-Terrorism Act while a tribunal investigates its role in the deaths of hundreds of protesters last year.

Elections have also been delayed and may not happen until 2026.

Amid this fragile transition, interim leader Muhammad Yunus, the 84-year-old Nobel-prize winning economist, has emerged as a rare figure of trust and calm. His popularity is so high, in fact, many are calling for him to remain at the helm for another five years.

Given the uncertainty, Bangladesh faces some uncomfortable questions: can it afford electoral democracy right now? Or must stability come first, with democracy postponed until institutions can catch up?

And what happens if emergency governance becomes the new normal?

Fraught road to democratic renewal

According to a global democracy report, Bangladesh is still classified as an “electoral autocracy” — one of the few in the category that actually got worse in 2024.

The opposition, chiefly the Bangladesh National Party (BNP), has mounted a fierce challenge to the interim government’s legitimacy, arguing it lacks a democratic mandate to implement meaningful reforms.

While the BNP and its former ally, the Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami, may appeal to segments of Bangladesh’s Muslim majority, their support is undermined by reputational baggage and limited resonance with younger voters.

At the same time, radical, right-wing, Islamist forces are exploiting the vacuum to reassert themselves, exacerbating tensions between Muslims and the Hindu minority.

Economically, the country is also still reeling from the damage done under Hasina’s regime.

Corruption hollowed out the banking system, leaving key institutions almost bankrupt. Although Yunus has taken steps to stabilise the economy by bringing in competent officials, uncertainty continues to dampen investor confidence.

Inflation remains high. And unless job creation accelerates, especially for the youth, the seeds of further unrest are already planted.

In addition, law and order has deteriorated sharply. The country’s police force has been tainted by its association with the Alami League, and the former police chief is facing charges of crimes against humanity.

Street crime is rising and minorities are experiencing growing harassment. Women feel deeply unsafe — both online and on the streets. Some parties are also seen as a threat to countering violence against women.

Despite strong laws on paper, weak law enforcement and victim-blaming are allowing violence to flourish. It’s very difficult to hold perpetrators of crimes to account.

Bangladesh is also increasingly isolated on the global stage.

India, long allied to Hasina’s government, has turned its back on the interim government. The United States is disengaging, as well. USAID had committed nearly US$1 billion (A$1.6 billion) from 2021–26 to help improve the lives of Bangladeshis, but this funding has now been suspended.

Some gains on civil liberties

This year, Bangladesh improved slightly in Freedom House’s index on political freedoms and civil liberties, from a score of 40 points out of 100 last year to 45. This is a step in the right direction.

Among the improvements in the past year, the government has:

• removed restrictions on some political parties
• released political detainees
• and committed to major judicial reforms to increase accountability.

The appointment of new election commissioners and the creation of advisory commissions for judicial and anti-corruption reform also signal an institutional reset in motion.

But gains remain fragile. While politically motivated cases against opposition figures have been dropped, new ones have emerged against former ruling elites. The military’s policing role has expanded and harassment of Awami League supporters by protesters persists.

In addition, media freedom remains heavily constrained, with a human rights group reporting the interim government had targeted hundreds of journalists in the past eight months.

In this fractured environment, urgent reforms are needed. But these need to be sustainable, as well. Whether the interim government has the time, authority or support to deliver them remains in doubt. The government also needs to deliver on its promise to hold free and fair elections.

A new party on the rise

The country’s politically engaged youth have not been dissuaded by these issues. Rather, they are trying to reshape the political landscape.

The new National Citizen Party (NCP) was formed in early 2025 by leaders of last year’s student uprising. It has positioned itself as the party to bring a “second republic” to Bangladesh. Drawing from historical models from France and the US, the party envisions a new elected, constituent assembly and constitution.

With organisational support and tacit backing from the interim government, the NCP has rapidly grown into a viable political force.

Still, the party faces a steep, uphill climb. Its broad, ideological umbrella risks diluting its message, blurring its distinctions with the BNP.

For the NCP to turn protests into policy, it must sharpen its identity, consolidate its base, and avoid being co-opted or outflanked.

Whether this moment of political flux leads to real transformation or yet another cycle of disillusionment will depend on how boldly — and how sustainably— the interim government and new actors like the NCP act. And they must not draw out the process of transition for too long.

Intifar Chowdhury 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. After an autocratic leader was toppled in Bangladesh, democratic renewal remains a work in progress – https://theconversation.com/after-an-autocratic-leader-was-toppled-in-bangladesh-democratic-renewal-remains-a-work-in-progress-253846

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hugh Breakey, Deputy Director, Institute for Ethics, Governance & Law, Griffith University

A.C. Grayling’s new book Discriminations: Making Peace in the Culture Wars sees the renowned philosopher wading into the ethical minefields of “woke” activism, cancellation, and conservative backlash.

Filled with thoughtful analysis, deep reflection, and fascinating historical detail, Discriminations argues the differences between leftist moderates and “woke activists” centrally concern means rather than ends.

Review: Discriminations: Making Peace in the Culture Wars (Oneworld Publications)

The book’s core contribution lies in Grayling’s searching examination of “othering”. This allows him to explain the core ethical concern about racism and sexism while simultaneously providing a principled basis to resist the more intolerant strategies that might be used in the struggle against such evils.

Defining ‘woke’

“Woke” and “wokist” now have pejorative implications and are terms used mainly by critics of progressive views. Grayling defines “wokism” in terms of the passionate advocacy of things like:

• Critical Race Theory in history classes

• Campaigning for same-sex marriage

• Educating about diversity in sexuality

• Supporting medical gender transition

• Advocating changes in language use, such as with non-gendered pronouns

• Encouraging Me Too avowals.

A significant number of identity politics activists, he adds, “promote no-platforming and cancellation as weapons in the struggle”.

This last point is critical in the way Grayling pictures the differences between moderate leftists like himself and “woke activists”. After all, the bulleted list above – apart perhaps from the reference to Critical Race Theory – includes many concerns broadly shared across the political left.

For Grayling, the differences between moderates and activists are mainly ones of strategies they employ to achieve their shared social justice goals.

Through their justifiable anger at systemic injustice, he argues, some “woke activists” have been drawn into employing weapons like no-platforming and cancellation. These tactics can sometimes be morally mistaken, especially when driven by online mobs.

Grayling worries that the use of these practices can “other” their targets, without any attempt at due process and constraints of proportionality.

A contrasting view?

Discriminations stands in stark contrast to another recent work on wokism: Yascha Mounk’s The Identity Trap. Like Grayling, Mounk is a moderate leftist. Like Grayling, he is critical of woke activism. But that is where their similarities end.

For Mounk, wokism is not a continuation of traditional leftist civil rights struggles but a sharp deviation from them. On this view, wokism (which Mounk calls “the identity synthesis”) differs from liberal progressivism not merely in means but fundamentally in ends.

Mounk sees wokism as committed to three foundational claims: the world must be understood through the prism of identities like sex, race and gender; supposedly universal rules merely serve to obscure how privileged groups dominate marginalised groups; and a just society requires norms and laws that explicitly treat (and require citizens to treat) different identity groups differently.

None of these are claims about means; they concern fundamental values and goals. For Mounk, woke intolerance – in the form of cancellation and no-platforming – is a feature, not a bug. In contrast, Grayling sees online cancellations (when they go wrong) as a betrayal of the traditional leftist values he shares with the woke activists.

Cancelling

Grayling understands cancelling as efforts to “deprive opponents not only of a platform to state their views, but to deprive the persons and groups themselves of a presence.” This can include social ostracism and getting people fired.

Discriminations contains no detailed discussions of contemporary cases of cancellation and their impacts. This is deliberate. Grayling worries that discussing current cases might invite an automatic identification with the cancelled target. Alternatively, it might counter-productively draw attention to victims who have already been excessively targeted.

Granting these points, the absence of any case studies carries costs. For one thing, it’s never shown in the book that these objectionable practices are widespread enough to warrant a movement against them.

Equally, there is no appeal to the reader’s sympathies by examining cases of cancellation through social media pile-ons and the human costs involved. Unless the reader already believes these practices to be widespread and harmful, they are unlikely to see what all the fuss is about.

Without examination of actual cases, it also can be hard to know exactly what Grayling is recommending. Grayling believes cancelling is often justified. However, he wants to make clear the serious problems it creates in the cases where it is not justified.

The problem is that different readers, interpreting some of his terms differently, might be led to see an act of cancellation as justified accountability where another reader would see objectionable mob justice.

‘Othering’

Grayling defines “othering” as

the practice of treating individuals and groups, typically on the basis of stereotyping and prejudice, as a ground for discriminating against them; and discrimination involves exclusion.

Othering occurs any time one group of people decides they are different to another group (which they see as the “other”), thus treating that group in a morally different and worse way.

Racism and sexism are examples of othering and “exclusion”. Grayling argues the goal of social justice is necessarily opposed to all such othering, especially if the exclusion is done without proportionality and safeguards, like due process. (Grayling allows that criminal punishment can be a type of justified othering.)

Crucially, Grayling argues that acts of cancellation and no-platforming are instances of othering. These practices explicitly involve attempted punishment, shaming and ostracism and often occur without due process.

Suppose you are a progressive activist concerned about the injustices of systemic racism and sexism. You might have strategic reasons that constrain the methods you use in fighting those injustices. However, your concerns with racism and sexism will generally not themselves restrain the methods you use.

But suppose now you accept Grayling’s argument that the root social justice concern is not with racism or sexism specifically, but rather with the more fundamental injustices of othering and exclusion. Because cancelling and no-platforming are themselves instances of such things, you now have a deeply held reason not to cancel others (except perhaps in the most compelling cases). You do not want to become the very thing you are fighting against.

Should we accept Grayling’s argument? There are some worries his notions of othering and exclusion are over-broad, given they capture commonplace practices like national borders and criminal justice punishments.

Overall though, Grayling shows through his historical discussions that political othering for ideological or doctrinal reasons has caused enormous injustices and even horrifying slaughters.

It turns out that political and ideological intolerance – Grayling recounts religious massacres and China’s Cultural Revolution – has a history every bit as awful as racially motivated massacres like the Holocaust. As he sombrely concludes: “tragedy attends entrenched positions that make mutual comprehension impossible”.

Grayling stresses it is right to feel anger at the world’s injustices. But a wariness of being drawn into othering should incline us towards what he terms “Aristotle’s Principle”: to be “angry with the right person, in the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose”.

Rights versus interests

Grayling adopts a human-rights-based approach as his moral compass, seeing it as a system that can transcend different cultures and parochial outlooks. He endorses the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – importantly including the right to free speech.

Cancelling can impinge on people’s free speech rights. As well as being wrong in itself, Grayling emphasises it’s also a strategic mistake. Activism itself requires free speech and it is unwise to “gift the high moral ground on free speech” to one’s political opponents. (That said, the political right in the United States is currently showing itself to be no friend of free speech either.)

Grayling distinguishes rights and interests. He argues, “no exercise of any right can deny the fundamental rights of others.” Too often, he insists, figures on both sides of politics interpret their opponents as violating their rights when the opponents are just impacting on their interests.

Grayling is surely correct that all sides of politics could benefit from seriously thinking through the differences between rights and interests. Setting back someone’s interests is not the same as violating their rights. Interests are inevitably in conflict and always require negotiation and compromise.

Still, there remains something of an elephant in the room. What if an opponent’s words or actions don’t violate anyone’s rights, but nevertheless plausibly contribute to a world where such violations are more likely?

Arguably, the problem of political intolerance isn’t driven by a conflation of rights with interests, but instead the ease with which any attack on a group’s interests can be represented as an indirect attack on their rights.

Does Grayling get ‘woke’ right?

It is a hard task to define an amorphous, contested and evolving concept like “wokism”. Grayling’s definition seems to map reasonably onto the original idea of being “woke to” (that is, newly aware of) structural racism and other inequities.

But as Grayling himself observes, “woke” is now more commonly used as a pejorative term. The linguist John McWhorter argues the term has evolved from describing those with a leftist political awareness to referring to “those who believe anyone who lacks that enlightenment should be punished, shunned or ridiculed.”

This is very different from Grayling’s understanding of the term. Most of the attributes Grayling ascribes to “the woke” are standard leftist positions. Worryingly, this sometimes seems to prevent him from engaging seriously with what many of the “woke” actually say and believe.

For example, Grayling reflects on those who say that wokist social justice has been strongly influenced by postmodernism. Postmodernism includes the denial of things like “objective truth” and “factual knowledge” on the basis that these are constructs of power and discourse.

But Grayling finds this confusing. After all, postmodernism seems to undercut the objective values of equality and social justice. He concludes:

What this suggests is that those who begin with the postmodern analysis of objectivity and knowledge are not actually saying that there are no such things, but that how they have been constituted in the past should be replaced by new and better conceptions of them.

This is simply not what the postmodernists are saying. The worry here is that Grayling takes it upon himself to stipulate what another school of thought is “actually” saying, rather than listening carefully to their ideas and arguments, and being open to the possibility that these may differ profoundly from his own.

Given the book aims to persuade the woke activists he thinks are going too far in cancelling others, the possibility Grayling is misreading their actual position is a concerning one.

Throughout, he appeals to the importance of democracy, free speech, human rights, the rule of law and due process, and the Enlightenment. He argues from what he sees as empirical evidence and “common knowledge”. But all these notions are wide open for criticism (from the woke perspective) that they are inventions of racist, patriarchal, and colonialist systems of oppression.

As such, Grayling’s arguments may fall flat for the very group he is trying to persuade because he does not take their beliefs seriously enough to engage directly and critically with them.

So who is right? Is Grayling correct that woke activists are just like him, except they have been led by their shared passions for social justice to indulge in often counter-productive and mistaken strategies of cancellation? Or is Yascha Mounk correct? Is wokism a profound departure from traditional leftist social justice goals?

Perhaps time will tell.

Hugh Breakey 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 we confront cancel culture by finding common ground between moderate leftists and ‘wokists’? – https://theconversation.com/can-we-confront-cancel-culture-by-finding-common-ground-between-moderate-leftists-and-wokists-254571

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charles Livingstone, Associate Professor, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University

We have a refreshed and revitalised Australian government, enriched with great political capital.

During the last term of parliament before the election, opportunities to address Australia’s raging gambling habit were neglected.

Could this government now have enough authority and courage to take on the gambling ecosystem?

A massive issue

Australians are the world’s biggest gambling losers.

Many attribute this to some inherent Australian trait. But what it really comes down to is the proliferation of gambling operators and their products.

They’re everywhere, along with their marketing and promotion.

Half of the gambling problems in Australia are associated with poker machines, ubiquitous in all states and territories other than Western Australia (WA).

Consequently, and unsurprisingly, WA has the lowest rate of gambling harms. The state has 2,500 pokies at a single Perth casino and none in clubs or pubs.

New South Wales boasts nearly 90,000 pokies, the highest pokie “density” in Australia, and its clubs and pubs make $8.1 billion a year.

Overall, pokie losses in Australia total $15.8 billion per year.

Wagering (betting on sport, racing and even elections), is now mainly online, and reaps another $8.4 billion in Australia. This is the fastest growing gambling sector, with growth, adjusted for inflation, of more than 45% between 2018-19 and 2022-23.

Pokies grew by a more modest 7.6% during the same period. Only casinos went backwards.

Overall, gambling costs Australians more than $32 billion annually.

This has been fuelled by relentless promotion and marketing and the expansion of the gambling ecosystem: the network of commercial actors who reap a major dividend from gambling losses.

It includes the bookies, pub and club chains as well as sporting leagues, financial services providers, software and game developers, charitable organisations, broadcasters, and state and territory governments.

Of course, gambling comes at a cost: it is strongly linked to broken relationships, loss of assets, employment and educational opportunities, and crime rates.

Intimate partner violence and neglect of children, along with poor mental and physical health, are also connected to gambling accessibility. As, unfortunately, is suicide.

However, there are ways to reduce gambling harm.

Six ways to tackle the problem

1. First up, we need a national gambling regulator. This was an important recommendation in the 2023 report of the all-party parliamentary committee chaired by the late Peta Murphy.

Currently, gambling is regulated by each state and territory. Some have reasonably robust systems in place. Others, somewhat less so. None are best practice.

A national system is long overdue, as many gambling businesses operate across multiple Australian jurisdictions.

In the absence of national regulation, the Northern Territory has become the de facto national regulator for online wagering. It offers a low-tax and arguably low intervention regulatory system.

Yet the vast majority of losses from punters come in other jurisdictions.

National regulation would also assist in standardising tax rates and maintaining reasonable uniform standards of regulation and enforcement.

2. Poker machines are Australia’s biggest gambling problem, but a national precommitment scheme would provide a tool for people to manage their gambling.

This proposal has been frequently mooted in Australia since the Productivity Commission recommended it in 2010.

It has worked well in Europe: forms of it now operate in 27 European countries.

Both Victoria and Tasmania have proposed it, as did the Perrottet government in the lead into the last NSW election.

Unfortunately, the power of the pokie lobby, supercharged by the addiction surplus it reaps from punters, has slowed or stopped its implementation.

But it’s eminently feasible and is highly likely to significantly reduce the harm of pokies.

The technical challenges are far from insurmountable, despite what industry interests argue.

Read more:
Pokies line the coffers of governments and venues – but there are ways to tame this gambling gorilla

3. Limiting accessibility to pokies is an important way to reduce harm.

Nothing good happens in a pokie room after midnight, yet they are often open until 4am, with reopening time only a little later.

Closing down venues after midnight and not opening until 10am would help a lot of people.

4. We can’t talk about political access without considering some key tools of the gambling ecosystem.

Pokie operators have enormous ability to influence politicians. Donations are a typical method to ensure access, backed up by the “revolving door” of post-politics jobs.

Politicians also enjoy a stream of freebies from the gambling ecosystem, which allow these businesses to bend the ear of a guest for hours at a time, at lunch, over drinks, or during an event.

To address this, we need better rules around acceptance of hospitality and gifts. Some states have moved towards such arrangements but there has been little action on the national front.

5. Another major recommendation from the Murphy committee was the banning of online gambling ads.

The majority of Australians want it to happen, and gambling ads are banned for almost all other forms of gambling.

The special treatment for this rapidly growing, highly harmful gambling product makes no sense.

6. Finally, we need to properly resource research into gambling harm and its prevention.

Much gambling research (and its conferences) are funded by the gambling ecosystem, either directly or via representative organisations.

This raises massive conflicts and has lead to a poor evidence base for policy making.

The time is now

Anything that stops people getting into trouble with gambling will be opposed by the gambling ecosystem because their best customers are those with the biggest losses.

But nobody is saying we should do away with gambling.

The evidence-based ideas above would help people with existing problems, and stop many more from ending up in trouble.

Gambling is a problem we can solve.

It does need political effort – but the Albanese government has the political capital to solve this problem.

Charles Livingstone has received funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the (former) Victorian Gambling Research Panel, and the South Australian Independent Gambling Authority (the funds for which were derived from hypothecation of gambling tax revenue to research purposes), from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government and the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, and from non-government organisations for research into multiple aspects of poker machine gambling, including regulatory reform, existing harm minimisation practices, and technical characteristics of gambling forms. He has received travel and co-operation grants from the Alberta Problem Gambling Research Institute, the Finnish Institute for Public Health, the Finnish Alcohol Research Foundation, the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Committee, the Turkish Red Crescent Society, and the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand. He was a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council funded project researching mechanisms of influence on government by the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. He has undertaken consultancy research for local governments and non-government organisations in Australia and the UK seeking to restrict or reduce the concentration of poker machines and gambling impacts, and was a member of the Australian government’s Ministerial Expert Advisory Group on Gambling in 2010-11. He is a member of the Lancet Public Health Commission into gambling, and of the World Health Organisation expert group on gambling and gambling harm. He made a submission to and appeared before the HoR Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm.

Angela Rintoul holds a postdoctoral fellowship funded by Suicide Prevention Australia. In the past she has received funding from the Victoria Responsible Gambling Foundation, which was supported by allocations from the Community Support Fund, a government administered trust fund constituted from direct taxes on EGMs in hotels. She has also received funding from the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust and ANROWS. She is a member of the WHO meeting on gambling and received travel funding from the Turkish Green Crescent Society and consultancy funding from WHO. She has been paid to review grants by the British Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling, which administered via Gambling Research Exchange Ontario, funded by regulatory settlements from gambling companies who have breached the law.

– ref. This 6-point plan can ease Australia’s gambling problems – if our government has the guts – https://theconversation.com/this-6-point-plan-can-ease-australias-gambling-problems-if-our-government-has-the-guts-256442

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cylie Williams, Professor, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Monash University

What do you get when a group of podiatrists (and shoe lovers) team up with a Barbie doll collector? A huge opportunity to explore how Barbie reflects changes in the types of shoes women wear.

It all started with the blockbuster Barbie movie in 2023. In particular, we discussed a scene when Barbie was distressed to find she didn’t have to walk on tip-toes. She could walk on flat feet.

Soon, we had designed a research project to study the feet of Barbie dolls on the market from her launch in 1959 to June 2024. That’s 2,750 Barbies in all.

In our study published today, we found a general shift away from Barbie’s iconic feet – on tip-toes, ready to slip on high-heeled shoes – to flat feet for flat shoes.

We found, like many women today, Barbie “chooses” her footwear depending on what she has to do – flats for skateboarding or working as an astronaut but heels when dressing up for a night out.

We also question whether high heels that Barbie and some women choose to wear are really as bad for your health as we’ve been led to believe.

The movie that sparked the #barbiefootchallenge

Barbie’s feet – in particular her tip-toe posture – triggered TikTok’s #barbiefoottrend and #barbiefootchallenge. When the movie was released, fans made videos to re-create how Barbie stepped out of her high-heeled shoes, yet stayed on tip-toes. Margot Robbie, the Australian actor who played Barbie in the movie, was even interviewed about it.

Despite the obvious interest in Barbie’s iconic foot stance, there had been no specific research on her feet or choice of footwear.

So our research team decided to look at how Barbie’s feet had changed over the years to reflect the kinds of shoes she’s worn, and how that ties in with her different jobs and growing diversity.

What we did

One of our research team has an extensive Barbie doll collection. This guided our search through online catalogues to examine the foot positions of 2,750 Barbie dolls.

Our custom-made audit tool allowed us to classify Barbie’s foot posture as tip-toe (known as equinus) or flat.

We also looked at when the dolls were made, whether they were diverse or inclusive (for instance, represented people with disabilities), and whether Barbie was employed.

What we found

We were surprised that Barbie’s high-heel wearing foot posture was no longer the norm. Barbie does, however, still wear high heels when dressed for fun.

We found, just like Barbie in the movie, she’s made a transition from high heels (equinus foot posture) to flat shoes (flat foot posture), especially when employed.

We suggest this mirrors broader societal changes. This includes how women choose footwear according to how much they have to move in the day, and away from only wearing high heels in some workplaces.

Barbie ditched her high-heel wearing foot posture as she climbed the career ladder. In the 1960s, all Barbies tip-toed around, but by the 2020s, only 40% did.

Meanwhile, her resume expanded, going from not being represented as having a job to 33% representing real-world jobs.

She was an astronaut in 1965, before the Moon landing, and a surgeon when the vast majority of doctors in the United States were men.

US laws changed in the late 80s, supporting women to own businesses without a man’s permission. And Barbie mirrored this.

She started trading stilettos for flats and strutting into male-dominated fields. Barbie didn’t just break the mould, she kicked it off with low-heeled shoes.

Barbie also evolved to better reflect the population. We found a moderate link between her having flat feet and representing diversity or disability.

For example, she chooses a stable flat shoe when using a prosthetic limb. But it was also great to see her break footwear stereotypes by wearing high heels when using a wheelchair.

Are high heels so bad?

Some celebrities, the media and public health advice warn against wearing high heels. But we know women (and Barbie) choose to wear them from time to time. In fact it’s discussions about women’s shoe choices that also gave us the idea for this fun research.

For instance, health professionals often link high-heeled shoes with developing bunions, knee osteoarthritis, back pain or being injured.

However bunions, and knee and back pain are just as common in people who don’t wear high heels.

Studies exploring the risk of high heels are also often performed with people who don’t usually wear high heels, or during competitive sports.

We couldn’t find any investigations exploring the long-term effect of wearing high heels.

Research does show that high-heeled shoes make you walk slower and make it harder to balance.

But high heels have different features, such as heel height or shape. So different types of high heels probably present a different risk. That risk also probably differs from person to person, including how often they walk in heels.

Lessons for all shoe lovers

But back to Barbie and lessons we learned. We know Barbie is a social construct that reflects some aspects of the real world. She chooses heels when fashion is the goal and flat shoes when needing speed and stability.

Rather than demonise high heels, messages about footwear need to evolve to acknowledge choice, and trust women can balance their own priorities and needs.

As Barbie’s journey shows, women already make thoughtful shoe choices based on comfort, function and identity.

Cylie Williams receives funding from the Medical Research Future Foundation. In the past five years, she has previously received research funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Department of Health and Aged Care (Australia), Bobux International Limited, Department of Health (Victoria) and Sports and Exercise Podiatry Australia.

Helen Banwell is a practitioner member of the Podiatry Board of Australia.

– ref. Whatever happened to Barbie’s feet? Podiatrists studied 2,750 dolls to find out – https://theconversation.com/whatever-happened-to-barbies-feet-podiatrists-studied-2-750-dolls-to-find-out-256211

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Viet Nguyen, Principal Research Fellow, Macroeconomics Research Program, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne

Growing economic pessimism appears to have pushed many voters away from Australia’s two major parties, Labor and the Coalition. Support for minor parties and independents has doubled since the Global Financial Crisis in 2008.

In the latest federal election, minor parties and independents are on track to gain a record share of the vote, at 33.4%. Although Labor won just 34.6% and the Coalition 32% of first preferences, Labor secured a majority after preference flows, reflecting a broader shift away from the major parties.

Commentary in both Australian media and in the United States framed the result as a reaction against US President Donald Trump’s return to politics. That echoed analysis of Canada’s surprise centre-left Liberal party win a week earlier.

But a more straightforward explanation lies in Australian voters’ dissatisfaction with economic conditions.

In a new study, we used three decades of data from the leading monthly consumer sentiment survey, the Consumer Attitudes, Sentiments and Expectations in Australia (CASiE) Survey, to study how shifts in economic expectations align with changes in voting behaviour.

Support for minor parties and independents has been rising

In the 2007 federal election, minor parties and independents won just 15% of first‑preference votes and two seats in the House of Representatives. By 2022 their primary vote had doubled to 31.7%, delivering a record 16 seats.

In the latest federal election, their first‑preference share rose further to 33.4% (as of May 14). But because of preference flows, they secured fewer lower house seats than in 2022. The underlying shift away from the major parties therefore continues, even though it is not reflected in seat numbers.

This realignment has unfolded alongside a sustained slide in political trust. Surveys such as the Australian Election Study show satisfaction with democracy is at its lowest level on record.

The decline is often linked to perceptions of poor economic management, leadership instability, and unresponsive government. Voters repeatedly cite housing affordability, cost‑of‑living pressures and difficulty accessing health care as unmet concerns.

Minor party support differs across demographic groups

The shift away from the political mainstream is broadly distributed across demographic groups, indicating widespread economic disaffection rather than isolated grievances.

Younger Australians, facing acute economic challenges, have increasingly supported the Greens. Older voters have turned to One Nation and Teals amid broader dissatisfaction with economic management.

Support for minor parties and independents has climbed among both men and women, though the pattern differs. Women lean more toward the Greens; men more toward other minors and independents.

Economic pessimism matters at the ballot box

Rising economic pessimism, along with other social and cultural factors, has been a driving force behind the collapse in support for the political mainstream.

Since 2010, the average share of Australians saying their finances have improved over the past 12 months fell from 27% to 20%. The share reporting deterioration increased from 34% to 37%. That means a net shift of 10 percentage points toward pessimism.

Looking ahead, more Australians expect their household finances and the national economy to worsen over the next year than to improve.

The charts below show support for minor parties has climbed across the board since the mid‑2010s. It is consistently highest among voters who expect their household finances and the national economy to get worse.

Voters who feel worse off have consistently been more inclined to back minor parties or independents. The gap between pessimists and optimists has widened under both Coalition and Labor administrations.

The divergence is most pronounced for expectations about national economic conditions. This suggests political disaffection is increasingly linked to pessimism about Australia’s economic outlook.

Growing economic pessimism is consistent with a broader picture of weaker economic growth, lower living standards, a fall in productivity and slower wage growth over the past decade.

For example, economic growth (gross domestic product or GDP after inflation) slowed from an average of 3.5% between 1995 and 2009 to 2.4% between 2010 and 2024. Growth in GDP per person, a more direct measure of living standards, slowed even more, from an average of 2.1% to just 0.9%.

Since both actual and perceived economic conditions influence voting choices, collapsing support for mainstream political parties is perhaps no surprise.

Implications for the future

Because of the complex flow of voting preferences, a smaller vote share going to major parties does not always translate into fewer seats in parliament. However, vote shares and seat counts tend to be highly correlated over time.

Sustained declines in primary vote shares going to the major parties will eventually translate into reduced legislative power.

The trends in Australia’s voting patterns are consistent with voters’ growing dissatisfaction with the performance of successive governments.

While the rise of non-mainstream parties may signal political renewal, it also carries risks. In the absence of credible responses to persistent social and economic challenges, political resentment is likely to deepen.

Decades of policy responses have failed to address the scale or structural nature of the country’s economic problems. This has contributed to mounting pressures.

Without meaningful reform, Australia risks following the trajectory seen in parts of Europe and the US, where the weakening of mainstream parties has created space for more radical and anti-democratic political movements.

Ferdi Botha receives funding from ARC Centre of Excellence for Children and Families over the Life Course.

Kyle Peyton and Viet Nguyen 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. Economic pessimism is behind the drift of voters to minor parties and independents – https://theconversation.com/economic-pessimism-is-behind-the-drift-of-voters-to-minor-parties-and-independents-256322

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

Anzac Day has come and gone again. But – lest we forget – war and its consequences are not confined to single days in the calendar. Nor do we only remember those who fought at Gallipoli more than a century ago.

This gradual expansion of the scope and meaning of April 25 is now about to grow further, with the Anzac Day Amendment Bill currently before parliament. Its goal is to make the commemoration “broader and more inclusive than it currently is”.

Remembrance will soon include “other conflicts and persons who have served New Zealand in time of war or in warlike conflicts in the past and in the future that are not currently covered”.

New Zealand personnel who served in United Nations missions, and who fought or died in training, will be recognised, as will civilians who served in war or warlike conflicts. Without doubt, it is an excellent initiative.

The question is, does it go far enough? The obvious omission, if the new law is intended to be “broader” and include past wars, is the conflict that helped shape (and still shapes) the country we are today: the New Zealand Wars.

Of course, including this pivotal period from 1843 to 1872 plays into the politics of today, given the land confiscations and other injustices the New Zealand Wars also represent. The question is whether their inclusion can avoid becoming a culture war in the process.

How Anzac Day has grown

The case for explicitly including the New Zealand Wars is strong. It is thought about 500 British and colonial troops, 250 of their Māori allies (sometimes known as kūpapa), and 2,000 Māori fighting against the Crown died in these conflicts.

It was also during these wars that Australian and New Zealand military cooperation (the earliest form of Anzacs, in a sense) actually began. Around 2,500 Australian men enlisted for irregular New Zealand militia units, many encouraged by the offer of land grants in return for serving.

Furthermore, Anzac Day has gradually grown over time to include wars and military conflicts beyond the tragedy in Turkey, first observed in 1916 when the government gazetted a half-day holiday (later made into a full public holiday in 1921) .

The government again changed the law governing Anzac Day in 1949 to include World War II and the 11,500 New Zealand citizens who died in it. Significantly, it also added the South African/Boer War (which killed 59 New Zealanders), setting a precedent for bringing pre-first world war events into the frame.

In 1966, Anzac Day’s scope grew again to recognise those “who at any time have given their lives for New Zealand and the British Empire or Commonwealth of Nations”. This allowed commemorations to cover the Cold War period, during which New Zealanders were killed in the Malayan Emergency (15), Korea (38) and Vietnam (37).

Remembering without prejudice

The counterargument to including the New Zealand Wars in an expanded Anzac Day might be that we already have a dedicated day of observance: Te Pūtake o te Riri on October 28, the date the Declaration of Independence of the United Tribes of New Zealand (precursor to the Treaty of Waitangi) was signed in 1835.

First observed in 2018, the commemorations take place in different locations each year. And perhaps one day, young New Zealanders will talk about the events at Rangiriri, Gate Pā, Matawhero and Ngātapa in the same way they now talk about Gallipoli, Passchendaele, Crete and Monte Cassino.

But the problem is that a two-tier system seems to have been created. Te Pūtake o te Riri was not made an official holiday and has struggled for wider recognition. While there is some public funding available, it is not on the scale of Anzac Day.

Te Pūtake o te Riri can and will continue to evolve, and it’s focus on the causes and injustices of these conflicts should not be diminished.

But an expanded and more inclusive Anzac Day, which recognises those who fought and died, would add another layer of meaning to a date long enshrined in the national calendar, similar to the way National Memorial Day in the United States encompasses their Civil War.

We are now at a point in history when the injustices of the early colonial government have at least been acknowledged through the Treaty settlement process. It would make sense for the New Zealand Wars to be folded into the Anzac Day Amendment Bill.

The words “lest we forget” should also apply to those who fell in the nation’s third most costly military conflict. That way we can remember all of the fallen, without prejudice.

Public submissions on the Anzac Day Amendment Bill close on Thursday May 22.

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

– ref. A law change will expand who we remember on Anzac Day – the New Zealand Wars should be included too – https://theconversation.com/a-law-change-will-expand-who-we-remember-on-anzac-day-the-new-zealand-wars-should-be-included-too-256682

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Roy M. Farman, Adjunct Associate Lecturer, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Sydney

Australian tree frogs today make up over one third of all known frog species on the continent. Among this group, iconic species such as the green tree frog (Litoria caerulea) and the green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea), are both beloved for their vivid colours and distinctive calls.

In the Early Eocene epoch, 55 million years ago, Australia’s tree frogs were hopping across the Australian continent from one billabong to the next through a forested corridor that also extended back across Antarctica to South America. These were the last remnants of ancient supercontinent Gondwana.

In new research published today in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, we identify Australia’s earliest known species of tree frog – one that once hopped and croaked around an ancient lake near the town of Murgon in south-eastern Queensland.

This research demonstrates tree frogs were present in Australia 30 million years earlier than previously thought, living alongside Australia’s earliest known snakes, songbirds and marsupials.

A common ancestor

Tree frogs (Pelodryadidae) have expanded discs on their fingers and toes enabling them to climb trees. Despite their name, however, they are known to occupy a wide range of habitats, from fast-flowing streams to ephemeral ponds.

Australia’s previously earliest tree frogs were recovered from Late Oligocene (about 26 million years old) and Early Miocene (23 million years old) fossil deposits. Late Oligocene frog fossils were found at Kangaroo Well in the Northern Territory and Lake Palankarinna in South Australia. They were also recently found in many deposits from the Riversleigh World Heritage Area in Queensland.

It has long been known that South American tree frogs and Australian tree frogs shared a common Gondwanan ancestor. What is unknown is when this common ancestor lived.

Based on some molecular data, it has been estimated that the two groups separated from this common ancestor as recent as 32.9 million years ago.

A diverse fossil deposit

Our new study was based on frog fossils from a deposit near the town of Murgon, located on the traditional lands of the Waka Waka people of south-eastern Queensland. These fossils accumulated some 55 million years ago. This was between the time when a colossal meteorite took out the non-flying dinosaurs and the time when Australia broke free from the rest of Gondwana to become an isolated continent.

As well as ancient frog fossils, the Early Eocene freshwater clay deposit also contains fossils of ancient bats, marsupials, snakes, non-marine birds and potentially the world’s oldest songbirds.

We used CT scans of frogs preserved in ethanol from Australian museum collections to compare the three-dimensional shape of the fossil bones with those of living species. This method is called three-dimensional geometric morphometrics. It has only been used on fossil frogs once before.

Using these new methods, we can unravel the relationships of these fossils to all other groups of frogs – both living and extinct.

Pushing back the evolutionary tree

From its diagnostic ilium (one of three paired pelvic bones), we identified a new species of Litoria from the family Pelodryadidae. We named this species Litoria tylerantiqua in honour of the late Michael Tyler, a renowned Australian herpetologist globally celebrated for his research on frogs and toads.

Litoria tylerantiqua joins the only other Murgon frog discovered so far, the ground-dwelling Platyplectrum casca, as the oldest frogs known from Australia. Both species have living relatives in Australia and New Guinea. This demonstrates the remarkable resilience over time of some of Australia’s most fragile creatures.

Our new research provides crucial new understanding that helps to calibrate molecular clock studies. This is a method scientists use to estimate when different species split from a common ancestor based on the calculated rate of genetic change over time.

Our research indicates the separation of Australian tree frogs and South American tree frogs is at minimum 55 million years ago. This pushes back the estimated molecular separation time for these groups by 22 million years.

New insights to help endangered species

Unravelling the deep-time changes in the diversity and evolution of the ancestors of today’s living animals can provide important new insights into the way these groups have responded in the past to previous challenges. These challenges include former natural cycles of climate change.

The more we know about the fossil record, the more likely we will better anticipate future responses to similar challenges, including human-induced climate change.

This is especially important for critically endangered species such as the Southern Corroboree Frog and Baw Baw Frog. Now restricted to alpine habitats in New South Wales and Victoria, they are at serious risk of extinction due to global warming.

Roy M. Farman received funding from the Research Training Program through the University of New South Wales.

Mike Archer has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Geographic Society, the National Geographic Society, the Riversleigh Society Inc and private funding from Phil Creaser (the CREATE Fund in UNSW), K. and M. Pettit, D. and A. Jeanes and other benefactors.

– ref. Newly discovered frog species from 55 million years ago challenges evolutionary tree – https://theconversation.com/newly-discovered-frog-species-from-55-million-years-ago-challenges-evolutionary-tree-256573

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

The emergence of four-legged animals known as tetrapods was a key step in the evolution of many species today – including humans.

Our new discovery, published today in Nature, details ancient fossil footprints found in Australia that upend the early evolution timeline of all tetrapods. It also suggests major parts of the story could have played out in the southern supercontinent of Gondwana.

This fossil trackway whispers that we have been looking for the origin of modern tetrapods in the wrong time, and perhaps the wrong place.

The first feet on land

Tetrapods originated a long time ago in the Devonian period, when strange lobe-finned fishes began to haul themselves out of the water, probably around 390 million years ago.

This ancestral stock later split into two main evolutionary lines. One led to modern amphibians, such as frogs and salamanders. The other led to amniotes, whose eggs contain amniotic membranes protecting the developing foetus.

Today, amniotes include all reptiles, birds and mammals. They are by far the most successful tetrapod group, numbering more than 27,000 species of reptiles, birds and mammals.

They have occupied every environment on land, have conquered the air, and many returned to the water in spectacularly successful fashion. But the fossil record shows the earliest members of this amniote group were small and looked rather like lizards. How did they emerge?

The oldest known tetrapods have always been thought to be primitive fish-like forms like Acanthostega, barely capable of moving on land.

Most scientists agree amphibians and amniotes separated at the start of the Carboniferous period, about 355 million years ago. Later in the period, the amniote lineage split further into the ancestors of mammals and reptiles-plus-birds.

Now, this tidy picture falls apart.

A curious trackway

Key to our discovery is a 35 centimetre wide sandstone slab from Taungurung country, near Mansfield in eastern Victoria.

The slab is covered with the footprints of clawed feet that can only belong to early amniotes, most probably reptiles. It pushes back the origin of the amniotes by at least 35 million years.

Despite huge variations in size and shape, all amniotes have certain features in common. For one, if we have limbs with fingers and toes, these are almost always tipped with claws – or nails, in the case of humans.

In other tetrapod groups, real claws don’t occur. Even claw-like, hardened toe tips seen in some amphibians are extremely rare.

Claws usually leave obvious marks in footprints, providing a clue to whether a fossil footprint was made by an amniote.

The oldest clawed tracks

The previous oldest fossil record of reptiles is based on footprints and bones from North America and Europe around 318 million years ago.

The oldest record of reptile-like tracks in Europe is from Silesia in Poland, a new discovery also revealed in our paper. They are around 328 million years old.

However, the Australian slab is much older than that, dated to between 359 and 350 million years old. It comes from the earliest part of the Carboniferous rock outcropping along the Broken River (Berrepit in the Taungurung language of the local First Nations people).

This area has long been known for yielding many kinds of spectacular fossil fishes that lived in lakes and large rivers. Now, for the first time, we catch a glimpse of life on the riverbank.

Two trackways of fossil footprints cross the slab’s upper surface, one of them overstepping an isolated footprint facing the opposite direction. The surface is covered with dimples made by raindrops, recording a brief shower just before the footprints were made. This proves the creatures were moving about on dry land.

All the footprints show claw marks, some in the form of long scratches where the foot has been dragged along.

The shape of the feet matches that of known early reptile tracks, so we are confident the footprints belong to an amniote. Our short animation below gives a reconstruction of the ancient environment around Mansfield 355 million years ago, and shows how the tracks were made.

Rewriting the timeline

This find has a massive impact on the origin timeline of all tetrapods.

If amniotes had already evolved by the earliest Carboniferous, as our fossil shows, the last common ancestor of amniotes and amphibians has to lie much further back in time, in the Devonian period.

We can estimate the timing of the split by comparing the relative lengths of different branches in DNA-based family trees of living tetrapods. It suggests the split took place in the late Devonian, maybe as far back as 380 million years ago.

This implies the late Devonian world was populated not just by primitive fish-like tetrapods, and intermediate “fishapods” like the famous Tiktaalik, but also by advanced forms including close relatives of the living lineages. So why haven’t we found their bones?

The location of our slab provides a clue.

Big evolutionary questions

All other records of Carboniferous amniotes have come from the northern hemisphere ancient landmass called Euramerica that incorporated present-day North America and Europe. Euramerica also produced the great majority of Devonian tetrapod fossils.

The new Australian fossils come from Gondwana, a gigantic southern continent that also contained Africa, South America, Antarctica and India.

In all of this vast landmass, which stretched from the southern tropics down across the South Pole, our little slab is currently the only tetrapod fossil from the earliest part of the Carboniferous.

The Devonian record is scarcely much better. The Gondwana fossil record of early tetrapods is shockingly incomplete, with enormous gaps that could conceal – well, just about anything.

This find now raises a big evolutionary question. Did the first modern tetrapods, our own distant ancestors, emerge in the temperate Devonian landscapes of southern Gondwana, long before they spread to the sun-baked semi-deserts and steaming swamps of equatorial Euramerica?

It’s quite possible. Only more fieldwork, bringing to light new discoveries of Devonian and Carboniferous fossils from the old Gondwana continents, might one day answer that question.

We acknowledge the Taungurung people of Mansfield area where this scientific work has taken place.

John Long receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Grzegorz Niedzwiedzki receives funding from the Swedish Research Council and the European Research Council.

Per Ahlberg receives funding from the European Research Council and the Knut & Alice Wallenberg Foundation.

– ref. Two lizard-like creatures crossed tracks 355 million years ago. Today, their footprints yield a major discovery – https://theconversation.com/two-lizard-like-creatures-crossed-tracks-355-million-years-ago-today-their-footprints-yield-a-major-discovery-254301

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

Australia’s productivity performance has stagnated for years, and Treasurer Jim Chalmers has declared addressing this is a second term priority.

“Productivity” is now an added part of the remit of Assistant Minister Andrew Leigh, along with his responsibility for competition, charities and Treasury matters.

It’s an area to which Leigh brings some expertise. He is a former professor of economics at the Australian National University and has a PhD in Public Policy from Harvard Kennedy School.

He joins us to discuss productivity and more.

On the concept of productivity, Leigh outlines some common misconceptions.

A lot of people think of productivity as being working longer or working harder, rather than working smarter.

Really, productivity should be how much you can produce per hour, not how much you can produce per year, because I don’t think any of us feel productive if we’re forced to work at night and the weekend when we don’t want to. Improving the way in which we use technology can be important to that.

On why it has taken government so long to boost productivity, Leigh says:

The measures tend to be lagging. And it’s about changing the structure of businesses, and sometimes that takes a while to take effect. So, for example in the computer revolution, you don’t immediately see that showing up in the productivity statistics. Same story for electrification a couple of generations earlier.

These so-called general purpose technologies take a while before work is revamped around them. So too we can have problems that take a while to embed themselves, and then it can take a while to get out.

On emerging artificial intelligence technology, Leigh, while aware of the concerns, says there’s great potential:

I think we’re all concerned about the implications for privacy. I think there are reasons to be concerned about the potential anti-competitive aspects if the AI engines consolidate over coming years. But it’s also very clear that this is a technology with great potential to take away drudge parts of our jobs and allow people to focus on the most stimulating types.

There are invariably job impacts of any technology that comes along, and artificial intelligence is no different from that. We don’t tend to be very good as economists at forecasting precisely where the jobs of the future will come and where they’ll go, but we do know that it’ll have an impact, and this is potentially as big a general purpose technology as any of the others that we’ve seen in the past.

As a member of parliament from the Australian Capital Territory, Leigh remains keen that both territories get more representation in the Senate.

I think the ACT [and] the Northern Territory send representatives of strong calibre to the federal parliament. And having more representation for the territories would be a great thing.

To have more ACT senators, I think, would be a terrific thing. We saw in the last election a pretty ferocious attack from the conservatives on Canberra, and so having more voices in the federal parliament standing up for the ACT would be great.

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Andrew Leigh on more productive work in the age of AI – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-andrew-leigh-on-more-productive-work-in-the-age-of-ai-256685

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amanda Meyer, Senior Lecturer, Anatomy and Pathology, James Cook University

Videos of men removing their eyelashes, by trimming or shaving, have been circulating on social media in recent weeks. This trend is based on the idea short eyelashes look more masculine.

Hair can tell us a lot about our social and cultural values. As the Canadian sociologist Anthony Synnott says, it can represent embedded ideas about biological sex, such as “opposite sexes have opposite hair” and “head hair and body hair are opposite”.

But do sex differences have any basis in biology? And what about the health risks of tampering with your lashes?

If the idea of a buzzing razor coming near your eyes makes you nervous, there’s good reason.

Does sex determine eyelash length?

Most warm-blooded animals have eyelashes. Human eyelashes begin to develop in the womb at around seven weeks and by six months they are fully formed.

Typically, we have 100 to 150 lashes on the upper eyelid that grow in two or three rows. There are half as many eyelashes on the lower lid.

Eyelash length is usually around one-third of the eye’s width. Lower lashes are shorter (6–8 millimetres) compared to the upper lashes (8–12mm).

The density, length, thickness and curl of eyelashes are determined by your genetics. But there is no evidence these anatomical differences are linked to sex.

This means the idea men “naturally” have short eyelashes – and women’s are longer, darker and thicker – is based in culture, not biology.

Regardless of your sex or gender, eyelashes serve several important functions.

What are eyelashes for?

Protection

Eyelashes provide a barrier against dust, debris, bugs, bacteria and chemicals (such as hairspray and deodorants), stopping them from entering the eyes.

Tears form a fluid film that covers the eye to keep it lubricated. Eyelashes also prevent air drying out this film.

From an aerodynamic point of view, medium-length lashes (8mm) are ideal for stopping the eye’s surface from drying out. Very short lashes can expose the surface to air, while very long lashes can channel more air flow towards it.

Eyelashes also shield our eyes from glare, reducing how much light enters the eye by up to 24%.

Sensation

Eyelashes are highly sensitive, so touching the eyelashes triggers a blink reflex that makes the eye shut. This protects it from unwanted materials.

Blinking also activates the release of tears and distributes them across the eyes’ surface.

Social interaction

Eyelashes help us communicate. Blinking slowly can signal attentiveness or flirtation – and eyelashes make this more appealing.

Wearing mascara or fake eyelashes emphasises the eyelashes and can make the eyes look larger and more expressive.

So, what if you don’t have eyelashes?

People can lose their eyelashes for various reasons.

For example, chemotherapy for cancer often results in hair loss – including eyelashes – as does alopecia, an autoimmune condition which causes the body to attack its own hair follicles.

Some people also pull out their eyelashes when they are anxious or stressed.

If you can’t stop this behaviour, and your eyelash loss is noticeable and affects day-to-day life, you may have a condition called trichotillomania.

The compulsion to cut or shave hair (rather than pull it out) is known as trichotemnomania.

If you’re worried, you should speak to your doctor to get support.

Read more:
‘I wanted to stop … but I also wanted to pull’. 1 in 50 people have trichotillomania – a new memoir unpacks compulsive hair-pulling

No matter how hair is lost, without eyelashes you will likely feel greater discomfort. More foreign particles can enter the eye – exposing you to greater risk of infection – and you will blink more to try to wash them away.

More air on the eyes’ surface can also make them feel dry and irritated.

Is removing eyelashes risky?

Putting sharp blades near your eyes means if you are bumped, slip, or even blink, you risk injury to the eyelid or cornea (the clear, dome-shaped covering at the front of your eyeball).

Anything that goes near your eye should be very clean. If blades aren’t sterile, bacteria can lead to blepharitis (eyelid inflammation) or conjunctivitis (“pink eye”).

Will shaved eyelashes grow back?

Yes. If eyelashes are trimmed or shaved, the hair bulb and follicle (the sac surrounding the hair) remains in the skin of the eyelid, allowing the hair to keep growing.

Eyelashes grow at an average rate of 0.12mm per day, or 3.6mm a month. It could take up to three or four months for your eyelashes to grow back to their typical length.

Shaving does not affect the length, thickness and darkness of your regrown eyelashes – these will grow back the same as before (unless there has been irreversible damage to the follicle itself).

Sex, gender, and eyelashes

Perceptions of sex and gender differences in eyelashes persist, thanks in part to social norms and media portrayals.

For example, a 2023 study from the United States surveyed 319 people (142 men and 177 women) of diverse ethnic backgrounds about eyelash length in women. Men and women of all backgrounds said images of female faces with no or short eyelashes were the least attractive, regardless of ethnicity.

Cartoon characters illustrate how deeply ingrained and socially constructed these gender differences are. Compare Minnie Mouse’s long, thick lashes with Mickey Mouse, who has none.

This is not a thing of the past, as the masculine- and feminine-presenting characters of a popular current children’s cartoon Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir still demonstrate.

In reality, all bodies and features, including eyelashes, are naturally diverse.

Body autonomy means recognising that personal choices about appearance are valid and should be respected without judgement. But when altering your body, it’s important to also know the health risks.

Amanda Meyer is affiliated with the Australian and New Zealand Association of Clinical Anatomists, the American Association for Anatomy, and the Global Neuroanatomy Network.

Monika Zimanyi is affiliated with the Australian and New Zealand Association of Clinical Anatomists and the Global Neuroanatomy Network.

– ref. Men are shaving off their eyelashes on TikTok. Here’s why that might be a bad idea – https://theconversation.com/men-are-shaving-off-their-eyelashes-on-tiktok-heres-why-that-might-be-a-bad-idea-256222

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Helen Hodgson, Professor, Curtin Law School and Curtin Business School, Curtin University

If you have a job in Australia, you’ve probably noticed each of your payslips has a section telling you how much superannuation will be paid alongside your wages.

But while your wages are deposited in your bank account however frequently you receive a payslip – whether that’s weekly, fortnightly or monthly – it’s a different story for your super.

Under current superannuation laws, employers are only required to pay super into an employee’s nominated fund at least four times a year – 28 days after the end of each quarter – although many do pay more regularly.

But that’s set to change. From July 1 2026, new “payday super” rules will require employers to pay super into the employee’s fund within seven days of wages.

This reform was announced in the 2023–24 federal budget, allowing employers, superannuation funds and software providers three years to set up compliant systems. But it hasn’t yet been legislated.

Now, some industry groups are calling for a further delay of up to two years. So, who are these reforms designed to benefit? And does business really need more time to get ready?

Missing or incorrect super

Missing or incorrect super payments present a huge problem for Australia’s retirement system.

The Super Members Council claims one in four Australians are missing out on the correct amount of superannuation contributions.

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) estimates A$5.2 billion of guaranteed superannuation went unpaid in 2021–22.

This can be due to payroll errors, misclassification under an award or, in extreme cases, non-payment of superannuation as a form of wage theft. All these things can be harder to spot when super is paid less frequently.

Rules only requiring super to be paid quarterly may have been appropriate 30 years ago, in the early days of the superannuation guarantee. Business systems were often not computerised, and wages were often paid in cash.

Times have changed

Payroll systems are now much more sophisticated.

From 2018, the federal government rolled out the single-touch payroll program that requires employers to report wages in real time, including details of superannuation guarantee withheld from an employee’s wages.

The government is already benefiting from the increased automation of data submitted through this system.

Single-touch payroll data helps improve official labour statistics and provides up-to-date income information for employees through the MyGov portal.

Sending real-time data to Centrelink addresses one of the major flaws underpinning the Robodebt scandal, which used an averaging system to estimate fortnightly earnings.

Benefits for employees

In simple terms, the coming changes are basically a change in timing. Payments will be transferred to an employee’s super fund in the same way their wages are transferred directly to their bank account.

Once bedded down, the changes will provide benefits across the board to employees, employers and the government.

Currently, if an employee believes the correct amount of superannuation is not being paid to their fund, they are expected to follow this up directly with the ATO.

Unfortunately, many employees presume the withheld amount shown on the payslip has already been paid into their super account.

Unless a member is actively monitoring their super balance, they may be unaware that the amount shown on their payslip is not being paid into their fund on a timely basis.

Benefits for business

Employers should also benefit from these changes, many of whom already do transfer superannuation when wages are paid.

Currently, superannuation guarantee payments are run on a separate payment cycle to payroll, coinciding with payment of tax liabilities. If payments are on the same cycle as payroll, it should make budgeting easier, and ensure the separate super payment run is not overlooked.

This assumes, of course, that the business is not relying on unpaid superannuation contributions to manage their cash flows elsewhere in the business. If that is the case, payday super changes will help protect the employee if the employer runs into financial difficulties.

The change will also allow the tax office to match deductions and payments in real time to detect fraud – and check that super is actually being paid. This can reduce audit costs and – in the long run – reduce reliance on the aged pension as super account balances improve.

Why wait any longer?

So, with all of these expected benefits, why has the financial services sector this month asked for implementation to be delayed further – by up to two years? The building blocks of the system – electronic payments to transfer funds and the government’s single-touch payroll gateway – are already in place.

One challenge is legislative. Although announced in May 2023, the draft legislation was only released for consultation in March 2025.

The Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 needs extensive amendments to rewrite references to the calculation and payment of the superannuation guarantee charge.

The draft legislation also makes some changes to definitions that may impact on how systems must be set up for payday super. Although not intended to change entitlements, they need to be made accurate in the software.

Still, payday super has the potential to strengthen Australia’s superannuation system, protecting employee contributions and smoothing the payment system for employers. Concerns around its implementation are largely due to the time it has taken for the draft legislation to emerge.

Following the election, the federal government has the numbers to pass this legislation as a matter of priority.

Helen Hodgson has received funding from the ARC, AHURI and CPA Australia. Helen is the Chair of the Social Policy Committee and a Director of the National Foundation for Australian Women (NFAW). Helen was a Member of the WA Legislative Council from 1997 to 2001, elected as an Australian Democrat. She is not a current member of any political party. She is a Registered Tax Agent and a member of the SMSF Association, CPA Australia and The Tax Institute. Helen has superannuation with Unisuper and jointly owns positively geared rental properties.

– ref. Soon, your boss will have to pay your wages and super at the same time. Here’s how everyone could benefit – https://theconversation.com/soon-your-boss-will-have-to-pay-your-wages-and-super-at-the-same-time-heres-how-everyone-could-benefit-256564

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kerrie-Anne Hammermeister, PhD Candidate in the School of Humanities and Communication, University of Southern Queensland

Speaking to the media after being named leader of the Liberal Party, Sussan Ley was asked if this appointment was an example of the “glass cliff effect”.

Ley said “I don’t accept that”. She went on:

I do say it sends a signal to the women of Australia that the Liberal Party has elected its first woman leader but my agenda is much more than that.

Most of us are familiar with the concept of the “glass ceiling”, a metaphor used to describe the invisible barriers which prevent women from succeeding in senior leadership – and Ley could be seen as breaking the glass ceiling of the Liberal party.

But the “glass cliff” applies to women who are elevated to positions of leadership in a time of crisis, meaning they are perceived as having a high probability of failure and will take the fall for their organisation.

The glass cliff evokes imagery of a woman being at the top of a mountain cliff. Being on the cliff is a dangerous position: there is a high chance of falling – or being pushed off.

Times of misfortune

Against the historical backdrop of male-dominated leadership, the metaphor was coined to reflect women’s experience of leadership selection in times of organisational misfortune and crisis.

The “glass cliff” has sometimes been invoked in misogynist ways to downplay the strengths of women in leadership, saying they have been put in a position of leadership with the express belief they will fail. But it does describe a commonly seen phenomenon which is important to observe and understand.

There are many prominent examples of women who have been associated with the phrase.

British Prime Minister Liz Truss was elevated to the role at a time of significant uncertainty, and was in the position for just 45 days.

US Presidential candidate Kamala Harris was given minimal time to campaign and establish herself as a genuine opponent to Republican candidate Donald Trump.

Former Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz, who was appointed when the tech company was failing and share prices were down before being unceremoniously dumped via a phone call.

‘Think female’

Some academics believe that these women aren’t placed in the position of the glass cliff to be the fall guy, but instead these appointments relate to women’s perceived ability to handle organisational crises. They propose an alternative phrase: “think crisis – think female”.

This phrase suggests women leaders perform better than men in a crisis, partly due to the assumption that women will garner more support than men in such times.

It is based on stereotypes of women’s perceived ability to build and repair relationships and reputations.

Both phrases link women leaders and crises. But the glass cliff explains how women are elevated into positions of leadership in turbulent times and are blamed when organisations fail.

Professional risk

The phenomenon of the glass cliff is a professional risk for women in leadership.

Organisations may prey on the career ambitions of outgroup women, knowing that they are more likely to accept any leadership position, even a precarious one, in order to advance their career.

The privilege of the ingroup men, on the other hand, means they are protected from taking on a leadership position with risk and volatility.

Women leaders taking on these roles in turbulent times are also exposed to greater scrutiny from internal and external stakeholders, including individual performance criticism.

If a woman leader then fails, her performance is seen to reinforce gender stereotypes about women’s leadership competency.

Further complicating this context are gendered stereotypes that assume women leaders have exceptional people skills, meaning senior women in high-risk leadership roles receive less support and fewer resources than their male counterparts.

The glass cliff presents a double bind for women leaders. If women leaders behave in stereotypically feminine ways they are seen as weak or indecisive. By contrast, if they behave counter to this they are labelled as harsh and aggressive.

Either way, the glass cliff awaits.

The glass cliff phenomenon draws our attention to the way in which women are set up to fail in high-risk risk leadership roles. But the metaphor also reveals the ongoing gender discrimination and stereotype bias women experience in taking on professional leadership roles.

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

– ref. What is the ‘glass cliff’ phenomenon – and why do women often find themselves on the precipice? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-glass-cliff-phenomenon-and-why-do-women-often-find-themselves-on-the-precipice-256072

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emaediong I. Akpanekpo, PhD Candidate, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney

Populist rhetoric targeting young offenders often leads to kneejerk punitive responses, such as stricter bail laws and lowering the age of criminal responsibility. This, in turn, has led to more young people being held in detention.

In Australia, the number of young people held in detention facilities increased by 8% (from 784 to 845) between the June quarter of 2023 and the June quarter of 2024.

But what if some of these young people were treated and helped, rather than incarcerated? A series of recently published studies examining mental health in the youth justice population suggests treatment would be more beneficial than punitive measures – some of which may even promote persistent offending.

Increased incarceration

New South Wales saw a 31% increase in young people in detention between 2023 and 2024.

Increases in youth detention numbers have also been reported in Queensland, the Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania and South Australia over the same period.

About 60% of young people in detention are First Nations youth.

Custody as a catalyst

Young people in the justice system have significantly higher rates of mental ill-health and adverse childhood experiences than their peers in the general population.

However, less clear is how involvement in the justice system, particularly custody, affects the severity and trajectory of these mental health issues over time.

Our team examined how exposure to the justice system affected mental health among young people in NSW. We analysed administrative health and justice data over two years post-supervision.

These data came from more than 1,500 justice-involved youth who participated in the Young People in Custody Health Survey in 2003, 2009 and 2015 and Young People on Community Orders Health Survey between 2003 and 2006.

We found young people who had spent time in custody faced markedly higher rates of subsequent psychiatric hospitalisation compared with those supervised in the community.

The risk of psychiatric hospitalisations was higher for those with multiple custody episodes. This demonstrates the significant negative impact of incarceration on the mental health of young people long after they are released.

We also examined how the impact of custody on psychiatric hospitalisations differed by age.

We found psychiatric hospitalisation rates were similar among youth aged 14–17 years who had been supervised in the community, compared with those aged 18 and older.

However, youth aged 14–17 who were placed in custody were hospitalised at significantly higher rates than their older peers aged 18 and above.

This suggests incarceration is particularly harmful for younger offenders.

How does this affect crime?

When we examined the long-term consequences of youth detention on subsequent offending, we found conviction during adolescence, especially before the age of 14, significantly increased the likelihood of later entering the adult prison system.

Those who were incarcerated during adolescence faced a fivefold increase in the risk of being incarcerated as an adult, compared with young people who’d never been in custody.

This suggests it may be beneficial to delay the involvement of young people in the justice system to help prevent repeat offending in the future.

Breaking the cycle

So what can be done to help?

In NSW, laws allow young people with mental health conditions to be diverted from judicial processes into treatment. Such laws for young people also exist in other states, although specific models vary.

While research shows those diverted into treatment have a lower risk of reoffending, less than half of eligible youth receive this option.

How do we help those who miss out? Our studies examined whether going to mental health services voluntarily (without a court order) could help reduce recidivism.

Among boys who had been in custody, we found they were 40% less likely to reoffend if they received mental health treatment after release than those who did not receive such treatment.

A similar, but larger, benefit was observed among boys supervised in the community. There, mental health treatment was associated with a 57% reduction in reoffending risk.

Evidence-based reform

Evidence shows punitive measures do not deter youth crime, but instead are likely to perpetuate cycles of offending into adulthood.

Policymakers should reimagine youth justice to protect young people and create real pathways to rehabilitation.

Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility to delay the onset of formal contact with the justice system aligns with developmental science and prevents early criminalisation of young people.

Read more:
Locking up young people might make you feel safer but it doesn’t work, now or in the long term

Enhancing routine mental health screening in the justice system and expanding access to diversion programs is warranted.

Our findings on the benefits of routine mental health treatment highlight the potential for more integrated approaches. When combined with wraparound services for health and education, they could be even more effective.

As detaining a young person costs around $1 million annually, mental health treatment-based approaches make sound financial sense too.

Tony Butler receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Emaediong I. Akpanekpo 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. Young detainees often have poor mental health. The earlier they’re incarcerated, the worse it gets – https://theconversation.com/young-detainees-often-have-poor-mental-health-the-earlier-theyre-incarcerated-the-worse-it-gets-252376

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Bongiorno, Professor of History, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University

Australia has just had its second landslide election in a row.

In 2022, there was a landslide against the Liberals, but not to Labor, which fell over the line (as a majority government) by three seats and with just over 32% of the primary vote. But the Coalition – actually Liberal – loss of seats, at 19, was the kind of result usually associated with the term “landslide”.

In 2025, we have a genuine landside to Labor. At the time of writing, the ABC has declared a Labor gain of 15 seats (78 to 93), but with the strong likelihood of one more, and an outside chance of another.

Labor’s share of the two-party preferred vote sits at 54.8%. To add a bit of historical perspective: Labor’s two-party preferred vote is lower than the Coalition’s in the so-called Vietnam election of 1966 (56.9%) and the Dismissal election of 1975 (55.7%), but better than John Howard’s in 1996 (53.6%) and Tony Abbott’s in 2013 (53.5%). The Coalition managed 94 seats in a slightly smaller House of Representatives of 148 (compared to 150 at the 2025 election) in 1996. Labor might also land on 94 this time, once the counting is done.

For Labor, it is a victory on a scale only rivalled – and indeed slightly overshadowed statistically – by John Curtin’s wartime election in 1943, when Labor gained 49 seats in a House of 74. That was two-thirds of the available seats and perhaps 58% of the two-party preferred vote. (The full distribution of preferences only came in later elections). In 2025, Labor is likely to land on just under 63% of the House.

Big majorities carry their own headaches, as Labor’s factional wrestling of recent days reminds us. But a big loss is a much worse ordeal for the loser.

First, there is the problem of finding a leader. He, or she, will be selected from depleted ranks. They will often inherit a demoralised party that will lack belief in its ability to return to office in a single term – allowing that there has been no one-termer in Australian federal politics since the Scullin government (1929-32).

Sussan Ley, the new Liberal leader, will realise – or should realise – that as a leader elected following such a defeat, her chances of ever making it to the prime ministership are slim.

Since the second world war, a new leader chosen after a loss of office has never become prime minister. Peter Dutton, who became opposition leader in 2022, joined Billy Snedden (after 1972), Kim Beazley (1996), Brendan Nelson (2007) and Bill Shorten (2013) as those who never went on to lead the country.

But any leader who slips into the role – either re-elected or for the first time – after a big loss is a long shot to make it. The best example we have from the postwar era is Gough Whitlam, elected leader in February 1967 after one of the biggest landslides in Australian political history, won by Harold Holt at the 1966 election. It is therefore worth revisiting what he did to get there.

Whitlam biographers such as Graham Freudenberg and Jenny Hocking have offered us a detailed picture of Whitlam’s systematic work on reforming the party and policy as part of his pitch to the people. The Liberals could do worse than think in those terms as they contemplate their rebuild. They have vast work to do on all of those fronts.

As a party, Labor was a basketcase in 1967. In Victoria, it was dominated by a group of left-wing unionists and members who seemed more concerned with maintaining ideological purity than winning elections. Whitlam taunted them at the state conference in 1967 that “certainly, the impotent are pure”.

But between 1967 and 1972, Whitlam and his allies – some of them on the left outside Victoria – modernised the party’s structures and rules, and moderated left-wing domination of the Victorian branch. Alongside these reforms came a comprehensive policy overhaul – the formulation of what Whitlam reverentially called “The Program” – drawing on a vast network of experts across the country and the most compelling models from other countries.

This was paired with a redesign of the party’s image that helped it win back a vast number of voters at the 1969 election, culminating in the remarkable, election winning “It’s Time” campaign in 1972.

It was a six-year effort, and it was far from easy. But it is perhaps the best modern example we have of what a shattered party needs to do to win back office.

Labor faced similar challenges after 1975 and, although the process was messier, Bob Hawke’s eventual election in March 1983 owed much to a process of reform of Labor party, policy and image led by Bill Hayden between 1977 and 1983. This time, it was the Queensland branch of the party – Hayden’s own – that needed an overhaul, which it received through federal intervention of the kind applied to Victoria a decade before.

Labor also worked out a Prices and Incomes Accord with the union movement, designed to avoid many of the economic and political problems experienced by Whitlam in government, such as runaway inflation. Hayden, like Whitlam before him, crafted an electable opposition. Hawke, however, reaped the benefit after he replaced Hayden on the eve of the 1983 campaign.

There are lessons here for the Liberals. First, they can no longer avoid party reform. Their post-election reviews of recent times often read like Gothic tales: indeed, I could recommend the Western Australian one after the 2021 state election only to those with stomachs capable of standing up to slasher movies.

Second, the 2025 election revealed a Coalition policy wasteland. Some, such as the idea of a nuclear power plants across the country, were daft. Others, like cuts to the fuel excise for a year – coinciding with a decline in petrol prices – were dross. Others again simply made it appear the Coalition was making it up as it went along. It would be hard to conceive of anything further removed from the best examples we have of policy rebuilding by shattered parties.

Finally, there are the people. Who, exactly, are the Liberals trying to win over? From May 2022, Dutton seemed to have his eye on Labor voters in the outer suburbs, but he did very little that was likely to win them over. He did even less to win over groups who have turned decisively away from the Liberals in recent years, such as women and the young.

Whatever efforts they made to win over the so-called multicultural communities, such as Chinese-Australian voters, were undone by clumsy messaging from the ministerial ranks about “spies”. In the end, it often seemed that Dutton – and possibly also most of the survivors of 2022 – didn’t have their hearts in appealing to the kinds of voters who had turned to the teals, Labor and Greens in 2022. They preferred to commune with their own.

The impotent are still pure: the Liberals emerge from the 2025 campaign unsullied by a dalliance with strangers. They now have their reward. Whether a party organisation with branches dominated by the ideologue, the conservative, the elderly and the eccentric can act as an instrument for forging a new electoral alliance of the kind that set up the party in the 1940s for decades of success must be considered doubtful. There is no Robert Menzies on the horizon. And there is no Liberal movement speaking a language of progress rather than reaction.

This is the greatest crisis faced by Australia’s centre right since 1943 – and we can be certain that, unlike Ben Chifley, Anthony Albanese won’t do his opponents the favour of trying to nationalise the banks.

Frank Bongiorno 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. Political parties can recover after a devastating election loss. But the Liberals will need to think differently – https://theconversation.com/political-parties-can-recover-after-a-devastating-election-loss-but-the-liberals-will-need-to-think-differently-232695

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hangga Fathana, Assistant Professor of International Relations, Universitas Islam Indonesia (UII) Yogyakarta

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has wasted little time taking his first overseas trip since Labor won a historic victory in Australia’s federal election. He’ll head to Indonesia today to meet the country’s new president, Prabowo Subianto.

With both nations entering new political chapters, the visit carries symbolic weight. But it will also have practical importance.

Despite the two nations’ proximity and strengths, the relationship has often been held back by outdated perceptions and strategic hesitation. This is a timely opportunity to reset the relationship.

Prabowo’s emerging foreign policy

Prabowo succeeded outgoing President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo in October after a decade of his infrastructure-driven and globally engaged leadership.

Prabowo, a former army general and defence minister, had projected a populist and nationalist image during his 2024 election campaign. He frequently emphasised Indonesia’s food self-sufficiency, military strength and national sovereignty.

Since taking office, however, he has moderated his tone. While seen by some in the West as assertive, he has signalled a willingness to strengthen bilateral defence ties with Australia. He also has an interest in modernising Indonesia’s military and engaging more transparently with partners.

Still, questions remain about how he will shape Indonesia’s foreign policy. This includes whether he will maintain Jokowi’s emphasis on multilateralism and economic diplomacy. Both are key to the tone and outcomes of Albanese’s visit.

Prabowo’s leadership style is nuanced. Despite his polarising image, Indonesia’s foreign policy is still shaped by pragmatism and non-alignment. As such, Prabowo will likely focus on balancing relations with China, the United States and Russia, while protecting Indonesia’s sovereignty.

Indonesia’s decision to join BRICS, the economic group that includes both China and Russia, for example, should be seen as a diplomatic hedge, not a new geopolitical alignment.

Other recent decisions, such as providing aid to Fiji, suggest an increasingly outward-facing regional posture.

Albanese should offer Prabowo credible alternatives to Russian and Chinese engagement through trade, technology and education exchanges, rather than reacting to Jakarta’s moves with suspicion.

Opportunities for cooperation

In his election campaign, Albanese reaffirmed his government’s commitment to working closely with Southeast Asia. He also promised a foreign policy grounded in diplomacy, climate cooperation and economic diversification.

This provides a strong incentive for both leaders to deepen ties. For Australia, deepening ties with Indonesia supports its Indo-Pacific strategy. The goal: promoting a stable and inclusive regional order, particularly amid concerns over growing strategic competition between the US and China.

For Indonesia, Australia offers investment, education partnerships, and critical expertise in clean energy and innovation.

A free-trade agreement signed in 2019 provides a platform for deeper integration and less competition in certain industries.

For example, there are huge opportunities to collaborate in clean energy, particularly after the neighbours signed a climate partnership last year. The agreement will secure supplies of lithium for Indonesia’s EV battery production, while Australia will gain more export markets for its critical minerals.

People-to-people ties are also vital, while education remains a longstanding pillar of the bilateral relationship.

Both countries face skills shortages in key sectors. Indonesia needs skilled workers in health care, clean technology and digital literacy. Australia has shortages in critical infrastructure, aged care and engineering.

There are good opportunities here for student exchanges, joint employment training programs and other vocational collaborations.

New Australian university campuses in Indonesia are a positive step, but they remain commercially focused and concentrated in elite, urban areas. With over 4,000 universities across the archipelago, these partnerships could go much further.

Where tensions might arise

The relationship is not without friction. Australia’s involvement in the AUKUS agreement, and its close alignment with the United States and United Kingdom, has raised concerns for Indonesia, which has long championed non-alignment.

Jakarta has voiced unease over the perceived risks of nuclear submarine proliferation in the region.

Albanese’s visit is a key opportunity to clarify that AUKUS involves nuclear-powered — not nuclear-armed — submarines. He should also reinforce Australia’s commitment to transparency over the deal. This is essential to avoiding misunderstandings and building trust.

A more recent flashpoint is speculation around a possible Russian military presence in Indonesia — a claim the Indonesian government has firmly denied.

Indonesia’s response exemplifies its longstanding commitment to strategic autonomy. However, the whole ordeal reveals the complexity of Jakarta’s foreign relations, which often involve balancing ties with competing powers.

For Australia, acknowledging Indonesia’s independent foreign policy — rather than interpreting it through a great-power rivalry lens — is critical to sustaining mutual trust.

A chance to re-anchor the relationship

This moment offers both governments the chance to move beyond symbolic gestures toward a deeper, more inclusive and people-centred partnership.

Amid global fragmentation, trust is not just desirable — it’s essential. And while differences remain, they are not insurmountable when guided by mutual respect, strategic patience and a commitment to genuine cooperation.

For Australia, the challenge is to move past strategic anxiety and invest in a resilient, multidimensional relationship with Indonesia. This visit could be the first step in doing just that.

Hangga Fathana 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. In Indonesia, Albanese has a chance to reset a relationship held back by anxiety and misperceptions – https://theconversation.com/in-indonesia-albanese-has-a-chance-to-reset-a-relationship-held-back-by-anxiety-and-misperceptions-256321

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cassandra Steer, Chair, Australian Centre for Space Governance, Australian National University

You have probably used space at least 20 times today. Satellites let you buy a coffee with your phone, book a rideshare, navigate your way to meet someone, and check the weather.

Satellites are also essential for monitoring floods, cyclones and bushfires, and supporting the people they affect. Farmers depend on satellite data, too, as does everyone trying to understand and tackle climate change, not to mention our military.

Yet Australia’s access to space services depends almost entirely on satellites owned and run by foreign governments and companies. In an increasingly uncertain world, having our own sovereign space technology is becoming even more important for security.

But what exactly do we need to secure? And how can space help us do it? My colleagues and I at the Australian Centre for Space Governance have thought through these questions and presented them in a policy paper series – and we have some recommendations for the government.

Space services are essential

Since 2022, the Australian government has considered space technology to be “critical infrastructure”. In other words, if the space-based services we use were destroyed or disrupted, it “would have a debilitating impact on Australia’s defence and national security, a destabilising effect on the population, and cause significant damage to the economy”.

However, Australia is entirely dependent on foreign partners for space-based services such as communications and Earth observation.

Another crucial kind of satellite-powered service is “position, navigation and timing” – things like GPS, which is owned and operated by the US government. Even a temporary loss of these services could pose significant risks to Australia’s telecommunications and energy systems, as well as disaster response.

According to Australia’s 2024 National Defence Strategy, space capabilities are “equally as important as the maritime, land and air domains”. But we are in many respects simply users of space infrastructure that belongs to partner countries for our military needs. There are opportunities to increase our role in these partnerships if we place more emphasis on how Australia can be a contributor.

An uncertain world

Almost all the satellite data that supports our agriculture, banking, transport, climate monitoring, bushfire and flood response – and connects rural, remote and regional Australians – comes from the US, Europe and Japan. This dependency poses significant risks.

If any of those countries have to prioritise their own national needs in a natural disaster – such as the Sea of Japan earthquake in January last year – we might lose access. Even temporary loss of service can be disruptive, such as the temporary outage in 2023 of a UK satellite that impacted farmers in Australia and New Zealand.

The same might happen if any of those countries stopped providing data for political or national security reasons.

These risks are only increasing as our dependency on satellite services grows, and our relationship with the United States may become less certain.

What do we want from space?

Many of Australia’s international partners are also questioning their dependence on the US, and prioritising their domestic needs. Many have national space policies, or at least a clear idea of what sovereign space capabilities they want to invest in. This is what Australia needs, too.

Greater cooperation on new space technologies could help our shared interests with our neighbours. Obvious areas include regional security, climate response, supporting agriculture, and internet connectivity needs.

One obstacle, as we discovered when we ran a national public opinion survey last year, is that Australia doesn’t have a clear vision of what it wants from space.

In government, too, there is little shared understanding of how satellites and related infrastructure feed in to our national priorities and needs.

At present, thinking about space is usually the domain of specialists in government. But a better option would be “mainstreaming” space – making it part of the everyday, business-as-usual thinking of policymakers across government.

Sovereign satellites

Our country already excels at what’s called the “ground segment” for space – things like satellite dishes and data management. One example is the satellite dish operated by Geoscience Australia in Alice Springs, on land leased from the Indigenous-owned business, the Centre for Appropriate Technology. But we don’t have any sovereign satellites.

In 2023, the government scrapped a billion-dollar project including four Earth-observation satellites, citing budget constraints. In 2024, a planned military-grade satellite communications system worth $7 billion was also cancelled due to lack of cash.

But in 2025, it’s a new term of government. New minister for industry and science Tim Ayres may revisit these decisions. It certainly aligns with his support for a “Future Made in Australia”.

This time around, the space industry and researchers will need to do a better job at communicating why satellites matter so much to our national well-being and security.

Cassandra Steer has received funding in the past from the Department of Defence, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Geoscience Australia and Home Affairs. She is Chair and founder of the Australian Centre for Space Governance.

– ref. From GPS to weather forecasts: the hidden ways Australia relies on foreign satellites – https://theconversation.com/from-gps-to-weather-forecasts-the-hidden-ways-australia-relies-on-foreign-satellites-256440

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Hughes, Lecturer in Pharmacy Practice, University of Sydney

Inhalers have been key to asthma management since the 1950s. The most common, salbutamol, comes in a familiar blue-coloured inhaler (or “puffer”).

This kind of “rescue inhaler” brings quick relief from asthma symptoms. You may know these inhalers by their brand names such as Ventolin, Asmol or Zempreon.

But there is growing evidence that using this kind of inhaler without treating the underlying condition may not only be ineffective – it could actually increase the risk of an asthma attack.

Next month, the National Asthma Council is releasing updated guidelines that reflect this shift. Here’s what’s changing and what you need to know.

What is a bronchodilator?

Bronchodilators such as salbutamol act by relaxing smooth muscle in the airways. While they don’t address inflammation, which is the key cause of asthma, bronchodilators are effective at quickly opening up constricted airways.

This means for people experiencing typical asthma symptoms – such as tightness of the chest and shortness of breath – a puff of salbutamol brings relief within ten minutes. The effect can last up to six hours.

Salbutamol is used by people with asthma and other respiratory conditions, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (which includes chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema). As part of a management plan made with a doctor, salbutamol is used to relieve shortness of breath when it occurs.

In Australia, more than 60% of salbutamol is purchased over the counter (without a prescription) in pharmacies. Many of these purchases may be for people with infrequent asthma symptoms, meaning less than twice a month.

However, we now know there are safer and more effective ways for people with infrequent asthma to manage it in the long term.

So, what’s wrong with using salbutamol?

Treating symptoms is only one part of asthma management. Salbutamol doesn’t address the root cause – why the airways of people who get asthma become constricted in the first place.

It’s a bit like taking pain relief for a swollen elbow without treating the tendonitis causing the pain.

In asthma, chronic inflammation is usually a result of genes and environment interacting.

Some people have airways that overreact to triggers in the environment. These triggers include pollens, moulds and dust mites, or air that is cold or humid.

Over the long term, chronic inflammation can lead to changes in the airways. The airway walls become thicker and produce more mucus, allowing less space for air to flow through them.

Using short-acting treatments such as salbutamol without addressing chronic inflammation in the airways poses risks.

Salbutamol can become less effective with regular use. This means people with shortness of breath don’t gain the relief they expect and need, and paradoxically, their airways may become more “twitchy” (sensitive to environmental triggers) and inflamed. One response to this is people use more salbutamol and the problem is compounded.

Strong data links increased use of short-term inhalers such as salbutamol to higher risk of asthma flare-ups, hospital admissions and even death.

Purchasing three or more salbutamol inhalers per year is considered overuse.

According to asthma guidelines in Australia and globally, needing salbutamol for symptom relief on more than two days a week is an indicator of poorly controlled asthma, requiring review and possibly anti-inflammatory treatment.

What do the new guidelines recommend?

In 2019, the Global Initiative for Asthma, an independent not-for-profit organisation, radically changed its recommendations for salbutamol use. This is based on its committee of asthma experts reviewing the evidence.

Australian asthma guidelines from the National Asthma Council are set to follow suit.

The council’s 2025 Australian Asthma Handbook now states that salbutamol alone is inadequate treatment for asthma in adults or adolescents.

Previously, the guidelines recommended people with infrequent symptoms to use salbutamol when needed and “alone” – that is, without an anti-inflammatory preventer.

The new recommendations specifically warn against anyone with asthma using a short-acting bronchodilator such as salbutamol by itself, due to the increased health risks mentioned above.

People with asthma who use salbutamol, for example, should also use an anti-inflammatory treatment that provides preventive cover, such as an inhaled corticosteroid.

The 2025 Australian Asthma Handbook now recommends anti-inflammatory relievers from day one when it comes to asthma treatment in adults and adolescents.

These inhalers contain, in a single dose (one puff), both a bronchodilator (to relieve symptoms) and a low-dose anti-inflammatory corticosteroid (to treat underlying inflammation).

They are recommended instead of salbutamol-only inhalers for symptom relief, even for those whose symptoms are infrequent.

When used in place of salbutamol-only inhalers, anti-inflammatory relievers have demonstrated improvements in quality of life for people with asthma, as well as lower risks of hospitalisations and death.

In the case of children with asthma, global guidelines emphasise the use of anti-inflammatory inhalers and discourage over-reliance on bronchodilators.

Will I need to change my inhaler?

Currently, combination anti-inflammatory relievers are only available with a prescription from a doctor. These prescriptions with repeats can allow people with asthma up to 12 months of treatment.

In Australia you can still buy salbutamol in a pharmacy without a prescription, after consultation with a pharmacist.

However, if you have asthma and you’re concerned about the new guidance, you should speak to your pharmacist or doctor for advice.

Stephen Hughes receives research grant funding from the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care Medical Research Future Fund, The Australian Research Council and Asthma Australia. He is a past Board Member of the National Asthma Council of Australia and current member of its Finance and Risk Management Committee.

Bandana Saini has received funding from 1) Australian Government Department of Health Initiatives (via MRFFs or Community Pharmacy Agreement based investigator initiated grants, 2) National Health and Medical Research Council or from 3) organisations such as Asthma Australia.

– ref. Using a blue inhaler alone is not enough to manage your asthma – https://theconversation.com/using-a-blue-inhaler-alone-is-not-enough-to-manage-your-asthma-250133

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gemma Piercy, Lecturer, Sociology, Social Policy and Criminology, University of Waikato

Last week’s move by the government to amend pay equity laws, using parliamentary urgency to rush the reforms through, caught opposition parties and New Zealanders off guard.

Protests against the Equal Pay Amendment Bill have continued into this week, driven to some extent by disappointment that an apparent political consensus on the issue has broken down.

In 2017, the National-led government passed a forerunner to the current legislation for the health sector only, the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act. Later, in opposition, National also supported the Labour government’s Equal Pay Act in 2018, as well as the Equal Pay Amendment Act in 2020.

That legislation was designed to extend a pay equity process to all occupations and create a clearer pathway for making pay equity claims. With both major parties seemingly aligned, some 33 pay equity claims were under way.

Those claims – all halted now – involve the education, health and social services sectors. As such, the government would have to meet the costs of successful claims.

This explains why one rationale for the law change has been that the claims were potentially too expensive. The other rationale (preferred by Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden) is that the existing policy wasn’t sufficiently rigorous in determining the validity of some claims.

In reality, both the cost and the policy framework allowing equity claims to proceed are interrelated: the more permissive the framework, the higher the potential cost to the government and employers.

But while equal pay for equal work is the goal, it’s important to understand that equal pay and pay equity are not the same thing.

Equal pay is about making sure men and women are paid at the same rate in a specific occupation.

Pay equity, on the other hand, involves a more complex process. It aims to establish pay relativities between famale-dominated industries and other sectors using specific criteria. And herein lies the core of the argument.

Comparing different work sectors

According to van Velden, the framework for comparing different kinds of work was too loose, or simply not realistic:

You have librarians who’ve been comparing themselves to transport engineers. We have admin and clerical staff […] comparing themselves to mechanical engineers. We don’t believe we have that setting right.

On the surface, this may seem logical. And previous policy advice provided to the government suggests the recent law change will move New Zealand’s framework into line with other countries.

But using a proxy method of comparison between types of work in different industries or sectors remains central to any pay equity claim.

That’s because pay equity seeks to make visible and fix the deep, structural inequalities that have historically seen women’s work undervalued compared to men’s work. It’s about ensuring jobs that are different but of equal value are paid similarly, as a way to achieve gender equality.

Women’s employment is still concentrated in lower-paying industries and occupations, so comparisons have to be made with other sectors.

The factors used to measure that relativity are known as “comparators”. Rather than using tools developed and tested under the previous legislation, the new system will introduce “a hierarchy of comparators”, with a preference for comparators to be chosen within the same industry or occupation making the pay equity claim.

Comparators are selected to help compare the nature of different kinds of work in male-dominated and female-dominated industries. This is based on an assessment of skills, experience and qualifications, level of responsibilities, types of working conditions and degree of effort.

The assessment is completed through in-depth interviews with workers in comparison occupations. It uses resources such as Employment New Zealand’s skills recognition tool to evaluate the validity of those comparators.

Different kinds of cost

The subjective nature of valuing different kinds of work is part of the problem, of course. But New Zealand research shows only part of the gender pay gap can be attributed to objectively measurable pay differences within specific industries. Pay equity is about addressing both the objective and subjective elements contributing to that gap.

We’ll need to carefully monitor the new system to see whether its narrower comparator requirements affect its capacity to close the gender pay gap.

Treasury’s concerns also need to be considered. The former budget allocation of NZ$17 billion over four years suggests the costs of settling pay equity claims may be considerable.

On the other hand, they may be bearable. Last year in the United Kingdom, for example, Birmingham City Council was effectively bankrupt and feared pay equity claims might be a final straw. In the end, the costs were not as high as initially anticipated.

Finally, focusing exclusively on reducing fiscal cost risks other costs rising instead. Women who are paid less than they should be will struggle to put food on the table, pay back student loans, get onto the property ladder, contribute to Kiwisaver and afford their retirement.

Without pay equity, in other words, there is less economic activity in general.

Gemma Piercy received funding from the Pay Equity Unit (2004-2009), part of the former Department of Labour, now Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

Bill Cochrane and Suzette Dyer 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. The pay equity puzzle: can we compare effort, skill and risk between different industries? – https://theconversation.com/the-pay-equity-puzzle-can-we-compare-effort-skill-and-risk-between-different-industries-256464